Language Ideology of Ënokhan

Dr. Robert Maddibell

---

 The language ideology of Ënokhan is deeply entrenched in the mystical, metaphysical, and otherwise rich spiritual world its speakers inhabit. Unlike many linguistic systems that treat the divine and the mundane as separate categories, Ënokhan erases this distinction entirely, inserting divinity into the very structure of communication. By examining Ënokhan through the lens of linguistic anthropology, particularly concepts such as linguistic relativity, language ideology, and the role of religious discourse in shaping belief and community, we can understand how this language does not merely reflect a worldview but actively constructs it.

Additionally, phenomenological anthropology suggests how Ënokhan is not just a descriptive system but a framework that structures lived experience itself. The language embodies an entire reality which shapes how its speakers perceive existence in a way that cannot be separated from their cultural and religious practices. For example, the endolinguonym of this language itself is deeply coded with divine significance. Ënokhan is derived from the name Ënokh, a deity who is both planet and creator god of people and the Ënokhan language. “Ënokh” in junction with the genitive case “an” gives the literal translation “of Ënokh”. This particular genitive case is typically used as a prefix in all instances other than this specific utterance. The answer to this discrepancy, from the culture’s perspective, is simply that Ënokh came first and everything else came after. 

Relativity and the Construction of Worldview

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests that language shapes thought by providing the cognitive framework in which reality is categorized and perceived. In Ënokhan, the lack of a linguistic distinction between the divine and the natural aligns with this theory—speakers do not conceptualize spiritual existence as separate from their material world because their language does not allow them to.

Similarly, phenomenological anthropology emphasizes that meaning is not just a symbolic construct but a lived, intersubjective reality. Since Ënokhan naturally integrates divine and material concepts, speakers do not see religious belief as a separate entity but as part of their everyday lived experience. This linguistic structure ensures that individuals internalize their spiritual beliefs as part of their natural perception of reality, rather than as an abstract set of principles.

Moreover, the absence of linguistic structures that separate the spiritual from the physical means that speakers are unable to frame discussions about their faith in the same way as cultures that use languages with distinct religious terminology. Speakers’ worldview is on of inherent spiritual immanence and this reality is continuously reinforced through language and culture. However, it is important to recognize that while language influences cognition, it does not rigidly determine it. Some bilingual speakers of Ënokhan and other languages may develop alternative conceptual models. Still, because Ënokhan lacks words for “secular” or “metaphysical”, its speakers are less likely to think in terms of a religious/non-religious binary.

Erasure: The Absence of 'Metaphysical' as a Linguistic Choice

In many languages, words like “metaphysical” or “supernatural” exist because they contrast with a distinct, secular reality. In Ënokhan, such terms do not exist, a phenomenon known as erasure, where alternative conceptual structures are removed from linguistic possibility. This absence is not an accident but a linguistic reinforcement of the cultural belief system—there is no distinction between physical and spiritual existence because the language does not permit such a binary. This mirrors the ways religious languages frequently erase contradictions or alternative worldviews to sustain ideological purity.

Phenomenology further supports this concept through the bracketing (epoché) of reality, which means suspending external evaluations and understanding reality as it is lived. The lack of explicit religious terminology in Ënokhan is not a deficiency but a reflection of a worldview where belief and experience are indistinguishable. Speakers do not conceptualize faith as an abstract ideology; rather, their language itself is an expression of religiosity in practice.

Language Ideology and Iconization

Language ideology refers to the cultural beliefs and social structures embedded in linguistic practices. One critical process in this framework is iconization, where linguistic structures come to represent broader social and ideological values. In Ënokhan, noun classification directly encodes spiritual hierarchy. Two main classes, the animate and inanimate, encompass a series of subclasses containing specific categories and so on. Both main classes have living subclasses, one for people and one for Ënokh. The following table is representative rather than an exhaustive descriptive of Ënokhan’s classification system.

Animate	Inanimate
Living	Divine	Living	Non-Living
Male, Female, Neuter (potential)
People	Animal	Mazarath	Thïsenyar	Other Divine Beings	Ënokh	Everyday Objects

Just as religious discourse often uses language to shape and reinforce belief systems, the grammatical structure of Ënokhan ensures that divine beings, natural forces, and humans exist on a single ontological plane. This process of iconization naturalizes the cultural worldview, making it difficult for speakers to conceive of reality in secular terms. This flexibility is demonstrated through the class system shown above as concepts can freely move between classification, becoming divine or mundane and even denoting intention (a concept that will be discussed in the next section) by the addition of omission of certain utterances.

For example, physical depictions of a group of deities called thïsenyär in the form of statues and effigies can be inhabited by their respective deity which are then used as modes of communication, ritual, and reverence. The language can reflect this change by usage of the prefix thï-, derived from the noun, that when attached to another noun transforms it. The effigy is no longer an inanimate object, but an animate, divine being:

Statue, a mundane inanimate object: lasyërdath

Statue, a living body inhabited by a thïsenyär: thïlasyërdath

 This process can be reversed or replicated for other beings, denoting what overarching group they belong to which in turn informs listeners about the intention and or threat these being may have as these broad groups will have their own specific utterances and pronouns only associated with their respective group. This ability for objects, people, and divine entities to shift categories is not just a linguistic curiosity—it is a structured system of hierarchical reinforcement that mirrors religious order itself. This phenomenon is best explained through fractal recursivity.

