194
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.69.09.17
How to Cite:
Vakhovska, O. (2023). Emotions and the archaic consciousness of man: a diachronic semantic reconstruction of the names of
emotions in English. Amazonia Investiga, 12(69), 194-203. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.69.09.17
Emotions and the archaic consciousness of man: a diachronic semantic
reconstruction of the names of emotions in English
Емоції та архаїчна свідомість людини: діахронічна семантична реконструкція імен
емоцій в англійській мові
Received: August 10, 2023 Accepted: September 27, 2023
Written by:
Vakhovska Olha1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7720-0970
What’s in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet
William Shakespeare
Abstract
This paper works with the diachronic depth of
concepts in national worldview, and is a piece of
panchronic research that respects the stages in
evolution of human consciousness, as it looks at
diachronic depth of emotion concepts in English
worldview, in the case of diachronic semantic
reconstruction of the nouns fear, sadness,
happiness, and serenity that in Modern English
manifest the FEAR, SADNESS, HAPPINESS,
and SERENITY concepts.
Etymons of the nouns were identified in Old
English as fær, hæp, sæd, and in Old French as
serenité. These etymons are words, and also are
signs for certain phenomena on the map of
archaic world represented in the mind; these
signs were reconstructed via etymological
analyses from the Proto-Indo-European
archetypes *pēr-, *kap-, *sá-, and *ksero-. Next,
the archaic images that came to motivate the
words fær, hæp, sæd, and serenité at the time of
creation were reconstructed and shown via
etymological interpretations organized into
matrices relative to sacred rituals of pagans in
whose mind the world was represented with the
help of images as symbols for certain phenomena
of this world. Interpretations within each matrix
unfold into a mythical story narrated with
reference to symbolism of pagan rituals in the
archaic worldview.
1 Associate Professor, Dr. Department of Germanic and Finno-Ugric Philology Kyiv National Linguistic University, Ukraine.
WoS Researcher ID: U-9472-2017
Vakhovska, O. / Volume 12 - Issue 69: 194-203 / September, 2023
Volume 12 - Issue 69
/ September 2023
195
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Key words: diachronic semantic reconstruction,
emotion, mental image, sign, symbol.
Introduction
This paper discusses the sign-symbolic nature of
the word as an element of the linguistic
worldview, with the understanding that sign-
symbolic properties of the word emerge in
evolutionary dynamics and are panchronic. The
case this paper presents is a diachronic semantic
reconstruction of emotion names in English: the
nouns fear, sadness, happiness, and serenity that
manifest in the language the FEAR, SADNESS,
HAPPINESS, and SERENITY emotion concepts
(Vakhovska, 2021) as ‘quanta of structured
knowledge’ (Kubryakova, 2004) about the
respective emotions. This paper argues for an
image-bearing basis in this knowledge,
extending its argument to account for the nature
of words as signs and as symbols in the linguistic
worldview.
The account draws in language, as emotion
names are part of the linguistic worldview; the
mind, as emotion concepts are part of the
conceptual worldview; and the objective world,
as emotions are given to humans as qualia in
their subjective, phenomenal experiences of this
world. Emotion concepts disperse through a four-
dimensional emotion space (Scherer, 2005), and
this paper singles out the four concepts that come
each from one of the four regions within this
space, marking up its opposite poles: FEAR is
negative-active, SADNESS is negative-passive,
HAPPINESS is positive-active, and SERENITY
is positive-passive. The four concepts lend their
names to a diachronic semantic reconstruction,
and in this paper are treated as lexical meanings
of these names in modern English.
The research uses (proto-)language data as it
aims to reconstruct the structures of the archaic
consciousness of man, exposing the
interrelations that these structures develop
diachronically and maintain synchronically, with
the understanding that these interrelations trigger
panchronic mechanisms of construal for
particular linguistic worldviews that become
formative for distinct national cultures
(q.v. Korolyova, 2014; Vasko, 2019).
The theory of image-driven interpretations of
words of language (Vakhovska, 2022a,b) forms
the basis for the methodology of diachronic
semantic reconstruction suited to analyzing
words as sign-symbols. Analysis of this kind
exposes and explains the various and unique
ways of seeing and understanding the world by
speakers of different languages, transcending the
distinct cultures. Importantly, it shows exactly
how different the speakers’ seeing and
understanding of the world is across different
languages, as long as one works with the
speakers’ non-propositional (seeing the world)
vs. propositional (understanding the world)
thought manifested in words. Properties of the
word as a sign are fixed causally by propositional
thinking in humans, making up one’s
understanding of the world; properties of the
word as a symbol are caused by non-
propositional thinking, which makes one’s view
of the world. Sign-symbolic properties of the
word determine its origin and evolution in the
worldview, the latter acting as a prerequisite for
the word to acquire its essential properties, and
simultaneously emerging as the product of, and
the environment for, this acquisition.
Word interpretation is a creative act of giving
a meaning to a verbal sign and, vice versa, of
manifesting a meaning via a verbal sign, whereby
a mental image as a symbol is converted to the
meaning of the word as a sign, and back: word
interpretation as a meaning-making act is driven
by mental images that represent in the human
mind the phenomena of the experiential world,
and are the symbols for these. This act is enabled
by the mind’s representational content
(Chalmers, 2004) owing to the peculiar
embodiment of the human species. Word-image-
word conversion is constitutive for the sign-
symbolic nature of the word, and is actuated by a
distinct (neuro)physiological mechanism in the
human makeup that is panchronic. This
mechanism orchestrates the visual and auditory
zones in the brain, wiring the organs of
perception (Kumar et al., 2022), as well as the
deep and shallow layers in the mind (Kaup et al.,
196
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
2022), extending back beyond consciousness
into the unconscious.
