The Arabic Origins of "Basque and Finnish Pronouns": A Radical Linguistic Theory Approach

This paper investigates the Arabic origins of Basque and Finnish pronouns mainly and Basque verbs to be/have secondarily from a Radical Linguistic Theory perspective, a slightly revised version of Lexical Root Theory. The data consists of personal and demonstrative pronouns in Finnish and Basque in the main and verbs to be/have in the latter. The results show that Finnish and Basque pronouns have true Arabic cognates, with the same or similar forms and meanings. Their formal differences, however, result from natural and plausible causes and different courses of linguistic change. For example, Basque ni 'I', Finnish mina/mä ‘I', and Arabic ana (ani, inni) 'I' are identical cognates, in the second of which /m/ split from /n/; Finnish sina/Te'you' come from Arabic anta/-ta 'you' via reversal and turning /t/ into /s/; similarly, Basque zu 'you' is derived from Arabic -ta/-ka (iaka) 'you (nom./acc.) where /k/ became /z/, which compares very easily with Old English ge 'you' and German Sie 'you'; Finnish reflexive itse 'self' is from Arabic dhaat(i) 'myself' via reordering and replacing /dh/ by /s/. Third person pronouns in both languages are originally demonstrative pronouns, which is similar to what happens in English and Indo-European languages and Chinese as well, all of which come from Arabic dha/ti 'this'. Similarly, all Basque verbs to be/havehave true and identical Arabic (and English, German, Latin) cognates. As a consequence, the results indicate, contrary to Comparative Method claims, that Arabic, Basque and Finnish are genetically related, leading to the postulation of a single, perfect, sudden world language, which may be called Radical or Root Language, from which all human languages descended. The Radical Language could not have died out at all but has instead survived into modern languages, having been preserved almost intact in Arabic. They, therefore, prove the adequacy of the radical linguistic or lexical root theory according to which Arabic, Basque, and Finnish are genetically related besides English, German, French, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Mandarin Chinese which have already been found to be dialects of the same language with Arabic being their origin all because of its phonetic capacity or complexity, huge lexical variety and multiplicity, and linguistic permanence or sustainability.


INTRODUCTION
The radical linguistic theory is a revised and extended version of the lexical root theory (Jassem 2012a-f, 2013aq, 2014a-h) which originally derives its name from the use of lexical (consonantal) roots or radicals in retracing genetic relationships between words in world languages. It first emerged as a rejection of the Comparative (Historical Linguistics) Method or Family Tree Model for classifying Arabic as a member of a different language family from English, German, French, and all (Indo-)European languages in general (Bergs and Brinton 2012; Algeo 2010; Crystal 2010: 302; Campbell 2004: 190-191;Yule 2006;Crowley 1997: 22-25, 110-111;Pyles and Algeo 1993: 61-94). In all his thirty-one studies, Jassem (2012a-f, 2013a-q, 2014a-h) firmly established, on the contrary, the inextricably close, genetic relationship between Arabic and such languages phonetically, morphologically, grammatically, and semantically or lexically so much so that they can be really considered dialects of the same language, with Arabic being the source or parent language. Thus far thirty-one studies have been undertaken on all language levels. Lexically, nineteen studies successfully traced the Arabic origins of English, German, French, Latin, Greek and Sanskrit words in key semantic fieldsnamely, numeral words (Jassem 2012a), common religious terms (Jassem 2012b), water and sea terms (Jassem 2013d), air and fire terms (Jassem 2013e), celestial and terrestrial terms (Jassem 2013f), animal terms (Jassem (2013g), body part terms (Jassem 2013h), speech and writing terms (Jassem 2013i), time words (Jassem 2013j), family words (Jassem 2013k), cutting and breakingwords (Jassem 2013m), movement and action words (Jassem 2013n), perceptual and sensual words (Jassem 2013o), cognitive and mental words (Jassem 2013p), love and sexual words (Jassem 2013q), wining and dining words (Jassem 2014a), divine and theological terms (Jassem 2014d), proper names (Jassem 2014f), and mathematical

