Letter Semantics in Arabic Morphology: A Discovery About Human Languages

Letter Semantics is a discovery about how the alphabetic letters in a word relate to what that word denotes at the physical level of existence in the real world. We believe that the concepts contained in letters and letter combinations of all languages represent Universal Ideas that are apprehended by the intellect in the process of knowledge acquisition. There have been several public lectures and demonstrations of this discovery since January 1987.

In order to demonstrate the process of language acquisition on a machine, a theory of association was developed and a computer model which associates the concepts represented in a string of words in one language to the concepts contained in a string of words in another language was designed and produced by the authors as a tool for concept validation and verification.Later the software model was further-refined to take the form of an expert workstation to facilitate language research, associative information retrieval (searching for ideas), literary research, and situation analysis. We call the commercially available model READWAREŽ, in consideration of the terms HARDWARE and SOFTWARE.

We utilize it to teach us new things about our language and our world, and as a situation analysis tool in our strategic planning process. It is also used to demonstrate how an expression in one language can be associated with spots of a text in the same or a different language that relate in meaning to (and may differ in letters from) the expression; without using a dictionary, on the sole basis of Letter Semantics in words. The model is programmed in compiled BASIC for use on IBM-PC Class machines. The code is less than 1700 in length and is an associative model rather than a rule-based system. The latest demonstration took place at the ACL Exhibition during the Linguistics '87 Conference held at Stanford University. A book series on the discovery is in preparation.

Here, for the first time, we will disclose the theory of Letter Semantics and the process for addressing semantics at the level of the individual letters of words by means of the semantic matrix.

The Arabic text of the Holy Quran is the foundation of Letter Semantics. The discovery was derived from it after many years of empirically induced research, in 1985. Later, Letter Semantics was verified in thirteen (13) other languages: English, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Russian, Armenian, Turkish, Hebrew, Sunda and Indonesian. Latin and Greek were checked while examining stems of English. Hundreds to thousands of words and morphemes were analyzed for every language.

Actually, Letter Semantics is completely an issue of Arabic Morphology. It is used to analyze morphemes and letters. It is also an issue of Semantics as well as Syntax, as we will see, and it is not restricted to Arabic, although derived from Arabic.

One of the authors, Dr. Adi, is a computer scientist and while he has intimate knowledge of many languages and speaks ten languages, fluently, he is not a linguist. The other, Mr. Ewell, is neither scientist nor linguist. In fact, we believe that we had more capacity to accept empirical evidence because we did not share conventional linguistic wisdom. We have stated that the theory is an empirically induced. In addition, the authors have spent much of their time engaged in introspection, independently of each other, for more than a (combined) twenty-five years. Many of our concepts of cognition and the cognitive process were verified by means of using READWAREŽ and, Letter Semantics to describe our experience to us. It is natural for Letter Semantics to exhibit a connection to the mystical as we assert that the language we use embraces all of phenomena. Mysticism is defined as intensive and introspective analysis of our human nature, cognition, and purpose. One of us Dr. Adi is the (letter Semantic) teacher and the other is the student. Mr. Ewell accepted to become the student and later used Letter Semantics to express ideas of human nature that had been known for years but could not be expressed.

2. Language as a Natural Phenomenon:

Almost all basic scientific research techniques utilized to analyze natural phenomena were prohibited for natural language. It is our belief that this has severely constrained our understanding of our language.

Noam Chomsky (1985), who is one of the great fathers of modern computational linguistics, wonders, without reaching ultimate results, about language fundamentals, "its nature, origin, and use" and complains that "much of what is misleadingly called the semantics of natural language ... is not semantics at all, if by semantics we mean the study of the relation between language and the world... Rather, this work deals with certain postulated levels of mental representation..."; We will refer to this later as pseudosemanticism.

No one was looking for natural laws that determine characteristics and relations of the smallest word particles as far as they relate to other natural phenomena.

A few years ago Dr. Adi discovered that a certain supersymmetry was dictated by natural language structures, which he accepted without being able to draw analogies to natural systems. During his research, he found that every natural language particle was best defined within a certain natural language. Utilizing the Holy Quran and its Arabic language words and contexts as the basis of a pure natural language, he was able to gain an overall understanding of natural language structure as well as the absolute and magnificent underlying structures of natural language.

We assert that language, which has long been considered a human a development is in fact a natural phenomenon. Electricity, Radio Waves, and Magnetism are all parallel phenomena. We do not know precisely what they are, or where they come from, but we know of their properties, their characteristics, and their structure. We can predict how their elements will react in certain situations, and from this we can determine the effects of the interaction of their elements under certain conditions.

We utilize their products which are the effect of causing their elements to interact. In this same fashion, we determine the meaning of a word (compound interactions and bonds) by analyzing the structure and relationships contained in its letters (elements).

This Theory of Language Comprehension, developed by Dr. Adi has four fundamental laws, which are in summary:

The elements and relations of natural languages abstractly correspond to elements and relations (systems) of other natural phenomena at all times.
Human beings do not invent phonetic elements or their relationships and thus do not invent words, they discover them, unveil them, inspire them, etc.
Each word particle, however small it might be, denotes a cluster of concepts which expands with time flow. The applicability of any subcluster in a word is determined by the context given by the neighboring word particles (concept of micro-syntax). Spelling determines meaning, even when spelling does not coincide with pronunciation.
Clusters of concepts are related to each other and to the world by means of a four-by-seven matrix in which each letter of every alphabet has a unique location.

The first law states that there is a relationship between the natural language system and the physical system, such as particle physics, chemistry, biology, etc. This is not to say that the system of natural languages are derived from physics; this system derives from "pure" natural language, in the religious sense.

The second law defines, the role of the human being in natural language development. During the period when the laws were being tested, and the mathematical algorithms developed, words such as quark were proved to have been "discovered" rather than "invented". The prevailing scheme of discovering new words, however, is beyond analysis because the meaning visible to the first user is very partial in terms of what the sound structure denotes or will explain over time. It is an accepted principle that we learn from words by using them.

The third law changes our view of a concept as something constant, in time flow. The rules of micro-syntax reveal new concepts for macro-syntax (sentence structure). This will ultimately lead to a more satisfactory syntax system and has resulted in the capability to analyze any natural language system to the point of revealing the meanings of any language's words, without the need for a dictionary.The fourth law, the Semantic Matrix, will be explained in the following sections.

