This idea of eternal STaNDing SToNes seems apt to understand the highly iNSTiTutional and oFFiCial meaning of « ShaTa » across languages, especially in Hebrew with the famous ShiYT which appears 85 times in the Bible, but above all, of course, in Latin, the quintessential language of FoRMalism and LeGalism.

And in Latin, STo reigns supreme. STo means, like iSTèmi in Greek, to STaND up and to be, but more importantly, it generated an impressive number of legal terms. Hold on to your hats, there's a whole bunch of them: first, aBSTo, which gave « aBSenT », aSSiSTo (to aSSiST), ConSiSTo (to ConSiST of), DeSiSTo (to DeSiST), PeRSiSTo (to PeRSiST), ReSiSTo (to ReSiST), SuBSiSTo (to SuBSiST). Then there's a word I like, « CoST », related to ConSTo, which has several meanings, including that of being CeRTain, obvious - aSCeRTained by both parties to an agreement. A cost is aSSeRTed and ConSTanT and can also vary according to CiRCuMSTanCes.

There is of course also ConSTiTuo, from STaTuo (to STaTe, to aDJuDiCate) and appears in « ConSTiTution », but also iNSTiTuo (to institute), which appears in our institutions, and SuBSTiTuo (to SuBSTiTute) - very important in LaW of course. But there's more. DiSTo (to be far away) gave « DiSTant ». eXiSTo, to eXiST. iNSTo and iNSiSTo, to iNSiST. oBSTo, to oBSTRuCT. PRaeSTo, which means both what is ready (PRêT in French, with a T) and near (PRèS in French, with an S), and from which derive both to « PReSeNT » and the French expression « prêter main forte », to LeND a HaND.

Then there's ConTRaSTo (to oPPoSe), found in « ConTRaST ». PRoSTo (to PReSeNT for SaLe), which resulted in PRoSTiTute. Or ReSTo (to SToP or ReST). But wait, there's more. Other words are not direct derivatives of STo but are related to it, such as DeSTiNo, from which comes to DeSTiNe and which means to FiX, to SuBJeCT, to aSSiGN, to form the purpose, the design (« former le dessein » in French) and oBSTiNo (to iNSiST, to be oBSTiNate, to PeRSiST). And aeSTiMo (to eSTiMate).

That was Latin. In Greek, there's STaDios, (that which is eSTaBLished, firm) – hence the STaDium, with its fixed boundaries. This sense of something fixed, formal, institutional found in « ShaTa » explains why the State, with a capital S, is the state. As a matter of fact, linguists long ago identified « STa » as a root shared across all Indo-European languages, with for instance « stan » in the Indo-Iranian sphere: Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, and Pakistan. The « stan », the State, is what uNiTes people around that which STaNDs uPRiGhT.

To remain in the FoRMal, there's also the French aCheTer (to PuRChaSe, to BuY). Yes, aCheTer is eSTer (to appear before a court). Remember, « Sa » and « Sha » were pretty much the same thing in the Paleolithic era. Now, I confess this connection is my doing: nobody really knows where the word aCheTer comes from. Finally, in English, there's STouT, meaning valiant, STRonG, courageous, and above all, « MuST », the quintessential verb of obligation. Without MuST (and its associated CoSTs), there's no TRuST - and no human SoCieTies whatsoever ...

By the way, you'll recall that in my previous video I explained that trust stems from « TaRa », the TReaTy drawn up in the RiGhT form. The wonderful thing about trust is that it's the first example of a phonetic-semantic fusion between « TaRa », the right form, and « ShaTa », the iNSTiTution; I'll explain phonetic-semantic fusion further in a few moments.

Trust can also be found – yes - in the Bible, in Nehemiah with TiRShaTaʔ the governor - « TaRa » « ShaTa ». The governor is the one the king trusts. All right, I'm cheating a bit, Nehemiah takes place in Persia, and everyone knows that Persian is an « Indo-European » language, according to the Pharisians.

Now that you've got a clear idea of the semantic scope of STo, the quintessential LeGal verb, it's time to take down the first STaTue: the etymology of TeSTis, the WiTness (the one who TeSTiFies), a fundamental legal term.