Finnish Pronouns
Finnish is a member of the Finnic or Balto-Finnic group (e.g., Estonian) of the Uralic language family (Campbell 2004: 192), including such languages like Hungarian; it is spoken mainly in Finland and by ethnic Fins in Sweden and northern Norway, known there as the Kven language.
As to Finnish personal pronouns, they are highly inflected for case (11 cases in number). The following table displays the pronouns in the subjective case, the base case in all. The table shows eight written or formal pronouns, which divide by person into first, second, and third, by number into singular and plural, and by dialect and style into written/formal and spoken/colloquial. Gender is not indicated or marked in them. Second person pronouns have a familiar and polite form in the singular which signals the plural also. The four dialectal or spoken variants can be considered simplified or reduced forms of the written ones. The third person pronouns se and ne occur in both dialects. As has just been said, these pronouns are highly inflected for case (11 in total), most of which are indicated by the use of prepositions or, more precisely, postpositions, added after the pronoun itself. Although all do not concern us here, three of the most important suffixes are (i) the accusative (objective) suffix /(e)t/, (ii) the dative suffix /dät/, and (iii) the genitive or possessive suffixes /(u/a/e)n/ or /dän/such as minun 'my', hänen 'his', heidän'their'.
As to demonstrative pronouns, standard Basque has a wide range of pronouns, which are listed in the table below. The table shows two sets of demonstrative pronouns, ordinary and intensive or emphatic, in two numbers. The plural is indicated by the use of /-ek/. It can also be seen that most forms have the same consonants, which suggest they are not more than dialectal variants. In addition, all these demonstratives might function as third person pronouns (see Table 3 above). Furthermore, there is a third demonstrative set with such forms like honek, honi, honetan 'this', etc.

Basque Auxiliary Verbs
Basque has a set of auxiliary verbs. They include izan 'to be', which is the most common verb in Basque and is irregular in the finite forms. In Western dialects, egon 'to be' is used in a way similar to estar 'to be' in Spanish. Although the former may also be used in the sense of 'to have' depending on context, another two verbs are usedi.e., ukan/edun 'to have', the latter of which being hypothetical. All these verbs have true Arabic and English cognates.

Arabic Pronouns
A brief, though full, description of Arabic pronouns can be found in Jassem (2012d, 2013l) which traced the Arabic origins of English, German, French, Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit pronouns, indeed all Indo-European pronouns. The interested reader may consult either source which will be skipped over here to save on space, time, and effort. It has to be noted, though, that Arabic pronouns inflect for person (1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd ), number (singular, dual, plural), gender (f./m.), and case (nom., acc., gen.). The same process happens in the above-mentioned languages as well, though to a lesser extent.

Data Selection and Transcription
Finnish and Basque pronouns have been selected and classified on the basis of internet sources in English such as www.wikipedia.org, www.mylanguages.org, www.el.ehu.es, and various others, especially the references therein. To facilitate reference, they will be examined one by one with brief linguistic comments in (3.) below.
In transcribing the data, normal Romanized spelling is used for all languages for practical purposes. Nonetheless, certain symbols were used for unique Arabic sounds, including /2 & 3/ for the voiceless and voiced pharyngeal fricatives respectively, /kh & gh/ for the voiceless and voiced velar fricatives each, capital letters for the emphatic counterparts of plain consonants /t, d, dh, & s/, and /'/ for the glottal stop (Jassem 2013c)..

