|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation of the English Language | |||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Yeah, thought that looked like Beowulf.
But, yes, we have a long historical record of languages changing drastically and increasing in complexity even as some parts of the languages simplified. How does that fit into the "creation model"? Assuming, of course, that creationists have any understanding of linguistics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
{voice="Flip Wilson's Geraldine"}
The Tazmanian devil made me do it! {/voice} Ah yes, "Dr" Hovind, the self-proclaimed expert in science and math. "You don't understand any of that, but I understand it because I taught high school math and science for 15 years." He wouldn't clarify that it was in his own private Christian school -- oh those poor poor kids! But wait, there's more! At this site, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1260.cfm, a Christian group revealed "EXACT ILLUMINIST TIMETABLE FOR PRODUCING ANTICHRIST HAS BEEN REVEALED TO CUTTING EDGE MINISTRIES!". The Illuminati plot was to create a second sun in the sky by crashing the Galileo probe into Jupiter and the resulting nuclear explosion would ignite Jupiter into a star. When they asked astronomers how feasible this was, the astronomers tried to explain that it couldn't happen because Jupiter is not massive enough to trigger a fusion reaction in its core (it's about 1/10th the necessary mass, as I recall from astronomy class over 30 years ago). But Cutting Edge just could not understand what those astronomers told them, but they could understand the "scientific" answer that Hovind gave them:
quote:Talk about the blind leading the blind! A related Hovind claim that I've tracked down is that at the rate that the sun is losing mass because it's "burning its fuel", 5 million tons per second, then 5 billion years ago the sun would have been so massive that it would have sucked the earth in. But if we do the math (gee, wasn't Hovind an "expert" in math?) we find that the sun's mass and gravity would have been only a few thousandths of a percent greater, sucking the earth in by less that 100,000 miles. When I emailed Hovind about this and asking for clarification, he did everything he could to avoid discussing or even supporting his own claim; he even tried, twice, to pick a fight with me over my AOL screenname (same as the one here). Even if the sun were originally pure hydrogen and were allowed to fuse its entire mass into helium, the total mass lost by "burning its fuel" could not possibly exceed 0.7% of the original mass. Apparently, Hovind not only believes that the sun burns by combustion, but he also believes that combustion results in the mass of the fuel disappearing -- what, conservation of matter and basic chemistry is just an evolutionist conspiracy? Oh those poor, poor former students of his! Oh, and obviously, when Galileo did crash into Jupiter on 21 September 2003 there was no nuclear explosion. The craft's nuclear power modules were designed to be safe and could not have exploded. Galileo (spacecraft) - Wikipedia Edited by dwise1, : No reason given. Edited by dwise1, : Trying to get that fool voice tag to work right
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I'm at a big disadvantage with this claim, because I've known ever since about third grade that the sun and stars burn through fusion. It is virtually impossible for me to even imagine how anyone could actually think that it's by other means, such as combustion.
We first got into this claim on a Yahoo creation/evolution forum -- before it turned into the sole province of a creationist moderator who immediately set about silencing all opposition. In the middle of the ongoing discussion, a 1st or 2nd year college student joined in stating that he had always thought that the sun burned on its surface, though I forget whether he thought it was by combustion. He was very quickly corrected and he accepted the corrections. I just wonder what most people think so that I can understand the appeal that that Hovind claim has for them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
From "De Genese ad litteram", Saint Augustine, fourth century:
quote: My more complete reposting of the quote is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html#AUGUSTINE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Do you know any non-native speakers of English? I know of 13. Some are better at english than others. Some are really damn good at english. One is a finnish-swede who teaches at my university, and her english is impeccable. As a general rule, if the person's English is very good and correct, then that person is a non-native speaker. The worst speakers and writers of English that I encounter are typically the native speakers. As Lessing wrote:
quote:Indeed, I learned much more about English in two years of high school German than I ever did in 12 years of English classes. As a programmer, I also participate regularly on a C programming forum where we get a lot of non-native English speakers as well as native speakers. By far, the native speakers are the worst writers, often unintelligible, who constantly confuse homonyms and end up using the wrong words. For example, one post a request asking how to do a barber poll, so we all assumed that he was talking about a statistical sampling method we hadn't heard about yet. No, the idiot had meant "barber pole". OTOH, a non-native speaker's post may have slightly strange sentence structure or pick the wrong preposition (one of the hardest parts of a language to learn), but most of the time they do pick the right word and spell it correctly.
Do you know any foreign languages? Something tells me you don't.
