Brandon Heinzelmann – Page 23 – Fullness Of Meaning Christian Ministries

May 17, 2026May 2, 2021 by Brandon Heinzelmann

I present to you an idea that has given us a reality that is undeniable.

In this that I present to you, I ‘sutured’ the “extra Christian/ pure heathen” Theology that Tolkien understood through his immense studies to a Biblical-exegetical platform. In this paper, I will sometimes use Biblical and Tolkenian terms interchangeably to show the ‘trueness’ of Tolkien’s philological exercise within his writings. As a linguist and a Theologian, I find Tolkien’s writings to be more “orthodox” than most “orthodoxies” I have studied. Mainly, Tolkien was a believer in LOGOS, as Christ, the Narrative, the history of the words by which support the Narrative and return to their semiotic relation to LOGOS. There was, is, will always be only ONE TRUE STORY.

Though Tolkien did not do allegory or make political notions in his writings, he was adamant about the danger of slovenly approaches to philology. For sure, communism, fascism, bad socialism necessitated an Orwellian “speech” that allowed for the disenfranchisement of mind to word to social effect and the reconditioning to ‘function’ without semiotics of self expression, one to another. Therefore, it is obvious to me that utilitarianism begs for philological indifference. This is not a new system, but an old one. Such key – code relationships of language that give power to the Monarch did just this very thing. Such a story alludes to Babel, “Let us make us a Shem (one language for “order”) *lest we be ‘scattered abroad’ “. Unification through a type of speech which has not naturally ‘come to be’ begs the question, “who is attempting to make the “new logos”? This is where “nature, Ea, cosmos, Logos” shows themselves to be our guiding friends.

As “The Ring” circles back on itself, it refers only to itself. It’s purposes might be needed but only to serve. When one is bound in ‘circular-self referring logic’ …one can only do what one is limited to do. The Buddhist “Nirvana” gives us that idea that “we are that”—-i.e., we are our own gods, we reference ourselves, etc. Isn’t this a hell to think that ‘you are it’? That this is all there is to the answer of life and meaning? As to the ‘ONE RING BINDS THEM ALL’ —-we have the total sum of Dark Shadow logic laid out by Sauron, a type of Melkor/ Satan. That is, whoever can ‘bind all’ with a self referenced/ relativistic/ circular motioning cycle wins all. In theory, the fight is over. If “all” *speak* the new language by which utilitarianism to the highest order and know only their ‘limitations as free will’ then, they can act ONLY on their repetitions which give only the same reason. There would be no other theme to take them ‘out’ of such a conundrum. This is what Tolkien inevitably was guided by WORD and Narration to write. IT addressed the world as to the imminent dangers of philological disenfranchisement and the sequential dispositions to fall into a pragmatic function to the bigger brother, will of another, …..Shadow Logic.

In contrast to utilitarianism via ‘pragmatic approach’ to the Primary World, the opposite case concerning the freedom to be ONE and express uniquely is solely a God to humankind condition. We see the freedom as did the Ainur to subcreate from the authority of the infinite strings of their Creator God. As I will state later, the Ainur, as well as us with God, are “Free” to act the more we are bound on the infinite strings of God. The less we are of our limitations and repetitive unfounded natures that have their termination, the more we can “act” on infinity with the Infinite God who created ALL POSSIBILITIES.

ANOTHER BIBLICAL PARALLEL

Theological question: If you sin in the secondary world, what would the consequences be to the written character and the author who holds the pen? Who sinned? What err was there? What does erasure, dismissal, and ‘hatred’ mean? Is judgement therefore abolished and the character written anew in the Image of the Author?

My interpretation and quoting of Mark 10:27: Jesus had just established the limitations/ the impossibilities of man to enter into heaven due to his sin, not just in the physical act, but maybe more importantly, the mind – i.e.,Tolkien’s Secondary World. The apostles then asked Jesus, “Then, who can be saved —-if man, the written character in the play by the Author, cannot make the effort to strive into heaven by his illusory ‘free will’ ?” Jesus said, “With men’s illusory will it is impossible but with GOD all things are possible.

Illuvatar told Melkor (the Prince Satan) that he, Melkor, would fulfill a more beautiful design for Illuvatar even if Melkor thought he was doing his will against Illuvatar. That Melkor would THEN become more heightened to ‘his will’ not being existent. This is “hell” for the rebellious creature. Hell is only found in the predestinated ‘striving’ of their will against the Prime Maker. Is this not a Theological point that surpasses the rigid and judgemental-non-gracious “predeterminism” of Calvinism?! There is still love found in Illuvatar’s voice while HIS instructions are True and HIS Theocracy stated firmly. This is also the opposite of “judgement” against those who do not the will of Illuvatar (GOD). Rather, “the Design” is expressed is Illuvatar’s statement: “THAT ALL MAY KNOW WHO ILLUVATAR IS”. This is where I believe George MacDonald’s “Christ centered death for ALL” comes into play: *Only malice shall go to hell, not the one for whom malice lived it’s life out upon until Illuvatar’s (GOD’s) WILL was DONE* EA!!! = “Let it Be” = Yah.

WAS TOLKIEN’S WORK AN EXTRA CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL TREATISE OR A WASTE OF TIME?

The questions might arise, “why would I waste my time on ‘fiction’? I’m too busy with the ‘real’ world, so, how could I possibly have the time to embark on a child’s occupation? What is key here is the question: ‘what kind of Fantasy’, or, ‘how do you define Tolkien’s Fantasy world?’

The answer lies in the root or cause by which true Fantasy can be upheld.

Tolkien knew that the classical sense for “word (logos)”, —as ‘classifier’, ‘categorizer’, ‘organizer’ and the suffixial “—ology”— , which could be technically be identified as LOGOS, VERBUM or WORD. All 3 of these terms carried with them a corresponding and consequential Narrative. WORD, by Tolkien’s meaning, must be taken in the infinitive, more or less, due to its ‘out of tempo’ and ‘non-spatiality’ sense. Contradistinctive to WORD, the NARRATIVE expresses the ‘reeling out’ of the WORD (which was already ‘done’) into limited tempo and limited space for “the Story” and its meaningful end. The “NARRATIVE” IS the WORD in time and space—-meaning, the NARRATIVE IS HOLY AND WITHOUT CONTRADICTION.

It is this TYPE of LOGOS that rectified the Reasons for the Biblical Old Testament, the Reprise from the letter of the law, the ensample by which we must follow unto death-though we are incapable of fulfilling Christ’s title, and the “SENSE” that Europe received from the Gospels, ordering out even the pagan’s hope of an *a-moral* Pagan God that has now come. SO, not JUST to the JEWS, but to the minds of the heathen (the Ethnos), did Jesus Christ make “SENSE” to them and by the SENSE could there be hope here and after this life.

Tolkien, as some writers have said, was a ‘true pagan’ Pagan, by root definition means, “page”—-“on another page; over there; past the *peg* by which you should take heed before crossing into”. He was a Christian, a Roman Catholic, and, without insult and only praise—a true pagan. Tolkien observed the Heathen and their archetypes for meaning. Tolkien knew how to thread the Christian Hope, the Christian Reality with the Heathen’s Hope and their Realities. Tolkien saw ALL things as ONE big Gospel that could only be held in a presentable substance called “EA”. Otherwise, all such *ideas* are left up to endless debates. EA allowed for the walls to come down and to see with clarity the unfolding and unfolded NATURE of Illuvatar (GOD). A true amalgam, all which pointed to the Christ idea, had been codified and delivered post Mortem thanks to J.R.R.’s son, Christopher, who finalized the Silmarillion for his father using his father’s notes, histories, and a little savvy that Christopher had acquired from knowing his ingenious father.

CONCLUSION: WITHOUT ‘EA’, WE COULD NOT HAVE A PRESENTABLE THEOLOGY WITHOUT WALLS. TOLKIEN’S THEOLOGY WITHIN THE SECONDARY WORLD WAS ‘CHRISTIAN’ BEFORE ‘CHRISTIANITY’ WAS A RELIGION

In Colossians 1:17 it states, “He (Jesus Christ) is before all things, and in Him ALL (Greek: “panta” – literally, ‘everything’) things hold together”. It is ‘soft algebra’ to replace Jesus Christ with WORD here (as did John the Beloved when he tells us in John 1:1-ff “that the WORD *became* flesh and dwelt amongst us” What was the WORD before *it became*? It is not a question but an Archimedean Greek ‘heureka’ moment (“I have found it!”) to see the pattern by which Tolkien was forced to follow—- the formula from which the WORD (All/ Done/ IS/ Yah) became (engeneto) the actuation-Jesus, then to CHRIST (fulfiller and complete) to WORD to Christ again, ….all being in ‘agreement’ a-tempo, tempo, spatial, or non-spatial. For no literary mechanism can alter the consistency and force of WORD or LOGOS (being the same). Therefore, is Jesus not the NARRATION and is not the WORD actually Jesus in HIS Pre-incarnate existence in eternity? Shall HE not return again as HE said HE would? I believe that Tolkien’s entire works proved the force of LOGOS. I believe Tolkien’s works were an ‘extra Christian’ theological treatise. I feel that Tolkien drew from nearly limitless sources in order to show that there is no order but LOGOS. I believe that Tolkien’s Narrative, in full, FORCES us to reckon our sights on a Christ figure, types, shadows, that emerge through the distilling process of pure philology. Such was his work, I believe.