Theoretical framework
The word as a sign-symbol in the linguistic
worldview: on the panchronic mechanisms of
meaning-making
The word bridges conceptual and linguistic
worldviews, binding cognition and
communication in humans (Kubryakova, 2004).
Linguistic worldview makes up the part of
conceptual worldview that is manifested by
linguistic signs, a sign being a form that stands
for something else understood as its meaning
(Zhabotynska, 2010). Linguistic worldview is
not the world it represents, as language generally
interprets the world, construing the symbolic
space within which speakers live, make sense of
the world, and communicate this sense to others
(Grace, 1987; cf. Lotman, 1992).
In linguistic semiosis, the mind maps the world,
and the language maps the mind (Zhabotynska,
2012). As humans with the help of words take the
world into linguistic possession (Kubryakova,
2004), the word as a sign becomes the instrument
of this representational occupation, whereas the
word as a symbol shows in what particular way
this world has been taken hold of (Makovsky,
2012). A symbol is an image taken in the aspect
of its significance, and also is a sign endowed
with all the organicity of myth and with the
inexhaustibility of image (Averintsev, 1962); any
sign can have an infinite number of meanings, i.e.
can be a symbol (Losev, 1982) that in a latent
form contains all the possible manifestations of a
thing (Losev, 1976), which is the reality for the
symbol but only a possibility for the sign.
Word was one of the initial creations manifested
to the world by the Deity; the word was created
together with the fire, and was its symbol: cf.
English a word < Proto-Indo-European *ųer- ‘to
burn; the sacred fire’ > ‘color, paint’ > ‘word’
(Makovsky, 2012). Similarly to the fire, the word
lit up the surrounding world, carving images in
it: what humans saw in the light the word emitted
became their worldview, the one that was unique
in the beginning, and remains so now, as there
are many peoples who populate the world, each
with their peculiar view of this world. The first
word was a symbol that had its outer form -
graphic and phonic - in a sacred syncretism with
its meaning, and in human evolution preceded
the emergence of the word as a sign whose form
and meaning are connected arbitrarily: this
arbitrariness was developing gradually, as the
sacred syncretism was falling apart; the word as
a symbol was coming to be the word as a sign,
losing the images it first bore (ibid.).
Word as a symbol was a semiotic formula of a
certain mythopoetic image (here, poetic is
‘archaic, culturally salient’) (Meletinsky, 1995).
This formula was sacred, as it had the ritual
function of uniting a tribe or a genus in the face
of the Deity; this formula was magical, as in it
the word form tabooed the word meaning, and
vice versa: this taboo most often utilized a
metaphor, whereby the image of an entity formed
the basis for this entity’s name (Makovsky,
2012), e.g. ‘brown, shiny’ in the Germanic
archetype *beran- ‘bear’ (Levitsky, 2010). Pre-
writing myth in a peculiar way marked up the
world, producing such a map of this world where
each entity had its mark as a distinguishing word;
cf. Genesis, 2:19-20.
The mythopoetic image that motivated the
emergence of a word in its individual form into
language is the inner form of this word
(Potebnya, 1892), in a unique way showing how
a thought presented itself to the man who thought
this thought when naming the entity that emerged
into his consciousness in cognizing the world
(Vakhovska, 2022a). The inner form of a word is
a panchronic phenomenon; it can veritably be
reconstructed via etymological interpretation as
the etymological meaning of this word
(Korolyova, 2014), in contrast to this word’s
original meaning reconstructed via etymological
analysis. Germanic *beran-, e.g., has ‘bear’ as its
original meaning and ‘brown, shiny’ as its
etymological meaning, or sense, in Frege’s
parlance (Frege, 1892). On that, just as thinking
must be distinguished from consciousness, sense
(Sinn, in German) must be distinguished from
reference (Bedeutung) as the two ways that a
word may have meaning.
To make sense of the world is to cognize and
interpret this world, viewing it from a particular
perspective, which is invariably subjective and
invites intellectual development, guiding
acquisition of world knowledge; cf. Russian
разум ‘the mind’ as, literally, the mind that
happens once, раз ум, and Homo sapiens is
человек разумный; and also смысл ‘sense’ as,
literally, something that comes together with a
thought, с мыслью: this something is a mental
image, since on the evolutionary view it is from
images that human intellectual development
begins both phylo- and ontogenetically
(Vakhovska, & Jusuk, 2021). In acts of verbal
communication, senses are converted into
meanings in the speaker’s mind, and meanings
Volume 12 - Issue 69
/ September 2023
197
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
are re-converted into senses in the listener’s mind
(Bondarko, 1978), which in principle is the
conversion of a mental image into a (set of)
proposition(s), and back (Vakhovska, 2022b).
As one and the same meaning can have several
senses that ‘show’ it differently, multiple
etymological interpretations fit into a matrix of
etymological relativity (Toporov, 1960;
Makovsky, 2004, p. 6), whereby the etymologist
intuitively chooses to interpret words of language
relative to certain cultural phenomena rather than
others (Levitsky, 2010, p. 33). The etymologist
‘sees’ with the mind’s eye the mythopoetic
images that came to motivate the words at the
time of creation. These images steer the
diachronic semantic reconstruction, and hold the
respective matrix together; they attend to the
semantic syncretism of this matrix, effecting a
chain of semantic transformations (Levitsky,
2010, p. 23-39) within this single semantic
complex that yet stays diffuse (Trubachev, 1980;
cf. Zaliznyak, 2006).