3. Language as a Source and Means of Knowledge:

We assert that the meanings which are attached to letters are closely related to the elements of the Universe and that these elements were formed before human beings came on the scene. An analogy can be drawn to atomic particles, chemical elements, and the genetic code.

3.1 Existing Research in Artificial Intelligence:

The vast amount of research into the prospects of imbuing machines with intelligence has been focused on expanding the machines logic by programming the machine to perform certain logical operations. This is due to the popular philosophical view shared by the rationalists. We agree that computers perform some logical functions. Yet we do not agree that this logic comprises human thinking as a part, but is rather itself one (and not the only) possible component of reasoning, which in turn is one aspect of human thinking.

Intelligence, we believe, is often confused with the ability to perform logical deductions from facts. This is in fact a narrow area of logic itself. We believe Intelligence is a natural process whereby "facts" are produced by apprehending Universal Ideas and transforming them into abstract knowledge by making associations and choices between them. Thus our philosophical view of intelligence is shared by the connectionists.

3.2 The focus of our Research:

From the very beginning of our program, both of us, regarded language as a natural phenomenon, a sort of key to unlocking the mysteries of knowledge. Dr. Adi's discovery of Letter Semantics along with the Company's development and use of READWAREŽ has brought us new insights into human intelligence and thinking.

Winograd and Flores (1985) suggest in their work "A New Foundation for Design", a return to the drawing boards in the area of "understanding computers and cognition". They argue there with Heidegger that we become "blind" whenever we try to observe our own cognitive processes, "because our view is limited to what, can be expressed in the terms we have adopted".

Our approach is unique in this aspect. We believe that the confusion surrounding research on natural language and cognitive processes is prolonged by the lack of a theory of "real" language semantics. Such a theory should have the power to explain the relation between human knowledge --as formulated by language-- and the real world it refers to. To do so, pseudosemanticism is to be avoided and the phenomenon of blindness must be prevented from aborting the research process. In the following discussion such problems are briefly discussed, along with the axioms that helped to cure them.

3.3 Unveiling the Jewel in the Crown of Cognition:

Our work was aimed towards deriving the missing theory by empirical inductive analysis.

Since we are found to have a restricted view whenever we observe our cognitive processes, one way to develop a better vision is to assume that knowledge stems from natural sources disconnected from us.

This was done by assuming language to be part of nature. The impact of experience on our view of language can be attenuated by this assumption if we study language as a source of new information about a real world containing language as a separate subset. The relations between language and the real world found on this basis are free from the blame of pseudosemanticism.

Axiom 1: Language is given by Nature.

Howard Rheingold (1986), in an article on Artificial Intelligence, specifically on the research into language which is conducted by the Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) states; The conclusion that researchers arrived at..." was; "The context of speech and the knowledge speakers have about one another and about their world swarm invisibly around every word." On the subject of knowledge, the Founding Director of the CSLI, John Perry says;. "Maybe all those things philosophers said about knowledge actually have some computationally redeeming value and aren't just unadulterated crap". Their research supports our Axiom.

In order to study, a natural entity, you must examine its particles. The basic particles of a word are often assumed to be the phonemes, its sound particles. Sounds have a very underdeveloped relation to the real world if they are not linked to alphabetic letters. In order to avoid the frustration already met by linguists looking for relations between sounds and meaning, letters were assumed to have been "shaped" by sounds and the following axiom is employed:

Axiom 2: The letters of alphabets are basic semantic particles of words.

Philosophical support of this axiom appears in a tenth century work by a prominent Arab Scholar, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali. In his composition, Jawahir Al-Qura'an, recently translated to English (Quasem 1977), Ghazali describes the sciences of the Arabic language and states that; "... the first of the parts of meanings with which speech is United is sound; then by being shaped the sound becomes letters; then the assemblage of letters makes the Arabic language; then the process of shaping of letters attributes to it the quality of desinential syntax... We interpret this to mean that letters have a natural, and highly developed relationship to the sounds after which they are shaped, especially in Arabic, but that the assembly of letters constitute the smallest particles of meaning.

There is also a notation paradox in that it is impossible to find proper denotations for letter-semantic primitives because every name will either contain a surplus of other letters denoting other primitives or --if the name is one letter-- it will be incomplete since it belongs to one language or a related group of languages. Because all languages contribute to semantic primitives, one letter must be assumed to name only a part of a universal primitive.

There is no solution to this notation paradox:

Axiom 3: A letter-semantic primitive cannot be denoted properly .

This does not deny existence to the meaning of a letter at all. While the theory developed, many "approximate" names were used, keeping in mind that they were not appropriate. The guiding notion was something like "what letter x denotes", kept in mind, but never written or uttered. It was more important to find the real-world phenomenon designated by alphabetic letters.

The following semi-manual research procedure, documented in (Adi, 1985) was used in order to empirically induce letter semantics:

Find all frequently used verbs in one language.

Figure out the real-world procedures corresponding to those verbs and compare related procedures.

Concentrate on the meaning contribution of single consonants, possibly using verbs having only one.

Specify the grammatical meanings of letters in word forms denoting cases, personal features and so on.

Verify every finding about meaning by using it to interpret all other verbs, grammatical features and frequently used nouns and adjectives in the languages incorporated so far. Adjust and re-verify.

Find all frequently used verbs of another language as well as its letter-related grammatical features and repeat the steps b) to e).

This procedure was applied to the following languages: Arabic, Armenian, English, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Russian, Sunda and Turkish. Thousands of computer lists were printed and manually reviewed and evaluated. Computers were used to accelerate the search in two ways:

to print out temporary interpretations using intermediate findings, and;

to search for word patterns of semantic relevance for a tested feature.

It was strongly attempted to derive all findings from common sense meanings in isolation from scientific preknowledge, whereby internal analogies were constructed between the "pure" language findings.

Finally, a complete and consistent set of rules was derived, some of which will be discussed in the following section.

Our iterative, focusing and concept seeking research procedure resembled mystical methods, which lead to analogies to mystical concepts. Because language deals with everything, these were not the only analogies found.

Mathematical primitives and primitives from physical or biological theories seemed to explain letter semantics, but they failed at the proper validation in a very strange way: Letter semantics suggested principles superior to those of natural sciences for explaining natural phenomena, without precisely defining the new superior principles. We believe that a natural-scientific development of the suggested principles will be useful. In the same way, natural language must have guided our cognitive growth.

Primitives from formal language theory, formal logic and other artificial systems were also tested and found to be too narrow and diverting from letter semantics.

