Philologist/cognitive linguist with specialisation in ancient languages and writing systems here. This is kinda part of my current research, so here I go.
>>2618
>What language, real or theoretical, would be closest to a universal one?
Anyone earnestly interested in this should read Umberto Eco's book "The Search for the Perfect Language". It gives a detailed historical, philosophical background for this exact question.
>I mean by its qualities as a language and not just street cred like enochian or latin. So far I think it's maths
Maths is an artificially created semiotic language used for, well, mathematical operations. Artificial semiotic languages differ from natural languages (e.g. English, Ugaritic).
The function of natural language is to encode and transmit complex and subtle ideas. In cognitive linguistics, we assume that natural language reflects the structures of human mind, of thought and ideas.
Encoding a complex thought into language is the so-called symbolic function of language (as compared to its interactive function, the transmission of thoughts). A symbol, in this context, is a "bit of language" - like meaningful subparts of words (anti-, de-, ...), whole words, or strings of words. These symbols consist of a form (a sound, and the written representation) and the meaning (the ideational or semantic content associated with the form).
Our cognitive abilities integrate raw perceptual information (percepts) into a coherent and well defined mental image, which is called a concept. When we use language, we refer to the concept rather than to the object in the external world.
The meanings encoded by linguistic symbols, then, refer to our projected reality: a mental representation of what's "out there", as construed by the human mind, mediated by our unique perceptual and conceptual systems. We live in a world of complex concepts linked to our linguistic system.
Our ability to conceptualise stuff is basically unlimited. But language limits the expression of thought that we have at our disposal to talk about 'the world "out there"'. Everybody knows the feeling when you can't quite put something into words - that's because your lexicon doesn't have the "right" word. Because while there's an unlimited number of concepts, there's only a limited number of linguistic symbols.
Looking at natural languages from this perspective, language provides prompts for the construction of conceptualisations in our cognitive system. These prompts are richer than the minimal meanings that language provides.
Basically, language doesn't encode thought in its complex entirety, but instead rudimentary instructions to the conceptual system to access or create rich and elaborate ideas.
Hence, asking what language qualities would be "best" for magick is like asking which muscle is best for it, or which of the classical magickal tools is the best one.
A natural language is the map your mind constructs over "reality", and is a tool like anything else. It does not have an intrinsic power in itself - the linguistic symbols have to be invested with meaning (and power) by the practicioner.
Which is why "Abracadabra"-style "barbaric words" have such a long tradition in magick, across time and space.
>but which written form?
Writing, although usually subsumed under language, is an entirely different semiotic system. Every time you write something, you translate it from one semiotic system (natural language) to another (writing).
Magicky, you can use any and all writing systems, but I recommend going with what vibes with you - not just the shapes, but the culture behind it. I like to use Sumerian cuneiform not just for its aesthetic value (etc), but because I find the concepts that are associated with the logographs (= written signs that refer to words) useful and know what they mean.
If you want to use maths and go for the earliest known writing system there's physical tokens (very sorcery-ish!), and the numerous systems that were developed in early Mesopotamia. These mostly use a base 60 system, but there's also base 12, 120, 10, etc.
>>2630
>to mention hebrew also went through changes as they "rediscovered it" and created yiddish or however they call it.
True. Biblical Hebrew is known only from the Torah, which has largely been reconstructed from the Latin Septuagint. Modern Hebrew, in turn, is an artificial language that was created to unify the people in Israel, providing them with a Semitic touch they otherwise didn't have.
>>2633
>both Japanese and Hebrew are based off Chinese writing
Can't speak for Japanese, but Hebrew definitely isn't. It's based on Biblical Hebrew, which is based on Ancient Hebrew, which is based on Proto-Semitic inscriptions found along the NE border of ancient Egypt.
>>2631
Thank you for that, great read. I've been interested in learning Japanese for a while, but sadly I can't find the time for it. Sumerian cuneiform works in a similar manner.
>>2636
Amen to that.
[Expand Post]
>>2637
>In human terms, I think Sanskrit is the most significant one due to how much you can trace from a lot of other languages back to it.
That's because Sanskrit is an Indo-European language, and most of the languages you are familiar with are Indo-European. There are many, many other linguistic systems out there.
>I do believe one single primordial language might have existed, but Sanskrit might be the best we have.
Why would that be the case?
>>2640
>Like the name of G-d https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem_HaMephorash is what grants you power over reality but for that you need to be extremely into Kabbalistic traditions so G-d will grant you the power to say the name. It has extreme levels of secrets contained that you can only use if you have a level of initiation into the system.
100% agree. And it's like that with any other system, really. If you know it well, you can discover layers that aren't immediately visible on the surface. I.e., you need to be able to speak and understand the language to a certain degree before you can unlock certain occult things. But you really need to become fluent in the concepts that are encoded in the relevant language to do so.
>Latin was used as a "magical language" because long ago the clergy spoke only in latin and scholarly knowledge was based around it.
That's a great example. Magical languages like that have been around since the dawn of history (aka written down stuff). In ancient Mesopotamia, about 2,100 BCE the mages were fond of using certain phrases that look completely meaningless and must have sounded intense. Turns out that those were based on the name of a dog trainer who was a foreigner from Urartu - dangerous and foreign both! Those were transmitted for many centuries, and must have been effective enough. After all, in such cases it's about the mystery and prestige (to refer back to OP) of a language.
Similarly, Sumerian was used as the language of magic, cult, and religion after it died out until the 1st century ACE. The texts barely make sense and it's clear that the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Greeks who used them had no idea what the words actually meant - but to them, Sumerian (both the language and the writing system) was something that connected them to a truly ancient history shadowed in myth.
If people believe that something is an effective banishment in a language of power, then that'll work. Proof? The popularity of mangled Hebrew or Egyptian in occult circles for the past 150+ years.
>>2797
>In my own experience, languages, both for programming and speaking, teach you to think in very different ways.
This. You get a new semiotic system for encoding thought, a new set of concepts to understand and think in with each.
>there are people speaking languages old enough that they would be racist against _fucking indo-europeans_… That would be a huge augment to human thinking.
Which is why I always recommend learning dead non-Indo-European languages. It really does wonders for your cognitive system if you suddenly have to switch into completely different systems.
>>2862
>Yeah... also "true names" are not just about pronunciation but the energies it tries to represent.
Yepp. Which is why one "true name" can be different in different languages (remember, concepts and prompts available)...