THE *ARMENIAN CONSTRUCTED SYLLABIC SPEECH CAME BEFORE THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES IN BABYLON.

 

We are all of noble blood. We are all Armenian.

Migrations and population mixtures characterize human prehistory on all continents. The ramifications of pathologizing socially constructed (racial or ancestral) categories to which millions of human beings belong or were historically forced to. How to avoid conflated ancestry with race. A search for the understanding and mastery of cultural, political, and biological meanings of human groups.

A legend recorded in the seventh-century Irish work Auraicept na n-Éces claims that Fénius Farsaid visited Shinar after the confusion of tongues, and he and his scholars studied the various languages for ten years, taking the best features of each to create in Bérla tóbaide ("the selected language"), which he named Goídelc—the Irish language. This appears to be the first mention of the concept of a constructed language in literature.
I believe this recorded legend best explains how 4500 ago Ancient scholars created the Armenian language motivated by the desire for sovereignty they revised their mother tongue and constructed a new planned syllabic language with a unique phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, which they consciously and purposefully crafted into a work of fiction (EXODUS FROM BABYLON) when they migrated out of Sumeria to reestablish their families in the highlands of lake Van with a new social structure designed to intervene, influence and control the existing rural communities by giving them their founding Myth in the standardize rule-based codified story which probably was a middle ground between the existing naïve and the future more explicit Armenian preliterate language. This must have been in the year 2942 BCE a new constructed syllabic language based on first principals.
I would offer that 'The Natural Semantic Metalanguage' (NSM) theory which attempts to reduce the semantics of all lexicons down to a restricted set of semantic, primitives or primes will help us understand the semantics of the primitive, prime PIE syllabic Armenian.
Primes are universal in that they have the same translation in every language, and they are primitive in that they cannot be defined using other words.
Primes are ordered together to form explications, which are descriptions of semantic representations consisting solely of primes. I believe that semantic primes or primitives are concepts that are fairly universal, I mean that they can be translated literally into any known IE language and retain their semantic representation, and primitives, they seem to be simple linguistic concepts and are unable to be defined using simpler terms for they are abstract syllabic sounds without any foundation.Thus it is not surprising that all alphabet based languages today possess a common abstract syllabic core of semantic primes as well as a similar syntax since there is overwhelming evidence that all humans today descended from a common syllabic speech-enabled ancestor.
Semantic primes represent universally meaningful concepts, thus the meaningful words, messages, or statements, require  abstracted meaningful concept primes to have combined in a way that they themselves now convey meaning. Such meaningful combinations, in their simplest form as words then sentences, constitute the syntax of contemporary languages. 

I hope the evidence I provide below with the primitive Armenian syllabic prime, will show how all PIE languages have come to use the same set of semantic primes.

In the tree model of historical linguistics, a proto-language is a postulated ancestral language from which a number of attested languages are believed to have descended by evolution, forming a language family. Proto-languages are usually unattested, or partially attested at best. They are reconstructed by way of the comparative method.
In the family tree metaphor, a proto-language can be called a mother language. Occasionally, the German term Ursprache (from Ur- "primordial, original", and Sprache "language", pronounced [ˈuːɐ̯ʃpʁaːxə]) is used instead. It is also sometimes called the common or primitive form of a language (e.g. Common Germanic, Primitive Norse).
In the strict sense, a proto-language is the most recent common ancestor of a language family, immediately before the family started to diverge into the attested daughter languages. It is therefore equivalent with the ancestral language or parental language of a language family. Moreover, a group of languages (such as a dialect cluster) which are not considered separate languages (for whichever reasons) may also be described as descending from a unitary proto-language. 

Proto-Armenian, as the ancestor of only one living language, has no clear definition of the term. It is generally held to include a variety of ancestral stages of Armenian between Proto-Indo-European and the earliest attestations of Classical Armenian. I am not sure why it is a strict rule among scholars a language like Armenian should have existed in a documented form for it to qualify as a proto-language for it surly is. That said, today "Proto-Armenian" is a term that has become common in the field.