The diachronic depth of concepts in the
worldview
This paper looks at the word in its evolutionary
dynamics, and argues that from the panchronic
perspective a fundamental distinction must be
drawn between the terms diachronic depth
(Vasko, 2019) and diachronic variation
(Shevchenko, 2000) that have different
reference, undergirding the cognitive historical
(Korolyova, 2014) and historical cognitive
(Winters, Tissari & Allan, 2010) strands of
diachronic research in linguistics.
This distinction must respect the stages in the
evolution of human consciousness (Gebser,
1986), and be drawn in terms of the archaic
image as a fact of the archaic - first paradisical,
then magical, and later mythical - consciousness,
and of the concept (and lexical meaning as the
concept a word captures (Kubryakova, 2004)) as
a fact of modern - mental - consciousness. The
archaic image is the diachronic depth of the
concept: this image is a structure of non-
propositional thought, and, in its different
hypostases, is the inner form, the etymological
meaning, and the sense of the word that names
this concept. The concept is a structure of
propositional thought, and as such is given to
diachronic variation in the worldview it is part of.
Diachronic depth of a concept is the starting
point of the diachronic variation of this concept,
and also the program for this variation, as the
archaic image becomes the seed from which this
concept as a (set of) mental representation(s)
develops in the soil of a particular culture
(Vakhovska, & Isaienko, 2021), which sides up
with the assumption that even the most
apparently nonimage-schematic concepts have,
as a rule, image-schemas at their basis
(Kövecses, 2002, p. 37-38). Image-schemas find
their use in etymological research, too, when one,
e.g., seeks to reveal regularities in semantic
change over time (Győri, & Hegedűs, 2012),
with the understanding that this change is upheld
by universal mechanisms of human cognition
drawing upon images.
Archaic images at the diachronic depth of
emotion concepts in the English worldview are
facts of mythical consciousness in humans. The
two dimensions of this consciousness complete
the circle symbolizing man’s discovery of cycles
of natural phenomena, on the one hand, and his
emergent awareness of soul, with his reflections
on the experience of those phenomena, on the
other, for which see Gebser (1986) who
emphasizes that it is mythologies with their
inherent polarity that gave a coherence to the
consciousness of man. To J. Gebser, mythical
consciousness fuses together in stories both
things as phenomena and humans as experiencers
of these phenomena. Mythical stories of human
emotions are narrated below (cf. Vakhovska,
2022a, p. 183).
Methodology
The exploration this paper presents took two
stages. First, the etymons of the Modern English
nouns fear, happiness, sadness, and serenity
were respectively identified in Old English as
fær, hæp, sæd, and in Old French as serenité.
These etymons by their nature are words, and
also are signs for the respective phenomena on
the map of the archaic world represented in the
human mind; these signs were reconstructed via
etymological analyses from the Proto-Indo-
European roots *pēr-, *kap-, *sá-, and *ksero-
that are the archetypes of the words.
Second, the archaic images that came to motivate
the words fær, hæp, sæd, and serenité at the
moment of their creation were reconstructed and
then shown, which was achieved via
etymological interpretations organized into
matrices relative to the sacred rituals of pagans in
whose mind the world was represented with the
help of images as symbols for the respective
phenomena of this world. Interpretations within
each matrix unfold into a story narrated with
reference to the symbolism of sacred rituals in
the archaic worldview. Each matrix suggests
198
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
formal and semantic parallels between Old
English and the other genetically (un)related
languages, considered both semasiologically and
onomasiologically so that a coherence is given to
the consciousness of man whose mind’s eye was
directed at the archaic images of the four
emotions.
At each of the stages, etymological works by
Miklosich (1886), Brugmann (1892), Berneker
(1908-1913), Brückner (1927), Preobrazhensky
(1959), Vasmer (1964-1973), Onions (1966),
Melnichuk (1982), Makovsky (1992, 1996,
2000), Levitsky (2010), and Sementsov (2017)
were used in combination to reconstruct the
original and the etymological meanings of the
words fær, hæp, sæd, and serenité, as well as of
the Proto-Indo-European roots *pēr-, *kap-, *sá-
, and *ksero- that these words, and their cognates,
derive from.
Results and discussion
The word fear in English, and its matrix of
etymological interpretation
Old English fær ‘danger, peril; sudden attack’
ascends through Proto-Germanic *feraz ‘danger’
to the Proto-Indo-European root *pēr-
meaning ‘to beat’ > ‘to move.’ This is one’s
movement away from the center as the place of
their tribe’s settlement around the sacred fire to
the periphery, into the realm of the unknown.
Fær resonates with the fundamental archaic
opposition of center to periphery, drawing on the
circle of life: everything in the center is divine
and benign as it brings happiness and health,
while everything on the periphery is harmful and
dangerous as it causes calamity and death; cf.
English fear and far, Gothic fera ‘periphery’ and
fairina ‘guilt, fault,’ and Old Indo-Aryan pára
‘far; foreign, hostile.’
The meaning ‘to beat’ emerges into the archaic
man’s fear as the meaning ‘to move fast;’ cf.
