3) Problem

To begin this video, as usual, let's start from the here and now. Those of you familiar with the business world will no doubt have heard the famous quote from Jim Barksdale, former CEO of Netscape during the heyday of the late 90s browser wars: « There are only two ways to make money in business: One is to BuNDLe; the other is uNBuNDLe. »

What this sentence means is that, since the beginning, businesses have always either aSSeMBLed services and goods, or, on the contrary, DiViDed an existing offer. Regarding bundling, think of the ISPs who nowadays offer Internet, television, and cell phone services, when these were previously provided by different companies. Regarding unbundling, think of how file storage services were once only provided by the computer operating system.

CeNTRalization and deCeNTRalization are a similar matter, whether in the field of IT, the economy or, more generally, organizations. For instance, for many years decentralization has been a hot conversational topic in France, which tried – and still tries - to remedy the ConCeNTRation of decision-making CeNTeRs in Paris.

Everyone remembers that the former USSR collapsed because of the Soviet economy excessive centralization. In business too, there is increasing talk of autonomy and decentralization. This idea comes up even in biology in the study of organs evolution, some SPeCialized FuNCtions being centralized, or, on the oPPoSite, delegated to the PeRiPheRy.

Claude Lévi-Strauss was one of the first to formalize this process in anthropology, demonstrating that cultures often FRaGment what is CoNTiNuous; whether in language, which creates meaning out of noise with a limited number of sounds, or in kinship relationships, which STRuCTuRe sexual interactions seen as eNTaNGLed in the animal kingdom.

In fact, and I'll come back to this at greater length in my next video, behind this question of centralization and decentralization, BuNDLing, and unBuNDLing, lies the question of social organization. It's a ancient question, much older than our species Homo Sapiens, since it probably dates back to the time when our ancestors began to walk upright on the African savannah, two million years ago.

This question can be summarized as: « Is it better to join the group? Or to leave the group and start a new one? ». This question comes up in any group of humans, especially at the deciding moment of FooD ShaRing. Put another way, SoCial organization can be rephrased into a much more practical question: « With whom do we share our food? And on which terms? »

Food sharing, aka. CoMMeNSality, is indeed at the root of all human iNSTiTutions. This is the reason why « ShaTa », the fundamental word embodying Paleolithic institutions, appears in the semantic field of commensality, FeaST, FeSTivities, and FeSTivals, starting with éSTia (home in Greek), the place where feasts take place, and which gave its name to the Greek goddess Hestia and the Roman goddess veSTa.

From éSTia also derives éSTiaô (to receive into one's home, to offer RooM and BoaRD, to CeLeBRate, to TReaT a GueST) and éSTiasis (banquet, FeaST). In English, there's the guest, the person coming from afar, and THE word for commensality is to HoST, especially in French where HôTe means both the host and the guest; but I'll come back to this important ambiguity in a minute.

« Host » is usually mistakenly derived from hoSPes (host, STRaNGer, TRaVeLer) from which we got hoSPiTality, hoSPiTal. It’s incorrect as this is not « ShaTa », but I'll come back to this later on. In the meantime, to wrap up the theme of reciprocal commensality: this concept appears in Latin with HoSTio (to hit, but also to ReCiPRoCate, to eVeN out), from which also derives HoSTis (the stranger, the eNeMy, the RiVaL).

And what do you eat at a FeaST? A RoaST, of course (RôTi in French)! SuwT in Egyptian. A roast, or a STeaK, is a feast, but it's also what turns on a STaKe, TISuW in Egyptian, as we've already seen. Still in the spirit of the meat SeRVed at the feast, there's also the sacred HoST, from the Latin HoSTia (a sacrifice offered in atonement).

What are you saying? « The host is made of BReaD, not MeaT »? Obviously, you haven't watched my video about the ShaRing covenant (« Loi des parties ou alliance du partage? »), otherwise you'd know that, according to the words of Christ, originally bread was meat, a meaning that Hebrew and Arabic have preserved in LeḤeM and LaḤM.

This is also why in Greek SiTos means both FooD and WheaT (that one eaTs like meat ...), as well as aLiMoNy, the distribution of wheat to the NeeDy; because the feast (the Native American potlatch) is always a MeaL (of meat ...) that those who have LoTs ShaRe with the needy, who have moreover always been seen as « PaRaSiTes » though (literally: those who eat on the side). « parasite » derives from SiTeô (to eat, to prepare a meal), and from SiTioN (GRaiN, food, victuals). And food is often PaSTRy, PaSTa, KNeaDed with the PeSTLe (PiSTo, as seen previously).

Of course, the ChieF is the FiRST to ChooSe his CuT, SeTeP in Egyptian (to choose, to SeLeCt). The chief was the CRoWNed one, the Stephan, from STéFanos in Greek (the crown and more generally all that SuRRouNDs, STéFô).

There were lots of WReaThs and GaRLanDs (STémma) in Paleolithic times: garlands to decorate trees, houses, and foremost to wrap around the Maypole, the prehistoric Western European tradition where RiBBoNs were wrapped around a MaST to CeLeBRate the spring eQuiNoX - to which I'll return in a few moments.

Back to the FeaST: « ShaTa » appears in the Hebrew miShTeh (feast), and in the Egyptian word for SuPPer meSyT. We also find it in ShaRaT (to SeRVe - DiShes at the feast!). And above all in TiShRy, the month of FeSTivals, which begins with the New Year, RoʔSh haShaNah, during which a special - I would say « linguistic » - feast is held, which features the enunciation of special blessings, which are in effect PuNs on the resemblance between the NaMe of each FooD and some PaSSages of the Bible.

