Thank you, K, for comment. That is appreciated.

If I might suggest a slight course correction to bring you into deeper temporal seas.

The watery realm of maritime law from which the office of King of Ship was let down to Earth to command the planet as a vessel and the populations, both willing and shanghaied, through overt and covert performance contracts is the pearl being examined.

The question is the source and validity of authority at the core of this pearl, shrouded in in untold and indistinguishable layers of opaque, lustrous legal expression.

It is true that the word ship can and is used in non-maritime expressions in the shallow waters of the present time, but consider that a dominant or conquering force would have historically impressed the words and trends of its language on a subjected population in the deeper past. Also consider that this force would commandeer the intent and meaning of the language of the subjected population for its own advantage. This is simply the ethics of dominance.

If you place the word "of" before those words of the list that end in "ship" you will have the strong suggestion of a culture oriented to existence apart from and independent of the concept of land as we understand that idea. If you incorporate the historical evidence regarding those who came from the heavens to the Earth into that suggestion the implication is a culture that exists in the interstellar oceans where solid matter is almost a non-existent fraction of the total volume. This culture would be grounded in ship. That grounding would be reflected in language of ship.

Happy sailing.

=======================================================
Thanks so much, K..

**********************************

Hi again, Lynda

Here are a couple of observations on the thread which you started, on the subject of words and slavery. That thread is a long way down the page, now. Perhaps you can find a way to make a link. If not, you could just file this away for future reference!

Mike gives an impressively long list of words ending in the suffix -ship. However, the word ship, when used is this way, does not refer to large seagoing vessels. Here's an excellent breakdown of how the suffix -ship works, and its origin.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/21168/is-there-any-relation-between-the-suffix-ship-and-actual-ships

Jordan Maxwell's equating of "berth" and "birth" is a little tricky. This is a bit (though not exactly) like the phenomenon of homophones, where words have the same pronunciation, but different spellings and meanings.

A few examples:

rain rein reign

sight site cite

pear pair pare

scene seen

male mail

The verb "to bear", which is the source of "birth", and probably also "berth", has quite a wide range of meanings.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bear

There is some uncertainty about the etymology of "berth", but the best suggestion I've seen is that it comes from the nautical meaning of "to bear", in the sense of changing course.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/berth

So we have the interesting situation in which two words with almost the same spelling, and probably with the same derivation, still manage to have quite different meanings, and cannot be equated at all.

Regards,

K