Theoretical Framework: Radical Linguistic Theory
The Radical Linguistic Theory, a slightly revised and more generalized version of the original Lexical Root Theory (Jassem 2012a-f, 2013a-q, 2014a-h), will be used as the theoretical framework for data analysis. The lexical root theory (Jassem 2012a-f, 2013a-q, 2014a-h) was so called because of employing the lexical (consonantal) roots or radicals in examining genetic relationships between words such as the derivation of observation from serve (or simply srv) (see Jassem 2013o) and description (subscription, prescription, inscription) from scribe(scrb) (see Jassem 2013i, 2014e). The main reason for that is because the consonantal root carries and determines the basic meaning of the word irrespective of its affixation and vowels such as observation (srv). Historically speaking, classical and modern Arabic dictionaries (e.g., IbnManzoor 1974, 2013) used consonantal roots in listing lexical entries, a practice first founded by Alkhaleel, an8 th century Arabic linguist, lexicographer, musician, and mathematician (Jassem 2012e).
The Lexical Root Theory has a simple, straightforward structure, which consists of a theoretical principle or hypothesis and five practical procedures of analysis. The principle states that: Arabic and English as well as the so-called Indo-European languages are not only genetically related but also are directly descended from one language, which may be Arabic in the end. In fact, it claims in its strongest version that they are all dialects of the same language, whose differences are due to natural and plausible causes different courses of linguistic change. In the Radical Linguistic Theory, the above principle has been slightly revised to read: All human languages are genetically related, which eventually emanated from a single, perfect, sudden language which developed over time into countless human dialects and languages, that continue to become simpler and simpler. That original first language, which may be called Radical or Root Language, has not died out at all but has instead survived uninterruptedly into modern day languages to various degrees where some languages have preserved words and forms more than others. Perhaps Arabic, on spatial and temporal grounds, has preserved almost all of its features phonetically, morphologically, syntactically or grammatically, and semantically or lexically. As to the five applied procedures of the Lexical Root Theory which have been used all along to empirically prove that principle in data collection and analysis, they remain the same: i.e., (a) methodological, (b) lexicological, (c) linguistic, (d) relational, and (e) comparative/historical. As all have been reasonably described in the above studies (Jassem 2012a-f, 2013a-q, 2014a-h), a brief summary will suffice here.
Firstly, the methodological procedure concerns data collection, selection, and statistical analysis. Apart from loan words, all language words, affixes, and phonemes are amenable to investigation, and not only the core vocabulary as is the common practice in the field (Crystal 2010; Pyles and Algeo 1993: 76-77; Crowley 1997: 88-90, 175-178). However, data selection is practically inevitable since no single study can accomplish that at one time, no matter how ambitious it might be. The most appropriate method for approaching that goal would be to use semantic fields such as the present and the above topics. Cumulative evidence from such findings will aid in formulating rules and laws of language change at a later stage (cf. Jassem 2012f, 2013a-f, 2013l). The statistical analysis employs the percentage formula (see 2.2 below).
Secondly, the lexicological procedure is the initial step in the analysis. Words are analyzed by (i) deleting affixes (e.g., explained → plain), (ii) using primarily consonantal roots or radicals (e.g., plain → pln), and (iii) search for correspondence in meaning on the basis of word etymologies and origins as a guide (e.g., Harper 2014), which should be used with discretion, though. The final outcome yields Arabic baien, baan (v) 'clear, plain' via /l/insertion or split from /n/ (Jassem 2013i).
Thirdly, the linguistic procedure handles the analysis of the phonetic, morphological, grammatical and semantic structures and differences between words. The phonetic analysis examines sound changes within and across categories. More precisely, consonants may change their place and manner of articulation as well as voicing. At the level of place, bilabial consonants ↔ labio-dental ↔ dental ↔ alveolar ↔ palatal ↔ velar ↔ uvular ↔ pharyngeal ↔ glottal (where ↔ signals change in both directions); at the level of manner, stops ↔ fricatives ↔ affricates ↔ nasals ↔ laterals ↔ approximants; and at the level of voice, voiced consonants ↔ voiceless. For example, /t/ may naturally and/or plausibly turn into /d/ by voice, /th& s/ by manner, /l/ by place and voice, /k/ by place and manner, etc.