The results of the empirical analysis were compiled into long manuscripts about letter semantics (Adi, 1985).

We assert that the meaning of a word can be determined by its letters and the situation in which that word is used, under the natural rules which we have discovered, according to the methods we have developed and through the matrix of relationships which we call the Semantic Matrix.

These methods can be thought of as at least similar to the subconscious process that each of us unknowingly utilize to decode the words we use to describe our circumstances and communicate with our environment. This is a process under that of natural Intelligence whereby the human imagination is used to supply the intellect with what we "imagine" to be our situation, circumstance, and environment. This process subscribes to natural laws by circumspect consideration of exigency, and is administered by the Natural Light of Reason.

We believe the cognitive process begins at the biological level where senses supply the imagination with sensory inputs. The imagination decodes these inputs and supplies the primitive Universal Ideas that each of us are capable of recognizing. The word "primitive" is used here to note the pre-existence of the Universal Ideas. These universal ideas are apprehended by the Intellect whereupon analogies are drawn and abstract knowledge becomes fact. These facts then, are submitted to Logic for deduction and conclusion.

We have discovered that these Universal Ideas can be consistently found in the alphabetic characters of all the alphabetic forms of language. Our Theory of Letter Semantics states the rules and principles for the process of apprehending these Universal Ideas.

5. Letter Semantics versus Conventional Linguistic Wisdom:

The results of our research challenge with its assumptions and findings existing conventions in linguistics and cognitive science such as the following:

The relation between a signifier, a word or a symbol and the signified real-world object is arbitrary, says, for example Saussure (1966), suggesting that only the distinctive differences between words are of significance. An "egg", for example, could have been called "horse" without any consequences for its meaning. The present work falsifies this assumption by empirical evidence that words carry sophisticated information about the real-world objects they denote, information that the first user of a name could have possessed only in part, if at all.
Language is often regarded as a product of evolution in the brain. Here, in contrast, language is seen as a naturally given resource utilized by human beings to control cognitive processes. The brain is then an instrument for language usage, not for language production.
Sounds are said to be the basic units of natural languages. Sound symbolism is a primitive branch of linguistics searching for sound meanings with very humble signs of progress. Here, letters are taken as the primary units in a semantic study based upon the belief that every letter has an individual meaning, --i.e. denotes something special in the real world-- irrespective of the sounds associated with it, albeit they are naturally related.

Connectionists also use letters as nodes in their multilevel word production schemes, but they do not study the semantics of a word composed of letters. Dell (1985), for example, tests the assumption of positive feedback in a connectionist language production model. Their results support this theory as far as they establish links between letters and the words composed of them in the environment of higher, pseudo-semantic representations. They claim no relation between letters and the world.

On the subject of sound symbolism and the arbitrariness of alphabetic forms, we can state that there is a theoretical relationship between sounds and letters.

We do not dispute the physical fact that language development in the human biological being begins first with sound, then with speech. Can one dispute that sound, even in an infant, must be decoded and must produce some sort of mental representation in order for the infant to be affected, or in an older child, to end in comprehension and/or understanding.

One can easily perceive that the ear is an instrument for hearing speech and the sounds of our environment; yet it does not transmit sounds like a radio, it interprets sound. We only imagine that we are hearing. It is a physical fact that the sounds "heard" by the ear are translated into the pit-pit-patter of the hammer striking the ear drum and this, not sound, is what is sensed by our biological faculties.

The imagination then, plays a key role; at the very least it must conjure up mental representations in the form of symbols or visions if you will, from human memory. While speech and sound are two principle components of language then," they are not the only components.

We do not have to speak or hear to be intelligent or to invoke the process of cognition. This is, the basis of our contention with conventional linguistic wisdom. We simply believe the written form of language, alphabetic symbols which can be mentally perceived, that one can envisage, is more highly developed than sounds and speech; and that written language comprises a part of language on at least an equal basis with speech and sound. Perhaps a great part of speech is human science, yet the part of speech that units with sound is natural in that speech naturally units with sound.

Additional evidence is apparent in the vast and unpredictable differences in spoken language. The popular Arabic is greatly different from the Classical Arabic as utilized in the Quran. Although pronunciation differs, the words are always written the same. Even in English, it is not acceptable to write "fish" "phit" (or Emerson's "ghit") or "enough" "enuf". Thus we believe written language is more highly developed and much more reliable than speech or sound, in essence, by virtue of adding "light" into the equation, written language sheds a great deal of the subjective emphasis as it is written, and is thus less ambiguous and more meaningful.

It is an accepted principle that we learn from words by using them. It is common practice to learn by reading and writing and those that are weak in these skills are often considered to be "less intelligent". A lack of ability to read or write is considered illiteracy and is seen as a serious national problem.

Our hopes for Letter Semantics can be extended to be seen as at least a partial solution to this problem.

The trend today is to complain about the weaknesses of our languages, to hold fast to traditional beliefs, and to shun change. In fact, when we complain about the weakness of language, we are really proclaiming our ignorance of language and our inability to comprehend the knowledge of language.

6. Knowledge, Cognition, and Intelligence:

Consider for a moment, how alike all of the Human Race is, rather than its facial differences. Our biological beings are almost exactly alike, aside from our unique individuality. We all share a common knowledge. Where did we get this common knowledge; what, exactly, is this common knowledge and where do we get it from now?

We have discovered that this knowledge, the knowledge that separates the one from confusion is the knowledge of certainty. Certainty has no place in duality. Certainty is the fact that it is either on or off, it is hot or cold, it is wet or dry, it is this side or that, it is the verification or the obliteration, it is the contraction or the expansion, the period or the moment, the beginning or the end, the cause or the effect, and by virtue of duality, it is both yet it is one.

He who possesses certainty is the controller in a situation. Control must always be restricted to a single controller in order to maintain consistency and to achieve certainty.

The quest for certainty drives our cognitive process and as a result, humans, by order of Reason, are thus bound to cause. We are constantly and continuously engaged in the pursuit of The Ultimate Certainty. By virtue of consciousness achieved through intelligence, and by virtue of the assertion or the objection, we are the verifier or the abolisher, by virtue of duality, the perceiver or the perceived, the observer or the observed. We are active when we are communicating with our environment and when our environment communicates with us; whereas our environment communicates with us via Light, Sound, Heat, Cold, Wetness, and Dryness, and we communicate mainly through our language. From this is derived the inward and the outward which are two orientations expressed in the Semantic Matrix.

