Enochian - Skeptical and Linguistic Evaluations

Skeptical and Linguistic Evaluations

Skeptics have pointed to this discrepancy between the two revealed sets of Enochian texts as an indication that Enochian is not a consistent language. For instance, it has been noted, especially by the Australian linguist Donald Laycock, that the texts in the Loagaeth material show phonetic features that do not generally appear in natural languages. Rather, the features shown are commonly found in instances of glossolalia, suggesting that Kelley actually produced at least this set of writings via "speaking in tongues."

Building on Laycock’s linguistic analysis, skeptics also point out that there are even problems with holding that the texts of the Enochian keys represent a genuine natural language. It is observed that the syntax of the Enochian calls is almost identical with that of English. Also, the very scant evidence of Enochian verb conjugation seems quite reminiscent of English, more so than with Semitic languages as Hebrew or Arabic, which Dee claimed were debased versions of the original Angelic language. There are only two known verbs with conjugations, one of which, "to be," is highly irregular. While some phonetic features of Enochian show a connection to glossolalia, others show similarities to the English language. Both languages have soft and hard consonants such as c and g, and combine s and h to make the sh sound.

As for the semantics of Enochian, addition similarities to English have been found. For example, luciftias, a term meaning brightness, may very possibly have a connection to Lucifer, whose name means "light bringer." Londoh, a word meaning kingdom, may have come from Dee's admiration for the Queen of England. These and other examples have led skeptics to believe that many of these terms are derived from notions that would have been contemporary in Dee and Kelley's time.