Latin pavor ‘fear’ but pavire ‘to beat,’ Old
English bregdan ‘to move’ and broga ‘fear.’ This
fast movement is in running: cf. Greek φόβος
‘fear’ and φεβομαι ‘to run,’ and also Ukrainian
бігти ‘to run,’ бити ‘to beat,’ and German
biegen ‘to bend.’ One who is in fear runs, and
their fear is a force that drives and chases them;
cf. Gothic agis ‘fear’ and ogjan ‘to scare,’ and
Indo-European *ag- ‘to chase.’ Fear attacks and
beats one; cf. Lithuanian baisa ‘fearful’ and
bijoti(s) ‘to be afraid’ but English to beat. The
root *per- develops as ‘to beat > to have effect
on one’s mind or heart;’ cf. English depress. Fear
does have a strong effect, striking one with
pangs.
The meaning ‘to beat / to cut’ generates in Indo-
European words their meaning ‘to burn; to shine,
to sparkle;’ cf. Indo-European *bhau- ‘to beat’
and *bha- ‘to shine.’ One’s eyes sparkle, and
there is fear in them. Just as one’s running cuts
the space, so does one’s seeing; cf. Russian сечь
‘to cut > to see.’ One’s eyes emit light (cf. Irish
suil ‘an eye’ but Latin sol ‘the sun’) and are the
sharp stones of the face that cut the space and
dissect the darkness; cf. Russian глаз ‘an eye’ but
Polish glaz ‘a stone.’ The light that the eye
symbolizes is intimately connected with the
sound, as miracles of the initial creation. One’s
sound when in fear is not a song that flows like a
fluid, but a scream that cuts and pierces the air;
cf. Indo-European *bhau- ‘to beat / to cut’ and
*bha- ‘to make sounds.’
One feels fear moving away from the place of
their tribe’s settlement (‘us’) to places where
other tribes (‘them’) settle. The people of these
other tribes set traps and lie in wait, concealed in
the forest; cf. English ambush and West
Germanic *busk ‘bush, thicket.’ One is afraid of
attack and of being (b)eaten, and also of wild
animals. Other tribes are bad and deceitful; one
is afraid of getting into their pursuit, so one
moves impetuously with speed, and is disturbed
and restless; cf. Lithuanian mesti ‘to throw’ and
Ukrainian метатися ‘to rush (about) as if
throwing oneself from place to place; to be
disturbed and confused;’ cf. also Latin modus,
German Mut, and English mood ‘emotion.’
Grazing and herding livestock, feeding and
driving cattle were particularly dangerous; cf.
Indo-European *pā- ‘to feed, to graze,’ Gothic
faran ‘to move places,’ German Farre ‘ox’ but
Russian опасность ‘danger;’ English graze but
Lithuanian grasìnti ‘to threaten.’
One apprehends the danger but is not able to see
its immediate source as of yet; cf. Latin metus
‘fear’ and Lithuanian matyti ‘to see.’ One’s eyes
sharpen but the vision may apparently mislead
them; cf. Fear has big eyes. One starts back and
recoils from objects; cf. Indo-European *elk- ‘to
move > to recoil.’ This compares to recoiling
from searing fire; cf. Anglo-Saxon fýr ‘fire’ and
fyrstu ‘fright, fear.’ One jumps up in fear; cf.
German schrecken ‘to jump up > to frighten.’
The word happiness in English, and its matrix
of etymological interpretation
Old English hæp ‘luck, fortune’ ascends through
Proto-Germanic *happą ‘convenience >
Volume 12 - Issue 69
/ September 2023
199
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
happiness’ to the Proto-Indo-European root
*kap- meaning ‘to bend’ > ‘to move.’ This is
one’s movement in a ritual of worship when one
bows in veneration of the Deity (cf. Persian
namas ‘worship; prayer’ and namidan ‘to lean
over; to bend in a particular direction’), their
arms and legs bending in a dance of
communication with the Deity. This worship is a
reverent conversation with the Deity that
determines the bending of one’s fate as their path
in life.
Bending - a symbol of the masculine (bent
outwards) and of the feminine (bent inwards) in
their unity - was taken as a magical act that could
cause the good as much as the evil; cf. Serbo-
Croatian коб ‘a good sign’ but Bulgarian коба ‘a
bad sign.’ Bending preceded the initial creation
and was prerequisite to all the phenomena of life.
A phenomenon is a noumenon, or a thing-in-
itself, as this thing appears to a conscious subject
and is construed by their mind; cf. Latin numen
‘a deity.’ Noumena per se are inaccessible to
human experience; phenomena are given in
experience but have their immediate basis and
cause in noumena (Kipfer, 2022), for which
bending apparently was a manifestation.
The thing manifested by the Deity from within
the emptiness to the world was a symbol of the
supernatural power of the Deity; cf. Old Gaelic
daingen ‘strong.’ This manifestation marked the
beginning of life followed by death; cf.
Lithuanian tiketi ‘to happen’ and Gothic peihs
‘time; eternity (as timelessness).’ The Deity gave
human creatures their fates; one’s fate compared
to a path whose curves bend; cf. English happen
‘path in the woods.’ Fortune-tellers saw one’s
destined time and order of events in life, and thus
seeing was knowing; cf. English hep
‘knowledgeable’ but Russian внезапно
‘suddenly.’ One’s fate could then be told by
looking at the intestines of sacrificial animals:
intestines bent in a particular way, their curves
likened to flames.
