Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation of the English Language
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 61 of 205 (434208)
11-14-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Wounded King
11-14-2007 1:51 PM


quote:
Maybe the whole problem with the EvC debate is that people see the creationists as wrong but wromantic.
Take it easy - science requires honesty and logic. You have not proved creationism wrongmantic yet - none have anywhere; all they do is shout and scream how wrong it is, with no premise of their own. Zilch. Unless I missed your terrific proof? FYI, genesis is not based on belief but 100% science and logic, with no alternatives: zilch! It says of creationism, there were no tools or materials when the event occured - the part all clever anti-creationists like to run far away from: because it steadies those making illogical statements. To render genesis wrong [which has never occured in a single instance], one has to put something else on the table: aside from shouting loudly. Who's wrongamatic again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Wounded King, posted 11-14-2007 1:51 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 62 of 205 (434211)
11-14-2007 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by akhenaten
11-14-2007 8:14 AM


Re: Languages w/in their Kind
quote:
In my first post, I said that I'm pretending that I also agree with creationism. I only meant to compare the creation of man story to the creation of English story.
In one sense this is correct: both are microcosms of past creations!
quote:
I'm confused. What were the people speaking before Old English? Was it French or viking?
Preamble your question with the fact there is no written proof of english before this date. I posted that english began in England, as a separate language. Yours is an interesting question, but not related to, or a disputation that old english was prevalent in briton. It is to do with the elusive question of language itself, throughout humanity and the planet: we do not know how latin, greek, indian or hebrew emerged, thus olde english is the point of reference we can take it up from. Despite english being a microcosm of almost all other languages, it remains a new kind of language.
We know that some form of language would have existed earlier, eg when Rome conquered briton; we know there were 10,000 britons as paid mercenaries when Rome destroyed Jerusalem [The Josephus documents]. I would say here, it will be interesting to know what language prevailed before briton interacted with the vikings, welsh, irish and other European peoples and languages. Not much is known about pre-Roman briton, and it is possible this was not an advanced nation at this time, mainly due to its isolation by a sea from the rest of the European/Asian block. There is some evidences the ancient britons were pagan, and believed in dieties different from other countries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by akhenaten, posted 11-14-2007 8:14 AM akhenaten has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 63 of 205 (434216)
11-14-2007 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by kuresu
11-14-2007 5:59 PM


Re: History as a Second Language
quote:
Politically, Culturally, and Geographically the UK is part of Europe.
The resultant facts dispute that premise: never before was a landmass of peoples so close and yet so different. If anything, Briton marks the breakaway from its kin in Europe. The fact that most words in the english language can be traced to Europe and elsewhere, does not assist your premise, but it actually shows this stark breakaway syndrome.
France and Poland is more like the rest of Europe, while briton is markedly different; europe is more related to Russia than Briton. America appears more closer tied to Briton, and emerged as the deciding treshold between olde Europe and a new nation: like the english language, America too is a microcosm of all nations. Europe became quagmired in Roman rule, then by medevial christianity; the NWO was its peoples escaping to America and other parts outside Europe, negating Europe's doctrines for Liberty and inalienable human rights. Today, it is Europe taking lessons from America, enshrining the provisions of the US Constitution, while not openly acknowledging this phenomenon. Rome and olde Europe lost, and it all started here:
'WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by kuresu, posted 11-14-2007 5:59 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 12:29 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 64 of 205 (434223)
11-14-2007 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by IamJoseph
11-14-2007 9:57 PM


IamJoseph writes:
it is only the name of thie british king which escapes me, who challenged the french and used olde english instead - even forming an official group of scholars and clergy who would translate all archives, including the bible, in english.
The name escapes everybody else too, because there was no such king. The French language had no presence in England until after the Norman conquest in 1066. For centuries after that, all English nobility used Norman French and the commoners used English.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by IamJoseph, posted 11-14-2007 9:57 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 11-14-2007 11:47 PM ringo has replied
 Message 71 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 1:31 AM ringo has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 65 of 205 (434225)
11-14-2007 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ringo
11-14-2007 11:42 PM


Language used
For centuries after that, all English nobility used Norman French and the commoners used English.
I am not a linguist but I think it is incorrect to say that the commoners spoke English. They spoke saxon (or somesuch). English is what emerged as the two languages merged after 1066. Before that you might call it "old English" but it was hardly the language we call English now.
Calling what was spoken back then, even after the merger means that the Julius Caesar spoke "Italian". (well, old Italian)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 11-14-2007 11:42 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 11-15-2007 12:35 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 70 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 1:24 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 205 (434228)
11-15-2007 12:02 AM


