Creation of the English Language

Huh?Do you mean that the child learns the language he is immersed in, or that all languages must have one common root?If the later, how do you precluded more than one language invention event?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Both are correct, in fact. Children learn the language they are a part of, no matter where they are originally born or what language their parents spoke; they can learn any language so long as they grow up with the language, and they will sound like any other native speaker when they do.As for your second question, it pretty much rules itself. If language has one common root, then there could only be one language invention event (the invention by God when He rst spoke”Gen. 1:3).Edited by Jon, : preposition confusion

What about immediately after Babel? Were those languages anything with which we would be familiar today? (any archeological or historical records written in one of those languages?)
It sounds like you're implying that none of those post-Babel languages was English -- or any Germanic language for that matter.I agree with you completely that any given infant human can learn any given language over its lifetime. If any baby was given to a group of Star Trek conventioneers and if they were unconcerned enough about the child's quality of life then he could grow up speaking Klingon.
The key word, though, is learn. It has be taught, and if you encounter a different language, you have to go through the learning process again. I think it would be more correct to say: If language has one common root then language (as a whole) was invented once, but a given language could have been invented at a later time. Right?Back to the English language. Here's what I take you believe about its Creation. Please correct me if I'm wrong:
Your use of the word "invention" suggests you think it was human activity more than divine that was responsible for the English language much like we describe the growth of a fetus in the womb through natural processes and not divine actions. (But you would say that humanity, as a whole, arose from a single divine action)
I think you believe English was created sometime after Babel via the accumulation of slow random non-directed changes throughout the general population over a period of time. Also, there would have been no concrete divisions in time between the changes in the language.

Sort of, but not quite. Most linguists would agree that there is a certain innateness about the ability to use language. The process of learning when we are children is not the same as when we become adults. There is a Critical Age at which a child must be exposed to language if they are to ever develop it properly. This is usually during the period where the right and left brains are beginning to specialise at certain tasks. The left brain does language, and if it is not stimulated during these crucial times, it will not properly develop, and the person may never learn language. Further proof that language is a part of us; a part of what we do naturally, and not merely something we've developed. No, invented by God (see my reply to Jar), when God spoke. It was then altered, by God, to form the different kinds of language we see today. Perhaps we need to realise that it is important to look at the intent behind the actions in the story. God's purpose for scattering the people was so that they could not get together in large enough groups to build something to reach to heaven again. It is entirely plausible to expect God to intervene further, here and there, when groups of people speaking the same language get too large, splitting them up and creating two or more new kinds of language.This makes good sense when we look at the data, which show that new languages come about when the population increases, and the creation of different languages seems to correspond directly to the splitting up of groups of people.Jon

Yes, you're right that language acquisition is innate. My point was just to clarify what we mean by one language being different from another. If there were no differences among languages then the story of Babel would not make sense and we would not be able to understand each other. That's true. Language must be one of Evolution's greatest gifts to us... Oops! There I go again This almost contradicts what you said before about English in reply to my reply question. In an earlier post you said that the languages at Babel were "unlikely to have been anything with which we are today familiar." So when did English come along?
I can say, for example, that airplanes were first invented in 1903 but the Concorde, a subcategory of "airplane", was first invented in 1969. When was English invented?

I cop. I'm not a creationist. I can't keep this up. Babel is the most ridiculous idea in the history of linguistics.Sorry, but you seem rather informed on these matters, and I'd prefer to talk to you in science terms about linguistics instead of trying to keep up this charade Sorry to have strung you along, but I need to be honest and tell you that no Creationist will ever answer your question. They don't ever present evidence to support their position. Instead, they try to saw away at the evolutionary anvil using soft-tooth saws. Then, they look at the metal lings on the oor from their saw, and conclude they are actually from the anvil.I hope to see you in chat so we can talk some real linguistics! JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

[Philosophy] stands behind everything. It is the loom behind the fabric, the place you arrive when you trace the threads back to their source. It is where you question everything you think you know and seek every truth to be had. - Archer Opterix [msg=-11,-316,210]

Oh no. And I was having so much fun!Thanks for taking it as far as you did. I knew the truth halfway through, but it was hard to remind myself. You made an uncannily convincing creationist (not that creationism is convincing) and sometimes the arguments you used were scarily true-to-form, but it's given me lots to think about.I'm actually not that well versed in linguistics at all. As I said before I know a couple of PhD linguists who are creationists (?!?!? I know). I think it proves what the heroes of evolutionary biology always say: that the ideas of Darwin and others are meant for everyone. The primary research is the domain of specialized experts, to be sure, but the basic concepts are such that they can be understood by lay people.And that, kids, is today's Lesson of the Day.

See, this kind of question shows up a lot when we are talking about biological evolution. "When was the lion become a true lion?" and other nonsense...There was not a specific time and date when people decided to switch from old english to english. There was not a specific time and date when everybody in the world decided to end the bronze age and started the iron age. There was not a specific time and date when animal X decided to stop being animal X and become the modern lion.Instead, these things took place over very long periods of time and by very small steps at a time. Sure, there's a big difference between modern english and old english, but if you are an immortal who had lived through the centuries to witness the changes, it is doubtful that you'd actually notice any change at all until one day you decide to look back and say "hey!"