The archaic man’s happiness emerged in sacred
acts of awe and veneration in the face of the Deity
to Whom a sacrifice was offered. Happiness was
in one’s communion with the Deity when
offering a sacrifice and experiencing the ecstatic
religious rapture that followed; cf. Old English
sæl ‘happy’ and Gothic saljan ‘to offer a
sacrifice.’ The sacrifice, when taken by the
Deity, delivered one from woes and mishaps, and
also tied up evil spells. One’s happiness was in
acts performed at the sacred fire; cf. Latin *go-
‘to bend’ but *gau- ‘to rejoice’ as in gaudeo ‘I
have joy;’ Indo-European *per- ‘to beat’ but
*prai- ‘a merry mood’ as in German freuen ‘to
celebrate,’ and in one’s awareness of deliverance
by sacrificing; cf. Latin vitulus ‘calf’ but vitulor
‘to have joy,’ and also ovis ‘sheep’ but ovare ‘to
rejoice.’
All the people of the tribe took part in worship;
cf. Old English hæpic ‘equal.’ Worshipers were
naked, which was sacral; cf. Indo-European
*bhel- ‘naked > shining, full of light > saint,’ and
also Russian гладкий ‘sleek’ but English glad.
Intentional self-injuries were believed to purify,
bringing one closer to the Deity. Worshipers
drank intoxicating drinks made of peculiar herbs
and mushrooms; cf. Indo-European *meu- ‘wet;
soaked’ but Old Indo-Aryan mōdate ‘merry.’
Rapid movements of the fire as much as those of
the people around it caused rupture; cf. Indo-
European *uei- ‘to move’ and Avestan vói ‘to
make happy,’ Ukrainian рух ‘movement’ and
Old Indo-Aryan ruc ‘to burn.’
One felt happiness knowing that good
performance in the worship determined good
fate; cf. Indo-European *lek-/*luk- ‘to bend’ and
its reflexes in German Glück ‘happiness,’
English luck, and Russian лукать ‘to bend,’
случиться ‘to happen,’ получиться ‘to work out
well,’ and случай ‘an occasion;’ cf. also Russian
луч ‘a ray of sunlight.’
The word sadness in English, and its matrix of
etymological interpretation
Old English sæd ‘sated, full, having had one's
fill (of food, drink, activity, etc.), weary of’
ascends through Proto-Germanic *sathaz ‘full,
sated’ to the Proto-Indo-European root *seto-
< *sá- ‘to satisfy; satisfied; to satiate; satiated,
full.’ Syncretic meanings that emerge into the
archaic man’s sadness are ‘to bend > to tie’ >
‘(not) to move.’ This is the movement of the
water that comes from the lower world; this
water bends as it ties one up, filling them in. One
feels heavy and bad, and does not move.
Movement emerges into sadness as one’s
immovability because of being tied up by water:
the water bends before it ties one up; one is filled
in with a thick, sticky liquid to one’s brim; cf. Old
Indo-Aryan tanakti ‘to clot’ and Lithuanian
tankus ‘thick (of liquids);’ cf. also Indo-
European *ker-/*kes- whose meaning (a) ‘to
bend / to cut’ develops via enantiosemy into
‘solid, hard’ (i.e. ‘unbending, difficult to cut’);
and (b) ‘to beat’ develops as ‘to break up, to
crush, to mill’ > ‘soil, ground;’ cf. typologically
English grind and ground; cf. Latin mundus ‘the
world’ but Greek μυδoς ‘humidity;’ Latin humus
200
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
‘soil’ but English humid. The meaning ‘earth,
soil, ground’ develops a semantic shift as ‘low;’
cf. Latin humus ‘earth, soil’ but humilis ‘low.’
Indo-European words for perception (to believe,
to hope, to feel, etc.) in a lot of cases derive from
etymons meaning ‘liquid,’ and correlate with
words that denote human internal organs; cf.
English to feel but Indo-European *pel- ‘liquid;’
Latin sentire ‘to feel’ but Old English seað ‘a
sea.’ In the archaic anthropomorphic model of
the Universe, the human body is a microcosm: its
organs are containers for the world-mind and
seats for the Deity; cf. Latvian just ‘to feel’ but
Old English eosen ‘an intestine.’ The meaning
‘liquid, fluid; juice’ develops from the meaning
‘to beat > to smash, to crush > moisture.’ In
archaic view, one’s consciousness, with a clear
awareness of the surrounding world, depended
on the dryness of the air one inhaled: dryness was
beneficial for the mind; cf. German Tropfen
‘drop’ but Tropf ‘fool.’ Humans by virtue of
intellect were distinguished from animals that
inhale air from the ground and eat wet food.
Pagans believed that when one is asleep or taken
by afflictions of the body or soul, one’s vital
organs shrink and contract, exuding a liquid; cf.
Old English mœtan ‘to sleep’ but Latin madeó ‘to
be wet.’ On that, illnesses were connected with
bad juices of the organism; cf. French goutte ‘a
drop’ but English gout. One’s sadness apparently
was caused by secretions of the spleen; cf. spleen
‘melancholy.’
Water generally equalled sound as both flow, and
was symbolized by the blue color: blue as the last
chakra of the sacred fire meant vanishing and
death as when one transitions into a different
state. Movement got lost in the blue color, as if
drowning and dissolving in it. Blue was the
feminine, and symbolized the unconscious; cf.