It is clear that Armenian is an Indo-European language, but its development is opaque. Also Armenian is said to belong to the satem group of Indo-European languages, the best example is Proto-Indo-Iranian. Since Armenian is the only known language of its branch of the Indo-European languages, the comparative method cannot be used to reconstruct its earlier stages. Instead, a combination of internal and external reconstruction, by reconstructions of Proto-Indo-European and other branches, has allowed linguists to piece together the earlier history of Armenian. Since Armenian as a Proto-language is unattested, and it cannot be reconstructed by way of the comparative method then the combination of internal and external reconstruction methods will have to be formalized and the linguists that are piecing together the origin of Armenian recognized if we are going beyond the statement "It is clear that Armenian is an Indo-European language, but its development is opaque." for there is a good chance that Proto-Armenian is at root Proto-Arian from which both Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indo-European branch out. I know that is an outrages thing to posit but hopefully the next paragraph will at least help you swallow and follow the facts that support the proposition.

Keeping in the front of our mind the recent ancient DNA research has led to renewed suggestions of a Caucasian homeland for a 'pre-proto-Indo-European'. The fact that Armenian has many layers of loanwords and shows traces of long language contact with Anatolian languages such as Luwian and Hittite, Hattic, Hurro-Urartian languages, Semitic languages such as Akkadian and Aramaic, and Iranian languages such as Persian, Parthian and influenced to a lesser extent by Greek and Arabic does not mean that those who came into contact with Armenian did not borrow stories ideas and words from the Armenians. What originally prevented Armenian from being immediately recognized as an Indo-European branch in its own right, and assumed to be simply a very divergent Iranian language were the Proto-Armenian sounds which had not changed are varied, they seemed eccentricand, in many were uncertain, until that is Heinrich Hübschmann established its independent character in 1874.

The development of voicing contrasts in Armenian is notable in being quite similar to that seen in Germanic, a fact that was significant in the formation of Glottalic Theory. The Armenian Consonant Shift has often been compared to the famous Grimm's Law in Germanic, because in both cases, Proto-Indo-European voiceless stops became voiceless aspirates and the voiced stops became voiceless, and the voiced aspirates became voiced stops. Be that as it may what is most relevant is that Armenian shares the vocalization of word initial laryngeals before consonants with Greek and Phrygian. Proto-Indo-European *h₂nḗr ("man", "force") renders Greek anḗr, Armenian ayr from a Proto-Armenian *aynr and Phrygian anar ("man"), which may be compared to Latin Nero and neriōsus ("strict"), Albanian njeri, Persian nar, Sanskrit nara, and Welsh nerth.


The origin of the Proto-Armenian language is still subject to scholarly debate, but I side with those that go along with the Armenian hypothesis which postulates that the Armenian language as an in situ development of a 3rd millennium BC Proto-Indo-European language. 'In-situ' refers to any development that emanates and occurs within the site. It also reflects the same concepts of adaptability, but within a geographical constraint. The term is widely used in physics, astronomy, geography, economics, medicine, economics etc.

The Armenian hypothesis, also known as the Near Eastern model, is a theory of the Proto-Indo-European homeland, initially proposed by linguists Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov in the early 1980s, which suggests that the Proto-Indo-European language was spoken during the 5th–4th millennia BC in "eastern Anatolia, the southern Caucasus, and northern Mesopotamia".

According to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, the Indo-European languages derive from a language originally spoken in the wide area of Armenian Highlands, the southern Caucasus, and northern Mesopotamia. The Anatolian languages, including Hittite, split off before 4000 BCE, and migrated into Anatolia at around 2000 BCE. Around 4000 BCE, the proto-Indo-European community split into Greek-Armenian-Indo-Iranians, Celto-Italo-Tocharians, and Balto-Slavo-Germanics. At around 3000–2500 BCE, Greek moved to the west, while the Indo-Aryans, the Celto-Italo-Tocharians and the Balto-Slavo-Germanics moved east, and then northwards along the eastern slope of the Caspian Sea. The Tocharians split from the Italo-Celtics before 2000 BCE and moved further east, while the Italo-Celtics and the Balto-Slavo-Germanics turned west again towards the northern slopes of the Black Sea. From there, they expanded further into Europe between around 2000 and 1000 BCE. The phonological peculiarities of the consonants proposed in the glottalic theory mentioned above, would be best preserved in Armenian and the Germanic languages. Proto-Greek would be practically equivalent to Mycenaean Greek from the 17th century BC and would closely associate Greek migration to Greece with the Indo-Aryan migration to the Indian subcontinent at about the same time (the Indo-European expansion at the transition to the Late Bronze Age, including the possibility of Indo-European Kassites).
Why is Armenian root syllable /ar/ overlooked. Let us start with the German term Ursprache (from Ur- "primordial, original", and Sprache "language".  Ursprache is also called the common or primitive form of any primitive or proto language (e.g. Primitive Norse).