Certainty has three degrees. Consider the one beholding the sun for the first time, thus, as to the sun"s existence, a person is void of doubt:

By beholding its brightness and its splendor and understanding its heat, it becomes known, verified and evident.
By considering its form, its position, and its purpose, it becomes manifest and witnessed.
By the dispersing of the eye's light in the sun's light, duality (a double way) arises in consequence of the observer and the observed, the looker on, and the looked on. Thus, in this way, the seer becomes the eye and the eye the seer.

In addition, we as humans in existence take on one of two characteristics at all times, that is we are either. active or passive. Coupled with the inward and outward orientations mentioned previously which give us a sense of direction, being active or passive correspond with contraction and expansion, immersion and dispersion, etc.

Together these four basic aspects: inward, outward, active, and passive, correspond to the supersymmetric orientations represented in the four columns of the semantic matrix. Thus each of the four columns in the Letter Semantic Matrix corresponds to a variety of possible types of orientations that expand in time flow and as we experience our realities. Each orientation has four aspects:

Static Aspect, expressing the state of the internal parts as they relate to each other and to certain features implied by its Semantic Theme.

Dynamic Aspect, denoting motion, transition, or exchange between internal parts in terms of the Semantic Theme.

Generalization, allowing reference to more than two parts in terms of orientations, and/or more than two features of the Semantic Theme as a generalization of the dual view.

Specialization, allowing the restriction interpretation to one or more parts or features.

From this knowledge some of the important principles of Letter Semantics were derived.

The meaning of every letter is dual in two aspects:

operational duality, and;

bilaterality.

Operational duality is defined as the exchangeability of an operation with the set defining it. "m" in "man", for example, denotes someone fulfilling a happening whereas "m" in "make" denotes the happening itself.

Bilaterality corresponds to the fact that everything is two sided. "A", for example, denotes subjective assertion and objective negation with a switch of focus between the two sides of the denoted entity or the two views of the observer.

The smallest particle in meaning is two-sided. There is no single-sided meaning. Although we think of the third person as one, in language, the third person is defined as the negation of the first two persons. An example of this is the use of "h" in "he", "she" and "they", whereby "h" is a two-sided negation.

By focusing on one side of the meaning and ignoring the other one (i.e. by being subjective or objective), an illusion of one-sidedness is created that is used in practical situations. "M" in "mean" denotes both subjectiveness and negation of the others, whereas"m" in "me" seems to denote only subjectiveness.

Letter semantics allow a subtle transition from duality to multitude under certain circumstances. Two-sidedness should be understood as a special case of many-sidedness. Operational duality can be extended to something which might be called "polypragmatism" allowing many implementations of one semantic primitive like the one which corresponds to the letter "q".The above dualities should not be mixed with the term of polarity in the concept of supersymmetry.

Thus even though letters and words have no apparent method to usage, an intricate and consistent universal theme dictates their use in terms of our sub-conscious mental perception and our ultimate verification of certainly.

7. Knowledge is Acquired by Assessing the Physical
Relationships in the Descriptive Language of our World:

We have stated letters have a specific structure and a specified relation to the physical world at every level of existence. This relation can be computed through the letter's location in the Semantic Matrix of Letters. The matrix, presented as Figure 1 below, is represented here with the letters of only the Arabic and English language.

Letter Semantics seems to be a good instrument for expressing the mystical experience and other fundamental ideas. Further, READWAREŽ, has been applied, by us, to; selected religious verses, philosophical works, mystical writings, poetry, passages from texts on quantum mechanics, and countless (written) passages into the knowledge of the ancients. Words with mystical meaning, such as; "light", "curl", "mole", "life", and many others, are used in our examples; yet the mysteries of ecstatic vision cannot be comprehended by words alone, and it is not expected that one will comprehend such meanings without some introspection.

A letter's belonging to a column signifies the internal orientation of things and events. This presents the fact that every thing has two sides (at least) 1 and 2, each bearing a certain sign or Orientation such as left and right, positive and negative (+ and -), and so on.

The row of the Semantic Matrix to which a letter belongs corresponds to a Semantic Theme, i.e. a class of things and events in the real world. The first row corresponds to the most elementary fact of existence, being there, and is thus an expression of the Orientation in the columns of the matrix.

As stated earlier, because letters have individual (primitive) meaning, we are unable to exactly say what a single letter means. Anything we say would have too many letters expressing different issues. Therefore, all the names and concepts we are discussing here must be seen as circumscriptions. This accounts in part for the thousands of years humanity spent wondering about their world and the language which they use to describe it, without consciously realizing that the letters we utter have meanings of their own.

Nevertheless, the matrix location of a letter identifies its belonging to a Semantic Theme and its Dual Orientation. With this fact alone, it is possible to define the meaning of any word in terms of the Rows and Columns of its letters.

Letter Semantics suggests that the words we use contain very sophisticated information about the things and events denoted by those words. This information is often interpreted by human minds even without being related to any context or real situation to the extent that we are motivated to think and do things just because a word is active in our mind. Linking words to things and events is the basis for exact understanding, research, and discovery.

We have found that the information in the words expands in that every new experience adds new ways of linking words to things, i.e. adds to the interpretation of the symbolic relations in the letter combinations. Also, linking words to other words, with and without reference to real things and events, extends that information in terms of making associations and establishing relations among words and letters.

The relationship among the letters of natural languages adhere to natural laws and exhibit a natural consistency in every tested situation. It is these relationships which are the basis of our association methodologies and are instrumental to a complete understanding of language and how it drives our cognitive processes.

8. Semantic Interfaces:

The Structure of a word is given by the Column Coordinates of its letters in the Semantic Matrix. Relators (letters that link parts of a word to one another) also work mainly through their Column Coordinates (types of dual orientation).

Because every letter also delivers a Semantic Theme (its Row coordinate), we can compare the structure of a word to logical relations between propositions in a logical argument, whereby the logical view is very poor compared to word structures.

The Spectrum of a word is defined by the Semantic Theme that correspond to its letters, whereby only context and situation may set limits to the richness of possible interpretations of the things and events that naturally correspond to that Spectrum. This Spectrum then, is responsible for the seeming disparity of language in terms of morphology, metaphoric usage, and ambiguity, and; is partly responsible for homonyms, synonyms, and other grammatical occurrences of seeming inconsistency.

