Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Language and the Tower of Babel
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 31 of 95 (427355)
10-11-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by bernerbits
10-11-2007 9:19 AM


Re: My 'theory'...
Certainly. It's just very interesting to consider what environmental conditions favored something so intricate as language (let alone weird stuff like religion and music and our obsession with comfort and luxury), when "hungry, get food", "bad mushroom, no eat" and "tiger, run away" seem like they could suffice in evolutionary terms.
Society, I believe. The need to express not just plans and wants but express how others are thinking about them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 9:19 AM bernerbits has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 9:50 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 32 of 95 (427358)
10-11-2007 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by simple
10-11-2007 3:24 AM


Job?
Job's not a patriarch. And this chart is totally off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 3:24 AM simple has not replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 33 of 95 (427362)
10-11-2007 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Jack
10-11-2007 8:44 AM


Re: My 'theory'...
What's more there is no evidence that language shapes thought ... and many simple demonstration that we don't think in language: ever not had the word to express what you're thinking? Ever come across a new word and realised it describes exactly what you wanted to say?
Exactly what I was trying to get across but I just couldn't find the words

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2007 8:44 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 34 of 95 (427366)
10-11-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Jack
10-11-2007 9:29 AM


Re: My 'theory'...
The need to express not just plans and wants but express how others are thinking about them.
So, collective thinking. The ability to transmit and share mental concepts in a complex fashion with minimal lossiness in order to apply more brains to the same problem. What path would you suggest from mere symbolic representations of concepts to full-blown human language?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2007 9:29 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2007 10:14 AM bernerbits has replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 35 of 95 (427370)
10-11-2007 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Jack
10-11-2007 8:44 AM


Re: My 'theory'...
Language has no problem solving capability.
I wouldn't go that far. Have you ever had a problem in your head where you just had to "talk it out"? Natural language still has structure and that structure can be transformed and reduced like other more "pure" languages like arithmetic, so yes, there is some innate problem solving ability in natural language.
If you're broadening the term to include all forms of symbolic representation, then it's a different matter
As an amateur linguist and computer programmer by trade, I would ;-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2007 8:44 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 36 of 95 (427376)
10-11-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by bernerbits
10-11-2007 9:50 AM


Re: My 'theory'...
If you're happy with wild speculation...
The base level is an immediate communication: "Eagle!"
The next level is memory communication: "Fruit this-way"
Then you have planned action: "We-go [gather] fruit this-way"
Directed action "We-go attack Bimbim"
Temporal offset "Soon we-go attack Bimbim"
Command "Soon we-go attack Bimbim; tell others"
Information "Earlier Bobo attack Bimbim"
Animals will lie to misdirect others, for example making false alarm calls to get others to drop food, and are capable of distinguishing the caller and acting differently according to who said it. If you're communicating with temporal or spatial offsets so that the validity of a statement can't be directly determined so knowing who said it can be valueable.
And you're up to "Migo say Bobo attack Bimbim earlier."
Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 9:50 AM bernerbits has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 10:25 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 37 of 95 (427385)
10-11-2007 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Jack
10-11-2007 10:14 AM


Re: My 'theory'...
The process of linguistic evolution is anybody's guess right now. So wild speculation is fine.
I would argue that that chain is good for building up data and planning, but I'm not sure that fully accounts for our current richness of language. Certainly what you've got there so far is easy enough to encode into something trivially machine-parseable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2007 10:14 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 38 of 95 (427401)
10-11-2007 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by simple
10-11-2007 2:00 AM


Nothing but Babel
but not applicable to the time of Babel, when there was a spiritual level nearby
What does that have to do with reaching Heaven?
Genesis 11:4 writes:
4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
Your 'evidence' does not match what the bible says.
Since we don't know precisely what the created kinds were, there is a lot of leeway there.
So you have nothing. Don't bring it up if you have no leg to stand on.
But man was a kind, so we did not come from monkeys
I thought you said leeway! You seem to have a problem being consistent.
Simple from message 24 writes:
I do not believe that Babel was really all that important
God found it important. He scattered man and created separate languages just to ruin the project. Thats what the Bible says.
Simple from message 24 writes:
God was not pleased that they would try to bypass the promised savior, Jesus, and get there by themselves
Link or quote please. I can't find anything to suggest this in the passages. This still does not address the fact (biblically speaking) that God stepped in to ruin a project that was attempting to build a tower to Heaven. Why?
But I think that this happened to fall at a time when something else was happening ANYHOW. Something that the Almighty Himself, said would come down to man in 120 years.
So what? Even if this mystery event was about the time of Babel it has no relevance to the importance of Babel.
That means Babel would be, if I have it close here, about the time of Peleg.
Let me guess - your guessing. Got any of that evidence you claim to have?
Remember this?
No, I am after reality that meets the evidences, that is as simple as possible.
Start presenting it then. So far you have produced zero.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 2:00 AM simple has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 11:22 AM Vacate has replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 39 of 95 (427405)
10-11-2007 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Vacate
10-11-2007 11:05 AM