A syllable is a unit of organization for a sequence of speech sounds typically made up of a syllable nucleus (most often a vowel) with optional initial and final margins (typically, consonants). Syllables are often considered the phonological "building blocks" of words. Syllabic writing began several hundred years before the first letters. The earliest recorded syllables are on tablets written around 2800 BC in the Sumerian city of Ur. This shift from pictograms to syllables has been called "the most important advance in the history of writing" to this I would add "the most important advance in the history of speech"

A word that consists of a single syllable (like Armenian Ar) is called a monosyllable (and is said to be monosyllabic). Similar terms include disyllable (and disyllabic; also bisyllable and bisyllabic) for a word of two syllables; trisyllable (and trisyllabic) for a word of three syllables; and polysyllable (and polysyllabic), which may refer either to a word of more than three syllables or to any word of more than one syllable.
Syllabification is the separation of a word into syllables, whether spoken or written. In most languages, the actually spoken syllables are the basis of syllabification in writing too. Due to the very weak correspondence between sounds and letters in the spelling of modern English, for example, written syllabification in English has to be based mostly on etymological i.e. morphological instead of phonetic principles. English written syllables therefore do not correspond to the actually spoken syllables of the living language. However with Armenian whether written or spoken, syllables follow phonetic principals.According to R.Tokhmakhyan in Armenian two main types of syllables are distinguished: open (with its four subtypes) and closed (with its twelve subtypes), 1) open (CV) 20 closed (VC)

Tokhmakhyan in his monograph “The Accentuation of Modern Armenian”, - singles out the following subtypes of open and closed syllables: Subtypes of open syllables: a) Syllables formed by means of one vowel, e.g. օղի, առու, ուղի [4, 33]. In English the personal pronoun I is formed by one vowel, namely the diphthong [ai]. b) CV syllable type. When one or more consonants are adjacent in the middle of a word, in case of syllable division the next syllable is formed by means of a consonant and a vowel while the preceding consonant or consonants remain in the first syllable, e.g. եղ-բայր, ճեղք-վածք, միջ-անցք-ներ [4, 33]. This syllable type is also widely used in English, e.g. me [mi:], digest [dai'dჳest], biology [bai'olədჳi].