May 25, 2026April 25, 2021 by Brandon Heinzelmann

“We find in the comparative Narratives of the Bible and of J.R.R. Tolkien parallels between an Objective Theology and a Subjective Theology. Whether or not Tolkien’s Oxford lectures were concerning the primary or secondary world, he made it clear that LOGOS would take hold of either world. The Silmarillion, the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings were and are Tolkien’s “Extra Christian” world. A world of joy, sorrow and Salvation to the reader”

0:00

Nothing found!

May 17, 2026April 25, 2021 by Brandon Heinzelmann

There is no doubt in my mind that Tolkien felt the bankruptcy for the meaning of words in his time. Tolkien knew that words and WORD (the substantive reference by which all things refer to for meaning), via “Narration”/ “Story”, were the cure for giving those who cared about meaning a hope. Such a hope was the consistency of ‘signals’ and ‘semiotics’. A “world” without double entendre, doublespeak, ‘dark sentences’, ‘shadow logic’, etc. was a ‘world’ of pure expression, pure thought without cloudiness. A world that disallowed ‘those’ who would rule by ‘witty-word play’ and carelessness for meaning, only the power to make those around them fear potential shame for not being in the illusory ‘in the know’.

Tolkien knew that a linguistic vaccination could be carried out by a Philological treatment under the beautiful cloak of The Myth/ The Fantasy that England never had, namely, The Lord of the Rings.

Wales had Arthur, Scotland had hobgoblins and Fairie as did Ireland. Ireland had the Dun Cow as a staple of myth, but England only had fancy writings which referenced other’s myths.

The sickness of social and verbal (one and the same to Tolkien {and to me}) relativism had obviously taken hold of the world through the blind war of rejecting Theology all together. This darkness had covered the world prior to Tolkien’s day. Relativism, as a social shadow logic, called certain men to arms such as Owen Barfield, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams and J.R.R. Tolkien to arms.

To repeat, the works of the Silmarillion, Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and his many other correlative and supplemental histories surrounding ( especially, the Lord of the Rings), were of a Philological nature. And, the IMPORT of this Philological treatment incurred THE NARRATION.

This is where Tolkien’s Theological understanding bypassed his blind Sacraments. A new and yet very ancient *faith* in the meaning of words within Fantasy’s exercise of the True LOGOS could replace the blind acts of objectivism in stale motions ever unending.

Tolkien had an ‘extra-Christian’ approach.Tolkien understood that the MECHANISM by which ALL THINGS COME FROM, GO TO, EXIST BY (one might refer to Colossians 1:14-ff) could be expressed within The NARRATION regardless if the narrative with Fantasy or Objective-Real-World.

The pure-inner-consistent NARRATION is the eternal-a-tempo *WORD* which unfolds in TIME and SPACE). Therefore, “IT IS DONE” means both NARRATION and WORD——this is the truest sense of coherent and consistent meaning. Another way to say this, Eternity unfolded is true Narration because ‘eternity’ cannot contradict itself as being self contained outside of time and space. This also gives hint to what Abaddon is. A thing placed into eternity with never ending reduction, non sustainable, contradictive.

The hint of objectivity, externality and eternal nature find themselves allowed to function in conjunction inside of Fantasy. That is, Fantasy allows both NARRATION and WORD (a seemingly contradictory, yet, coherent *idea-figuration*) to exist in it’s world as the same thing – i.e., some kind of predeterminism is sensed due to Author to that which is written relationship, or. “Idea” to “pen” to “words” to “narration”. In the mind of Illuvatar and in the mind of Tolkien were all themes created and nothing was before. So, where’s the ‘free’ and the ‘will’? Tolkien’s Silmarillion makes it clear that his Ainur or Holy Ones were given the freedom to subcreate upon the themes of Illuvatar and Illuvatar was glad to see this. But, nothing was made that wasn’t made of Illuvatar and HIS “EA” which is, “Let it Be” and the WORD.

Theologically speaking, this is the “REASON” by which we must *believe* in the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8) —-i.e., we ‘hold two seemingly contradictory ideas at the same time to see REASON. He both talked to His disciples in the tempo of this world, created the world, ends the world, loved us before the world began, predetermined us to believe before the foundation of the world, knew us before the foundation of the world—that is: had a living relationship with us before anything was made (Romans 8:28-31/ Ephesians 1:4, 13/ Ecclesiastes 1:15, 3:15, Isaiah 45:7-ff. ), . This means that part of Christ’s existence is outside tempo and space, the other, He works, dwells, dies, resurrects, etc. in time….and then, goes back to a place of non-tempo only to see us again…and, if you will, MUST be here and there at the same time – ‘time’ as we say, and the language of eternity are hinted in philology for us to see His eternal mechanics.

Yet, only the type of “sense” acquired for the magnitude of a GOD who could truly do all that HE claimed, requires a participation of belief. Such a concept was defined by Tolkien in his Monsters and Critics lectures presented at Oxford to mean, “a suspension of belief in the primary world”. This is applied to Fantasy, though,—-or is it?

Fantasy allows proportionate “inverses, obliques, corollaries, etc” to the primary or objective-cold-metrics world by which ONLY Fantasy writing can do—that is, time can go back and forth with a Christ figure of the Fantastic whereas it cannot with the Christ in this world. Fantasy can allow for a Christ figure to break the primary world’s rules, that is, show HIS epiphanic Nature before the cross event, or many other virtues of LOGOS before the Objective Gospels show HIS unfolding. In Fantasy, the Christ figure could show Himself as a Shaman, but, as a Christ figure, never could HE defame HIS virtue if HE is a figuration in the Fantastic Narrative *as* a Christ figure.

But, as these ‘changes’ or ‘delineations’ occur which separate Primary (objective) vs. Secondary (fantasy) worlds, these ‘changes’ MUST come with rules to support the same valuation of the Christ, if HE is to be of equal value *in Story* that the Christ holds in actuation or objective reality.

It is most important to understand that Tolkien believed that Fantasy would not bring blasphemy to the Biblical Text as ‘another Gospel’. This is WHOLLY what Tolkien would NOT WANT. Again, his works were ‘extra-Christian’.

It is in the FANTASTIC writing of all of Tolkien’s works that we can see LOGOS actually work through a different medium other than time as we know, light as we know, purity as we understand and the fleshly limitations that we bear in this primary world. On the other hand, bread, mushrooms, carrots, stew, fire, pipes, tobacco, and coziness exists much to our liking in this primary world.

Lastly, for the PURE ARTIST, i.e., Tolkien, he was driven to write the pure narrative. Through this purity striven to achieve, it was enough to convey an alien beauty not seen in its like before. There is an ‘arrest’ of the senses and a draw to this other world where, I, personally, could find myself happily lost.

If there is a contradictive *NATURE* to the poem, myth, story, fairy tale, …then, there was a disobedience to the WORD or LOGOS by the Narrator. These holy rules are real for Tolkien’s fantastic writing and therefore, IT is REAL. Only when there is agreement with Narrator, Logos, Narration, do we have PURE art, fantasy, meaning, significance, semiotics, TRUTH.

May 17, 2026April 19, 2021 by Brandon Heinzelmann

To ‘empathize’ and/or form an ‘alliance’ with the ‘other’ gender, especially if you’re a 12 year old, is indicative of the poison already set in by the trending leaders.

“Sexual preference” is objectification-identification. It is not a subjective desire for meaning. This is an “us and them” partition.

“Alliance” with objective sexualities, genders, ——is the MOST dangerous practice because it denies objective truth. Gender/ Sex preference alliance supervenes logic, reason, ‘truth’. What do I mean? When you talk to a person, and really want to know them, want to even use them to get to understanding about them, the world, life, etc.,… you don’t look at them as an objective sexual preference but, rather, you look for their ‘flow of reason’, ‘flow of meaning’.

“LGBTQ ALLIANCE” assumes a stance without reason if you (1) haven’t been any or all of these ‘categories’ (2) assumes that anything else *is* an objective obstruction from their alliance. (3) an objective ‘stance’ assumes that you stand with ‘rightness’ and it is fixed (4) such a ‘fixed’ nature prejudges the ‘others’ as ‘them’.

The new-pagan-cancel-culture- enforces their “Puritan” ideas, as Ben Shapiro says (not always in his camp), that *nothing other than those things which cancel out historical Family ideals which do not accept pornography and sexual license are accepted. Mock sex acts on stage with profane lyrics on the stage at the Grammys is the new Puritanism. Licentiousness is the new Puritanism and hypocritically cancels, pre-judges, aborts anything but its own world view (feel free to watch the ‘highlights’ of the Grammys of 2021 and discern for yourself).

