I do not have any information on language science or the study of languages. Online I see it mentioned that Irish is an indo-European language.

What are indo-European languages? I do not know. However from a very cursory reading online, I find that many languages of Europe and Asia and elsewhere are Indo-European languages. From this route it is found that European languages as well as languages of South Asia are of same origin. I think the basic argument is that all of them have words of similar sound and meaning. I do not know much about this argument.

However it does seem like some kind of academic nonsense. It might be true that in the ultimate count everything connected to all humans and even animals had a common origin or single point from where it got all disbursed. How many millions of years back would that be, I do not know.

Commonality of words is not a very great point for finding a common origin in a language. Some twenty years back the languages of the subcontinent had enough and more of English words. Words like bulb, light, road, open, close, drive, back, front, point, focus, shoes, slippers, dark &c. This commonness does not signify any common origin of language. It simply signifies that at some time in the past there was some interaction between the English and the people of South Asia.

As of now, in the last twenty years or so, with the advent of computers and digital technology, the academicians in the local area here have been busy pulling out words from Sanskrit and deforming them or reforming them to create new words in their native languages. This has become so rampant that many of these languages have sort Classical language status for their language. For, it is quite easily seen that the words in their languages were there in the Sanskrit language times. Some clowns have even gone to the extent of claiming that their language was a sister language of Sanskrit, more or less on par with Sanskrit.

It is seen mentioned in close association with the description of Indo-European languages that English came from Germany. Or rather the native-English speakers came from Germany. I am not sure if such a ‘Germany’ nation was there in existence when the native-English speakers (or could it be Anglo-Saxons) came to England from the mentioned location.

However, this contention actually leads to another nonsensical theme in modern historical studies. And that is the concept of nation state. In most places in the world, the concept of a nation-state, I think, came from the historical experience of the English colonial rule. This concept of a nation-state was a superimposition on the varied local populaces of many such places. During the times of the English colonial rule, there was no problem with this political concept. For, most populations were quite happy to be associated with the native-English rule.

However, the moment the native-English rule vanished from the scene, this rascal political idea became the bane of the land. Solitary populations were brought under the control of huge political structures, which had taken-over the mantle of political power in the vacuum created by departure of the English rule.

In Pakistan, India, Burma, Bangladesh, Ceylon, Andaman & Nicobar etc. in the South Asian location, many populations simply found themselves suddenly under the political control of administrations which they could not condone or accept. In all the afore-mentioned nations literally tens of thousands died fighting against the unacceptable administrations.

Being under the native-English rule is one thing. Being under a feudal language administration run by totally an unacceptable and unconnected-by-antiquity group was a totally different proposition.

Why I mentioned so much is just to insert the idea that the pristine-English need not be part of the Continental European languages in the way it is currently understood. Since I do not know any Continental European language, I cannot say for sure where exactly the difference might be visible other than in the social designs in the language.

If the way the words are spelt is taken into account, I do not see any similarity between English and the languages of South Asia.

To the casual reader, I can explain the difference thus. In one south Asian language, there is a word : Maanikkuka. It has a slight meaning of ‘respect’.

How is this word written in the vernacular?

Maa is one letter. മാ

Ni is another letter. നി

Kku is another letter. ക്കു

Ka is another letter. ക

So if we read the letters in a continuous manner, it is like this: Maa ni kku ka. You get the full word. മാ നി ക്കു ക

Look at the English word: Cinema.

The letters are C i n e m a.

However, in the local vernacular here, the word is written thus:

Si is one letter (സി).

Ni is another letter (നി).

Ma is another (മ).

So the word can be read thus Si ni ma (സി നി മ).

I do not know the spelling style in French, German, Greek, Spanish etc. May be they are similar to the way it is done in English.

If they are similar to the way it is in English, it might simply mean that the various scripts have a common origin.

It need not mean that English and German are from the same language. For, it is seen that Hindi has been written in both Devanagari alphabets as well as Arabic alphabets, traditionally in the northern parts of the South Asian Subcontinent.

As to European and South Asian languages having similar sounding words to mean the same thing, it can only point to some location in history where the words were shared or commonly used. It need not mean that the languages do have the same point of origin. Only something like south Asian languages using English words.

A more exact commonness in the origin of the various languages should be traced to the codes of human relationships, and social design encrypted in them. For instance, all over South Asia, in almost all the language, there is the same or similar hierarchy of human beings in the language codes.