English a Creole?
I've been thinking a little bit, and I am wondering what others think on this one: would it be technically accurate to refer to Modern English as a creole language?
Jon

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 67 of 205 (434229)
11-15-2007 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by IamJoseph
11-14-2007 11:00 PM


Re: History as a Second Language
The fact that most words in the english language can be traced to Europe and elsewhere, does not assist your premise
Umm, okay. English being a germanic language helps disprove that the UK is european? This is more nonsensical that some things I've seen you right. Reminds me of Randman arguing that prove for evolution is actually prove against evolution. You must have an olympic caliber mental gymnastics team inside you to pull this off.
I find it rich that you think the europeans are taking lessons from us on freedoms and liberties. Though that could explain Putin. If you look through history, you'll see that our declaration of independence was based on the second treatise of government by John Locke--a brit. You'll also notice that the constitution is based largely on enlightenment ideas--a movement that was created in Europe and also led to the French Revolution.
By the way, I dare you to tell a Pole he is more similar to the French that the British, or to tell a Frenchman he has more in common with Poles than with Brits. Ask a Brit who he has more in common with, a pole or a frenchman. I garuantee he'll say the frenchman, and the frenchman would say the same of him. A pole, given a third choice, would probably say he has more in common with russians than with the french or british.
If Europe is so much closer to Russia than Britian, why does Russia have a significant anti West, anti Europe movement?
My point still stands--politically, culturally, and geographically the UK is a part of Europe. Your refusal to believe this doesn't make it false, and that's all you have. A refusal to accept this fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by IamJoseph, posted 11-14-2007 11:00 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 1:10 AM kuresu has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 68 of 205 (434230)
11-15-2007 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by NosyNed
11-14-2007 11:47 PM


Re: Language used
NosyNed writes:
I am not a linguist but I think it is incorrect to say that the commoners spoke English.
I thought about editing that, but I don't want to appear toooo perfect.
According to my recollection (and confirmed by Wikipedia): Old English before the Norman conquest, Middle English until about 1500 and Modern English since.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 11-14-2007 11:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 69 of 205 (434236)
11-15-2007 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by kuresu
11-15-2007 12:29 AM


Re: History as a Second Language
quote:
Umm, okay. English being a germanic language helps disprove that the UK is european? This is more nonsensical that some things I've seen you right.
Yes, exactly - that the english emerged very different, despite the underlieing commonalities - gives a focused credence to the breakaway factor from europe. Its like one offspring breaks away from the fold.
quote:
Reminds me of Randman arguing that prove for evolution is actually prove against evolution. You must have an olympic caliber mental gymnastics team inside you to pull this off.
I see no connection with that analogy. One can only perform a breaway when there is a connection.
quote:
I find it rich that you think the europeans are taking lessons from us on freedoms and liberties. Though that could explain Putin. If you look through history, you'll see that our declaration of independence was based on the second treatise of government by John Locke--a brit. You'll also notice that the constitution is based largely on enlightenment ideas--a movement that was created in Europe and also led to the French Revolution.
US Constitution is based on the OT, not the NT; and US reversed the European medevial church's doctrine of FULLFILLED. Not a single law of the OT was ever negated, while not a single law from the NT ever became accepted by the world. Briton, which is more imprical based, seems to have taken a different view, and its peoples were among those who enacted the US Constitution. Isabela's Spain lost this battle, and one can even say Columbus never really got lost. America represents the breakaway of all medevial Europe represented, and UK appears a fulcrum factor here, even by default. Much of today's politicing between the EU & US today stems from the past of Europe being transcended by US. These kinds of paradigm shifts happens in many areas throughout history. Liberty and democracy became stymied under Europe, but freed via America; its initiation came from the war between Rome and Israel, and the notion of freedom of belief.
quote:
By the way, I dare you to tell a Pole he is more similar to the French that the British, or to tell a Frenchman he has more in common with Poles than with Brits. Ask a Brit who he has more in common with, a pole or a frenchman. I garuantee he'll say the frenchman, and the frenchman would say the same of him. A pole, given a third choice, would probably say he has more in common with russians than with the french or british.
They say otherwise here, but for reasons other than the facts at hand. more than any individual European state, Briton is a breakaway from the whole of Europe, while the french and poles do not share this factor. This is also seen in languages: english is different from all european languages, despite the loads of derivings and common source. Check the grammar of english, and all European languages: it is very telling!
quote:
If Europe is so much closer to Russia than Britian, why does Russia have a significant anti West, anti Europe movement?
That syndrome is also represented by Europe towards America. Its a love/hate thing.
quote:
My point still stands--politically, culturally, and geographically the UK is a part of Europe. Your refusal to believe this doesn't make it false, and that's all you have. A refusal to accept this fact.
The close geographical proximity 'highlights' the difference and breakaway more than any commonalities. A refusal to accept this fact applies here too. Briton stands out like an alien body in the EU!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 12:29 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 2:23 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 70 of 205 (434238)
11-15-2007 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by NosyNed
11-14-2007 11:47 PM


