Italy is definitely a feudal language country. The language would definitely have feudal elements. The country would definitely show either signs of deep regimentation, or a splintered structure. Obviously, it is the latter.

Either the Monarchy should be very strong, or the feudal Lords would be very strong, and in a position to compete with the Monarchy, and leave it at tenterhooks. There is no Monarchy now in Italy. It is a presumed republic. In the feudal language ambience, this literally means, not the rule of the people, but by persons in various levels of social, and bureaucratic positions.

When the Italians came to the United States of America, they brought in the Mafia*. There is no doubt that the internal strength and stability of the Mafia structure was singularly aided by the feudal language. Any non-Italian being in any level of the Mafia structure would have acted as a virus for the feudal structure. He or she would be a disturbing influence to the general direction of movement of command, order, obligation, and also of discipline.

To elaborate on the character of the Italian Mafia, the Costa Nostra*: The high level of command & obedience inside the Mafia is a real clue that shows that there was something in the communication i.e., language that ensured it as a matter of spontaneous indoctrination. It is only a natural extension of my contention that in the Mafia and any other similar organisation, where unquestioned obedience and sincerity fixed by hierarchy can be exacted, the relations are maintained by a feudalistic language. The feudalism in the Italian Mafia, which had existed in America, is only an extension of the realities in their Mother Country.

However one thing must be remembered: A feudalistic language can ensure discipline only in a situation where the hierarchy of leadership is clearly understood. If there is confusion in this aspect, the result would be anarchy. To make it clear: feudalistic language ensures discipline in a country only if the people are homogenous. The result could be opposite if the people are heterogeneous; and the proper gradation among the people is not clear or is confusing.

Another factor to note is that if a Italian woman was only a good housewife in Italy, and not a personage with individuality as a common Englishwoman, they would be having a different mental demeanour when compared to a native-English woman. The causative factor for this may be traced to phrases, wordings, and structure of sentences used in connection with women, in Italian.

In the context of Italian woman, one interesting thing should be mentioned here, in passing. Rajiv Gandhi, who was the Prime Minister of India, had a homely Italian wife. When he died, the halo that pursues feudal personages in Indian languages shifted on to her. People here in India do identify white skin with the British. Any white skinned is mistakenly taken to belong to the race that ruled the peninsular region of South Asia, for about 100-150 years. Even though the Indian government has spent immense amount of money on teaching disparaging themes about the English, there is still a certain amount of grudging belief in their capability. Now, the funny thing is that people expect or did expect something of the same level as of the British from Mrs. Gandhi. And naturally, they are yet to be satiated in this regard. I intend no disparagement of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. Here I have only touched upon the Indian social psychology.

Another extension of my contention would be that in a feudal language environment, the person becomes a ‘brutish savage’, who would have a strange mental software program that is entirely self centred, opportunistic, suspicious, paranoiac, and entirely aiming to socially strangle anybody who is enfeebled enough to be under his control. It is a natural reaction of the insecurity that the hierarchy in the language induces in the individuals who live under its software codes. I can develop this contention at a later stage. Now I can only declare it and leave it at that.

NOTE added on the 21st of May 2016: Please read: Codes of reality! What is language?

When we compare the Political Treatise, Prince written by Machievalle, in the medieval times, we would find that it has a political ideology of deception by the ruling person. The whole ideology is, based on suspecting the motives of the general people by the ruler and the need to exhibit a deceptive face to them.

I don’t intend to discuss that ideology here, but what I want to say is that, more or less, the same, practical political guiding theories have been written in an ancient Sanskrit work, much before Machievellie’s ‘Prince’, by Chanakya*, the work being called Arthasasthra*. This work is not a mere political guide. For it does go into the many aspects of administration. Its ideology is also on the basis of, more or less, the unreliable loyalty and inconsistencies of persons. That everybody is equivalent to a savage in his principles. I find it interesting that there is similarity in the themes of these works, one from the northern parts of the South Asian peninsular region, and the other, Italian. Could there be some level of similarity in the social structure, of Italian, and the specific language of the people of that time? I think was Magadhi, Ardhamagadi, Prakrit or even Sanskrit. All these languages might be dead as of now. However, it is quite possible that they all were very feudal in their internal codes.