In similar fashion, vowels change as well. Although the number of vowels differ greatly within and between English (Roach 2008; Celce-Mercia et al 2010) and Arabic (Jassem 2012g, 1987(Jassem 2012g, , 1993, all can be reduced to three basic long vowels /a: (aa), i: (ee), & u: (oo)/ (and their short versions besides the two diphthongs /ai (ay)/ and /au (aw)/ which are a kind of /i:/ and /u:/ respectively). They may change according to modifications in (i) tongue part (e.g., front ↔ centre ↔ back), (ii) tongue height (e.g., high ↔ mid ↔ low), (iii) length (e.g., long ↔ short), and (iv) lip shape (e.g., round ↔ unround). In fact, the vowels can be, more or less, treated like consonants where /i:/ is a kind of /j (y)/, /u:/ a kind of /w/, and /a:/ a kind of /h/ or vice versa. Their functions are mainly (i) phonetic such as linking consonants to each other in speech and (ii) grammatical like indicating tense, word class, and number (e.g., sing, sang, sung, song; man/men). Thus their semantic weight is marginal in significance, if not at all. For these reasons, vowels may be totally ignored in the analysis because the limited nature of the changes do not affect the final semantic result at all.
Sound changes result in natural and plausible processes like assimilation, dissimilation, deletion, merger, insertion, split, reordering, substitution, syllable loss, resyllabification, consonant cluster reduction or creation and so on. In addition, sound change may operate in a multidirectional, cyclic, and lexically-diffuse or irregular manner (for detail, see Jassem 2012a-f, 2013c).
Regarding the morphological and grammatical analyses, some overlap obtains. The former examines the inflectional and derivational aspects of words in general (Jassem 2012f, 2013a-b); the latter handles grammatical classes, categories, and functions like determiners, pronouns, prepositions, question words, nouns, verbs, and case (Jassem 2012c-e, 2013l, 2014b-c). Since their influence on the basic meaning of the lexical root is marginal, inflectional and derivational morphemes may also be ignored altogether.As both morphological and grammatical features have already been dealt with in full, there may be no need to include them in every single case later.
As regards the semantic analysis, meaning relationships between words are examined, including lexical stability, multiplicity, convergence, divergence, shift, split, change, and variability. Stability means that word meanings have remained constant over time. Multiplicity denotes that words might have two or more meanings. Convergence means two or more formally and semantically similar Arabic words might have yielded the same cognate in English. Divergence signals that words became opposites or antonyms of one another. Shift indicates that words switched their sense within the same field. Lexical split means a word led to two different cognates. Change means a new meaning developed. Variability signals the presence of two or more variants for the same word (for detail, see Jassem 2012a-f).
Fourthly, the relational procedure accounts for the relationship between form and meaning from three angles: formal and semantic similarity (e.g., three, third, tertiary and Arabicthalath 'three' (Damascus Arabic talaat (Jassem 2012a)), formal similarity and semantic difference (e.g., ship and sheep (Jassem 2012b), and formal difference and semantic similarity (e.g., quarter, quadrant,carat, cadre and Arabic qeeraaT 'a fourth; carat' (Jassem 2012a)). As in the morphological and syntactic or grammatical procedures, there is no need to tackle it in every single case for it will lead to undesirably lengthy treatments. Finally, the comparative historical analysis compares every word in English in particular and German, French, Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit in general with its Arabic counterpart phonetically, morphologically, and semantically on the basis of its history and development in English (e.g., Harper 2014; Pyles and Algeo 1993) and Arabic (e.g., IbnManzour 2013; Altha3aalibi 2011; IbnSeedah 1996) besides the author's knowledge of both Arabic as a first language and English as an equal second language. Discretion should be exercised here due to uncertainties and inaccuracies, especially in Harper's work, though.
To sum up, the most appropriate operational procedure in relating words to each other genetically would be to: a. select a word, any word, b. identify the source language meaning (e.g., English, Latin, Mandarin Chinese) on the basis of especially word history or etymology. It is essential to begin with meanings, not sounds or sound laws; the former will lead you to the cognate naturally; the latter will get you lost definitely, c. search for the equivalent meaning in the target language (e.g., Arabic), looking for cognates: i.e., words with similar forms and meanings, and d. finally explain the differences in form and meaning between the cognates by following the above steps lexicologically, phonetically, morphologically, and semantically. That is the whole story simply and truly. For example, Augustine (Augusta, Augustan, Augustus) all come from Latin August 'holy, sacred', which eventually derives from Arabic qudus (al-qudus) '(the-) holy, sacred' via reordering and turning /l, q, & d/ into /u, g, & t/; English Ghost and German Geist are related derivatives or cognates (Jassem 2014e-f).