c) The availability of CCV syllable type was denied by many outstanding Armenian linguists. Nowadays, it is widely used in Modern Armenian and is observed both in true Armenian words and in borrowings, e.g. թյուր, ձյուն, գյուտ, սյուժե, սյուիտ, ժյուրի [4, 33-34]. This syllable type is widely used in English, e.g. spy [spai], try [trai], tree [tri:]. d) CCCV syllable type Subtypes of closed syllables: a) VC syllable type occurs mainly in initial positions (pre-positions) and in monosyllabic words, e.g. աղ, օր, անտառ, աղմուկ, and is rarely used in the middle of words at the junction of two vowels, e.g. մի-ակ, ձի-ուկ, քա-ոս, թի-ակ [4, 34]. b) VCC syllable type occurs in all positions and in monosyllabic words. Its mid position in most cases is conditioned by the phenomenon of compounding and is rarely used in root words, e.g. ազգ, ինձ, արտ, մի-անձ-նյա, է-ինք [4, 35]. c) VCCC syllable type d) CVC syllable type is one of the most frequently used syllable types in English (e.g. top [top], pan [pæn], man [mæn], and in Armenian (it is the second to VC syllable type). The widespread character of mentioned syllable types (CVC and VC) is conditioned by the mid-position syllable-division rule, according to which, in case of consonant-accumulations, the next syllable is always formed by means of one consonant + the vowel following it, e.g. ա-շուն, զան-գակ, եր-դում [4, 35]. e) CVCC syllable type, e.g. վարձ, գործ-վածք, հարց [4, 35]. It is also observed in English, e.g. hand [hænd], bond [bond]. f) CVCCC syllable type g) CCVC syllable type has a limited usage in Armenian. Many forms of it appeared after the simplification of Old Armenian diphthongs եա or իա, e.g. հյութ, բյուր, նյութ [4, 36]. h) CCVCC syllable type i) CCVCCC syllable type j) CCCVC syllable type k) CCCVCC syllable type l) CCCVCCC syllable type [4, 36-37]. Consequently, taking into consideration the initial position of consonant accumulations in Armenian, Tokhmakhyan presents the general pattern of the Armenian syllable in the following shape: ///C/+/C/+/C/V/C/+/C/+/C/// which partly fills up the gap in the syllable pattern suggested by G. Jahukyan [4, 37]. The most frequently used syllable types in Modern Eastern Armenian and in Modern English are the CV and CVC types. In Armenian we have words that are composed of “one and a half” (schwa) syllable. In such cases in written Armenian the schwa vowel ը is omitted though it isuttered in spoken Armenian, e.g. սկիզբ – ըս-կիզբ, սկսել – ըս-կը-սել, տխմար – տըխ-մար, տտիպ – տը-տիպ [5, 33]. Many English words may be pronounced with a neutral vowel [ə] before the final sonorant, in this case the latter becomes non-syllabic. Compare: arrival – [ə'raivļ] and [ə'raivəl]; division – [di'viჳņ] and [di'viჳən]; bottom – ['botm] and ['botəm]; special – ['spe∫ļ] and ['spe∫əl] [6, 87]. Anyway, there are many words in English which are spelt with a vowel letter before the final sonorant and yet have only one pronunciation – that is with a syllabic final sonorant, e.g. capital – ['kæpitļ], garden – ['ga:dņ], pardon – ['pa:dņ], As no rules can be formulated as to which words spelt with a vowel letter before the final sonorant may be pronounced with a neutral vowel sound in the last syllable, it is recommended for the learners of English to make the final sonorant always syllabic in such words [6, 87]. The beginning of a word has its peculiar phonemic structure in Armenian. It does not have two or more consonants with the exception of several types of double consonant clusters. Each consonant is followed by the vowel ը, thus forming a schwa, e.g. տնկել, տրտունջ, կշտամբել [2, 119]. In contrast to Armenian, accumulations of consonants both in initial and final positions is frequently observed in English, e.g. structure – ['strλkt∫ə], struggle – ['strλgļ], assumption – [ə'sλmp∫n]. There is a strict distinction between the written and spoken forms of Armenian. In case of word-division the schwa vowel ը is written,- moreover, it is written in the last syllable of the precedent line and in the first syllable of the following line, e.g. սըրտումս / սրտու-մըս, բըզ-կըտել/բըզկը-տել. Foreign learners very often guided by the rules existing in written Armenian, consider our language rich in words overwhelmed with consonants, e.g. Մկրտիչ(accumulation of 4 consonants), քրթմնջալ (accumulation of 6 consonants), հմտորեն (accumulation of 3 consonants) and many other words with two or three consonants in word-initial position. These words are always uttered with the schwa vowel ը, which is usually pronounced after the first consonant. In case of the availability of four consonants, ը is also pronounced after the second and the third consonants [2, 119-120].The origin of speech is a topic that has faced consistent problems in explaining how human language evolved. The topic differs from the origin of language because language is not necessarily spoken; it could equally be written or signed. Language is a fundamental aspect of human communication and plays a vital role in our everyday lives. It allows us to convey thoughts, emotions, and ideas, enabling us to connect with others and shape our collective reality.

Many attempts have been made to explain scientifically how speech emerged in our species, although to date no theory has generated agreement.

The word "language" derives from the Latin lingua, "tongue". Phoneticians agree that the tongue is the most important speech articulator, followed by the lips.

A natural language can be viewed as a particular way of using the tongue to express thought. Many scholars associate the evolutionary emergence of speech with profound social, sexual, political and cultural developments. One view is that primate-style dominance needed to give way to a more cooperative and egalitarian lifestyle of the kind characteristic of modern hunter-gatherers.According to Michael Tomasello, the key cognitive capacity distinguishing Homo sapiens from our ape cousins is "intersubjectivity". This entails turn-taking and role-reversal: your partner strives to read your mind, you simultaneously strive to read theirs, and each of you makes a conscious effort to assist the other in the process. The outcome is that each partner forms a representation of the other's mind in which their own can be discerned by reflection.