I started college as a foreign language geek until I switched to learning computer languages several years later. And, yes, it does appear very obvious to me that most creationists who try to use linguistical arguments in fact know next to nothing about languages or about linguistics. Edited by dwise1, : corrected word choice {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made, Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand. The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand. Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed, The truth has left its living word for anyone to read. So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled. Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
A team of scholars was formed, which house did form new english words and incorporated many other language words into english. From the Wikipedia article, "English language", at English language - Wikipedia:
quote: In the article, "List of language regulators", at List of language regulators - Wikipedia, it is noted in the comments for English:
quote: Most other major languages has some kind of academy which formalizes the language, even to the point of periodically calling for a "language reform" to update their language -- Dutch was going through one when I was trying to research that language back in the early 70's and German has gone through one since that time. The extremely poor fit between the pronounciation of English words and their spellings (which often do more to reflect the historical development of their words rather than how they sound) is further evidence that no English Academy exists and that English has not gone through any language reform. Com'on now. Even Scots and Scottish Gaelig have academies. But not English. So what happened to this supposed English Academy of yours?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
quote:This appears very true and commonplace. It is most probably related to taking one's own for granted and an indifference, while a new immigrant must make greater input to adapt and is usually far more enthusiastic of making it in the new scenario. Here, the native can well fear the new comer. No, rather it's that they don't know grammar and, apparently because of solely phonetic approaches, they don't realize that words mean something and so spelling is very important. I'm not entirely up on what happened after my time (eg, I'm fairly sure I predated phonics, so I read entire words instead of sounding them out), but think back to your English classes. They tried to teach you grammar, but did you bother to learn it? Parts of speech? You learned enough to get your homework grade and to pass the test, but then you forgot it. Choosing between right and wrong usage? You already "knew" how to speak English, so you just chose what sounded right and, in the cases where what you thought sounded right wasn't right, then you memorized those special cases -- again, just long enough to get the homework grade and to pass the test, then you prompted forgot it until you needed to relearn it the next year. However, when you learn a foreign language, you have no idea what "sounds right". Grammar is the structure of the language. Grammar tells you how that language is put together and describes to you how it works and tells you how to construct sentences and how transform words and phrases and sentences in that language. When you learn a foreign language, you absolutely must learn its grammar! Don't slough off what Lessing wrote, even though he was only an 18th century German:
quote:"You do not know your own language until you have learned a foreign language." Because you just picked up your native language by osmosis, whereas you need to study a foreign language. And in doing so, you learn what a grammar is and how important it is. And you learn how languages, including your own, function. Here's an example:Is it "just between you and I" or "just between you and me"? And why? The one is chosen by those who have no idea about grammar. Or else, like my ex who's tri-lingual in English (native), Spanish (native), and French(acquired), mainly only knows uninflected languages with very little explicit concept of case. The correct one is chosen by those who understand the fundamental concept of case. Edited by dwise1, : No reason given. {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made, Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand. The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand. Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed, The truth has left its living word for anyone to read. So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled. Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The point is--there are multiple global languages. Further, the reason that english is spoken by so many has more to do with the UK's empire than any 'pliability'. In fact, I highly doubt pliability has anything to do with why english is spoken by up to 1.8 billion people.
Besides which English is not easy to learn. Trying to sight-read must be a nightmare with its poorly fitting orthography (ie, the written language does not match the spoken word very well). Just remember that skit on "I Love Lucy" where Lucy has Ricky read a bed-time story and its filled with words containing "ough" which is pronounced differently every single time. "Rough", "bough", "through", "trough", "thought". Be a non-native speaker encountering those for the first time. How would you fare? And our sounds are different from most other languages and slide all over the place. Years before Robin Williams used the same line in "Moscow on the Hudson", a Yugoslavian girl I knew in college said that after English class their mouths would hurt from all the contortions they had to go through. I agree that the British Empire had a lot to do with spreading English throughout the world. But I would think that the economic and political might of the US after WWII also had something to do with it. Simple economics; you use the language that will make you the most money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The earliest writings I can find are 8,000 years old (Chinese). There are potentially older writings. Huh? Are you sure? According to whom? I remember hearing of an archeological find in the south Nile area. Small tiles with a hole in one corner and pictograms on them. They appear to have been tags attached to containers and could represent a precursor to hieroglyphs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I know my maths and two other languages. But do you speak those other languages? Have learned to express yourself in them and to converse? To think in those languages? The impression I have is that your other two languages are probably biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek and that your knowledge of them only extends to reading or deciphering biblical texts in the original and studying the meanings of key words. That is a very limited experience compared to learning to use and to think in another language. From Message 107:
quote:This appears very true and commonplace. It is most probably related to taking one's own for granted and an indifference, while a new immigrant must make greater input to adapt and is usually far more enthusiastic of making it in the new scenario. Here, the native can well fear the new comer. Why fear? Not everybody is xenophobic. And it is not at all the case that an immigrant must necessarily do better at learning the native's language. While a non-native learns more than a monoglot native by studying a to-him-foreign language, it is also true that the native speaker can learn so much more about his own language by learning another language. Hast du wirklich gar nichts davon verstanden, was Lessing sagte? Didn't you understand anything that Lessing said? That you need to learn a foreign language in order to learn your own. It shouldn't just be everybody else's job to learn English; we need to learn the other languages ourselves. From Message 108:
I mean here, what the alphabet 'V' sounds like, when it is spoken. The latin and arabic, for example, did not possess the V sound, while the Hebrew did. Many such alphabetical sounds are missing in european languages, and thus there is a displacement factor, resulting in different pronounciations of words. We call this accents, but mainly it is resultant from the lack of alphabetical sounds. Uh, no, that is not what causes accents. If you had learned to speak a foreign language, you have known better. There is a wide variety of possible sounds that the human speech apparatus can produce. The study of those sounds and how they are produced is called phonology. However, only certain sounds distinguish meaning within a language; those are called phonemes. Different languages use different phonemes. For example, English has two forms of the "p" sound (one plosive, the other not), but we do not use them to distinguish meaning. However, a South-east Asian language (Cambodian, I think, but it's been decades) does use those two forms of "p" to distinguish meaning. Therefore, those two forms of "p" are phonemic in that other language, but not in English. When a phoneme can be pronounced in two or more different ways, then those forms are called allophones -- eg, the "r" in German can be either velar or apico-dental, which sound different but don't change the meaning. When we learn our native language, we learn to restrict ourselves to the sounds of the phonemes of that language. Furthermore, our brains learn to identify those phonemes and to distinguish between different phonemes (eg, between the voiced and unvoiced apico-dental plosives as demonstrated by the minimal pairs of "bitter" and "bidder" and "latter" and "ladder"). But when we start to learn a new language that has different sounds and uses different phonemes, then multiple problems result in an accent. First, we may not be able to distinguish between phonemes. For example, in Russian palatalization of consonants is phonemic (sounds kind of like placing the semi-vowel "y" between the consonant and the vowel that follows, but that's not what it is). It's difficult for beginning students to hear that. So when the non-native first tries to repeat what he thinks he hears, it's going to come out wrong and he's going to have an "accent". Second, the non-native will tend to misidentify the sound as being like a different sound in his own native language and so use that instead, which will give him an "accent". A common example of this is a Spanish speaker substituting "ch" for "sh", since the "sh" doesn't exist in Spanish. Third, the non-native's language may have the same sound as the target language, but it's different phonologically. Therefore, by using his own language's version of that sound he'll sound a bit different, sound "funny", in the target language and so will have an "accent". In a French phonology class, our text (which was in French published in France) contained extensive notes for each sound describing the problems that speakers of specific other language would have in producing that sound. And the same holds true for every language that a foreigner would try to learn. Fourth, even among native speakers of the same language there are regional differences with favor one allophone over others. And so, even native speakers have "accents". Some of these accents developed in isolation from other regions and some developed under influence from immigrant populations (oh ja, don'cha know?), but they still all develop within the same language and so have nothing at all to do with "alphabetic differences." Fifth, there are additional elements termed "metalanguage" which are characteristic to different languages. These involve intonation patterns, rise and fall of pitch, and range of pitch. For example (as I recall), Spanish has two pitches, English has four or five, and "Black English" has six (one of which is a falsetto that a man would use when excited or upset). There's a commercial currently on Spanish-language radio in which an Angla comes on speaking perfectly correct Spanish, but her metalanguage is puro anglo and so her "accent" is blatant. Please note that there's nothing at all wrong with her pronounciation, but rather her "accent" is pure metalinguistic in nature. Similarly, the cast of "Your Show of Shows" (eg, Sid Caesar, Carl Reiner, Howard Morris) were highly proficient at mimicking the metalanguage of German and French such that they would sound quite proficient at those languages even though the words they were uttering were either pure nonsense or English words that they would throw in so that the audience would kind of follow their babblings. And they did it all "without an accent". Accents are about phonology and phonemics and metalanguage, not alphabetics. Edited by dwise1, : added metalanguage {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made, Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand. The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand. Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed, The truth has left its living word for anyone to read. So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled. Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The earliest writings I can find are 8,000 years old (Chinese). There are potentially older writings. Huh? Are you sure? According to whom? Yeah, but since when was China part of the south Nile area?
His statement regarding possibly older writings could be construed as slightly ambiguous:1. There are older writings somewhere in the world. or 2. There are older writings in China. Since the question is about the oldest human writings, I naturally assumed the first meaning. The second meaning is possible, but very unlikely. However, I'm not sure of how old those writings were of which I spoke, so the Chinese writings could still be the oldest known.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024