Structures and Spectra contain relations between two or more elements (corresponding to one or more letters). In the following discussion, we will examine two-element relations which we shall call Elementary Semantic Interfaces.

There are three types of Elementary Semantic Interfaces:

Orientations which define the internal interface inside a single letter, i.e. the orientation of its column. This is similar to the spin or internal momentum of an atomic particle.
Angles which result from the coupling of two adjacent orientations in a word. This is similar to studying the particles as they relate to each other because of spin, electromagnetic polarities and other forces.
Bonds reflecting the pairing of Semantic Themes of two letters in a word, similar to chemical bonds between two or more elements being classified to acids, bases, and so on.

Orientation should not be confused with the Row of Relations as a Semantic Theme. There is a relation "inside" every letter, expressing its dual orientation. The letters of the Relation Row have in addition to this, a meaning restricted to relations in the real world. They also work as Relators in words.

Relation letters also denote sets consisting of particles bound to each other according to their respective internal type of orientation, such as "b" in "ball", "baby", "bay" and "bubble" denoting a compact set (parts under positive convergence) and "R" in "Row" denoting parts following a subjective orientation. Examine the use of the "r" in the multiple meanings of the word "race".

Physically, everything is constantly moving; "Sta-", the stem for "Static" has several letter-semantic meanings, all having to do with a subjective stream "S" and a dual-negative relation "T". We call things static if they are too slow for us to consciously perceive or to detect their motion, or if they repeat a motion at a certain speed.

The consonants contain the most information. The vowel or vocal following a consonant, can mean a focus on certain types or aspects of orientations expressed by that consonant.

In the following discussion, we will examine the structure of letters through their types of orientations and their aspects for each column of the Letter Semantic Matrix. We have added examples for clarity.

8.1 Common Orientations: (+1 +2)

We will start by explaining the dual-positive types because they seem to be simpler than others. We found four types of Common Orientations in the many words of the languages we examined. The term "positive" is used to distinguish from those of the dual-negative orientation.Thus far, the following types of Common Orientations were found:

POSITIVE CONVERGENCE: Expresses being together, happening in the same time and /or approaching each other simultaneously. The Arabic "wa" (=and) is a good example. "Tawaa" (=fold) and "laqiya" (=meet) also clarify this sense. The English letter "c" in "con-" exemplifies this type. The use of the letter "v" in "view" and "obvious" and the "d" in "due" are also good examples.

POSITIVE DIVERGENCE: Expresses togetherness as a threshold of going apart in the next moment. This is found in words meaning static or dynamic separation: "Aw" (=or) and "qi" =(protect!). The English "w" in "wall" and the "d" in "die" also express this sense. Consider the use of the "b" in "obliterate". The "c" in cut as well as the "q" in "quit" also exhibit this orientation.

POSITIVE DUALITY: Is expressed by "bi" (=by, because, (tit) for (tat)), "baab" (=door), "d" in "dayn" (=debt). Note the use of the "w" in the word "two" such as a pair, the "d" in the term "second", as well as the "c" in "couple". This is also the union of a) and b), i.e. a positive exchange or a positive relation in general as in the "d" in "duet", "dual", and "double". Multitude is a generalization of duality. The Arabic suffix "w" expresses this for both nouns and verbs. The english letter "w" in "we" is a good example. Another example is the use of the letter "g" in the phrase "a gross exaggeration".

POSITIVE FACULTY: Means the fact of belonging to the corresponding Semantic Theme either by conduct (dynamically) or by nature (statically), such as the vocal "-u" that expresses both the nominative case and the present tense in Arabic. The "T" in "Tayyib" (=good), and "q" in "quwwah" (=force), "qadr" (=power, destiny, and quantity) and "Haqq" (=lawfulness, truth). Consider the use of the English letter "d" in "do", "day", and "dye". Each of these examples expresses the faculty of taking place, i.e. happening in a certain range of space and time or just occupying space by being material. The "q" in "quantity" and "quantum" and the "g" in "get" both exhibit positive faculty.

8.2. Non-Common Orientations: (-1 -2)

These orientations are expressed by letters of the Column with non-common orientation (dual negative). Negativity means being unusual, special, unwanted, unwilling, inactive, passive, absent, diminishing, vanishing, or just negative.

NEGATIVE CONVERGENCE: In order to make a "Tie" (letter T), we pull things apart while forcing them to stay together. In Arabic, "ta" is used to swear by God (and so bind oneself). This demonstrates Negative Convergence which expresses being together in an unusual, special or unwanted way, happening in the same special or unusual place or time, or unusually or passively approaching each other. Consider the use of the "x" in the term "juxtapose". Consider also the Arabic "laadha" (=approach for protection), "idhn" (=permission), and "Akh" (=brother). Note al so the English "h" in "heed", the "x" in "fix", and the "t" in "to".

NEGATIVE DIVERGENCE: The Arabic "h" in "hawaa" (=fall) and "kh" in "khalaa" (=past and gone) as well as the "English "h" in "hate" express going apart in a very negative way, whereas the "H" in "High" is barely "negative" in conventional terms; it rather expresses having a distance from others in a special way. The English use of the "ex" in "except" is another application, along with the "t" in "tear".

NEGATIVE DUALITY: In the Arabic the prefix "t" as in tafaa0ala is a nice example as one obvious application of Negative Duality (being subject to an exchange). In English, the third person "h" is just "none of the two". Examples are the use of the "h" in "he", "she", "They", and "Them". General duality as in "Harmonize" is also a common application together with "its generalization to a multitude. Consider the Arabic "-aat" (feminine plural) and "-ah" (irregular plural).

NEGATIVE FACULTY: This means belonging to a Semantic Theme in a special way or the absence (negation) of a faculty expressed by that Semantic Theme. The Arabic prefix for attention (haa-) and the infix "t" as in ifta0ala, "-ah" and "-t" (suffixes for the feminine), "-dhaa" (=this, that), the "Z" in "Zill" (=shadow), and "khawaa" (=to be empty) are good examples. The English suffix "-ty" denotes the fact of being something special, an enti-ty, a facul-ty, etc. At the end of many words, "T" denotes the fact of being something special, an entity for itself as in "exit", "at", nit" and "lot". At the beginning of "take", "t" expresses breaking the ties (relations) expressed by that Theme but also establishing a new forceful (unwanted) relation. The "T" in "true" expresses negative faculty.