Again, the danger: the ‘blind faith’ of ‘alliance of a movement of objectification of gender (and of race) creates division.

Jesus NEVER objectified the sexual nature, preference, disposition, prejudices, differences of ‘self based fixed world myopic world views’. Jesus ‘subjective’ ALL under HIS grace.

We are coming to be into the likeness of Christ. The hardest part, as a believer, is to not ‘react’ to God’s Will (let alone our error) in ordaining these fleshly ‘dilemmas’ when HIS Grace is the ONLY THING that is proven right through all of this societal cacophony.

“Cancel Culture” is a new thing to me, yet, an old thing. To eliminate history is to eliminate the foundations of reason. History has direction. History goes forth on paths *from* some fixed point in time. To eliminate these paths is to eliminate ‘truth’.

“Truth” means, ‘root, stem and branches’. To eliminate the linked system of history is to eliminate all of suffering, suffering unto death, suffering unto *REASON*.

It is a ‘trending’ thing now, as witnessing my own children who were raised in a gracious and loving home, to assimilate such judgemental and hateful positions.

My wife and I have never taught anything but unmerited love and universal salvation through Christ who showed us all that we must suffer many things to save our brothers and sisters.

Finally, just getting off the phone with one of my best friends (while typing via inspiration of our conversation/ multitasking-psycho-me), Matthew told me that after 6 years I should take a flight from Florida to Nashville. I said, great….nonetheless, it is enough that we are given the gift to share reason, humility through grace, meaning, linguistics, theology, societal issues, teaching at colleges issues, etc. Face to face is great, but what is greater (as C.S. Lewis said) is ‘cheek to cheek’ and side by side going on the same path, in the same direction, to the bullseye. To “cancel” our confirmed experiences over our long history of friendship would be equivalent to ‘cancel’ culture, past bigotries, past false judgements, past angers, past arguments, past error….ALL of which, being on the path of Reason, has led us to being best friends. I thank ‘history’ in all of its trauma/ drama that purged me. I’ll never forget and I’ll never let my progeny forget my history and I’ll never let ‘meaning’ be forgotten.

Technically, Plato would deem “cancel culture” *diabolical*. ——Such a statement would be without ‘moral’ significance. I say, because Reason and Order are fought for, anything that tries to destroy that is immorally Satanic/ Diabolical. Reason IS morality, technically

May 17, 2026March 31, 2021 by Brandon Heinzelmann

The writings at the ending of the 11th all the way into the 13th century exemplify “amour courtois {amur- kurtwa}. This amour courtois or, “Courtly Love” was a medieval European conception emphasizing nobility and chivalry.

Amour Courtois showed Knights going on errands for their “ladies” which showed their courage and their ‘love’ for them — in this particular fashion.

This kind of “Love” was originally a literary fiction created for entertaining the nobility.

Later, “Courtly Love”, as a full bodied idea, took hold as the codex by which Knightly conduct would fashion itself from fiction to fact.

THE SUFFERANCE OF COURTLY LOVE

“Loving Nobly” or “noble love” was considered to be an enriching and improving practice by which the subject was imposed upon. At the same time, this Noble court love in all of its “courtesies (“court—-esy”)” could garner suffering and heartbreak in the medieval allegorical writings.

The allegorical poems of Amour outside amour courtois proved to be deadly. Such is the case for Tristan which means “sad”. Tristian, from the Welsh, “Drystan”; French, triste—‘sad’ and the German, Tristan.

Tristam’s “Paramour”, Iseult, meaning, ‘one who is to be gazed upon’ or ‘fair lady’ has a slightly less interesting title. Iseult was Tristan’s paramour. Paramour meant ‘secret or illicit lover’. In the Latin based French we have, “par = “through” + amour = ‘love’. In this formula, it means, “through the lover…as in the physical sense, not abiding by societal standards. It is this sense of the word that we have “Eros”. In Eros’ original form, the very archaic Greek spelled Eros as Eisrous. “Eis = to go into + Rous = flow as a river to its destruction—-as in, “rui—-for RUIN. The paramours, therefore, through the entrance of their eyes saw what they desired and took their destruction floated out to sea. (One might confer to Platos’ Cratylus for this exact treatment on “Eros”). Nonetheless, they fulfill their roles in their ‘names’ as Paramours.

THE STORY/ THE ALLEGORICAL NAMES/ AMOUR/ DRAMA

In brief, both took a love potion and fell madly in love with each other. Prior to taking the love potion, Tristan was overwhelmed with Iseult and thought it would be good if his beloved uncle, King Mark of Cornwall would marry her. Was they imbibed upon the potion they were inseparable. Iseult, ended up having to marry Mark while Tristan and Iseult were having secret liaisons. The two got caught and much drama ensued.

The errors of courtly love were brought to view in the convoluted sense of two different types of love. Eros and Agape. BOTH of these types of “love” were/are impersonal.

By the end of the 11th century, both erotic love and agape love were to be fused together. Eros was an ‘organ-based’ love while ‘agape’ was a ‘do good to others’ love at your own cost, demeanment, loss, etc.’ love.

LESSON TO BE LEARNED FOR CLASSICISTS, THEOLOGIANS, US —-VIA MEDIEVAL AMOUR COURTOIS

In both cases, “Gamos”, —-an entirely ‘other’ love was overlooked. Gamos, or “marriage”, meant ‘joined’ or ‘union’. In this sense, “Gamos”, was a ‘connecting’ love that entangled not only impersonal sex and impersonal selflessness—but took them and made them personal. Gamos ‘fulfilled’ them to their potential. Gamos made not only a ‘friend (REALLY THE ONLY OTHER ‘LOVE’ NOT ENTIRELY LOOKED AT{philos})’ as well, but a *Comrade* or a ‘fellow measured’ lover. This might be a term that is missed even by today’s standards for the ultimate form of “love” here on earth. Sadly, even my beloved C.S. Lewis didn’t place “Gamos” amongst the ranks of the main forms of “love”.

*Concerning the experience of Gamos we might have an unspoken set of words, or unquantifiable words, now, through ALLEGORY, were spoken in poetical form or sung. Such experience was given to the Medieval by the Troubadour.

The Machinery of allegory used by the Troubadour’s song or poem may always be regarded as a system of conduit pipes which tap the deep and unfailing sources of poetry in the minds of the common folk and noble. Such machinations of ALLEGORY provided and do provide refreshment to those via the Troubadour.

THE UNSPOKEN-SPOKEN WORD—‘MUO’

As a side note, the Proto Indo European language group denotes such a mystical union of ‘sense’, ‘signal’, ‘sign’ to the heart and minds of the commoner and noble via the mimicry or miming of the sense of the unspoken reality. It is in miming that we have a type of this ‘myth’ or ‘mystae’ represented. It is interesting that “mouth, myth, mime, mimicry, mystea and mystery do come from the same ancient Parent. In this understanding, “allegory” is just that sense of “muo”. It is the unquantifiable —which is in the quantifiable language of “allegory”.

Such origins of ALLEGORY began in ancient paganism, not the Middle Ages.

But, it was in the fiction’s entertainment that was later put to real world practice. In this, allegory had been aligned to the real Knight’s errands. Though a Dragon wasn’t what the Knight fought, the Dragon was the world of despair for the Knight that he had to fight through….therefore, “dragon” could allegorically be called “dragon” though understood as the essence of depression.

Inevitable cruelties would come when this fictional world —-with all of its traumas/dramas returned its victories and losses. The harshness of the allegory of the knight’s errand was the ultimate price for Valor. The once fictive allegory would now also take hold onto a new reality that, in turn, had copied that which was fiction. Thus, the title of the HERO must be attempted—— though this all together, another Segway on the “Hero’s journey, a monomyth of epic proportions — it should be known here that “the Name” only exists as ‘that which can fulfill its meaning’. Anyone can carry an appellate, but few can Donne the “authority, name, Hebrew-Shem, or Greek Nomos. Such is the Son of Man and Son of God — in His ‘coming to be’ that NAME.

THE DISTANCE FELT

The main thing that catches me in ALLEGORY is the need to reach from your position on earth to and for a higher language in order that one can ‘signify’ that which cannot be quantified in ordinary speech. The distance is felt—-that is—— the allegorical speech has tethering lines from the ground upwards. (In contrast, not necessarily does “Fantasy” offer this distance between two realities that can both exist in the primary world of real-cold-metrics).

IS THE BIBLE ALSO AN ALLEGORY?

