Water

→ In Hebrew, Water is only plural - מים - Mayim. Meaning, theres no singularity to water. Which is why the first letter of Mayim - Mem - refers to the Hebrew word Mah - "What". As in, What is it? So, Mayim, is the plural of Mah, which is to say "what is this"?

This is where it becomes interesting.

In Germanic languages, VAS is what, and VASSER is water
In Dutch group of languages, VAT is what, and VATER is Water
In Latin, QUA is what, and AQUA is water
And of course, phonetically WHAT, and WATER

It seems this Hebrew idea runs through these languages aswell.

Also, this should be solid evidence that languages are PHILOSOPHICALLY thought out. Words just dont appear at random. They reflect a peoples archetypal understanding towards that reality.

reply to post by dontreally


Interesting theory, however you're slightly off.

In German language "Was" is what and "Wasser" is water.
In Dutch, "wat" is what and "water" is water.
"Vat" means fat in dutch, and vasser would mean something like "grabber", but no such word exists in dutch.
And in latin "quod" is "what" and "Aqua" water.

So well .. I guess it's a vague theory, but interesting none the less !

What I find intersting is that there is no pronoun that denotes both sexes. We have to say either him or her, he or she, or he/she, him/her. It seems very likely to me that a word that means both has never been construed for a reason. It suggects to me that we are not meant to refer to both sexes as though they are the same. What I mean is it is wrong to address a woman as though she were a man and it is equally as wrong to address a man as though he were a woman. Yet it is done all the time as though there is nothing that distinguishes one from the other apart from the physical aspect. But if that were true the missing pronoun wouldn't be missing.

What is it? So, Mayim, is the plural of Mah, which is to say "what is this"?

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but you may be confusing the ideas.

"What is it?" This is what the ancient Hebrews supposedly declared upon finding Manna (man hu) in the desert for the first time.

How does this relate to water?

JR

PS: Language similarities BTW are usually thought to be due to the notion that there was once a proto-language, such as Indo-European.

in Arabic "maa" mean "water" and "ma" mean "what"

reply to post by JR MacBeth

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but you may be confusing the ideas. "What is it?" This is what the ancient Hebrews supposedly declared upon finding Manna (man hu) in the desert for the first time. How does this relate to water?

Well, fortunately for me, i read Hebrew.. The more common word for what is Mah.

PS: Language similarities BTW are usually thought to be due to the notion that there was once a proto-language, such as Indo-European.

Indo-european is a made up language.

Why not see Hebrew as the source for this phenomena? You have this in Latin, Arabic (thankyou to the poster beneath this post for point that out) German, Dutch and English, and probably other languages aswell.

Because you are completely and totally ignorant of metaphysics, you cant appreciate the significance of this phenomena.

Water is associated with the world of "chaos" in all schools of mystical thought. Whats meant by "chaos" is a state of undifferentiation. For instance, when someone loses his mind, it is just this lack of differentiation and order - pure choas - within his mind.

Water corresponds to undifferentiated reality. This "water" is a state of potential. Infact, in Kabbalah, the sephira, or sphere, which corresponds to this level of reality is Hokmah - wisdom - which can be rearranged to form the statement "Koach Mah" - the "power of what". "What" is the kernal or base idea behind the concept of undifferentiated potentiality. Water is the crystalization of the power of what when it flows through time. In consciousness, "Water" is the source of inspiration that flows into the mind. In the physical world - since the physical is merely a reflection of the spiritual - water is the basic element that sustains the body. Thus, in ALL these language, the word for what is the root - In latin, Quid, becomes Aqua. In German, Was becomes WassER, In English and Dutch, Wat becomes WatER, In Hebrew, Mah becomes Becomes MaYIM, In Arabic, Ma becomes Ma'A. Another element, or dimension, is added to the basic root of "what" to create the word "water".

Coincidence??? Whatever you say. Forget everything youre currently learning from me. Im actually explaining to you a simple fact of all languages, but it appears you refuse to believe it, even despite this blatantly obvious repitition.

Also, only European and Indian languages are regarded by linguists to derive from the hypothetical "indo-european".... Why then does this also appear in semitic languages? The oldest indo-european language, Sanskrit, does not manifest this phenomena. The oldest language we can trace this back to is Hebrew.

reply to post by dontreally


You're going against the mainstream on your idea of Hebrew somehow being the oldest language.

Yes, "Indo-European" could be considered "made up", but actually it's a widely accepted linguistic theory that posits a proto-language, and it could be called a lot of things. The point is, the theory seems to help explain many language similarities.

So, you read Hebrew at this point? Congratulations. How could it be that you seem to be confusing "manna" (that "bread" that came down in the desert), with "water"?

"What is it?" Since you point out my ignorance, perhaps you can clear up how this question that became a noun, has anything to do with water, other than the first letter perhaps?