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

The word babble comes from the word bavel [Hebrew]; many of the later languages did not possess the V sound, thus it was substituted with the B, as in Abraham of the original Avraham. Those languages w/o the V would not belong to the main block of 70 primal languages which emerged from Babel, at which time only one language subsisted, called Edenite language - the first language. Many english words come from the hebrew directly, and many via osmosis of other languages. 'HELLO' [alio] comes from the hebrew, as do many ancient words like cherub, messiah, all, etc. The Indian Hindhi is 90% the same as Hebrew, in alphabet design and in ancient words [Man/Adam/Adami]; most of the Japanese letters are the same as the hebrew in design; arabic is also a kin.Although Hebrew is mentioned as a derivitive of phoenecian, sometimes sumerian - there is no equivalence of writings from those religions, while there is a copious archive of ancient hebrew: how is this explained, specially when those nations were older and mightier, and still prevailed a 1000 years after the hebrew emerged - in fact, we have not a single alphabetical book by those nations. One reasoning is, Abram in Ur [Mesopotamia] would have spoken a dialec derived from his ancester Shem, one of Noah's son, and this was a variation of the Edinite language, making hebrew closest to this first of languages. When Abraham arrived in canaan, and then Egypt - those nations did not speak the hebrew, which abraham did. This may overturn currently held premises of hebrew being a derivitive of pheonecian - it may be the other way around; this is specially plausable when we know that carbon datings are not accurate for small margins of time, and the bits and pieces of letters found which resemble hebrew and deemed older - may not be so.The Q is, why was hebrew not spoken by others in Ur - and they did not? This is somewhat a mystery, with only postulations at hand. It is possible that Abraham's immediate ancesters were not involved in the babel episode, thus leaving their ancient tongue in tact, undergoing minor adjuestments the next 1200 years, until Canaan. Alternatively, a sect of peoples remained in a warp, and did not become fully assimilated - thereby not having other languages become their first tongue.Both Edenite, spoken by God and Adam and Eve, and the Hebrew - also spoken by God at Sinai - at least according to the OT - have this common subscription.Languages do not appear to have emerged via evolution: this is less than 6000 years old, and appears to have come suddenly and in an already advanced state. Only one life form possesses it, negating the factor of adaptation and NS. Controversial? Yes - but so are the absence of evidences to support its antithesis.

English was iniated in England, circa 800 CE. At this time, French was spoken in England, which lost a war with the french. But english prevailed, when the English king himself decreed an important book of law be translated in the then new non-established english language, as an affront to the french. This grew and incorporated words from the surrounding nations, including welsh, french, german, etc - making enlish a microcosm of many languages.The english spread when Briton became a conquering sea power. British colonies learnt english before and better than did Europe, which maintained their own array of languages. Today, countries like India are more advanced in english than many european countries, due to the british influence.

Oh, I guess we're not done here after all...I'll leave it to the true linguists to dispute the more technical details of your argument. Let's focus on English, and forget the other languages for now. So what caused the *English* language to "emerge"? Okay let me see if I understand you. Before the year 800CE there was no English; in England they were speaking French. Then in that year 800 the king decides to initiate English. Did he create English? Did he assign a committee to create it? Where did it come from? What do you mean by "grow"? They put it in a greenhouse and watched it flourish? Who is doing the "incorporating". The aristrocrats get together every ten years and decide they like some Hebrew words so they decree those are part of English now?Tell me who created English? and when and where?

I think I just heard the Venerable Bede roll over in his grave. Are you talking about the Norman Conquest of 1066, and the Domesday Book? Because prior to this the English did not speak French. In fact the common people never spoke French.From Wikipedia at English language - Wikipedia

quote:

---

English is an Anglo-Frisian language. Germanic-speaking peoples from northwest Germany (Saxons and Angles) and Jutland (Jutes) invaded what is now known as Eastern England around the fifth century AD. It is a matter of debate whether the Old English language spread by displacement of the original population, or the native Celts gradually adopted the language and culture of a new ruling class, or a combination of both of these processes (see Sub-Roman Britain).

---

and

quote:

---

The Norman Conquest of England in 1066 profoundly influenced the evolution of the language. For about 300 years after this, the Normans used Anglo-Norman, which was close to Old French, as the language of the court, law and administration. By the fourteenth century, Anglo-Norman borrowings had contributed roughly 10,000 words to English, of which 75% remain in use. These include many words pertaining to the legal and administrative fields, but also include common words for food, such as mutton[7] and beef.[8] The Norman influence gave rise to what is now referred to as Middle English. Later, during the English Renaissance, many words were borrowed directly from Latin (giving rise to a number of doublets) and Greek, leaving a parallel vocabulary that persists into modern times. By the seventeenth century there was a reaction in some circles against so-called inkhorn terms.

---

So, former English colonies speak English better than the English speak English? Is this because they are more English than the English?ABE - Geography 101, England (or properly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is part of Europe.Are all you musings as wrong as this post?Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

You know, some people might dispute this fact, England being an island and all...It's like Japan. Some people dispute the fact that Japan is part of Asia.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Are you trying to be funny? I can't tell.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

quote:

---

Before the year 800CE there was no English; in England they were speaking French.

---

Yes, my understanding of it is there was no english before 800 CE. French is older than english, the latter being a microcosm of several other languages, and became formalised and incepted in England. France tried to impose its language on England, till an english king challenged this by translating all official documents into english, even formulating new english words of the french, such as pattisirie, cafe, and 1000s of other words taken from the french, and from the irish and german.