Usually there is a basic division of the words You, He, She etc. into three fundamental levels. This might point to a very solid commonness of origin of the languages. However, both Sanskrit as well as Tamil, both ancient languages do have this similar encoding.

However, in Malabari (traditional language of Malabar – now vanishing), I have seen certain very marked coding differences from the neighbouring languages. I can’t take it up here.

Now coming back to Irish, the question of how much commonness it has with English has to be checked from this perspective. In English, there is only one level of You, Your, Yours, He, His, Him, She, Her, Hers, They, Their, Theirs &c.

In feudal languages, there are different levels of them. And in some languages, even verbs such as Sit down &c. comes in more than one level of respect or degrading.

In English, there is only one Sit down. These words do not change in form depending on the social stature, official position or age of the addressed person.

Moreover, in English there is no supporting words behind anyone’s name to hold up the ‘respect’. For the concept of ‘respect’ is not there in English. If there is no such supporting word like Ji, Saar, Chettan, Annan, Akka, Chechhi &c, in the feudal languages of South Asia, it is total degradation, for a social or positional or age-wise senior &c.

In the feudal languages of the subcontinent, words like Ji, Saar, Saab, MemSaab, Chettan, Chechi, Annan, Akka, Avarkal, Adheham, Saar etc. are used as the backing wall behind the name of a ‘respected’ person.

In feudal languages, a mere name is a social disaster.

Now, in all these things, one can see the basic design-difference between English and feudal languages. Simply finding similar words do not mean anything. In fact, if any one of the above-mentioned holding-up words is simply removed from a ‘respected’ person’s name, the whole social structure he is upholding might collapse. Or he might himself collapse.

Before moving on, I can say this much also. For a feudal-language speaker to experience pristine-English is a very enchanting experience. For, suddenly he or she finds that individuals and institutions that had stood on towering heights for him or her, being suddenly brought down to his or her own level and stature.

However, as he or she becomes more and more at home in pristine-English, suddenly a feeling would come up that the emotional content, social communication as well as the ambit of imagination is plain in English. At the same time, he or she will sense that in his or her own native language, emotions, thoughts, imagination &c. can literally move into huge depths, towing heights and wide horizontal and diagonal spaces. Standing inside the secure locations of a pristine-English setting, the feeling would arise that English is dull.

In fact there is this quote from this book:

QUOTE: I remember him saying to me that, while it was considered among ''the dull English'' to be almost criminal for a man to speak of good looks, either in himself or in another man, good looks were half the battle in society. END OF QUOTE.

This dullness in English is something that many feudal language speakers dwell upon. However, if such persons are asked to move back to their own native lands where they can literally wallow in the depths and height of the social design, they would literally have a cardiac arrest or else they would go suicidal. The fact is that viewing at the heights and depths from a safe location is great and of terrific exhilaration. But then, getting stuck into any particular slot in this scenery, made immobile by the verbal codes is a terrifying experience, even to simply ponder upon.

From this information, Irish language can be compared with English and the difference seen. I do get a gut feeling that Irish is a feudal language. And as such, incompatible with pristine-English.

Why have I takes such a very lengthy detour from the general streaming of this writing?

It is simply because the moment I went through this book written by Lord Alfred Douglas, I could sense the competing stances of the different language codes working in a mutually antagonistic manner. When I mention these kinds of things here, the common native-Englishman will not understand anything at all.

However, the truth is that during the English colonial rule in the subcontinent, the native-Englishmen did see the stark satanic emotions that were running amok in the land. Even though they had no means of understanding it, there were persons who tried to caution the native people of England about how different the non-English lands were.

Even Robert Clive tried to explain this. However, he did not have the adequate understanding of what he saw and experienced. He simply said that the Subcontinent was different from anything that England could imagine. However, what met his caution over there was mostly jeering and sneers. In a mood of total exasperation, he committed suicide. He who had braved immense terrifying moments in the subcontinent simply withered away in England.

It is this idiotic stance that is now costing England everything. The land is being taken over by populations who should never have been allowed entry at all.

But then we are now speaking of Ireland. Not of South Asia. Or Asia, or Africa or Continental Europe.

Ireland had been connected to England for many centuries. I believe that Ireland remains subordinate to English, the language. If it had been the other way round, England would have turned into the Ireland of yore. Miserable and splintered.