In some ways, I see that in the Bible. That is, many of the “NAMES” had the meaning of their function, therefore, they were the ‘virtues’ of their appellate—-at least for the narrative that they were found in. What isn’t answered is: were they always like their “name”?—-such is the case for King Saul. “Saul” means “blindness, darkness, separation from light, “SHEOL” = “SAUL” = “HELL”. Was King Saul always ‘blind’, ‘in the dark’, ‘in a kind of hell’? —-probably not. But, as I stated, for the narratives read in the Biblical passages, many to most of the time, the names were fulfilled by the action of the characters in the Biblical stories.

An example of ‘name giving’ in the Bible: In 1 Corinthians 11:23-24, Paul the Apostle does not mention Judas by his “appellate” but by his “name”—-paradidomi = “to hand over”. More than anything, this “name” would fulfill the allegorical “name” of Judas by his ‘role’ in the narration. Jesus’ name means, “salvation”, “Peter”, “Paul”, “Matthew”, “devil”, “Satan”, “church”, “eyes of the Lord”, “Seven golden candlesticks”, etc. all either have ‘tethered’ meanings to a bigger sense that just the physical or they fulfill the “name” of their bigger function to its completion in the Biblical narrative.

Is one to call the Bible an Allegorical Historical Theology?—-I don’t know…but I do know that the characters in the Bible who fulfill these virtues are surely fulfilling an allegorical essential.

CONTRAST

*If we remember that FANTASY started in a different or secondary reality and continued its suspension of primary reality without ‘tethering’ to the Primary world, THEN —-I might say, a new reference language is employed to entertain the numinous or hierarchical senses.

This to me is just another way of humankind reaching out to a higher idea, sense, and I say, God. C.S. Lewis was in this camp. The Troubadours were too.

On the other side, I can see J.R.R. Tolkien’s affinity for sub creating—-i.e. participating as a Child of God in his Father in Heaven’s image—-the Creator. This, in one sense, is a very serious role, though Fantasy, the art of writing pure Fantasy would be the effort to be purely honest. I think that Tolkien took his writings to a heightened sense of Christianity——- a place of Freedom in the Rules of the Grace of God. One could call him a Roman Catholic, a Christian and, I believe, an extra-Christian. Tolkien was one who who trusted their Faith to exercise it in the unreal and watch the same creative laws exist. —>For this, I love J.R.R. Tolkien.

For me, both Allegory and Fantasy can be used as an exercise in numinous aesthetics. To touch the Holy, to reach out to the LOGOS and feel HIS Order, His command, His being; to be totally arrested by the nearness of Christ in His purity of any form of art. To see the inner and outer consistencies of reality and unreality.

ADDED HISTORY

As an added history: it was the Provincial troubadour Girhault de Borneilh, who flourished in the middle to the end of the 12th century and epitomized the troubadour ideal.

Borneilh synthesized the 2 traditions of the understanding of Love in the following way:

Borneilh proclaimed that “Love is born of the eyes and the heart. The eyes are the scouts of the heart. They are looking for an appropriate object of beauty; that is to say, they are selective. This is discriminative, this is elite, this is a personal choice, and having found their image, the eyes recommend that image to the heart—-not to just any heart but to the noble heart, the gentle heart, the heart capable of love; this is not a case of sheer lust. When these three meet: that is, the two eyes and the one heart are in accord, LOVE IS BORN. Love is born of the eyes and the heart; it is an individual experience. The eyes quest in the outer world for the object of inspiration, and the heart receives the image, and this image then becomes the idol of individual devotion”.

MY THESIS ON BORNEILH

Borneilh fails to include the conclusive “love”, Gamos, and ends his theme with objectification of one’s interest as ‘the idol of individual devotion’. The eyes are never satisfied, the idol is by Greek terms, ‘the eye which fixes and serves without thought’—hence the word, ‘idiot’, and finally, serving that which one doesn’t or couldn’t possibly know in an objective relationship might be more deadly that just following a court appointed marriage…like in the good old days. Lol

May 25, 2026March 31, 2021 by Brandon Heinzelmann

We are honored to have one of the world’s greatest linguists on our site. Dr. Anna Meskhi is a Professor at Caucasus University and holds a PhD in Germanic Languages and the Theory of Linguistics. She is an established scholar of the English language and of teaching methods for foreign languages. She has conducted extensive research on Kartvelian and Old English language material for many years, and subsequently expanded into comparative analyses of the Sumerian, Egyptian and Basque languages and cultures. Dr. Meskhi’s books, research articles and presentations cover a wide range of subjects, including paleography, religions, mythology, foreign language teaching methodology and comparative linguistic studies.

The various solutions Dr. Meskhi offers to “chronic” problems in the mentioned areas include those to Sumerian and Egyptian phonology, Sumerian lexicographic notation, the decipherment of numerous lexical items and symbols, genetic relations between languages, issues of language origin and culturological factors of dead and living civilizations. One of the outstanding features of Dr. Meskhi’s research is the application of the Kartvelian languages and culture to all items across a wide range of humanities fields, covering an enormous chronological distance of at least 5,000 years and embracing the Near East, the whole of Europe and North Africa.

Although Dr. Meskhi discusses issues of great significance her language is easy to follow and understand and her solutions very logical and most trustworthy. Dr. Meskhi’s research generates highly thought provoking interests and offers its readers different perspectives on the problems she tackles.

0:00

Nothing found!

May 25, 2026March 31, 2021 by Brandon Heinzelmann

0:00

Nothing found!

May 25, 2026March 1, 2021 by Brandon Heinzelmann

Vocalist, harper and scholar Benjamin Bagby, who was captivated by medieval music as a boy, has been an important figure in the field of medieval musical performance for over 20 years. He was the first graduate to earn a voice degree specializing in early music at the Oberlin Conservatory (Ohio, USA) and he also received a degree in German literature from Oberlin College. After graduation, he was awarded a Thomas J. Watson Foundation Fellowship, specifically for the study of European medieval song. His travels eventually took him to Basel, where he subsequently received an advanced degree in medieval music from the Schola Cantorum Basiliensis, and where he and Barbara Thornton first formed Sequentia. The years since 1977 have been almost uniquely devoted to the research, performance and recording work of Sequentia. Apart from this, Mr. Bagby gives his time to the solo performance of Anglo-Saxon oral poetry: his acclaimed bardic performance Beowulf has been performed worldwide and will be released as a DVD in 2006. In addition to researching and writing program books for festivals, concert series and CD booklets, Mr. Bagby has published articles about performance practice; as a guest lecturer and professor, he has taught courses and workshops all over Europe and North America. He was appointed to teach in the newly-created medieval music performance Masters program at the Sorbonne University in Paris, where he co-teaches with his wife, Katarina Livljanic, the Croatian vocalist, musicologist, and director of the ensemble Dialogos.
Recordings
For all of Sequentia’s recordings, which were researched and assembled by either Bagby or Barbara Thornton (usually working as a team), the accompanying booklets are appreciated for their rigorous scholarly quality, with great attention to detail, to the sources, and to the work of philologists (such as Peter Dronke, Pierre Bec, Heimir Pálsson, Jan Ziolkowski and Ulrich Mueller) who collaborated on the textual editions. In addition, Sequentia’s projects have witnessed collaborations with musicologists such as Leo Treitler, Edward Roesner, Barbara Haggh, Katarina Livljanic, Hartmut Möller and Richard Crocker. Two recent CD releases of Sequentia, Edda: Myths from Medieval Iceland and The Rheingold Curse were based solely on the original musical research of Benjamin Bagby, reflecting his interest in oral poetry and the use of traditional music in reconstructing ancient modal vocabularies. A more recent Sequentia CD, also based on Bagby’s original research, Lost Songs of a Rhineland Harper was released in 2004 on the BMG/DHM label, and features numerous reconstruction of songs from the 10th and 11th centuries. For this project, Bagby collaborated with the Harvard philologist Jan Ziolkowski.
The major project for the Sequentia men’s ensemble 2003-5 was Chant Wars, a musical collaboration between Sequentia and the men’s voices of the Parisian ensemble Dialogos (dir., Katarina Livljanic). The preparation of this project was made possible by a research fellowship from Harvard University. Following initial rehearsals at the Abbey of Aubazine in 2003, there were performances in Europe, Columbia, Mexico, and a North American tour. The CD of this program was released by Sony-BMG (DHM label) in the autumn of 2005. Also in 2005, the women’s voices of Sequentia – in conjunction with the exhibition ‘Krone und Schleier’ in Bonn & Essen – released a CD of vocal music from women’s cloisters in medieval Germany (recorded by the WDR Köln and released on the museums’ own label). The year 2006 will witness the release of the DVD of Benjamin Bagby’s legendary Beowulf performance.
A complete, annotated discography of all published recordings made by Sequentia since 1980 can be found on the Ensemble’s website.
Music Theater
In addition to the program Edda Eins (performed as a theatrical production 1995-7 in Scandinavia, North America and Africa under the auspices of the Goethe Institute), Sequentia’s other music-theater projects have included Hildegard von Bingen’s Ordo Virtutum (West German Television, 1982 and subsequent tours in 1984, 1986, 1990, and 1998-9); the Cividale Planctus Marie; the Bordesholmer Marienklage (West German TV, 1992, and Boston Early Music Festival, 1987); and Heinrich von Meissen’s Frauenleich (Frankurter Feste, 1987 and recording 1990). The Edda project continued in 2001 with a new production: performances of the Eddic poems which later formed the basis of Wagner’s ‘Ring’ cycle. For this project, Mr. Bagby collaborated with the New York stage director Ping Chong, in a project commissioned by the Lincoln Center Festival and the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (and subsequently performed in the Utrecht Early Music Festival, USA tour, and in Scandinavia).
Research and Education
Since 1984, Sequentia has been consistently dedicated to teaching intensive courses and workshops in medieval music performance. The most important of these has been the 2-week summer course given at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada (in collaboration with Early Music Vancouver). Of the more than 200 musicians who have attended this course over the years, more than 20 have gone on to become either associate members of Sequentia or performers of medieval music in their own professional ensembles. Beginning in late 2005, highly-motivated students have been able to study with both Benjamin Bagby and Katarina Livljanic (director of the ensemble Dialogos) in the newly-created Masters program in medieval music performance at the Sorbonne in Paris.
As a guest lecturer and professor, Bagby has taught courses and workshops at the Schola Cantorum Basiliensis, Indiana University School of Music, University of Oregon, Duke University, Stanford University, the Autunno Musicale (Como, Italy), University of Chicago, the Modus Centrum (Oslo), Amherst Early Music (Tufts University), Wellesley College, the University of Texas at Austin, Northwestern University, the New England Conservatory of Music, Sarah Lawrence College, St. John’s College (Santa Fe), the Studio Alte Musik (Berlin), the Royaumont Foundation (Paris) and the Stary Sacz Festival (Poland), and many others.
In 2000 Bagby was a guest speaker at New York University’s Medieval Studies Program, and he spent a semester as a visiting Krieger Fellow at Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland); in 2001 he was invited as Patten Lecturer at Indiana University (humanities and School of Music), a humanities lecturer (together with Ping Chong) at the University of Michigan, and he taught an intensive May Term medieval music course as guest professor at Illinois Wesleyan University (Bloomington, IL). In 2003 he was awarded – together with Katarina Livljanic – a fellowship by Harvard University (the Religion and the Arts Initiative, Center for the Study of World Religions, in conjunction with the Music Department). In 2004-5 Bagby was twice in residence at the University of Oregon as the Trotter Professor of Music. In 2005 he was named as a part-time professor in the newly-created Masters program in medieval music performance at the University of Paris IV / Sorbonne. In early 2007, both Bagby and Livljanic will be Cornille Professors at Wellesley College (Massachussetts, USA), teaching medieval music courses for both faculty and students.
Sequentia presents several new programs during each 2-year period, each of which carefully researched in collaboration with other scholars. The ensemble has also received research grants from the Siemens Foundation (Germany) and from the Volkswagen Foundation (in association with research & performance of music from manuscripts at the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbuettel, Germany).
In addition to reseaching and writing more than 65 program books for festivals and concert series, and writing (or co-authoring, with Barbara Thornton) more than 25 CD booklets, Benjamin Bagby has written about performance practice, with articles appearing in Early Music, in the Performer’s Guide to Medieval Music, edited by Ross Duffin, the Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis, and in Performing Medieval Narrative (ed. Evelyn Vitz, Marilyn Lawrence and Nancy Regalado).