Statistical Analysis
The percentage formula will be used for calculating the ratio of cognate words or shared vocabulary, which is obtained by dividing the number of cognates over the total number of investigated words multiplied by a 100. For example, suppose the total number of investigated words is 100, of which 90 are true cognates. The percentage of cognates is calculated thus: 90/100 = 9 X 100 = 90%. Finally, the results are checked against Cowley's (1997: 173, 182) formula to determine whether such words belong to the same language or family (for a survey, see Jassem 2012a-b).

RESULTS
The main focus of the results will be on the Arabic lexical (consonantal) radicals or roots of Basque and Finnish pronouns in both the standard and the dialects. Therefore, vowels or their exact quality will be overlooked generally for having little or no semantic impact whatsoever on the final output.

Finnish Mina (mä) 'I' derives from or is cognate to Arabic ana'I'
(pronounced aniin many spoken Arabic dialects (e.g., Jassem 1987Jassem , 1993) or its emphatic form inni/innani (in(na) 'emphatic particle + ni 'I, me') in which /n/ split into /m & n/ in the standard but turned into /m/ in the non-standard. Furthermore, it is cognate to English mine (me) and most of the socalled Indo-European languages like German mein/mich, Latin me, and French mein/moi (Jassem 2013d. Me 'we' is the first person plural pronoun in both written and spoken Finnish, which is formally related to mä in particular. Its Arabic source cognate is inna 'emphatic we' (in 'emphatic particle + na 'we, us') or -na/iana 'us'; /n/ became /m/.

Basque
Ni 'I, me' is an identical cognate to Arabic ana'I' (pronounced ani in many spoken Arabic dialects (e.g., Jassem 1987Jassem , 1993

Finnish Sina (sä) 'you (informal)' is informal, which comes from Arabic ant(a)/ant(i) 'you (m/f)' via reversal and replacing /t/ by /s/ or merging /n & t/ into /s/ in the case of sä. It is also cognate to Old and Middle
English thine (thou, thee) which came from the same Arabic cognate via a slightly different phonetic process: i.e., reversal and changing /t/ into /th/. Furthermore, Japanese anta/anata 'you' (and Malay anda 'you' also) are cognates which directly descended from Arabic anta above as well (Jassem 2012d, 2013l, 2014h). Te (te) 'you' is the polite form, which is derived from either the shorter Arabic suffixed variant -ta 'you (suffixed)' or from its independent version anta 'you' via a merger of /n & t/ into /t/. In Latakian Syrian Arabic on the Mediterranean, anta is usually pronounced itte. The same situation happens in French Tu, German Du, and many other Indo-European languages, for example. In addition, since tuo 'that' functions as a demonstrative pronoun, Te, on formal and semantic grounds, may also derive from Arabic ti 'this (f.)' via lexical shift (Jassem 2012d).

Finnish
Hän 'he, she' derives from Arabic hun (hunna in connected speech, pronounced hin(ne) in Spoken Arabic (e.g., Jassem 1987Jassem , 1993, 1994a-b) via lexical shift. Its spoken and written plural form ne comes from the same source as well in which /h/ was lost or from Arabic na2nu 'we' (pronounced 2inna/i2na in spoken Arabic) via lexical shift and /2/-loss, though less likely. Furthermore, since ne 'those' may function as a demonstrative pronoun, it may derive from Arabic huna 'here' via /h/-loss; this supports the first option. He 'they' stems from Arabic hia (heeat pause) 'she' or hua (hooat pause) 'he' via lexical shift. Se 'he, she' is a demonstrative pronoun in origin and so it obtains from Arabic dha/dhi 'this (m/f)'; /dh/ became /s/.

Basque
Hau 'he, him; she/her; it' is an identical cognate to Arabic hua 'he' via lexical shift-i.e., broadening. Hori/hura 'he, him; she/her; it' may be considered a variant of hau above via /r/-insertion; otherwise, in view of its demonstrative function as well, it comes from Arabic ha'ula' 'these, they' via lexical shift and turning /l/ into /r/. Bera 'he, him; she/her; it' is originally a demonstrative pronoun 'that; yonder' (see Table 4 above), which comes from Arabic barra'out; out there; outside' via lexical shift; it is usually used in Arabic in addressing second persons and animals (especially dogs) to keep away or move out. The plural suffix /-ek/ in all the above forms is an identical cognate to the Arabic plural distant suffix /-k/ via lexical shift as in ulaa'i 'these', ulaa'ik 'those' (see above).

Finnish
All Finnish demonstrative pronouns may function as third person pronouns as has been alluded to above. Moreover, all are formally related which can be traced back to Arabic easily. also (Jassem 2012d). In addition, Mandarin Chinese ta/tāmen 'he, she, it/they; this/these' are also cognates which may be used as third person pronouns and demonstratives in traditional usage in particular (Jassem 2014h). Se 'it, that' is from Arabic dha 'this', turning /dh/ into /s/.
English she had the same story in developing from Old English seo 'this' (Jassem 2012d. The plural forms nämä 'those', nuo 'those', and ne 'those, they' are related formally and semantically; they all derive from Arabic hun(na) 'they (f. pl.)' and/or huna 'here' via /h/-loss and lexical shift. The plural marker -mä is cognate to Arabic -um 'pronominal plural marker' as in ant(a) 'you' and antum 'you (pl.)'. It is worth noting at this juncture that the two Finnish noun plural markers /t/ and /i/ have identical Arabic cognates as well (Jassem 2012f).
In summary, all the Finnish demonstrative pronouns are formally related which can be traced back to Arabic ti/dhi 'this (f/m)', turning /dh (t)/ into /s/ in se.