Fractal Recursivity: How Language Mirrors Religious Hierarchies

Another key linguistic anthropological concept that applies to Ënokhan is fractal recursivity, which describes how linguistic structures reinforce and reproduce social hierarchies. Just as religious institutions use linguistic markers to establish authority and sacredness, Ënokhan’s system of divine classifications reinforces cultural ideas of spiritual hierarchy. Deities are extensively classified, typically in relation to origin, what speakers think the purpose or motivation of the being is, and if it is a threat. There are three broad groups in which these beings can be classified: the benevolent, the malevolent, and the unknown which have the capacity to be either of the two prior categories.

Ënokh, thïsenyär, and other specific deities occupy the first category of “good”. This distinction comes from their roles in everyday life and the greater cultural belief system of Ënokhan speakers. They have no specific nomenclature lumping them together and are instead discrete categories. Ënokh is its own category because of this deity’s unique role as a father-figure, the physical creator of people and the language, as well as the planet in which these things inhabit. Thïsenyär, which is made up of eight specific deities, is its own category, assigned a unique, grammatically versatile, and gender-neutral pronoun (värth) solely used for this category. Mazarath, a deity revered as a mother-figure and spiritual creator and guide, exists in her own category, receiving an exclusive, versatile pronoun (läth) as well. Lastly, is the subcategory of athehlï. These are technically a variety of lërseventh, entities that are, broadly speaking, varieties of “spirits”. Athehlï are lërseventh whose intent is benevolent and whose purpose is to serve the three prior categories of entities. Athehlï, however, do not have fixed intention like the three prior groups and can migrate between intent and purpose similar to how mundane objects can be transformed into divine, physical manifestations, a concept demonstrated in folklore and canon mythology—an establishment of a shared worldview that reinforces itself within the culture and language, limiting alternative interpretations.

	Pronoun	Exclusive Prefixes (denotes relationship/belonging)	Intention
Mazarath	Läth	Leth-	Fixed, good
Ënokh	Ën or En, or just Ënokh	Ën- or En-	Fixed, good
Thïsenyär	Värth	Thï-	Fixed, good
Athehlï	None. Speakers default to “it”	Leth-	Fluid, good

The malevolent group of entities are sädthäsan, which are further categorized. Extensive categorization is a reflection of a more rigid spiritual hierarchy, interestingly, more expansive than for the benevolent category. At the top of this hierarchy is the deity Akhemaaz, an antagonist and antithetical concept to Mazarath. Beneath him is a lateral hierarchy dubbed säthespïra. The etymology of this word itself is a continuation of Ënokhan’s ability to fluidly transform entire concepts that convey complex information. Thespïra is a mundane word meaning “challenger” and when altered by using a prefix that denotes a divine, malevolent being (sä[th]-) it becomes säthespïra: a divine, malevolent challenger. This concept simultaneously encapsulates cultural ideas about the purpose of these beings in that they are spiritual challengers. Säthespïra specifically are intelligent, sapient entities, however, are bound to specific concepts (“spheres of influence”) that spiritually challenge people. Beneath this lateral hierarchy are sädthäsan, lërseventh whose intent can be assumed to be malevolent because their purpose is to serve the sphere of influence belonging to a specific säthespïra—similar, yet contrasting to athehlï. The hierarchy from this point on is expanded on a level unique to respective säthespïra.

The intermediary between benevolent and malevolent beings are ätherä, another variety of lërseventh but have no allegiance to either benevolent or malevolent categories. This category itself is quite extensive and best discussed through the lens of animism in a later section.

The extensive classification demonstrated in Ënokhan is a direct reflection of the culture and language’s need to classify due to the existential and spiritual influence these categories possess. Recursive structuring means that the divine hierarchy will be reaffirmed at multiple levels, from sentence formation to storytelling. The way language is used reinforces cultural concepts agreed upon by a greater population, subsequently reinforcing spiritual and social order. This process ensures ideological stability and continuity since each new generation of speakers inherits this linguistic system that shapes their understanding of divine order in the same way as their ancestors.

Language Ideology and Categories in Flux

The ideological concept of Ënokh overlapping in both divine and living categories is not the only instance in which concepts that otherwise appear to be discrete, are mixed together in unique ways. Divine beings are broadly categorized into three groups depending on their intentions in relation to people. Similar to how Ënokh overlaps categories so does the Sädsuleth. Sädsuleth translates to “Void-God” and now knowing how these two divine subcategories are culturally perceived, this word seems to be a dichotomy. Anything pertaining to the concept of “säd” and its variants are malevolent and “leth” is supposed to be a prefix denoting a relationship to Mazarath. However, this dichotomy is the point of Sädsuleth as this deity is representative of duality, being the transforming version of the thïsenyär Marëkhs and the säthespïra Mariax Stygal.

