Demystifying the etymology of sums and unions (Part II)
L M Leteane | Friday May 27, 2016 10:10
Sumer in Mesopotamia (now mostly Iraq) was the home of the earliest known civilization, and the now-extinct Sumerian language is widely considered to be the earliest written language. In my research, I also managed to weld together the fascinating but cohesive history of how this amazing association came about.
To effectively illustrate both these aspects of my research, let us briefly revisit the ancient ‘proto-term’ lomega (‘join together’), which definitely betrays vestiges of having once been a common global term. Its Indo-European equivalent is embedded in the noun nomego. I purposely revisit this term because we last week we were yet to explain the l to n sound-shift from the verb (the ‘doing word’) lomega to the noun nomego, which noun would otherwise be lomego. I had noted that the best way I will do this is by providing another example of this shift in order to show that it is not uncommon. But before getting to the other example, I will firstly relate numego to the Latin term numero: the root of ‘number’ in English. Numero is also a French term, and the way they presently pronounce the ‘r’ is exactly as we pronounce the ‘g’ in numego. But how does ‘joining together’ relate to ‘numbers’? Numbers are an itemised string, or joining together, of individual figures or quantities!
Secondly, we can now use our knowledge that lomega means ‘join together’ to help clear the mystery around the famous ‘Olmecs’: the Negroid-looking people officially credited with having founded the first great civilization spanning both Mesoamerica (mainly Mexico) and South America. The most cohesive story about them comes from non-fiction ‘alternative history’ sources, to which basic understanding I have added much value through my own research. It seems that these African people accompanied the famous Egyptian ‘Wisdom-god’ Thoth (Tehuti) when he relocated from Egypt to South America in 3110 BC, after an altercation with Marduk, his elder brother. There, he began the famous Mayan calendar that he backdated to commence from the momentous year of 3113 BC.
Indeed, formal (conventional) history notes that the year 3113 BC was when a ‘mortal’ named ‘Menes’ or ‘Mina; (also called ‘Namer’ or ‘Nemes’) allegedly overthrew the ‘gods’ in Egypt and established the first ‘historical’ dynasty. ‘Mythology’ clarifies that he achieved this through his boss-queen Anat, who was actually the goddess Inanna…easily identifiable by her bare-breast signature or brand. Thoth’s celebration of 3113 BC was simply because Marduk had bullied him in Egypt after that ‘god’ was banished from his own region of Babylonia after his role in the Tower of Babel affair noted in Genesis 11, so Thoth had secretly helped Inanna take over all Egypt instead. For 350 years there had been a period of uncertainty in Egypt, as noted by the ancient historian Manetho.
The Olmecs were actually engineers and their name, I discern, derives from the expression o-a-lomega: ‘he puts together [structures and machinery]’ and this was the evident reason why they always depicted themselves as helmeted in the massive basalt-stone carvings of their heads that can still be seen today; it was mainly to show that they were not slaves (though it also hid their ‘wooly’ hair’). The gigantic sculptures of their heads now serve as a hard-to-ignore stamp of their ancient presence there…as if they knew that one day it will be denied – as some still attempt to do today.
Coming to the other example of the l to n shift, this is to be found in the verb lopa (‘desire, request with passion’). Its noun is nupa. The word nupa in Setswana relates to ‘lust’, but in English it has acquired the rather more sedate meaning of ‘a joining in marriage’, as in ‘nuptial’. Indeed, in Indo-European, the ‘joining’ here (the act of marriage) evidently relates to both the symbolic union of two people and to the sex act itself – which in most cultures consummates the marriage.
It is now time to look at ‘join’ itself. It stems from the Latin term junge(re): ‘(to) yoke’. Syntax-wise, there are two important things to note. Firstly, the base word is jung(e) and the Latin suffix ‘ere’ is akin to the Setswana suffix ega (‘to be)’as in bulega (to be open). Secondly, the main difference between Setswana and Nguni languages is that Setswana hardens most words that comprise ‘ung’, or ‘ing’: e.g. ‘Kalanga’ is Kalaka, lunga is loka. Similarly, the Latin yunge (the j is often pronounced as y in many European languages) hardens to ‘yoke’ in English. I have, in other articles, related ‘yoke’ – a bar or pole for joining together two or more beasts of burden – with Setswana, by showing that their common proto-term is actually i-oka (‘that which attracts or binds together’). Incidentally, in Setswana, nyoka has the meaning ‘having sex with’ i.e. ‘unite/join with’ and the Sanskrit term ‘yoga’ literally means: ‘that which unites one [with God]’).
What is the etymology of ‘union’ itself? It evidently stemmed from the term uno, which means ‘one, single’. (We looked the etymology of uno a couple of articles ago.) ‘Joining’ will sometimes involve covering both pieces with something like a cloth (as in bandaging a broken limb), or in gluing them together. Interestingly, the Old English term happe (‘cover’) relates to the Setswana term hapa. Similarly, the base term koma (as embedded in kokomala) or kgoma (as in kgomarela) both suggest ‘binding together’, and we can easily relate koma to ‘gum’ – an adhesive. (Note: many regional dialects of England still pronounce it as ‘goom’, which is evidently nearer to the ancient pronunciation!)
Comments to leteanelm@gmail.com Digging Tswana Roots (Vol. 235)