0:00

Nothing found!

October 8, 2025February 20, 2021 by Brandon Heinzelmann

Origins of Early North American Indians are Turkish/ Georgian/Altaic (Japonic) |

Traces of the Altaic Words “ATA”, “APA”, “ANA” and

Their Derivatives in the Languages of Some of the Native Peoples of Americas

By: Polat Kaya

In early 1980s, out of curiosity, I was wondering about a possible existence of an affinity between Altaic Languages and the native languages spoken in the Americas. So I made a research, (although not as a linguist), with the hope of finding some living words presently used in Turkish and also in the languages of the Native Peoples of Americas. After all thousands of years ago, the ancestors of both the Turks and those of some of the Native Peoples of the American continents shared the same geographic area in Central Asia and Siberia. I wrote a paper about my findings through my research entitled “Probable Existence of a Linguistic and Cultural Kinship Between the Altaic Peoples and the Native Peoples of Americas.” The following is a rearrangement of the original paper.

1. Introduction

In my search I used the following facts and/or assumptions:

1a) Turks and their ancestors are Central Asiatic (particularly Altaic) people. The ancestors of Turks have lived in this part of the world (i.e., Central Asia and most parts of Siberia) not only throughout the known history, but most likely for thousands of years before that in the distant past. From Central Asia they have migrated to other parts of the world. At present, many ethnic Turkish people live in Siberia all the way up to the Kara Sea north of Ural Mountains, to East Siberian Sea and to the Bering Straight in the east as well as in Central Asia.

1b) The ancestors of most of the Native Peoples of North, Central and South Americas are known to have migrated from Asia through the Bering Sea many thousands (10000 or more) of years ago.

1c) In view of these facts, it is very likely that in the distant past, the ancestors of some of the Native Peoples of Americas and the ancestors of Turks and other Altaic peoples lived in the same or adjacent geographic regions of Central Asia and/or Siberia. If so, it is again very likely that all these peoples could have been members of the same people or closely related people who spoke the same language or closely related languages. Due to their possible relationship with each other in the distant past, one is inclined to think of probable existence of some cultural and linguistic relationship between these peoples, in spite of the fact that while some members stayed in their homelands in Asia, the others left Asia and went to North America.

1d) All languages are dynamic and subject to change in time. Similarly, a proto-Altaic language spoken by the members of an Altaic community who became separated from each other, in time by thousands of years and in space by thousands of kilometres, would definitely develop independently of each other in a way that when examined at present, they would appear alien to each other. In present times, it would be difficult for people who speak such languages to communicate with each other with the present form of their languages.

1e) However, in spite of this independent development of the languages of the Native Peoples of Americas and the Altaic Peoples, there may still exist in both groups of languages some living words that may be used to express the same meaning in the same way as before. There should still be some living words as “linguistic artefacts” which are reminiscence of the language that these ancient people spoke while they were all living in Asia.

1f) In any language, the first two words that a child learns in his/her mother tongue are probably the ones that correspond to the words “father” and “mother”. These two words are repeated in each person’s life time, particularly early in age, so frequently that they become permanently embedded in everyone’s memory. These two words are the most likely ones to be passed on from generation to generation during the life times of languages that may live thousands of years. Although, peoples of the same ethnic origin may become separated from each other and live in different parts of the world for long duration of time, yet their present languages may still retain these two words either in their original form or in a form which is similar to or a derivative of the original form. In spite of the evolutionary forces that act upon a language and cause changes in its structure and in the pronunciation of its words, one can still recognise these two words in languages which are related to each other.

1g) Turks being Altaic people of Central Asia are the lucky and proud inheritors of the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” through their Turkic languages.[1] [2] [3] In this set of Altaic words, the first two have been used for “father”, “ancestor” and “old man” and the last one for “mother” throughout the history by different Altaic groups of peoples. Where ever the ancestors of Turks have migrated from their original homelands in Central Asia, they have carried with them these words as “linguistic artefacts” of their Altaic language to their new destinations. In their new homelands, they have passed these words to generation to generation up to the present time. The preservation of these words would particularly be highly likely if the speakers of the language were a dominant group with respect to their new neighbours. In this case, they would not only retain particular features of their language but it is quite likely that they would influence the languages of their new neighbours. On the other hand, if they were not as strong as their new neighbours in the new homelands, it is also likely that their language would be influenced by the languages of their neighbours. In any case, there would be some degree of cross pollination between the languages of people interacting closely with each other. With these suppositions, I feel that it would be very appropriate to use the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” and their derivatives as reference linguistic artefacts to trace the footsteps of the ancestors of Turks and other Altaic peoples.

1h) In addition to these basic words which do not easily change in time, one could also use as reference the names for some things that influence the lives of people to the degree that people tend to regard them highly and/or worship them in their every day life. People could take with them the names of such things as the Sun, the Moon, stars, gods, mountains, rivers, living things, etc. , wherever they go. Therefore, the names for such objects could also be used as reference linguistic artefacts to trace people.

1i) In Turkish, the two words that have been used interchangeably for “father”, i.e., the words “ata” and “apa” could go through some transformation in time. Particularly, the phonemes “t” in “ata” and “p” in “apa” would tend to change into consonants “d” as in “ada” and “b” in “aba” respectively. This is noted to be so in various dialects of Turkish.