8.3. Inward Orientations: (+1 -2)

While the common and non-common orientations can be called in terms of having one type of sign for internal "pure" in terms of having one type of sign for internal parts, the next two groups of orientations are "mixed" in that internal parts have opposite signs:

SUBJECTIVITY: Of an orientation means focusing positively on its first part while ignoring the rest, such as the Arabic usage of "A" in "Ana" (=I), "Akmala" (=make complete, "A" as an assignment prefix), and "m" in "maa" (=what), "umm" (=mother, origin) and "man" (=who). In the English, "m" in "me", "a" in "auto-", and "s" in "self". Consider the "k" in "look" and "like" (a subjective mapping). The same concept is used to subjectively assert or stress something like as" in "so?". The "a" in "ah!" and the "r" in "that's right!" are additional examples.

ANTI-OBJECTIVITY: Is closely related to Subjectivity and means focusing on negating the second part (object) of an orientation while ignoring the first part, such as the Arabic "A" in AOgama (-remove unclarity from, "A-" as a negation prefix, "alif izaalah"). Similarly in the English "a" in "atypical", or the "k" in "kill". A combination of a) and b) is often the case such as the interrogative "A", "Am" and "Aw" in Arabic. One aspect of this orientation type is SUBJECTING a certain object (-2) TO something, like "a" in "assign". Another interpretation of "assigning" "A-" and "a-", as well as both instrumental and passive "m-". General Negation (while ignoring objectivity) is a frequent application of this orientation type, such as the Arabic "m" in "maa" (=not) and the English "S" in "sick" and "silly".

RECURSION: Means going back to the first part which could imply repeating something, such as "raAaa" (=see, think about), "Oaada" (=return or repeat), and "m" in "amlaa" (=dictate, delay). It is also seen in the English prefix "re-". This can be regarded as a dynamic aspect of a), but is rather broader. The "k" in "keep" is an example. This orientation is also reflected in the use of the letter "m" in "mimic", and the "a" in "anew".

SUBJECTIVE FACULTY: Means using the subjective aspect as if it would be the whole thing. This is expressed in the "m-" prefixes and in the Arabic "ka" (=like, as), "s" in "saara" (=walk, general stream), and the "H" in "Hayaah" (=life). English examples include the "m" in "mass", "matter" and "time". Note also the usage of the suffixes "-ium", "-um", and "em". The contrast to a) becomes clear by looking at examples such as the use of the "a" in "all" expressing "all that there is". The use of the letter "s" in the term "stuffed" as well as the "k" in "king" and in "kettle" exhibit this orientation.

8.4. Outward Orientations: (-l +2)

This group of orientation types is almost symmetrical to the preceding group.

OBJECTIVITY: Of an orientation means focusing its second part while ignoring the first, such as the conjunction "fa" (=then) and "li" (=to, for), also "yaa" (=calling: O..). In the English, the "y" in "you" and the "p" in "per" are good examples. The same concept is used to objectively Assert or Stress something like "y" in "yea", and the "j" in "just". In the Arabic, this sense can be noted in the suffix "-n" in its different forms (nuun altawkiid, tanween, etc.).

ANTI-SUBJECTIVITY: Is closely related to Objectivity and means focusing on negating the first part (subject) of a orientation while ignoring the second part, such as Arabic "l" in "la" (=no), "D" in "Dalla" (=go astray), the "sh" in "sharr" (=evil) and (shiyah" (=fault in appearance), the "z" in "zaala" (=vanish), and the "n" in "wanaa" (=fail). In the English, note the use of the "l" in "low" and the "f" in "fail". A combination of a) and b) is often the case. One aspect of this orientation type is SUBJECTING a certain subject (-l) TO something, like the Arabic "n" in the prefix "infa0la", "naAaa (=become far) and in the English word "enable". General Negation (while ignoring subjectivity) is a frequent application of this orientation type, such as (Arabic) negating "in" and the English letter "n" in "none", "un-" "no", "beneath", etc.

PROCURSION: Means going forward to the second part, such as in the Arabic "fii" (=in), and "lan" (=will not) . In the English, note the use of the "p" in the "Pro-" part of "-cursion", and in the English word "pour". Other examples include the "n" "native", "nation" and "near" and "next" as well as in "in". This can be regarded as a dynamic aspect of a) but is rather broader. As a counterpart to Recursion, it can also mean negative repetition, such as the letter "l" denotes in the word "less" and in the (Arabic) word "laduud" (insisting enemy).

OBJECTIVE FACULTY: Means using the objective aspect as if it would be the whole thing, such as the use of the suffix "-n" in Arabic and elsewhere to quantify or qualify something as in (Arabic) "-aan", (English) "-tion", "-nd", and "nt". Note also the letter "f" in "full". The use of the "n" in the idiom "nitty-gritty" is another good example. Consider the use of the "p" in "proof" and "prayer" as well as the "f" in "faith" and "false". Mixing up "V" and "F" in some languages can be explained by this type of internal orientation. The letter "F" is used like the letter "D" which is closely related to the letter "V" of the same Column. The contrast to a) becomes clear by looking at examples such as "n" in "number" expressing general quantification.

The preceding discussion then, depicts how letter semantics expands the meaning contained in letters as we participate in life by being observed, by observing things and events, and by taking action, or by just being passive. These orientations can be thought of as: That, which provides us boundless possibilities from which we must restrict and choose what is possible by drawing analogies and by making associations, and: This, in order that we may verify the existence of an event or an observation. It is Human nature to quantify things and by nature we apprehend what is possible and what is not. We have discussed the structure of the orientations and have not discussed the analysis of angles which result from the coupling of structures.

Angles, produced by alphabetic bonds help clarify orientations by virtue of the forces at work and give us greater detail in terms of defining distances and dimensions. Studying the angles produced by bonds between letters allow us to become quite specific in terms of using quanta as a means of verification. This will be further clarified in the next section.

What we will discuss next, will be the convergence of these interpretations from the point of the semantic interface, downward and into our world, to the respective class of things and events which naturally correspond to the individual letters of words found in our world.

9. Word Spectra:

There are countless combinations of Semantic Themes in the words of different languages. Most words are meaningful and thus deliver eternal lectures about the nature of things and events that we would like to know about and experiment with. There can be no doubt that the things words denote and the relations they tell about in many subtle ways are part of a Natural System obeying natural laws.

9.1. Composition of Semantic Themes:

There are three basic components to the knowledge of a thing as it is represented by letters (corresponding to the three degrees of certainty):

EXISTENCE as expressed by the first row of the matrix.
TAKING PLACE as expressed by the second row.
QUANTIFYING as expressed by the third row.