Basque
Basque has three sets of demonstratives, the two principal ones being the ordinary and the intensive. All may function as third person pronouns as has been mentioned above, and so their Arabic cognates can be considered settled. In the third set, the main form(s) is/are honi, honek,andhonetan 'this', which come from Arabic huna 'here', hunaak 'there' via lexical shift.

Basque Auxiliary Verbs
Basque has a number of auxiliary verbs, all of which have true Arabic cognates as follows. Izan/Egon 'to be' are variants, which both derive directly from the same Arabic cognate yakoon (kaan) 'to be (was)' in which /k/ became /z (g)/. It is also cognate to all verb 'to be' forms in English 'is/was', German sein, Latin essen (etre), and all other Indo-European languages (Jassem 2012e) where /k/ became /s/, a process termed kaskasa in traditional Arabic grammar which is still very common in today's spoken Arabic (Jassem 1987: Ch.5, 1993: Ch.5, 1994a. Ukan 'to have' comes straight from Arabic qana 'to own'. Edun 'to have' obtains right away from Arabic 3inda ' to have (possessive adverb)'via lexical shift, reordering, and /3/-loss. To sum up, the total number of Finnish personal, demonstrative, and reflexive pronouns amounted to 10 and so did the Basque ones, all of which have true Arabic cognates: i.e., 100%.