Originally, this being was the säthespïra Mariax Stygal first, whose sphere of influence concerns concepts such as secrecy, conspiracy, and arcane or dangerous knowledge. Heavily distilled, Mariax Stygal plays a pivotal role in Ënokh’s creation myth (as a planet) as the arbiter of hidden truths, an agent of justice, and the one who ultimately ensures the survival of Ënokh, paving the spiritual foundation for the concepts discussed in this paper. His role begins as witness to Akhemaaz’s betrayal and murder of Ënokh. Recognizing the injustice, he informs Mazarath, turning himself into a traitor to his peers but also acting as an agent of justice. Mariax Stygal’s role continues to evolve when he revives Ënokh by transforming the deity into a planet that would harbor life in a plethora of forms.

Because of his actions, Mariax Stygal was given status of thïsenyär by Mazarath and the new name of Marëkhs. As thïsenyär, Marëkhs is the virtue of redemption and the ability to change one’s nature. The two identities of Marëkhs and Mariax Stygal together are Sädsuleth, a deity of duality that necessitates seeing beyond appearances who exists in a constant state of transformation—a philosophical cornerstone of cultural belief reflected in the dynamic nature of the Ënokhan language.

Animism and the Linguistic Categorization of Ätherä

A significant aspect of Ënokhan’s linguistic and ideological framework is its animistic structure, particularly in relation to ätherä, spirits that permeate the world. Animism, as described by Burley, does not merely describe a belief in spirits but an ontology in which all things—animate and inanimate—exist as part of an interconnected web of agency and consciousness. This concept can also be applied to Ënokh, being both the physical planet and a central deity, but ätherä and Ënokh are treated as entirely discrete concepts. This notion on the surface appears to be contradictory, but when compared to other deities Ënokh is described as a “passive” or “dormant” entity due to the events that occurred in the creation myth discussed previously. Contrasting to this are ätherä—specifically entities that are manifestations of natural phenomena—which are more active, sometimes capable of influencing natural forces like weather. This idea seems to fit in with the concept of duality as introduced in the creation myth: the natural forces of Ënokh serve to both foster life but also have the ability to disrupt it according to the whims of ätherä. Linguistically, this duality of nature is demonstrated by how nouns are constructed to describe types of ätherä pertaining to the natural world.

As mentioned prior, the category of Ënokh encompasses earthly formations, flora, bodies of water, and other naturally occurring terrestrial concepts. The prefix khï- when added to these nouns, “hijacks” its classification and meaning, shifting it into the category of ätherä. For example, rayasvä means lake and naturally belongs to the category of Ënokh, but khïrayasvä is an entity (ätherä) attached to a lake—a type of water spirit.

In Ënokhan, ätherä are classified linguistically in ways that reflect their unpredictable nature, demonstrating how the language encodes not just social and religious values but also ontological assumptions about the living world. This language is comparable to how any animal fauna would be discussed; ätherä have the capacity to be dangerous by virtue of their nature and supernatural abilities inspired by specific concepts they are drawn to. The ability of ätherä to take on characteristics of the places and things they are drawn to mirrors with the animistic tendency to view natural elements as living, conscious forces. This is reinforced by how their descriptions in Ënokhan shift contextually—ätherä in artistic spaces are described with highly visual, elaborate descriptors, and language that demonstrates these entities are not inclined to hostility or danger. However, those drawn to natural concepts such as bodies of water, mountainous terrain, and even meteorological events may be described with more cautionary language that marks them as forces requiring careful navigation.

Ätherä have limited channels of interaction with the world, but that does not diminish their agency, as their presence is acknowledged through linguistic features that signify their influence on daily life. In Ënokhan, this is reflected in ritual speech patterns used when approaching or utilizing spaces believed to be inhabited by ätherä, as well as the offerings made to appease them. These features and practices are supported by the animistic principle that interaction with spirits does not require direct physical contact but is instead mediated through signs, omens, and ritualized exchanges.

Conclusion

The language ideology of Ënokhan is an example of how linguistic structures do not merely reflect cultural and religious beliefs but actively construct them. By examining its grammatical and classificatory structures through linguistic relativity, iconization, fractal recursivity, and erasure, we see that Ënokhan is not just a means of communication but a framework that defines reality for its speakers. The language blurs distinctions between the divine and the mundane, encoding religious hierarchy and animistic cosmology into everyday speech.

Iconization ensures that linguistic features reflect and reinforce spiritual structures, while fractal recursivity embeds these hierarchies at multiple levels of discourse. The absence of terms for “secular” or “metaphysical” demonstrates erasure, showing how linguistic limitations shape conceptual boundaries. Phenomenologically, this linguistic reality means that speakers of Ënokhan do not “believe” in their spiritual system in the same way external observers might describe faith. Rather speakers experience it as an intrinsic and inescapable aspect of existence.

In this way, Ënokhan serves as both an artifact of cultural continuity and an active force in shaping perception, showing how language is not just a vehicle for ideology but a mechanism through which ideology persists and evolves across generations. Through this lens, we gain a broader understanding of how linguistic systems influence the ways people conceptualize existence, identity, and their place in the cosmos.