atul.seth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 1.Ancient languages were based on a complex
> underlying logic that is unknown and quite
> different from modern languages which are
> artificial assignment of words to
> objects/phenomena.

Yes. In modern language a word like "tree" really represents the concept of a tree. The closest it ever comes to representing a real "tree" would be in a sentence uttered to a skier; "watch out for the tree". When used in a sentence like "he can't see the forest for the trees" it is all just concepts that are represented. One's family "tree" is unknown and ephemeral. When we use the term it might mean any type of tree in any stage of developement.

> 2.They had a finite set of unique words

Yes. It might be easier to understand though if it's thought of as three distinct sets of unique words. Most things had three words which were scientific, colloquial, or vulgar. They also sometimes used descriptive phrases to apply to a thing and these were often that thing's "name" and part of the scientific spectra of vocabulary. Names were important because you couldn't make statements like "pigs have snouts" so each animal had to be named. One of the names of pigs was "that which has a snout".

> 3.Each word had a specific meaning

Yes!

> 4.There was a special logical relationship between
> the word and its meaning almost as if the word and
> the
> meaning are the same.

Exactly. Even the heiroglyph for it would be unique and descriptive.

> I believe and you might agree that there is a lot
> still to understand about the ancient languages
> and more questions which need answers.

I've hardly begin to scratch the surface of this thing. I've gone off in dozens of different directions chasing down implications of the concept that ancient man utilized a complex science as language and that it all collapsed because it outgrew the ability to use it. This science was a powerful tool in many ways and I believe it might be adaptable to our use. We can't begin to use it due to the staggering complexity but it might be programmable.

I don't understand the grammar. I'm merely reading translations of the writing and these translations have been "cleaned up" to make them "understandable" to us. All I can do is develop a "dictionary" by solving words through context and gain some insight into what the author was actually thinking. A little of it I feel I understand reasonably well but there are still short segments which are nearly opaque.

> We need to
> also consider the alphabet size dimension and how
> it affects word meaning & vocabulary size.I feel
> this is an important issue.

Yes, this will prove complex on several levels.