1j) The Altaic word corresponding to the word “mother” is “ana”. A probable derivative of this word may be the word “ama” for “mother” which seems to be related to the Turkic word “meme” meaning mother’s breast. For any child, “meme” is nothing but the “mama” or “ama” and hence “ana”. In dialects of a proto-Altaic language, the word for “mother” could have been “ana” or “ama”. By having “n” in “ana” change into “m”, the word “ama” would result; similarly, by having the “m” in “ama” change into “n” would make the transformed word “ana”. We will probably never know the exact nature of the relationship that may have taken place in history between the words “ana” and “ama”. However, it seems that, throughout the historic development of the Altaic languages and thus of Turkish, “ana” is the word which is used most dominantly to mean “mother”.

1k) Derivative words based on “ata”, “apa” and “ana” are used to express various kinship’s, particularly, for “father’s father”, “father’s mother”, mother’s father” and “mother’s mother”. Table 1 below lists some of the possible derivative words based on these words. Turkish as an Altaic language, has used some of these derivative words not only in its archaic form but also in its present spoken dialects.

1l) In phonetic languages such as Turkish in Altaic languages, the consonants in a given word make up the skeleton of each word while vowels in the word provide its proper sounding. However as the language develops in time, the vowels in a word may change into other vowels such as “a” into “e”, “o”, “u” while consonants of the words, in general, would tend to maintain their identity in the word through time.

1m) One should also note that each one of the derivative words from these Altaic words would readily go through transformations as people use and repeat them from generation to generation. For example, in the word “ataata” for “father’s father”, one of the vowels “a” in the middle of the the word would tend to be dropped off and the new form of the word would be “atata”. In time, the word could go through further transformations and may take the possible derivative forms of “taata”, “tata”, “tate”, “tatI”, ‘tete”, “tat” and in the case of “adaada”, it could transform into “adada”, “dada”, “dede”, “dadI” “dad”, etc.. In time, some of these derived words will be used to mean not only the “father’s father” but also to mean “ancestors”, “father”, “old man” and “man”. There are living examples of such usage in Turkish and in other Altaic languages. In my research, I have found evidence that the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” and their derivatives are used in considerable number of languages spoken by the Native Peoples of North, Central and South Americas. My findings are listed in Table 2 where I have listed the languages which use these words and the names of the Native Peoples of Americas who speak these languages with appropriate references.

Table 1.

Derivatives from Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” Used for

Basic Form

Derivatives from basic words in likely transformations

Father, ancestor:

ata

ada, ta, da

apa

aba, pa, ba

Mother:

ana

Father’s father:

ataata

atata, tata, tatI, tat, tete, tet

adaada

adada, dada, dadI, dede, dad

apaapa

apapa, papa, papo, pap

abaaba

ababa, baba, babi, babo, bab

Mother’s father:

anaata

anata, nata, nat

anaada

anada, nada, nad

anaapa

anapa, napa, nap

anaaba

anaba, naba, nab

Father’s mother:

ataana

atana, tana, tan

adaana

adana, dana, dan

apaana

apapa, napa, nap

anaaba

abana, bana, ban

Mother’s mother:

anaana

anana, nana, nane, nanI, nano, nene, neni, nine, nan, nen

Table 2.

A comparative list of words for “father” and “mother” in Turkish and in languages of some of the Native Peoples of Americas

Item

Language

“father”

“mother”

Notes. No.

Location

Turkish

ata, apa, baba

ana, anne

[1] [2] [3]

Turkey, many regions of Asia

Eskimo

atataq

ananaq

[4]

Canada, Greenland

Aleut

adaq

anaq

[5]

Aleutian Islands, Alaska

Wahtoktata

antcha

ehong

[6]

W. of Missouri river, USA

Konza

etahceh

enah (*t1)

[6]

N. of Missouri river, USA

Omaha

dada

ehong

[6]

Central Plains, USA

Sioux

atcucu

huco

[6]

Dakota, USA

Minnetare

tanta

eka

[6]

USA

Pawne

ateash

aterah (*t1)

[6]

Kansas, USA

Cherokee

atotuh

atsIng

[6]

Oklahoma, USA

Cherokee

udoda

uji

[7]

South Appalachians, USA

Winnebago

chache

nahne (*t1)

[6]

Wisconsin, USA

Puan / Nippegon

chache

nahne

[6]

USA

Naudowesses of Carver

ahta (*t1)

enah (*t1)

[6]

USA

Hennepin

ahta

enah

[6]

USA

Cree

o:hta: (*t1)

ka:wIy

[8]

Canada

Fox Cree

osa

ane:he (*t1)

[8]

Canada

Plains Cree “Y” dialect

nohtawe (my father)

ni kawe (my mother)

[9]

Canada

Menomini

o:hna (*t1)

kIah?

[8]

Great Lakes, Canada; Wisconsin, USA

Micmac

tatat

gIju

[8], [10]

Maritime Prov., Canada

Algonquin

papam, tatag

mam, ma:ma:, mamay

[8]

Ontario, Canada

Kenora Indians

ta:ta:

—

[8]

Canada

Kekchi

yuwa

[11], [12]

Guatemala

Quiche

tat

nan?

[11], [12]

Guatemala

Ixil

pap

nan

[11], [12]

Guatemala

Aguacetec

[11]

Guatemala

Wappo

oayao

naoa

[13]

California, USA

Miwok

oappI

ounu

[12]

California, USA

Callam & Lumni

IaIIn

tan

[15]

Washington territory, USA

Chinook

tlkamama

tlkanaa

[16]

Oregon, Wash. USA

Hidatsa

ate, tatIs

hIdu, hu

[17]

North Dakota, USA

Cahuilla

na, taata

[18]

California, USA

Otchipwe

papa, baba, dede, n’otta

[19], [20]

Southern Ontario, Canada

Mutsun

appa

anna?

[21]

Alta Calif., USA

Yucateco

yum

naa, na

[22]

Mexico and Guatemala

Papago / Pima

apapa

je’e

[23]

Southwestern USA

Navaho

[24]

Arizona, USA

Biloxi

adI

unnI

[25]

Gulf Coast, USA

Tsimshian

ap, ab

nay

[26]

USA; B. Colombia, Canada

Aguaruna (Jivaro)

apa

duku

[27], [28]

Peru, S. America

Iquito

—

nanI

[27]

Peru, S. America

Candoshi

—

ataatam

[27]

Peru, S. America

Nahuatl (Aztec language)

tahtlI (*t1)

nantlI

[29], [30]

Mexico

Quechua (Inca language)

tayta

nanagash

[31]

Peru, S. America (*t2)

Cayapa

apa

mama

[27]

Ecuador, S. America

Colorado

apa

mama

[27]

Ecuador, S. America

Auca

naenae

mama

[27]

Ecuador, S. America

(*t1) In these words where the consonant “h” appears and follows a vovel such as “a” or “o” or “u” seems to be a relic of transcribing these words under the influence of English. Without the “h”, the affinity of these words to the respective Turkish words are very much obvious.

(*t2) Tarma Quechua is the native language of the province of Tarma which is north of the capital city Lima of Peru. This language is a variety of the Inca language QUECHUA. In Tarma Quechua of Peru, “nana = a woman’s sister” and “nanachIkaq = sister”; “taytancI = grandfather”; “taytacha = young gentleman”; and “tayta inti = father sun”. Affinity between these words and the Turkish “ata” and “ana” should be noted.

2. Additional Examples of Words Indicating to a Common Past

In addition to the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” listed in Table 2, some other living words also point to the existence of a common linguistic kinship between the Altaic languages and the languages of some of the Native peoples of Americas.

2a) In Aztec language (the Nahuatl), in addition to the Nahuatl words “tahtlI” and “nantlI” corresponding to the Altaic words “ata” and “ana” respectively, we observe the word “tepetl” or “tepec” meaning “hill” which is the same both in the meaning and word structure as the Turkish word “tepe”. There seems to be many mountains and/or hills in Central and South America which are named with a name suffixed or prefixed with the word “tepec”. For example, in Mexico we have: “Chapultepec”, Agaltepec, Citlaltepec, Coatepec, Ecatepec, Jamiltepec, Oaxtepec, Ometepec, Quiotepec, Tehuantepec, Tututepec, Tepecoacuilco, Tepetitan and Tepexpan. In El Salvadore: Cojutepeque, Lago de Coatepeque, Igualtepeque. In Guatamala: Jilotepeque, Ixtepeque and in Brasil Sierra Tepequem. Similarly, in Turkic geography where Turkic and other Altaic people live, we have many hills and/or mountains named in the same manner such as Aktepe, Kultepe, Kartaltepe, Goktepe, etc..

2b) In archaic Turkish, the word “kın” and in modern Turkish the words “gün” or “güneş” are the words for both the “sun” and “day”. The Mayan people also call both the “sun” and “day” with the word “kin”.[34] In Mayan calender, a year was divided into 18 months and each month into 20 kins. It seems that these two words of totally different languages have also some historical common background. Additionally, it is noted that Turkish speaking Altaic peoples associated the word for “sun” and the word for “day” very closely with each other by expressing both concepts with the same word. Similar expressions seem to exist In Mayan languages.[34] In archaic Turkish, the name for the constellation “Ursa Major” is “Yitiken”. In this word, the first part “yiti” means “seven” and the last part “ken” is a changed form of the word “kun”, i.e., the “sun”. Thus, in the language of Altaic people, the word “yitiken” would mean “seven suns” where the concept of “sun” and a “star” was probably considered to be the same.