The other Rows are combinations of these and will be discussed after a short introduction into the first three.

Existence means not only "being there". Because of Duality (having two sides) and its generalization to Multitude, Existence means being a part or a whole, having particles or being an element or point in time and space. To understand how this works we can take a look at words like the article "a" as it refers to "one" thing, "u" in "unit", but also "a" in "all" and "w" in "we".

In Arabic, the letter "w" is used as a suffix to express multitude for nouns and verbs, but also as a conjunction (=and). The vocal "u" (Dammah) is used for the nominative in nouns and the present in verbs, both denoting the positive faculty of being. Arabic "A" (hamza) is used to (subjectively) assert and assign much like the English "a".

Taking Place means , happening in space or time, becoming manifest, being a range of space or time or being "substance" that occupies space or time. This Theme is also called it medium", "act(or)" and "arena". Remember the different Arabic prefixes "m" and "fii" (=in) mentioned earlier. Consider also "maaA" (=water), "madd" (=stretch), "dam" (=blood), "daama" (=to last), "dhawaa" (=fade), "idh" (=when), and "idhaa" (if, when). Letter-semantically, both "matter" and "time" have to do with a special relation "t" to a subjectively perceived range of space or time "m". But look also at the "m" in "move", "make", and "may", all dealing with "happening" in space or time both intransitively (passively) and transitively (by action). An "action" is literally a self-assignment "a" to a common stream "c" (forget the suffix -tion for now). We often ignore that we work by forces of nature, which leads to Quantifying.

A Quantum is both a Force and a Quantity. The Laws of Nature are often set equal to Forces. While Measuring forces we are dealing with quantities, which is our main way of Conceiving the Forces and Laws of Nature. "q" in the stem "qdr" denotes energy, power, mightiness, capability, quantity, measure and destiny altogether. "O" in "waOy" denotes consciousness and good perception. The "n" in "wanaa" means weakness and failure to keep something up. The G in "Gawaa" (=go astray) is used for "outlaw" issues and "Gayb" is the unknown. The English language has only two letters in this Semantic Theme: the Common "q" and the Objective "n", found in words expressing "q-uantum", "q-uality", "q-uote", and the "n" in "n-umbers" and "n-ature". Anti-subjective Quantifying ("n") is a prevailing means of negation in many Indo-European Languages.

A "name" is an objective quantum for a subject, and "knowledge" is the mapping of objective quanta. A quantum is both a quantity and a force. It is both law and energy. We use it to move things, put them together and drive them apart, to define their distance and their dimensions. Quantum theory comprises fundamental laws of nature.

The Semantic Theme of Relations is a combination of Existence and Taking Place, i.e. particles and entities as they relate to things taking space or time. Two of the letters of this theme "r" and "l" are the most frequent Relators. If a Stem has three consonants, it is very probable that one of them is "r" denoting a Recursive (backward) relation or "l" signifying a Procursive relation between the other two letters. Arabic examples include "OarD" (=breadth, show) and "kallama" (=talk to, wound). Arabic "qaraA" (=read) relates back "r", to quanta "q", i.e., it gives the subject a quantum of perception. English examples include "model", "field" and "steer". The "b" often expresses either a normal connection, such as in "be-" and "bi-". or a connected set of particles, such as in "ball". The "t" on the other hand represents a dual negative relation as in a "tie". In addition the "b" and "t" relations have common and non-common orientation respectively. This implies not only coexistence of the forces of nature but participation as well. An analogy can be drawn to a magnet whereas one must apply "force" to hold two like ends together or apart at a measurable distance.

The words that exemplify the impact of this theme on us, are the curl and the mole. It has been said the curl and the mole are the world now in beauty and now in terrible majesty. The curl enchains the human heart and bears us to and fro, it is this that plunders the caravans of reason and never rests (physically, everything is moving). Letter Semantically, the "rl" (+-, -+) combination in "curl" represents constant movement in the common structures and streams denoted by the "l". The "structured streams" reference the mind, the heart and the soul. The mole, referencing the body, is the point of unity (by objective assignment, denoted by the "l"), single, yet embracing all phenomena. Fixed and stable, it is the point of unity (the "m", the subjective actor in taking place); but the heart is perturbed by emotions, now in the inward (as a subjective actor) and now in the outward (as objectively assigned), illumined by epiphanies and darkened by duality, now in the hell of lust (a negative repetitive stream (loop)), now in the heaven of delight (the "-le" a positive interface into a special procursive process). Many philosophical views on the meaning of the term "light" and its relation to the logos, are well known. We have a paper on this subject alone, so I will not explain further here.

Streams are Particles controlled by Forces, a combination of Existence and Quantifying. The words "see", "zap", and "cube" exemplify the three letters of this Theme. Because of the dynamic-static aspect streams also signify Surfaces and Structures. The Arabic words "Suurah" (=picture, shape) and "thawaa" (settle) are also good examples.

We now know from physics, that sound and 1ight consist of particles moving into certain directions in a regular wavelike pattern after being "excited" or produced by applying some forces to them. Thus we think of a word as a stream-like entity. From the analysis of hundreds of words in ten different languages it became clear that streams are a marriage of quanta and particles. Both quanta and streams are used to express concepts like say, call, conceive, see, etc. (Remember the dual wave-like orientation of letters.) A call, for example, is an assigned stream according to letter semantics.

We use a subjective stream "s" to see, say, sew and saw things. A sea is just a subjective stream. But in "some", "s" stresses quantifying. Arabic "qwl" (to say) defines saying as the objective assignment "1" of a quantum "q" to particles, where the English "say" simply expresses an outward transition "y" of a subjective stream. Such examples can fill a hundred pages and new ones are encountered whenever new words are analyzed.

Mappings are Laws or Forces applied to Quantify things that Take Space or Time. A "key" does not apply to particles, but rather to a whole range in space and time. "x" in "ex-" means Negative Divergence or Negative Faculty applied as a force or quantifier to something in time or space. Arabic examples include "DawA" (light) and "Tuul" (length).

Combining all three Basic Themes results in a General Theme that is a General theme for things and events such as in "go", "get", "guy", "girl", "good" and "God" (the Almighty). The English language has only this letter in this theme; consider the presence of the following Arabic language characters. The Arabic "shayA" (=object, thing), "Zulm" (=offense, unfairness), and "Hayaah" (life) exemplify the other three letters of this Theme.