The PLeaSure derived from the feast is feeling SaTiSFied, FuLL, SaTiaTed: SaTias, SaTies in Latin, from SaTis and SaT (eNouGh, SuFFiCient), and from which derive numerous words related to SaTieTy, such as SaTiSFaCtio (to SaTiSFy), SaTuR (satiated, full), SaTius (preferable) and SaTuRatio (SaTuRation).

Saturation is taShRyt in Hebrew (not to be confused with taShḤyT, which we'll see in a moment) and SaTio in Latin, which means altogether to satiate, to satisfy, as well as SeaSoN and to SoW, which we'll also come to shortly. By the way, you'll remember the French TRoP (too much) from my first video on the word « TaRa ». Well, its opposite is aSSeZ (enough): aSSeZ, TRoP: here again, the 3 buddies « Sha Ta Ra ».

Let’s come back to TiShRy : it's the FiRST month of the year, or the SeVeNth, depending on whether one is counting from the Autumn or the Spring equinox - a question that triggered a famous debate among the sages of the Talmud. Wait a minute. Did you notice? In French, « le SePTième mois » (the 7th month), sounds like Sept-ember. But SePTember isn't the seventh month, it's the nineth. You see, seven, SePT in French, so frequent in the Bible, is first and foremost the figure of the FeaST. This is the reason why you don't hear the « P » in French SePT. SePT is not pronounced Se-P-t but « SeT », « ShaTa ».

Of course, there is no feast without BeVeRages; no SymPoSium without PoTions, and this is as old as the first traces of BeeR, 15,000 years ago. The SymPoSium experts were the Greeks, whose feasts were filled with SaTyRs, good-for-nothing fellows with an erect PhaLLus (« ShaTa »), who were unable to control themselves and spent their days drunk, stumbling from one banquet to the other.

That's why ShaTaH in Hebrew doesn't just mean to iNSTaLL (cf. my previous video), but also and above all to DRiNK. Its first occurrence is in the Bible, also in the Parasha of Noah, chapter 9 of Genesis, when Noah gets drunk.

As for ThiRST, it's NeSheT in Hebrew and SiTis in Latin, with the meaning of PaSSionate DeSiRe, GReeD, LuST. Finally, « ShaTa » is also featured in MuSTum (new WiNe, MuST) and in YeaST, thanks to which BeeR could be made (the word also used to refer to SCuM).

And when the FeaST is over, when you've had your FiLL of FooD and DRiNK, what do you do? You Pee - Yes, it FeeLs good, doesn’t it? ShaTaN in Hebrew. But then you realize that you've left quite a MeSS behind you, SaTuRa in Latin (MiXTuRe, JuMBLe), and which appears again in SaTiRe (this time with an i), originally a form of « messily » structured poetry.

That's why feasts are always a little SaD (TRiSTe). A bit like SaTuRN, about whom I spoke at length last year, the sad god of ancient Paleolithic cultures, whose FeSTival, the SaTuRNalia, took place at the winter SoLSTiCe. Indeed, after a feast, there's always quite a mess, lots of TRaSh (SiTus in Latin, which we've already seen with the meaning of SiTe), some GueSTs are WaSTed (DRuNK), everything is SPoiLed (GâTé in French, from the Old French GaST). The table is DeVaSTated from VaSTus in Latin, which gave waste. Devastated is ShaḤaT in Hebrew, which also means CoRRuPtion and PiT... a ShiTHoLe.

Incidentally ShaḤaT also appears for the first time in the Parasha of Noah, at the very beginning, again in chapter 6, verse 12, of Genesis, when God says that the earth has become corrupt, DiRTy, ShaḤaT, and that he is going to DeSTRoy it. « vehiNe niShḤèTah ki hiShḤyT kol BaSaR et DaRKow ʕaL haʔaReTs ».

Do you remember BaL taShḤyT (spoil nothing) the essential Paleolithic principle I told you about in my second video about « TaRa »? It's the same concept.

In short, after the feast, STaiNs abound. To stain also means to spoil, to DaMaGe. And it's starting to SMeLL BaD or NaSTy, to STiNK a STRonG STeNCh. You could even say it smells like ShiT, STeRCus in Latin, SheʔeT (RoT) in Hebrew, which also means TuMors, a rotting of the SKiN. Yes, things are getting truly unhealthy, STeRiLe, PeSTiferous, PeSTilent, from PeSTis in Latin (PLaGue, ConTaGion). We will come across the plague (la PeSTe in French) again in my next video. An ancient thing, the plague... Finally, this notion of DeCaY is also found in RuST and ShaTaK, the rotten ReD in Hebrew.

By the way, let's come back to ShaḤaT for a minute. If you pay attention, you'll see « Ḥa », which connote warmth and life, in the middle of SheʔeT (rottenness). ShaḤaT is the decay of all life, ḤaY, which appears three times in verses 19 and 20 of Genesis chapter 6. « aḤ » is also in the name NoaḤ, the hero who refused to be swayed by the corruption of his generation, and continued to build his ark, against all and all odds.

Here we witness a defining feature of Paleolithic culture: its linguistic ambiguity. We've moved imperceptibly from feast to decay. Unfortunately, Pharisian linguists will never get this, even 2,000 years from now. English has invented a word to describe this phenomenon, contronym, whose archetype in French is « hôte » (which means both the host and the guest).

The same ShaTa » ambiguity appears in DuST, with the dust and to dust and in SaNCtion, which means both to approve and to PuNiSh. As you can see, « ShaTa », the foundational word of human institutions, is quite fond of contronyms, which sound like echoes of the Paleolithic language, bidding us farewell across tens of thousands of years.