2c) In Inca language Quechua, the “sun god” and hence the “sun” was called “Inti”. In the word “Inti”, the prefix “in” stands for “my” and “ti” stands for “father”; hence, the word has the meaning of “my father”. Since the Incas were “sun” and “ancestor” worshippers like most of the Altaic peoples including Turks, finding an image of the Altaic word “ata” in the Inca word “inti” is pleasantly surprising. It should be noted that the Inca word “tayta” and the Turkish word “ata” have the same meaning, i.e., “father” and similar linguistic form (see item 44 in Table 2).

2d) Inti the Sun God was the ranking deity in the Inca pantheon like the Tengri among the Altaic people. It was represented by Incas with a human face on a ray-splayed disk. He was considered to be the Incas’ divine ancestor.[34]

2e) In Inca language Quechua, Incas used to call one of their low order Creator-God as “Ataguju”.[34] It should be noted that the initial part of this word is suprisingly the Altaic word “ata”. In this case it probably stands for “sacred ancestors”.

2f) In Inca society, unmarried princes of royal blood were called “Augui”. On marrying, they became “Inca” or “Atauchi”.[35] It is only reasonable to call an adult man “atauchi” after being married, because, it is most likely that he will become an “ata”, i.e., “father”. So, again we see the images of the Altaic word “ata” in another Quechua word meaning “father”.

2g) It seems that during the long development process of the languages of Native Peoples of Americas, some of these words may have changed positions. In other words in some cases, the words used to express male kinship in one language may be used for female kinship or visa versa. For example, the native Candoshi people of Peru use the word “ataatam” for “my mother”.[27] In this case it definitely there has been a reversal in the usage of the word from the original meaning of “father’s father” as it is in the present day Turkish, to the meaning of “my mother” in Candoshi.

2h) In Aleut Language, in order to make the nominative dual of the noun, the suffix “kik” is added to the apocopated nominative of singular of nouns.[5] For example, In the Aleut language, “adaq” is father and “ada” is its apocopated form. Thus for “two fathers”, the composite word “adakik” is used. In Turkish, “two fathers” would be expressed by the expression “iki ata” or “ikki ata” where the word “iki” or “ikki” represents the number two, i.e., the “dual” state. In these examples, not only the word for “father is the same but also the word representing the “duality” is the same in both languages. Hence, it appears that the Altaic word “iki” or “ikki” and the Aleutian suffix word “kik” have a common background.

3. Structural Similarities of Altaic Languages and Some of the Native Languages of Americas

3a) Structurally, the Altaic languages such as Turkish and some of the native languages of Americas resemble to each other very closely as agglutinating languages. For example, J. R. Andrews describes the Aztec language Nahuatl by saying that “sentence word” is the basic structure of the Nahuatl language.[29] By “sentence word” is meant a word that contains within itself all the nuclear constituents necessary for a complete sentence. Turkish, similar to Nahuatl, is one such language. Additionally, they follow the vowel harmony rule, although it seems to be more so in Turkish than the native languages in Americas. Both the Nahuatle and Turkish are such languages. Such similar infrastructure of languages that develop by peoples who are separated from each other in time and space can not be attributed to total random processes that shape independent languages. I feel that such languages having similar sentence formation must have had a common history some time in the distant past.

3b) In Altaic languages the gender for the third person singular and plural is not indicated. For example, in Turkish, only one word, i.e., “O” as the personal pronoun for third person singular corresponds “he/she/it” in English. The referred gender of the subject is understood from the context of the sentence. It is known that considerable number of the languages in the Americas, the genderless word “O”, or “U” or “NO” is used to indicate “he/she/it”. For example, the Cree language in Canada use “O”, the Quiche and Achi languages in Guatemala use “U”. The Micmacs of Eastern Canada use “O-” as prefix for “his/her/its” such as “Oochul” for “his father”, and “Ookwijul” for “his mother”.[34] The Turkish word “O” and the “O” used in this examples of the some native languages of Americas seems to be related to each other, again indicating the presence of a common background in the distant past.

3c) The general title given to Mayan priests was “ahkin” or “akin” meaning “he of the sun”.[34] In this word, the first part “ah” or “a” is reminiscent of the Altaic personal pronoun “O” for the third person singular and the second part “kin” is the same as the Altaic word “kï¿½n” for sun. Again one is surprised to find so complete a resemblance between these words that such a resemblance cannot be attributed to random linguistic development. Such close resemblance must be indications of a linguistic and cultural kinship between these languages coming from a common historical background in the distant past.

3d) J. R. Andrews describes the formation of one kind of adverbial adjunct of manner in Nahuatl as follows: “One type of derived adverbial of manner is formed from a preterit theme of a verb combined with the suffix ‘-ca’. Such words are translationally equivalent to English adverbs ending in ‘-ly'”.[29, p. 30] This formation of adverbs by use of the suffix “-ca” in Nahuatl has exact correspondence in Turkish. In Turkish, the suffix “-ca” or “-ce” is used, following the vowel harmony rule of Turkish, in the same way to form adverbs of the same kind.

Few examples are as follows: In Nahuatl (N): chicahua -> chicahuaca, Turkish (T): saglam -> saglamca, English (E): strong -> strongly; N: chipahua -> chipahuaca, T: temiz -> temizce, E: clean -> cleanly; N: ihciuh -> ihciuhca, T: ï¿½abuk -> ï¿½abukca, E: quick -> quickly; N: ichta -> ichtaca, T: gizli -> gizlice, E: secret -> secretly; N: cualan -> cualanca, T: kIzgIn -> kIzgInca, E: angry -> angrily.

In Turkish, the personal pronoun for third person singular is not represented with a suffix or prefix in verb conjugations, as is the case in “gelir, geliyor, or geldi, gelmi$”, etc. A similar grammatical rule as this one is also used in a similar way in the languages of some of the Native Peoples of Americas. The Nahuatl, i.e., the Aztec language, the Aleutian, the Eskimo and Cree languages may be sited as examples.

4. Some Examples for Probable Cultural Kinship

4a) Altaic military and Inca administrative systems were based on decimal system. In Inca administrative system, the administration was based on household units of 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000 10000 and 40000.[35] Each unit had an official assigned to be in charge of the unit. The official in charge of one of four-quarters of the Inca empire was called “Apu-Cuna” or “Hatun Apu-Cuna”. At the top of the administrative pyramid was the emperor called “Sapa Inca”. In this organisation, the following aspects may be noted:

The first is that the system was decimal system like the Turkish military system which has always been based on units of 10, 50, 100, 1000 and 10000 soldiers and/or horse-mounted cavalry. The names of the officials were “onbashi, ellibashi, yuzbashi, binbashi and tumenbegi” respectively. It seems that decimal system of numbering was known to both of these communities which had no contact with each other in the known history.

Secondly, the decimal system was applied to organise the community and/or the military in manageable groups. Could this be the result of a random process of social development or was there an historically known knowledge common to both people? It is quite likely that the decimal system of numbering and its application to social organisations of peoples may have been known to the ancestors of the Altaic peoples as early as 10000 or more years ago. It is up to the scholars of different fields of science to work and discover the truth related to this striking correspondence in the culture of two well separated groups of peoples.

Thirdly, we also observe the presence of the Altaic word “apa” in the names of the Inca supreme administrators. Is this also the result of a random process? Additionally, the Inca (Quechua) word “Hatun” means “great, big” and is added as adjective to the names of Inca leaders to describe their greatness. Similarly in Turkish, the words “Hatun” and “Katun” are used as the title given to the wife of “Great Hakan”, i.e., the empress (or the first lady, i.e., whatever may be one’s preference) of the Turkish people. In present day Turkish, the word “kadin” is a changed form of “katun” or “hatun”. In fact in present day Turkish culture, it is not unusual to hear among elderly married couples, man calling his wife as “hatun”. It is also interesting to note that one of the highest ridges of the contemporary Altai mountains in Central Asia is known by the Turkic name “Katun”,[36] towering more than 4000 meters. Probably we will never know whether the name of this lofty mountain had any thing to do with word “Hatun” or “Katun” of Turkish language or the word “Katun” of Inca language.