Or are you saying that "What is it?" has nothing to do with Manna? If so, why did you mention it in the OP, without even hinting at it's actual meaning?

As I said, I'm no Hebrew scholar, but perhaps you better keep at your lessons.

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth

You're going against the mainstream on your idea of Hebrew somehow being the oldest language.

I never said anything about Hebrew being the oldest language (although i do believe it to be the most essential language) in my post. I said this phenomena of the root of the word what becoming water must come from Hebrew, since its our oldest example of it.

Also, you said earlier that "Man hu", what is this? This merely proves my point. Manna was a substance regarded by the sages as the "dew" of heaven. Mystically, this refers to that simple, and undifferentiated awareness of the unity of all. Water is a perfect symbolism for this. "Not by bread alone does a man live", but by Man, which is derived from the word eMUNah - faith. It is the simple connection of the ego with the undifferentiated self, uniting microcosm and macrocosm, that water accomplishes. Hence why when it rains it comes from the skies, or "heaven". From above, this power comes below. Up above we just see a mass of clouds ie; undifferentiated potential. But when it rains, it gives of the potential, undifferentiated power of What, to the earth. And the Earth brings forth fruit, or, expresses differentiation.

Yes, "Indo-European" could be considered "made up", but actually it's a widely accepted linguistic theory that posits a proto-language, and it could be called a lot of things. The point is, the theory seems to help explain many language similarities.

In the indo-european language groups. It does not account for semitic languages.

In anycase, there might be a tendancy towards the "aryans" - which is what this indo-european language group refers to, In academia, then towards the Semites - represented most by the Jews, and Hebrew.

This is why if you even go to wikipedia, and type in the word "abracadabra", the famed word with magical power, you will get either an explanation of the word, or a history of it, without providing an etymology(it changes often) or you will get the INCORRECT etymology of Aramaic. ANY competent reader of Aramaic knows that this word in the Aramaic language is Abra HA dabra. the article "heh", means "like". In Hebrew conversely, Caf, means "like". Thus, AbraCaDabra is HEBREW for "i create like i speak" or "I create that which i speak", which makes an equivalence between the act of creation with the act of speech.

There is an ANTI-biblical bias in academia. This is a basic, rudimentary knowledge that any honest person will tell you.

So, you read Hebrew at this point? Congratulations. How could it be that you seem to be confusing "manna" (that "bread" that came down in the desert), with "water"?

What do you mean "at this point", Ive been reading Hebrew for a good 5 years. As long as i have been posting here my knowledge of Herbrew has been fine. Not Rabbinical fine, or at a scholarly level, but i can read the Hebrew bible without difficulty. That includes, Psalms, Proverbs, ie; the books with the more difficult Hebrew. Not the first chapters of genesis, which a 2nd greater can read.

How could it be that you seem to be confusing "manna" (that "bread" that came down in the desert), with "water"?

What are you talking about? I think youre confused. I never even mentioned manna in my earlier post. "Man Hu" is a VARIATION of the much more commonly used "Mah Hu". So Man in that verse is translated as Mah.

Also Lechem more generally means "food", as it appears in many other contexts where the implied meaning is food, and not bread. This again is basic knowledge that any reader of Hebrew would know.

"What is it?" Since you point out my ignorance, perhaps you can clear up how this question that became a noun, has anything to do with water, other than the first letter perhaps?

You have to appreciate basic ideas first.

Every consonant in the Hebrew language (all languages are based on this principle) is considered an "element" of reality. The Mem sound is considered the most primal of all sounds. For instance, in Buddhism one utters "OMMMMMM" when trying to enter a state of inner calm and silence. The sound of emphasis being the M.

Thus, the "M", nowwithstanding the heh in the word Mah, is the core element of "what". The yod mem in Mayim are the elements which bring forth the concept of water.

This is the same in Arabic, where mem is again the major sound. With another guttoral sound what "ma" becomes "ma'a" water.

In the other languages, W replaces M. Now, i know youre going to consider me childish for stating that the shape of the M and W are REFLECTIONS of each other, and they both infact reflect the shape of a wave of water.

This again is deliberate. In latin, there is a greater divergement from the sound, but the sore idea remains. The sound "Q" in "Quid", is what remains in the word "aQua". Again the Q being the consonant of emphais.

As I said, I'm no Hebrew scholar, but perhaps you better keep at your lessons.

I dont get what you have to be so insulting for. I would respond as i do if you respected my knoweldge of Hebrew above your own. If youre not a scholar, and you clearly have an amateurish interest in the subject, why criticize me?? You dont even know enough - and i clearly see it everytime - yet you continue to badger and annoy.

I, who absolutely love languages and have been studying them for year, I can definitely see the connection. There is many words like this that people don't know about, even in UNrelated languages. Nice find.