Tomasello argues that this kind of bi-directional cognition is central to the very possibility of linguistic communication. In the scenario favoured by David Erdal and Andrew Whiten, primate-style dominance provoked equal and opposite coalitionary resistance – counter-dominance. During the course of human evolution, increasingly effective strategies of rebellion against dominant individuals led to a compromise. Whilst abandoning any attempt to dominate others, group members vigorously asserted their personal autonomy, maintaining their alliances to make potentially dominant individuals think twice. Within increasingly stable coalitions, according to this perspective, status began to be earned in novel ways, social rewards accruing to those perceived by their peers as especially cooperative and self-aware.Whilst counter-dominance, according to this evolutionary narrative, culminates in a stalemate, anthropologist Christopher Boehm extends the logic a step further. Counter-dominance tips over at last into full-scale "reverse dominance". The rebellious coalition decisively overthrows the figure of the primate alpha-male. No dominance is allowed except that of the self-organised community as a whole.

As a result of this social and political change, hunter-gatherer egalitarianism is established. As children grow up, they are motivated by those around them to reverse perspective, engaging with other minds on the model of their own. Selection pressures favor such psychological innovations as imaginative empathy, joint attention, moral judgment, project-oriented collaboration and the ability to evaluate one's own behaviour from the standpoint of others. Underpinning enhanced probabilities of cultural transmission and cumulative cultural evolution, these developments culminated in the establishment of hunter-gatherer-style egalitarianism in association with intersubjective communication and cognition. It is in this social and political context that language evolves.The Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure founded linguistics as a twentieth-century professional discipline. Saussure regarded a language as a rule-governed system, much like a board game such as chess. In order to understand chess, he insisted, we must ignore such external factors as the weather prevailing during a particular session or the material composition of this or that piece. The game is autonomous with respect to its material embodiments. In the same way, when studying language, it's essential to focus on its internal structure as a social institution. External matters (e.g., the shape of the human tongue) are irrelevant from this standpoint. Saussure regarded 'speaking' (parole) as individual, ancillary and more or less accidental by comparison with "language" (langue), which he viewed as collective, systematic and essential.

Which brings us to Saussure who showed little interest in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Nor did he consider it worthwhile to speculate about how language might originally have evolved. Saussure's assumptions in fact cast doubt on the validity of narrowly conceived origins scenarios. His structuralist paradigm, when accepted in its original form, turns scholarly attention to a wider problem: how our species acquired the capacity to establish social institutions in general.

Language is social, "Brute facts", in the terminology of speech act philosopher John Searle, are facts which are true anyway, regardless of human belief. For example, a person might not believe in gravity; however, if the person jumped over a cliff, they would still fall. Natural science is the study of facts of this kind. "Institutional facts" are fictions accorded factual status within human social institutions. Monetary and commercial facts are fictions of this kind. The complexities of today's global currency system are facts only whilst society believes in them: suspend the belief and the facts correspondingly dissolve. Yet although institutional facts rest on human belief, that doesn't make them mere distortions or hallucinations. Take a person's confidence that two five-pound banknotes are worth ten pounds. That is not merely a subjective belief: it's an objective, indisputable fact. But now imagine a collapse of public confidence in the currency system. Suddenly, the realities in a person's pocket dissolve.

Symbolic culture, or nonmaterial culture, is the ability to learn and transmit behavioral traditions from one generation to the next by the invention of things that exist entirely in the symbolic realm. Symbolic culture is usually conceived[by whom?] as the cultural realm constructed and inhabited uniquely by Homo sapiens and is differentiated from ordinary culture, which many other animals possess. Symbolic culture is studied by archaeologists,[1][2][3] social anthropologists[4][5] and sociologists.[6] From 2018, however, some evidence of a Neanderthal origin of symbolic culture emerged.[7][8] Symbolic culture contrasts with material culture, which involves physical entities of cultural value and includes the usage, consumption, creation, and trade of objects.

Examples of symbolic culture include concepts (such as good and evil), mythical inventions (such as gods and underworlds), and social constructs (such as promises and football games).[9] Symbolic culture is a domain of objective facts whose existence depends, paradoxically, on collective belief. A currency system, for example, exists only for as long as people continue to have faith in it. When confidence in monetary facts collapses, the "facts" themselves suddenly disappear. Much the same applies to citizenship, government, marriage and many other things that people in our own culture consider to be "real". The concept of symbolic culture draws from semiotics, and emphasises the way in which distinctively human culture is mediated through signs and concepts.