Re: Nothing but Babel
Simple from message 24 writes:
God was not pleased that they would try to bypass the promised savior, Jesus, and get there by themselves
Link or quote please. I can't find anything to suggest this in the passages. This still does not address the fact (biblically speaking) that God stepped in to ruin a project that was attempting to build a tower to Heaven. Why?
Really this is a product of some kind of attempt to apply logic to "scripture as a whole". God provides Jesus to get us into heaven and must therefore be utterly pissed off by people getting close some other way. This means that heaven must really have been physically located in earth's atmosphere back then before God decided he couldn't outwit the humans that way and relocated (100 years after the flood in simple's chronology -- though that begs the question of where Jesus went when he ascended... if he ascended into space did he asphyxiate and die again?), or God wouldn't have had to ruin the project.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Vacate, posted 10-11-2007 11:05 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Vacate, posted 10-11-2007 12:06 PM bernerbits has not replied
 Message 45 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 3:43 PM bernerbits has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 40 of 95 (427423)
10-11-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by bernerbits
10-11-2007 11:22 AM


Re: Nothing but Babel
Really this is a product of some kind of attempt to apply logic to "scripture as a whole"
Unimportant. The people of the time didn't read the bible to find out how the plot would unfold. This situation is about the people of the time and Gods reactions. There is no indication that the people of that time knew about future events and did what they did only to make the Bible complete.
God provides Jesus to get us into heaven
Us, not them. Jesus came onto the stage sometime later, the 'gonna build a tower to heaven' folk did not have Jesus as an option.
Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 11:22 AM bernerbits has not replied

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 95 (427435)
10-11-2007 1:01 PM


I think the best model for early language is probably close to modern chimps. Chimps are able to match vocal calls with facial expressions to a fairly high percentage. Communication is less about words and more about emotion in the early stages, which I admit is drifting off topic. The whole idea of the tower of babel and the splitting of language is fairly laughable. Any 'Biblical scholars' care to give us a time frame when this event took place? If god 'confused' the languages of man, to divide them, (why is he so scared of us?) then why are there clear linear progressions from one language to another with predictable results, based on geography, with exceptions like the Basque language. Why are there examples of a number of different languages prior to 4400 BCE (THE FLUD)?
-x

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 42 of 95 (427463)
10-11-2007 2:59 PM


One thing that I cannot figure out is why no-one puts himself in the frame of mind of the writer of the particular story. In the Babel case, people assumed that heaven was within reach of building a hight enough tower. It would make no sense to confuse language if it was physically impossible to attain the goal of the tower builders, but if the people, of that time, felt that it was physically possible, then there is a meaning of the babbling.

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 3:37 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 95 (427466)
10-11-2007 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by bernerbits
10-11-2007 8:43 AM


Only given long ages, and a bunch of other things that you don't have, except in your head.
But that's another topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 8:43 AM bernerbits has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 95 (427467)
10-11-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by bluescat48
10-11-2007 2:59 PM


Exactly! The question is was there, then, or not, and how could we now know??? I say let's just believe God, since no one knows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by bluescat48, posted 10-11-2007 2:59 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by EighteenDelta, posted 10-11-2007 3:51 PM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 95 (427468)
10-11-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by bernerbits
10-11-2007 11:22 AM


Re: Nothing but Babel
No, because Jesus was not born in that time right near the flood. There was promised a savior, since the garden. You may have heard that much.
Many times in the bible, it is interpreted by a good many that Jesus was active, such as with the two angels at Sodom, or walking in the garden, etc.
This means He was the link to the spiritual, and eternal life we would need to follow, we could not simply climb up to the then present spiritual level of 'heaven' in our still sinful condition!!
That is what I mean by trying to bypass the promised savior, and get there by the arm of the still sinful, fallen flesh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 11:22 AM bernerbits has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 6:37 PM simple has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024