DISCUSSION
The above results clearly demonstrate that Arabic, Finnish and Basque pronouns (besides Basque verbs to be/have) are true cognates for having similar or identical forms and meanings. Their formal differences, however, came as a consequence of natural and plausible causes and different courses of phonetic, morphological and semantic change. As all the pronouns have true Arabic cognates, the ratio of shared vocabulary between all amounts to 100%, which exceeds Cowley's (1997: 172-173) 100 word list-based classification according to which an 80% ratio indicates membership to the same language-i.e., dialects.
On a more general level, moreover, the results are in harmony with all the findings of previous studies (Jassem 2012a-f, 2013a-q, 2014a-h) in which English, German, French, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit and Arabic were all found to be rather dialects of the same language, let alone the same family. In particular, Jassem (2012d, 2013l) established without a single shred of doubt the Arabic source cognates of English, German, French, Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit pronouns and verb to be forms (Jassem 2012e) as well as Mandarin Chinese (Jassem 2014h). Therefore, this entails that Finnish and Basque pronouns are not only cognates to Arabic but also to all Indo-European and Mandarin Chinese ones. Therefore, the postulation of a Radical or Root Language from which all human languages descended is strongly substantiated (see below).
As a consequence, the results lend further support to the Radical Linguistic Theory or Lexical Root Theory which has been found as adequate for the present analysis as it was for the previous ones. The main principle which states that all world languages are genetically related is, therefore, theoretically and verifiably sound and empirically true. Tracing Finnish and Basque pronouns here and the above-mentioned Indo-European (Jassem 2012d, 2013l) and Chinese ones earlier (Jassem 2014h) back to true Arabic cognates clearly substantiates that on all planes of analysis: phonetic, morphological, grammatical, and semantic.
At the phonetic level, all the changes were natural and plausible including substitution, deletion, merger, split, reordering, and so on. Morphologically, all the morphemic suffixes like the plural markers have true Arabic cognates as has been shown in due course above. Basque auxiliary verbs have been shown to have true and identical Arabic cognates as well.
Semantically, lexical stability was the general pattern where most pronouns here maintained their basic meanings across the languages. The recurrence of lexical convergence in the data was due to formal and semantic similarity between Arabic words, on the one hand, and their Finnish and Basque cognates, on the other. For example, Basque hon 'this'might derive from different Arabic words, all formally and semantically similar (see 3.1.2-3 above). Lexical shift was very common in the pronouns of both languages where the demonstratives, for instance, shifted to third person ones (see 3.1.3 above). Lexical split occurred in Finnish hi 'you (very familiar) and he 'they', both of which came from Arabic hia (hee) 'she'. Finally, lexical variability was rampant in Basque and Finnish both, especially third person pronouns in Basque as can be clearly seen in the relevant tables above.
What are the implications and significance of such findings? They signify several things, which back up Jassem's (2014a-b, 2014e, 2014h) rather lengthy elaboration on the subject. First, they signify that Basque and Finnish are not only genetically related to Arabic but also to English, German, French, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Chinese all of which have at least two sets of pronouns: subjective and objective. For example, all these languages have the same or similar forms for all pronouns such as me/mine in English, minä/mä'I' in Finnish, ni'I' in Basque, an 'I'in Chinese, and ana (ani, inni) 'I' in Arabic. Furthermore, in all these languages, third person pronouns emanated from demonstrative pronouns which they all share with Arabic in form and meaning but not in usage or function-i.e., a process termed lexical shift.
Secondly, from the viewpoint of general linguistic theory, language typology or taxonomy, and language origin (Jassem 2013l), they show that the traditional classification of world languages into families without a common linguistic base from which they all came and to which they can be traced back is false, wrong, and inaccurate, and so it must be rejected. Instead, the data presented here clearly shows that there was a radical or root world language from which all human languages came in the first place, which emerged suddenly perfectly. There can be no other plausible explanation for the similarity or sameness in pronouns and verbs to be/have forms in such languages, for instance. So one can postulate in light of the evidence presented in this paper that the Radical Language had a complex structure with two sets of pronouns, which became simpler and simpler over time. That Radical Language has never died out but variably survived into today's languages, with some languages retaining more or less of its features. As Arabic is the most conservative, permanent, incessant, complex and varied phonetically, morphologically, and lexically, it must be the closest to the source, parent, or Radical Language. Therefore, this entails that there is no need to reconstruct a hypothetical, fictitious old world language (Ruhlen 1987(Ruhlen , 1994 or proto-language (Campbell 2004;Harper 2014); rather that proto-language, or Radical Language to be more precise, is still there which has variably survived into today's languages, whose closest descendant is Arabic. Thus one can say that early (prehistoric) man, or Adam and Eve for the matter, spoke a language which was not too far removed or different from Basque, Finnish, Chinese, English, German, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, or Arabic, the last of which being the nearest, closest, and likeliest spatially, temporally, and, above all, structurally. The differences amongst such languages are the consequence of the operation of the natural forces of language change phonetically, morphologically, grammatically, and semantically as well as orthographically.
Jassem (2014c, 2014h) gave two strong, logical arguments for the existence of a suddenly emerging, perfect, full-fledged, and well-developed Radical Language: one from the nature of language acquisition and/or learning and the other from the course of language evolution. In brief, the former states that all human languages are the result of learning; one speaks a language because someone (usually the parents) taught him it; it is really and certainly impossible otherwise. All first and second language acquisition research worldwide takes this for granted (for a survey, see Crystal 2010;Yule 2006;Jassem 1987Jassem , 1993Jassem , 1994. That is, all languages are acquired or learnt without exception. As to the latter, it is well-known that all languages change by becoming structurally simpler and simpler over time, especially phonetically and morphologically. This entails that, at the outset, the Radical Language was perfect and/or more complex but got simpler and simpler over time. For example, Standard Basque pronouns are simpler than dialectal ones, which are also simpler than their Arabic cognates phonetically, morphologically, and semantically. In fact, pronominal forms today are simpler than they were yesterday in all languages. Furthermore, the change or simplification progressed extremely slowly over time, spanning thousands of years to such an extent that nobody could have ever imagined. So, as all languages change over time by splitting up into simpler dialects due to various factors (for a survey, see Jassem 1987Jassem , 1993Jassem , 1994, they must have, by inference, descended, evolved, or originated eventually from one perfect, complex source language. Over time, they might have changed form and meaning but not substance where the essence of the word remained intact: i.e., the word itself. For example, Arabic ana'I', Basque ni 'I', Chinese an 'I', English and German me/mich, and Latin/French me/moiall kept their substance in general as words denoting first person pronouns in all but changed their form or pronunciation where /n/ became /m/ in some, for instance. The same applies to third person pronouns, all of which stemmed from the demonstrative pronoun, which has the same form in Arabic also. Originally he was the same in Arabic, English, Greek, and German (Jassem 2012c, 214l). Therefore, this entails, in light of these facts, that pre-historic language has survived to this day into contemporary world languages, though variably. In other words, all current human languages are variations on or variable developments of that old, primary, sudden, perfect source, called Radical Language. Put more simply, such a pre-historic language has never died out and will never do so, which still exists to varying degrees in all human languages in current use. Its death simply signals the extinction of the human race because the origin of man is interlinked with that of language.
One might ask where and when that happened exactly. Although that is actually immaterial to the final conclusion of this research, the original homeland of the Radical Language must have been the place of its closest, permanent descendants spatially and temporally, especially the conservative one that resembles it the most, the one which has preserved almost all its features, if not all, until today, the one that has been spoken permanently, incessantly, and uninterruptedly, the one that still occupies the central seat and cradle of ancient civilizations-i.e., the area geographically named Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, broadly speaking, from which human migrations spread concentrically outwards to all corners of the globe. Only one language fulfils all the criteria: namely, Arabic.
In a nutshell, the bulk of linguistic evidence from pronouns here and elsewhere (Jassem 2012d shows that there must have been a Radical or Root Language from which all human languages initially stemmed and into which it has survived variably, though getting simpler and simpler over time. Numerically speaking, such a root language, on the basis of pronominal data alone here, has a current speaker population of 5 billion users in the least out of a total world population of 7 billion, judging by world language distribution statistics.