Indo-European *kel- ‘liquid’ but Tocharian A
kuli ‘a woman;’ German blau sein ‘to lose
consciousness;’ English to be in the blues. The
word water ascends to Proto-Indo-European
*aw- ‘to weave < to bend’ as water was a
wickerwork: water was bending and weaving (cf.
Indo-European *seu- ‘liquid’ and ‘to bend, to
weave’), and formed a net, tying up one’s
vitality.
The word serenity in English, and its matrix of
etymological interpretation
English serenity ascends through Old French
serenité and Latin serenitatem ‘clearness,
serenity’ < serenus ‘(of weather) peaceful, calm,
clear, unclouded; (of people) cheerful, glad,
tranquil’ to Proto-Indo-European *ksero-
‘dry.’ Syncretic meanings that emerge into the
archaic man’s serenity are ‘to bend > to put
together’ > ‘(not) to move.’ This is the
movement of the fire that comes from the upper
world; this fire bends as its flames curve, putting
one together and filling them in. One feels light
and good, and does not move.
Serenity comes after the sacred ritual of worship
when one has communicated with the Deity; cf.
Latin pax ‘peace of mind’ < Indo-European
*pak-‘to connect;’ cf. also *pek- ‘to rejoice’ as in
Gothic ga-fehaba ‘good < clean.’ This is a
pleasant state; one feels full of light and clean; cf.
‘a fire’ > ‘to purify’ as was the case with ritual
purification of meat; cf. English flesh and flash.
This state is in one’s heart and soul; cf. Indo-
European *ųen- ‘to relish, to enjoy’ and *an- ‘a
soul.’ In pagan beliefs, the human body had three
microcosmic centers of vitality: the brain, the
heart, and the genitals; cf. English heart but Old
English herþan ‘the scrotum’ and Indo-European
*ker- ‘head’ as in Latin cerebrum ‘the brain.’ The
heart was the knot connecting the human creature
and the Deity; cf. Indo-European *ker- ‘to bind.’
The heart was the symbol for the sun (cf. Old
Norse hróðr ‘the sun’) and divine creation (cf.
Avestan keretis ‘completion’), and was seat for
the world-mind; cf. Tocharian A kärs ‘to know.’
It is the heart that the divine movement was in;
cf. Ossetian coeryn ‘to live.’ The heart contained
one’s energy for life and change, and compared
to the macrocosmic cup containing the soul; cf.
German Karr ‘a vessel’ and Indo-European *ker-
‘to grow; to create,’ as in Latin creare.
The soul is given by the Deity to all living
creatures, or animals, and, to C.G. Jung, is the
anima. One felt serenity when eating (meat) in
sacred worship, which is enjoyable and pleasant;
cf. Old High German fehôn ‘to eat, to feast on >
to relish;’ Russian треба ‘a sacrifice’ but
требуха ‘tripe, offal’ and утроба ‘a maw.’ The
meaning ‘food’ developed on the basis of ‘to
bend;’ cf. Indo-European *ped- ‘to bend’ but
English food; Indo-European *keb- ‘to bend’ but
Latin cibus ‘food.’ Eating and swallowing were
phallic, as in eating one was taking in a part of
the world created by the Deity, i.e. the Deity was
entering the human creature; cf. Russian есть ‘to
eat’ and еть ‘to copulate.’ In pagan beliefs, a
man in a coitus fed a woman on his semen just as
the divine phallus fed the Mother Earth. Eating
was one’s unity, i.e. a coitus, with the Deity and
with the sacred fire that symbolized Him.
Indo-European words meaning ‘meat’ correlate
with the meaning ‘clean;’ cf. Old Norse horund
Volume 12 - Issue 69
/ September 2023
201
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
‘meat’ but Gothic hrains ‘clean.’ Meat
encapsulated the soul (cf. English flesh but
German Flasche ‘a bottle;’ Latin caro ‘meat’ but
German Karr ‘a vessel’), and was the sacrifice to
the Deity. Indo-European *ed- ‘to eat, to feed on’
has its reflexes in Old English ād ‘fire,’ as in
archaic beliefs the sacred fire ate the sacrifice; cf.
Indo-European *gher- ‘to burn’ and ‘to eat.’
Light of the fire, vigorous and erratic motion of
its flames made worshipers ecstatic; cf. Indo-
European *bhel- ‘to burn, to shine’ but English
blind; German Freude ‘joy’ but Czech prudeti ‘to
burn;’ cf. also *bhel- ‘to burn, to shine’ but
*bher- ‘to move fast.’ The color chakras of the
sacred fire formed a staircase to heaven; one was
going up the stairs: the red chakra of ecstatic joy
was followed by the yellow chakra of serenity.
One’s rough activity at the fire gave way to
passion and purification (red), and to the passive
state of bliss (yellow) that followed in the
religious, and sexual, rupture.
Yellow color was unearthly, ethereal, and
marked up the divine world; cf. Indo-European
*ghel- ‘to burn, to shine’ > German Gold ‘gold’
and gelb ‘yellow.’ Serenity is a gold-colored
state. Gold was the symbol of the Sun and of the
heart (cf. Latin aurum ‘gold’ and auriculum ‘the
ventricle’), and stood for the world-mind. Gold
meant ecstasy, union with the Deity, and the
unconscious; cf. Icelandic orar ‘sedated;
drugged.’ In the state of serenity, one
apprehended eternity and the divine Existence,
and lost sense of time; cf. Latin aurum ‘gold’ and
Indo-European *ųer- ‘time.’ In Indo-European
words, the meanings ‘gold’ and ‘bowels;
stomach, belly; intestines, guts’ correlate, as the
abdomen was the microcosmic seat of fire and
soul; cf. English gold but Ukrainian жолудок
‘the stomach’ < Indo-European *gheldh- ‘to be
hungry; to desire’ < *gher-/*ghel- ‘to burn.’ Fire
was the soul.