During our research, it became apparent to us that this intrinsic relation between particles, laws, forces and perception. must have driven our cognitive processes through the centuries.

So, "What's in a name?" can truly be answered by "Everything". But our interest as knowledge seekers lies in being able to restrict and choose, which is possible by using what we have. To further refine the possibilities, we can look at the angles that result from the couples establishing bonds and finally to the bonds themselves which result from specialization.

9.2. Semantic Taxonomy:

The process of analyzing the concepts contained in alphabetic letters is much the same scientific process used in physics. Chemical compounds are classified according to their structure which is seen as the basis of their specific conduct in chemical reactions. Following the analogy of letters to chemical elements, we have classified word structures and the ways they relate to other words because of those structures.

An extensive study of word-stem taxonomy in the Arabic language was a part of the empirical analysis. The classification of words which resulted from this study is a rather coarse classification yet it showed us two important concepts of micro-syntactic analysis:

At least two consonants are needed to deliver a specific concept. One consonant words are too general (way, go, do).
Sequence is decisive in determining the meaning of a combination of letters (top and pot are two different issues).

These are also the fundamental rules used in the letter- semantic evaluation of words.

For the purposes of the following discussion, coordinates (L, D, T) will denote that letter L has dual orientation D and belongs to semantic theme T.

9.3 Micro-Syntactic Analysis:

One simple rule of microsyntax applies if a word has one relator R and two consonants Cl and C2 (let "-" denote a vowel or no letter and "_" denote any value):

Rule 1:

If Coordinates (R, "+-",_)
and R is a relator and
(
Word = "-Cl-C2-R-" or
Word= "-R-Cl-C2-" or
Word= "-Cl-R-C2-"
)
then Backward (C2, Cl) and Non-Forward (Cl, C2),

Here "Backward" denotes a mapping of C2 onto Cl in the reverse order of their occurrence in the word, whereas "Non-Forward" denotes a "negative" mapping in the other, direction. The roles of vowels were described in the preceding section.

A similar rule applies if the - relator is of a type "-+", whereby the mappings Backward and Non-Forward are replaced by "Forward" and Non-Backward" respectively and the order of Cl and C2 is reversed in the mappings.

Under the same conditions, a relator of type "++" or "--" will imply respectively the mapping "Mutual" or "Non-Mutual" respectively.

This constitutes analogies to the mappings performed by a verb between the subject and the object on the macrosyntax level with Cl, C2 and R corresponding to subject, object and verb respectively. In that sense, each natural language applies many syntactic rules of other languages on the microsyntax level and it is impossible to study the syntax of any language on its own.

The meaning of such words (two consonants, one relator) is delivered by the coordinates of the consonants in the semantic matrix. The word "model", for example, is analyzed as follows:

Coordinates ("m", "+-", "taking place"),
Coordinates ("d", "++", "taking place"),
Coordinates ("l", "-+", _) and "l" is a relator.
==> Forward ("m", "d") and Non-Backward ("d", "m").

As stated earlier, "taking place" is an approximate name for the second Semantic Theme (the second row of the matrix). Here, for clarity, we will substitute the word "body". Meanings are open-ended and cannot be denoted properly, but they are exactly given by their coordinates. In addition, there are rules of implementation that determine ambiguity and metaphoric usage. To make a long story short, the combination of letters in the word "model" provide us with the following concepts:

"A model is a mapping of a subjective body (m) onto a common body (d) and an "unmapping" (abstraction) of a common body to a subjective body."

The "dual" concepts correspond to whether we are the conceiver or the perceiver of the model in question.

Such words are self-contained and easy to understand. They do not stretch open arms to other words in a sentence, unlike other words that fall into the following categories, which are interpreted by more complex rules of microsyntax.

An open link exists whenever a word contains a relator that does not link two other consonants. If the relator is bound to one consonant, it will stretch the other arm looking for something else. This is normally encountered in words classified as prepositions, conjunctions, verbs that need a preposition, transitive verbs, and so on.

If both arms of a relator are free, that word becomes a dual macrosyntactic relator. The words "if" and "of" are such examples.There are also words that contain two "symmetrical" relators (++ is symmetrical to -- and +- is symmetrical to -+) of the same theme. If there is a consonant in the word, they will work on it symmetrically. If there is no consonant, they will work on each other.

There is a priority relationship that orders relators. If a word has two non-symmetrical relators and a consonant, only the relator with the higher priority will work and the other one becomes static like other consonants. If a working relator has dual orientation "+-". it can induce recursion, i.e. work repeatedly and thus simulate saturation if it affects only one consonant.

It now becomes apparent that microsyntax controls macrosyntax as it can account for its peculiarities. Microsyntax could only be discovered in the multi-lingual approach which we have utilized. What is called syntax in literature is therefore a narrowed view of the existing relations.

The diagram below (Figure 2.) depicts a "micro-parse" summarizes micro-syntactic links in an example sentence.

(arabic2.gif missing)

10. Conclusion:

We have briefly demonstrated that syntactic relations can be computed from word structures. Semantic properties of words can also be derived by micro-syntactic analysis. We have only discussed a few issues of a theory that comprises scores of rules not mentioned in this discussion. Unlike other theories" of language, this approach is derived from direct relations between language and the real world on the lowest to-date conceivable level of morphology. Further, it integrates the different aspects of language (morphology, syntax and semantics) into a computable framework.

This paper is an attempt to introduce a new discovery that originates from deep morphological analysis as well as introspection, and philosophical thought. In addition, recent discoveries in the field of particle physics along with the idea of quantum mechanics itself, is fully integrated with this discovery of our language and supports the important role that language plays in our world. This discovery has taught us that by virtue of sound and light, the words of our language are connected to the particles and forces of the universe, and the human phenomenon is shown to be the point of unity, single, yet embracing all phenomena.

Letter Semantics allows direct acquisition of knowledge on a machine through the use of our natural language alone. It offers an integrated theory of meaning, spanning morphology, syntax, and semantics and goes on to solve many current problems in the fields of Computational Linguistics, Language and Knowledge Acquisition, Higher Order Software, the Information and Library Sciences, and the current (rational, rule-based) Artificial Intelligence.

We believe a natural-scientific development of the principles which we have discovered will naturally lead to new and more superior principles. We now have the ability to truly comprehend our language which will ultimately advance our "state of knowledge". It is our greatest hope that we will learn more new things about us, our faculties, our abilities, and our connection to the world we live in.