CONCLUSION& RECOMMENDATIONS
The main findings of the study show that the Radical Linguistic Theory has been adequate for the analysis of the close genetic relationships between pronouns in Arabic, Finnish, and Basque here as well as between those in Arabic, English, German, French, Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit (Jassem 2012d, 2013l) and Mandarin Chinese (2014h). The main results can be summed up as follows: i) Arabic, Finnish, and Basque pronouns (as well as English, German, French, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Chinese) are true cognates with the same or similar forms and meanings, whose differences are due to natural and plausible causes and different courses of phonetic, morphological, and lexical change. The Arabic origins and/or cognates of Basque and Finnish pronouns can be summed up as follows: a. The first person singular pronouns for 'I' in Basque ni, Finnish mina/ma, and Arabic ana/aniare true cognates where /m/ split from /n/ in the second; they are also cognates to English me/mine, French mien/moi, Latin me, and Chinese ni where the same phonetic processes were effected. The Finnish plural pronoun me 'we' is cognate to Arabic -na/iana (inna) 'us, we' where /n/ became /m/. On the other hand, Basque gu 'we' and Arabic iaka 'you' are cognates via lexical shift and turning /k/ into /g/; besides, English you (gein Old English) and German Sie 'you') are cognates also via different sound changes. b. The second person pronouns in Finnish sina'you' and Arabic anta 'you' are true cognates via reversal and turning /t/ into /s/; Old English thou/thine, German du/dein, French tu/tien, Latin tu/te are all cognates as well as a result of different sound routes like reversal and /t/-mutation into /th/ in English and /d/ in German. Japanese anta/anata 'you' and Malay anda 'you' belong firmly here too. c. The third person pronouns in Finnish Han 'he, she, it' and Arabic hun(na) (spoken Arabic hinne) are cognates via lexical shift. d. The demonstrative pronouns in Basque and Finnish shifted to third person function and so did they all in English and Indo-European languages such as English she, it, they besides the, this, that, there, than, though, although, all of which originally meant 'this' (Jassem 2014c); also Chinese tā 'he, she, it; that' had a similar story (Jassem 201h). All descend directly from Arabic dha/ti 'this (m./f.)'. e. Phonetically, the main changes included substitution, reversal, reordering, split, and merger; lexically, the recurrent patterns were stability, convergence, multiplicity, shift, split, and variability. f. Although all such languages have different types of pronouns (e.g., nominative, accusative), they varied in the extent to which they have retained them with Standard Basque having lost that distinction. This means that the early or prehistoric language, called Radical Language here, has had such a complex system which became variably simpler and simpler over time. ii) The Radical Language, or early prehistoric language, was not only real and perfect but also has variably survived into today's languages; its permanence can be most ostensibly seen in Arabic for being the most conservative in resembling it the most closely due to its phonetic capacity and complexity, huge lexical variety and multiplicity as manifested in its pronouns in comparison to those in Basque, Finnish, Chinese, English, and Indo-European languages. iii) Finally, the current work supports Jassem's (2012af, 2013a-q, 2014a-h) calls for further research into all language levels, especially lexis or vocabulary. Also the application of such findings to language teaching, lexicology and lexicography, translation (Jassem 2014d), cultural (including anthropological, historical, social, religious) awareness, understanding, and heritage is badly needed to promote and expedite constructive, cross-cultural cooperation.