I Confess: the Global Alphabet is no more magical than any method or system that works.

But it is heretical, breaking (or bending) the two “axioms” that define linguistics since de Saussure (1914). But counter-examples have been known forever, although never before brought into a coherent theory. And axioms don’t have counter-examples. The Global Alphabet is as legitimate as the three-dimensional (i.e. global) geometry of Lobachevski, the Galileo of Geometry.”

He discovered it by daring to deny the Fifth postulate of Euclid’s Flat Earth geometry. Counter-examples to Euclid can be found on spherical planets like Earth, on which longitudes meet at the poles.)

The Global Alphabet rejects onomatopoeia, but the Key-letters are instead Kinesthetic & Graphic, breaking de Saussure’s second axiom no more than Chomsky/Halle’s phonology.

The Global Alphabet bends de Saussure’s first axiom (that words are arbitrary sequences of phonemes, with an equally arbitrary meaning) just as nanosyntax does, with tits assumption that a word can spread over whole sub-trees. Asmittedly, the “heretical new assumption” of sub-morphemesgoea much further than nanosyntax does, in recognizing single-consinant submorphemes. But note that this heresy started not with nanosyntax, but with Bloomfield, with his “heretical “notion of the morpheme. Bolinger’s phonesthemes (like bi-consonantal roots in Semitic) took the heresy one step further, but remains no more than a list of speculative analyses. Taking the final step to single-segment “roots of roots” should not be confused with bi-consonantal root theory, much less phonesthemes or phonosemantics, especially because of the rejection of onomatopoeia as a central principle of lexical analysis. Both the short and expanded tables are based on decades of dictionary analysis, and should be adjusted for empirical accuracy in these terms. It is a synchronic descriptive analysis of the languages covered, elusive as meaning may be.