Aural and written communication and semiotic
characteristics of the ancient macedonian language

        The deciphered material clearly brings to mind that the ancient Macedonians had a developed degree of education, they had their own teachers and schools philosophies, higher and lower sciences, literate administration etc. that is everything that is necessary to perform oral and written communication in an organised matriarchal and patriarchal society. From this it is clear and it isn’t odd that they, the Macedonians had an excellent knowledge of the language and not only of phonetics, but of morphology and syntax too. In other words they, the Macedonians were knowledged not only in the sound system but as well in the forms, their changes and meaning and also they knew about the sentence and it’s parts, because eleven types of words were distinguished: Nouns, pronouns, adjectives, numbers, verbs, prepositions, adverbs, conjunctions, interjection; particles and modal words which can be differentiated in groups of changeable and non changeable words. Change is present in substantives, pronouns, adjectives, numbers and verbs and based on change of the form according to gender, number, article, tense, person, mode and comparison. They knew about the way of building words and the different shades of meaning of separate word groups. They knew what is a root, a suffix and prefix that is, they knew of the smallest parts from which the word was composed, which were the carriers of certain meaning that is, they knew what was word composition and how nouns and adjectives were derived etc.; the ancient macedonians knew what a normative pronunciation is which means to a greater extent a normative and standard language which on it’s part contributed for the multi macedonian millennium lingual experience to be able to surpass the present day borders of Macedonia and to become the possession of all the previous macedonian tribes, who present day civilisation recognises as slav people or the neighbours of the slav nations.

        From a strictly semiotic characteristic of the language in the sense of Morris’ foundations to the theory of signs, it could be constituted that the pre historic macedonian language, at it’s that time level in relation to the wealth of it’s structural complexity, encorporateness of things which marked and aims which it suited represents a three dimensional whole, that is, it has a syntactic, semantic and pragmatic dimension. Nevertheless, as a natural and rich language it had a universal feature, because with it everything could be represented and this often made it ambiguous and multi meaning in various decoded and deciphered inscriptions (texts), or, a system of bilaterally connected signs as a whole semiotic feature, represents any inter subjective sum of a bearer of signs whose use is determinedly the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic rules.
        Some open contradictions implicate that the chroniclers of time must have known about the process in which something played a role of a sign (semiosis) and that process incorporated three or four factors: that which serves as a sign, that which is in reference to the sign and the action upon a certain interpreter next to who the thing which is spoken about is a sign for that interpreter. Following so, in the macedonian prehistoric inscriptions (texts) we have a bearer of the sign, designate and interperant and as a fourth constituent the interpretator is included and this implicates that the signs are about someone and something.