One is filled with the (light of the) sacred fire,
and is put together by its flames, as these tie up
the magical knots (‘to bend’ > ‘to make / break a
knot’) that restore one, and rope up the evil
forces, delivering one of woes; cf. Indo-
European *sneu- ‘to tie up, to bind’ and German
neu ‘new < young.’ The meaning ‘to burn’ < ‘to
bend’ in Indo-European often came to generate
the meaning ‘whole, intact,’ which is a frequent
motif in archaic fairy-tales, too, when a hero goes
through fire to regain life and health (Propp,
2001), as fire was a wickerwork; cf. Latin totus
‘all’ but Tocharian A tute ‘yellow’ (the highest
chakra of the sacred fire).
Conclusion
This paper has exposed via a diachronic semantic
reconstruction the image-bearing basis in the
knowledge about fear, sadness, happiness, and
serenity shared among speakers of English. This
basis is the archaic images of movement, and
absence of movement, that form the diachronic
depths of the respective emotion concepts in the
English worldview.
Worldviews are ‘real stories, but what matters is
how these stories are told, what emerges as the
symbolic, cultural realities relevant to speakers’
(Grace, 1987, p. 179). In this paper, the stories of
the four human emotions were narrated with
reference to the archaic symbolism of pagan
rituals. The prospect of this paper is in narrating
the stories of human emotions manifested in the
other languages of the world.
Bibliographic references
Averintsev, S.S. (1962). Symbol. In A concise
literary encyclopedia. Volume 6. Moscow:
Soviet encyclopedia. [In Russian].
Bondarko, A.V. (1978). Grammatical meaning
and sense. Saint Petersburg: Science. [In
Russian].
Chalmers, D. (2004). The representational
character of experience. In B. Leiter (Ed.),
The future for philosophy, 153-181. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
https://philpapers.org/rec/CHATRC
Frege, G. (1892). On sense and reference.
Journal of Philosophy and Philosophical
Criticism, 100(1), 25-50. [In German].
https://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/book/sh
ow/frege_sinn_1892
Gebser, J. (1986). The ever-present origin. Ohio:
Ohio University Press.
Grace, G.W. (1987). The linguistic construction
of reality. Oxfordshire: Routledge Library
Editions.
Győri, G., & Hegedűs, I. (2012). A cognitive
approach to the methodology of semantic
reconstruction: the case of Eng. chin and
knee. In K. Allan, & J.A. Robinson (Eds.),
Current Methods in Historical Semantics,
313-333. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter
Mouton.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110252903.313
Kaup, B., Ulrich, R., Bausenhart, K.M.,
Bryce, D., Butz, M., Dignath, D.,
Dudschig, C., Franz, V.H., Friedrich, C.,
Gawrilow, C., Heller, J., Huff, M.,
Hütter, M., Janczyk, M., Leuthold, H.,
Mallot, H., Nürk, H.-Ch., Ramscar, M.,
Said, N., Svaldi, J., & Wong, H.Y. (2022).
202
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Modal and amodal cognition: an overarching
principle in various domains of psychology.
Unpublished preprint.
http://dx.doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fz85n
Korolyova, A.V. (2014). Cognitive
languacomparative historical linguistics:
from the reconstruction of proto-language
forms to the reconstruction of the structures
of consciousness. Messenger of KNLU.
Series Philology, 17(2), 94-101. [In
Ukrainian]. https://acortar.link/ht0o0T
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: a practical
introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kubryakova, E.S. (2004). Language and
knowledge. Moscow: Languages of the
Slavic culture. [In Russian].
https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01002416335
Kumar, S., Sumers, Th.R., Yamakoshi, T.,
Goldstein, A., Hasson, U., Norman, K.A.,
Griffiths, T.L., Hawkins, R.D., &
Nastase, S.A. (2022). Shared functional
specialization in transformer-based language
models and the human brain. Cold Spring
Harbor Laboratory. Unpublished preprint.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.08.495348
Losev, A.F. (1976). The problem of the sign and
realistic art. Moscow: Art. [In Russian].
Losev, A.F. (1982). Sign. Symbol. Myth.
Moscow: Moscow University Press. [In
Russian]. https://vk.com/wall-
61771654_11178
Lotman, Yu. (1992). Selected papers in three
volumes. Volume 1. Papers on semiotics and
typology of culture. Tallinn: Aleksandra. [In
Russian].
https://elar.urfu.ru/handle/10995/47
Makovsky, M. (2012). The phenomenon of
TABU in the traditions and in the language of
Indo-Europeans: the nature, forms, and
development. Moscow: The LIBROKOM
Book House. [In Russian].
Meletinsky, E.M. (1995). The poetics of myth.
Moscow: Eastern literature. [In Russian].
Potebnya, A.A. (1892). Thought and language.
Kharkiv: Adolf Darre’s Typography. [In
Russian, pre-reform orthography].
https://acortar.link/I0XNyV
Propp, V.Ya. (2001). Morphology of the magical
fairy-tale. Moscow: Labyrinth. [In Russian].