In La Parole Impérieuse, page 343, legal anthropologist Robert Jacob explains that TeSTis is the « agent who participates fully in the drawing of legal acts ». The aBiLity to be TeSTis is intrinsic to the STaTus of QuiRis, the original Roman CoMMuNity. The FoRFeiTure of one entails the forfeiture of the other.

Robert Jacob cites the example of the iNTeSTaBiLis, the person who refuses to testify; and who, by their refusal, is not only stripped of the right to testify, but above all for whom no one will ever be aBLe to testify. This means nothing less than eXCLusion, a BaNiShment from human SoCieTy, similar to the legal regime of the SaCeR, whom anyone could KiLL without consequences. SaCeR is a bit like KaReT, the CuTTing off from the Bible.

Primitive Roman society, the society of the QuiRites, is therefore a society of people who testify and act as witnesses for one another, who aTTeST things to one another, and of course, this notion did not apply solely to Roman society, but prevailed in the Paleolithic era over East Africa and Western Eurasia.

For my Freudian psychoanalysis fans giggling in the back of the room, TeSTis also occurs in TeSTiCLes. It's believed that people used to SWeaR and testify for each other by touching their testicles, as for instance, in Genesis chapter 24 when Abraham has his servant swear not to make Isaac marry a foreigner, or in chapter 47 when Jacob, on his deathbed, has Joseph swear to bury him outside Egypt.

All right, that's all very nice, but the problem is that Robert Jacob, like many others, traces the etymology of TeSTis back to TeR-stis, with the idea that the witness is the one who STaNDs as a ThiRD PaRTy « TeR stis » - quoting the great linguist Emile Benveniste, in his 2nd volume of his Vocabulaire des iNSTiTutions Indo-Européennes (page 119).

My acquaintances know that I'm a fan, not only of Benveniste, but above all, of the concept of the « TRuSTed third party », and I therefore unwillingly came to terms with the idea that TeSTis had nothing to do with TeR, but everything to do with « ShaTa », the foundational word embodying institution in the Paleolithic period. TeSTis is not trust. Just as the TowRah is not a TeSTament, neither old nor new.

This important sidenote about TeSTis behind us, let's get back to STo. We've seen that it embodies the iNSTiTution, by associating it to the concept of « STaNDing SToNes », of HaRD RoCks. The other characteristic of a SToNe is that it is ... STiLL. I'll come back to Homo Sapiens' fascination with stillness in my next video, but for now, just be aware that STo is that which is STaBLe, STaTic. As is the STaTus, the STaTe of being.

This sense of stillness in STaTos, STaTioNary, or STaSis the action of standing, stability, or FiXity. There's also STaGNo, that which is STaGNant, and above all SiTus the SiTe, the PoSition, which also means GRiMe, DiRT, MoLD, RuST (I'll return to this aspect at greater length in my next video). Lastly, of course, there's STaBiLis, meaning both what it stable and eSTaBLished, and STaTio, STaNCe (SiTTing or standing, a hominid specificity). Not to mention PoSiTus, position, which everyone thinks derives from PoNo, when in fact it's PoNo that derives from PoSiTus... but we'll come back to this SuFFiX shortly.

Lastly, also related to stillness, there's STeLLa, the stationary STaRs « ShaTa », ShiNing LiGhT, but also the STuPiD and the « SoTs » (idiots in French) - like my lazy Pharisian linguists and anthropologists, who stand still and gape at the STaRs that are my bright videos. « Stupid » and « Sot », of course come from the Latin SToLiDus, STuLTus and STuPeo.

This sense of stillness is present in English with STuN, aSToNiSh, STeaD, STaLL (to stall, and a stall – where the STaLLion is placed), and SToP.

Anyway, it's not that complicated: « ShaTa », found in all languages across East Africa and Western Eurasia, is that which stands, is STiLL, embodies the iNSTiTution, and STaNDing SToNes are the archetypes of institution. Not that complicated… Are you sure ? The thing is, this interpretation of standing stones is wrong, or at least incomplete.

First, the erection of standing stones only emerged in the Neolithic period; the oldest ones probably being those of Göbekli Tepe in Turkey, dating back some 12,000 years, a time when our ancestors had the technical and organizational skills to eReCT these monsters weighing several dozen tons. And if you've seen my video on the Era of Abundance, you'll be aware that language is much older than the Neolithic, especially when it comes to a word as universal as « ShaTa ».