4b) Altaic words “Otuken”, Mongolian word “Utigin” and Chorti word “Uteq’uin”. The archaic Turkish word “OtUken” is frequently mentioned as the name of a “divine or sacred place” in Turkish epic writings of “Kul Tigin”, “Bilge Kagan” and “Tonyukuk” and also in Kutatgu Bilig.[37] In the Altaic language of Mongolian, the word “Utigin” is also the name given to a “god of certain place”. On the other hand, in the Mayan language of Chorti in Guatemala, the word “Uteq’uin” means “heaven”. The last part of this word, i.e., “q’uin” means “sun” in Chorti. Similarly, the “-ken” in the Turkish word “Otuken” and “-gin” in the Mongolian word “Utigin” may be taken as versions of “kun” or “gun” meaning “sun”. It should be remembered that Altaic regions in Asia were the places where Shamanism were practised very widely. In Altaic shamanism “Sun” and “sky” worshipping is quite dominant. Turkish “Gok Tengri” is the “god sky”. In view of these observations, Turkish “Otuken”, Mongolian word “Utigin” and Chorti word “Uteq’uin” seem to have something in common. That is they are all related to “sun” and a sacred place such as “heaven” and a “place where god “dwells. Turkish and Mongolian are related to each other because they are both Altaic languages and their speakers have interacted with each other throughout the history. The respective words could have been borrowed from one another. But there was no way that these Altaic words could have influenced the formation of the word “Uteq’uin” in Chorti or vice versa unless all these words have historically something in common with each other.

5. Conclusion

Ancient Central Asiatic peoples, among them the ancestors of Turks, are known to have migrated from their homelands in steps of Central Asia and Siberia to east, west, north and south. It is also known that the Native peoples of Americas have migrated from Asia to their new homelands in the Americas thousands of years ago. However, in the known history, the ancestors of Turks and the ancestors of Native Peoples of Americas are not known to have made contact with each other. Yet in spite of this fact, it is surprising to see that Turkish, as a member of the Altaic languages, should have common living words with some of the native languages of Americas. The presence of these words in these languages can not be attributed to random and independent development of these languages in two widely separated continents. I believe their presence is a definite indication of the existence of linguistic and cultural kinship between the ancestors of Turks and the other Altaic peoples and the ancestors of some of the Native Peoples of Americas that they had while they were living in the steps of Central Asia and Siberia before they were separated some 10 000 or more years ago. It may be that some readers may find this conclusion as hasty. But I am confident that further studies by scholars will establish the validity of my view.

This study is a small first attempt, in its own way, that uses the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” to trace the ancestors of Altaic peoples among the Native peoples of the Americas. After this study, I have become a believer that these Altaic words are not only very effective tracers of the movements of ancient Altaic peoples, but also are among the oldest living words in human languages. Their wide spread use in native languages of Americas as well as in Altaic languages in Asia is a testimony to this observation.

Notes

1. A. Vahid Moran, Turkce-Ingilizce Sozluk (A Turkish-English Dictionary) (Istanbul: Turkish Ministry of Public Instruction, 1945).

2. Sir Gerard Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972).

3. Gunnar Jarring, An Eastern Turki-English Dialect Dictionary (n.p., 1964).

4. Arthur Thibert, O.M.I., English-Eskimo, Eskimo-English Dictionary (Ottawa: Canadian Research Centre for Anthropology, Saint Paul University, 1972).

5. Richard Henry Geoghegan, The Aleut Language, ed. Fredericka I. Martin (United States Department of Interior, 1944).

6. Edwin James, Account of an Expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, vol.2, (1823).

7. Durbing Feeling, Cherokee-English Dictionary.

8. George F. Aubin, A Proto-Algonquian Dictionary (Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1975).

9. Ann Anderson, Plains Cree Dictionary in the Y dialect (Edminton, 1971).

10. Albert D. DeBlois and Alphonse Metallie, English-Micmac Lexicon (Ottawa: National Museum of Man Mercuri Series, 1983).

11. Marvin K. Mayers, Languages of Guatemala (The Hague: Mouton, 1966).

12. Edna Nunez de Rodas, Directora de Insttuto de Antropologia e Historia de Guatemala, private communication in 13 August 1985.

13. Jesse O. Sawyer, English-Wappo Dictionary (Carleton University Library No.: P25.C25, vo. 43).

14. Catherine A. Callaghan, Lake Miwok Dictionary (Carleton University Library No.: P25.C25, vo. 39).

15. George Gibbs, Alphabetical Vocabularies of the Challan and Lumni Languages, Shea’s Library of American Linguistics, vol. XI, (New York: AMS Press, 1863; Cramoisy Press, 1863).

16. George Gibbs, Alphabetical Vocabulary of Chinook Language (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Ross & Haines, n.d.).

17. Washington Matthews, Grammar and Dictionary of the Language of the Hidatsa (New York: Cramoisy Press, 1873).

18. H. Jakop Seiler and Kojiro Hioki, Cahuilla Dictionary (Morongo Indian Reservation, Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press, 1979).

19. R. R. Bishop Baraga, A Dictionary of Otchipwe Language (1878; reprint, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Ross & Haines, 1966).

20. G. L. Piggott and A. Grafstein, An Ojibwa Lexicon, (Ottawa: National Museum of Man Mercuri Series, 1983).

21. Rev. F. Felipe Arroyo De La Cuesta, A Vocabulary or Phrase Book of the Mutsun Language of Alta California, Shea’s Library of American Linguistics, vol.VIII, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Ross & Haines, n.d.).

22. Mauricio Swadesh, Ma. Cristina Alvarez, and Juan R. Bastarrachea, Diccionario De Elementos Del Maya Yucateco Colonial (Mexico, 1970).

23. Dean Saxton, Lucille Saxton and Susie Enos, English-Papago/ Pima Dictionary (Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1983).

24. Berard Haile, A Stem Vocabulary of the Navaho Language (Arizona: St. Michaels Press, 1951).

25. J. O. Dorsey and J. R. Swanton, Dictionary of the Bloxi and Ufo Languages (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1912).

26. John Asher Dunn, A Practical Dictionary of the Coast Tsimshian Language (Carleton University Library No.: PM831 Z5D8).

27. Benjamine F. Olson, (ed.), Studies in Peruvian Indian Languages: I (Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma, n.d.).

28. Mildred L. Larsen, Emic Classes Which Manifest the Obligatory Tagmemes in Major Independent Clause Types of Aguaruna (Jivaro) (first article in note 27).

29. J. Richard Andrews, Introduction to Classical Nahuatl, The Aztec Language (Austin: University of Texas Press, n.d.).

30. Arthur J. O. Anderson, Rules of Aztec Language Classical Nahuatl Grammar (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1973).

31. J. F. H. Adelaar, Tarma Quechua Grammar, Texts, Dictionary (The Peter De Ridder Press, 1977).

32. John Gilmary Shea, French-Onandaga Dictionary From a Manuscript of the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cramoisy Press, n.d.).

33. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974, vol. 9, p. 260.

34. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974, vol. 13, p. 719-722.

35. Philip Ainsworth Means, Ancient Civilizations of the Andes (New York: Gordian Press, 1964).

36. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974, vol. 1, p. 640.

37. Abdulkadir Inan, “Yusuf Has Hacib ve Eseri Kutatgu Bilig Uzerine Notlar”, Turk Kulturu, sayi 98, Aralik 1970, p. 114-115.

[This paper is revised from Polat Kaya, “Search For a Probable Linguistic and Cultural Kinship Between the Turkish People of Asia and the Native Peoples of Americas”, Belleten, Cilt: L, Sayi 198, Aralik 1986, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, Ankara. Also catalogued in Canadiana, Canada’s National Bibliography with the same title as above under Comparative Linguistics, 497, P. Kaya, C87-7257-9 MRDS Pt. 1]

Source: ireland.iol.ie/~afifi/Articles/turkic.ht

May 25, 2026February 20, 2021 by Brandon Heinzelmann

Born in Evanston, Illinois, Bagby was educated at Oberlin College, Ohio, and the Schola Cantorum in Basel, Bagby founded the ensemble Sequentia with Barbara Thornton in 1977. This group takes an innovative approach to medieval repertoires, especially with respect to their treatment of mode: they rely on the harmonic qualities of their voices to guide them through the different modes. Sequentia has released many fine recordings, most of them on Deutsche Harmonia Mundi. During the 1980s and 1990s, the group specialized in the music of Hildegard of Bingen; many of their most famous recordings are from this period. The group has also performed music written in the 12th century from the musical centers Santiago de Compostela, Aquitaine, and Notre Dame.

Benjamin Bagby’s work as a composer also contributes to his recreations of the ancient epics, such as Beowulf, the Icelandic Edda and German music from the 10th and 11th centuries on their recent recording Lost Songs of a Rhineland Harper. His version of Beowulf, which he has been touring around the world since the 1990s, is available on DVD (from a show in Copenhagen); his performance on May 9, 2003 at the International Congress on Medieval Studies is documented and discussed in, and was an impetus for, the 2012 anthology Beowulf at Kalamazoo.^[1]

He gave presentations internationally including at the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools.^[when?]^[2]

Bagby (widowed from his longtime collaborator Barbara Thornton) married Croatian chant scholar Katarina Livljanić.^[

0:00

Nothing found!