Shevchenko, I.S. (2000). On the historical
development of the cognitive and pragmatic
aspects of discourse. Kharkiv National
University Bulletin, (471), 300-307. [In
Russian].
Scherer, K.R. (2005). What are emotions? And
how can they be measured? Social Science
Information, 44(4), 695-729.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/053901840505821
6
Toporov, V.N. (1960). On some of the theoretical
foundations of etymological analysis. Issues
in Linguistics, 3, 49-57. [In Russian].
Tru bachev, O.N. (1980). Reconstruction of
words and meanings. Issues in Linguistics, 3,
3-14. [In Russian].
https://acortar.link/gno2oX
Vakhovska, O.V. (2021). Metaphors of
emotions: towards a data-driven
formalization. Messenger of Kyiv National
Linguistic University. Series Philology,
24(1), 33-48. DOI: 10.32589/2311-
0821.1.2021.236030
Vakhovska, O.V. (2022а). The sin of the
translator: on words and mental images in
translation. Amazonia Investiga, 11(54),
178-188.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.54.06.17
Vakhovska, O.V. (2022b). Must the pot of seven
holes be a translation theorist’s riddle? KELM
Knowledge, Education, Law, Management,
4(48), 117-125.
https://doi.org/10.51647/kelm.2022.4.19
Vakhovska, O.V., & Isaienko, O.M. (2021).
Language, culture, and image-driven
interpretations in translation: a case for the
university translation classroom in Ukraine.
Amazonia Investiga, 10(47), 240-249.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.47.11.25
Vakhovska, O.V., & Jusuk, F.F. (2021). Image-
driven interpretations in professional
communicative mediation: bringing
translation and psychotherapy together.
Science and Education a New Dimension.
Humanities and Social Sciences, 48(261),
63-67. https://doi.org/10.31174/SEND-
HS2021-261IX48-11
Vasko, R.V. (2019). Semiotic and culturological
passportization of numeric phraseosymbols.
Logos, (98), 94-103.
https://doi.org/10.24101/logos.2019.10
Winters, M.E., Tissari, H., & Allan, K. (Eds.).
(2010). Historical cognitive linguistics.
Cognitive linguistics research. Berlin, New
York: Walter de Gruyter.
Zaliznyak, A.A. (2006). Polysemy in language
and the ways of its representation. Moscow:
Languages of Slavic cultures. [In Russian].
Zhabotynska, S.A. (2010). A cognitive linguistic
approach to the process of naming.
Messenger of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National
University. Series Romance and Germanic
Languages. Foreign Language Teaching,
928(63), 6-21. [In Russian].
https://periodicals.karazin.ua/foreignphilolog
y/issue/view/27/214
Volume 12 - Issue 69
/ September 2023
203
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Zhabotynska, S.A. (2012). Cognitive mapping as
a linguosemiotic factor. Functional
Linguistics: A Collection of Papers, (3),
179-182 [In Russian].
Lexicographic sources
Berneker, E. (1908-1913). Slavic etymological
dictionary. Heidelberg: Carl Winter's
University Bookstore. [In German].
Brugmann, K. (1892). Indo-European research:
journal of Indo-European linguistics and
ancient studies. Strassburg: Karl J. Trubner,
The Publisher. [In German].
Brückner, A. (1927). An etymological dictionary
of the Polish language. Kraków: Krakow
Publishing Company. [In Polish].
Kipfer, B.A. (Ed.). (2022). Roget's international
thesaurus, 8th Edition. Collins Reference.
Levitsky, V. (2010). An etymological dictionary
of the Germanic languages: In 3 volumes.
Vinnytsia: Nova Knyga. [In Russian].
http://www.library.univ.kiev.ua/ukr/elcat/ne
w/detail.php3?doc_id=1472060
Makovsky, M. (1992). A linguistic genetics:
issues of the word’s ontogenesis in the Indo-
European languages. Moscow: Science. [In
Russian].
https://djvu.online/file/9lsF48S8oOGwI
Makovsky, M. (1996). A comparative dictionary
of mythological symbolism in the Indo-
European languages: an image of the world
and the worlds of images. Moscow: The
VLADOS Humanitarian Publishing Center.
[In Russian].
Makovsky, M. (2000). A historic and
etymological dictionary of the Modern
English language: the word in the mirror of
human culture. Moscow: The Dialogue
Publishing House. [In Russian].
Makovsky, M. (2004). An etymological
dictionary of the Modern German language:
the word in the mirror of human culture.
Moscow: Alphabet book. [In Russian]
Melnichuk, O. (Ed.). (1982). An etymological
dictionary of the Ukrainian language: in 7
volumes. Kyiv: Scientific thought. [In
Ukrainian].
http://resource.history.org.ua/item/0007831
Miklosich, F. (1886). An etymological dictionary
of the Slavic languages. Wien: Wilhelm
Braumüller, The Publisher. [In German].
Onions, C. (Ed.). (1966). The Oxford dictionary
of English etymology. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Preobrazhensky, A. (1959). An etymological
dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow:
The State Publishing House of Foreign and
National Dictionaries. [In Russian].
Sementsov, V. (2017). Glagol. A dictionary of
root words. Saint Petersburg: The Orthodox
pedagogical community of Saint Petersburg.
[In Russian]. https://pervobraz.ru/
Vas mer, M. (1964-1973). An etymological
dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow:
Progress. [In Russian].
https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasm
er/