Re: Language used
quote:
English is what emerged as the two languages merged after 1066. Before that you might call it "old English" but it was hardly the language we call English now.
I agree: english emerged as a new and different language from all the languages it borrowed from. It appears there was a strong breakaway syndrome here, enabling the brits to do the oppositte from Europe. Today, many Europeans find english very difficult to absorb, even though loads of languages are spoken in Europe, sometimes being only a few villages apart from each other.
It is an anomoly that many EU Ministers still cannot speak in english, and if they ever do - it is an inferior english, which does not include the new english grammar, mainly seen by the generic European inability to contend with 'A' and 'THE' prefixes: THE GOD, instead of God; Sun is hot, instead of THE SUN is hot; etc. How this new english grammar arose is a mysterious factor - it appears a compulsion from which a new totally different language and grammar emerged: a breakaway, marked by an underlieing, subtle apprehension syndrome between a competing Briton and Europe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 11-14-2007 11:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 71 of 205 (434241)
11-15-2007 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by ringo
11-14-2007 11:42 PM


quote:
The name escapes everybody else too, because there was no such king.
I accept your premise as a challenge. It means if I turn out right, you never knew what you guys were talking about.
The name will come to me, then I can check up on that king's reign. I suspect it had something to do with Westminister, and the success of the english language will be pointed to the specific actions of one british king, who defied the French decree!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 11-14-2007 11:42 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by ringo, posted 11-15-2007 1:43 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 72 of 205 (434243)
11-15-2007 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 1:31 AM


IamJoseph writes:
The name will come to me, then I can check up on that king's reign.
Don't just wait for it to come to you. Go looking for it.
Here's a List of English monarchs to start with.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 1:31 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 73 of 205 (434245)
11-15-2007 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by IamJoseph
11-14-2007 2:17 AM


Actual History of England
IAJ writes:
If you deliberate it, you should know what I am referring to, else your knowledge of it is deficient: my answer was and is correct, save only for a memory recall of the relevent name. This king [?/not sure!] defied the french which then ruled england; at this time there was a loose primitive communication system, which was the protoypte of old english, mainly derived from the viking invasions - from which most old english words come from; an important document [?] was decreed by the french to be released in the french language; the english king himself studied and formed that document in old english, defying the french; thereafter, the people continued to use and form what became old english.
Wow, guess what, it's a science thread. That means when you make claims, you are supposed to back them up.
You still seem to insist that the "French" ruled England prior to 1066. (Provided you insist on calling the originally Viking Normans the "French") Show me any evidence that "France" occupied England prior to 1066. No book I have ever read supports this claim, and I've read dozens on English history, including the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the original source of much of this history written by the people who were often there at the time.
This article seems to contain no glaring errors: History of England - Wikipedia Would you consider actually reading it so you don't make wrong and unsupported claims in a science thread?
Try this on the history of the Normans for further enlightenment.
Normans - Wikipedia
Or this for the 'actual' (as opposed to the made up and unsupported) history of the English Language.
History of English - Wikipedia
I believe I linked to this site before, why can't you read it before contradicting all other sources in history?
As to any so-called King of England in 800AD would you like to know why you can't recall his name?
Because there was no single country or political entity called England in 800AD.
Disagree? show me England on this map from the above mentioned website on the history of England.
As this is a science forum, please feel free to support your claims that the 'French' ran anything in 'England' prior to 1066 or that any such unidentifiable 'King of England' imposed the English Language upon the populace around 800AD.
The rest of the world disagrees with your assessment and appears to have an endless amount of material that contradicts your position. Maybe you should actually read something about the history prior to insinuating you know more about it than everyone else on the planet.

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 Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by IamJoseph, posted 11-14-2007 2:17 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 2:30 AM anglagard has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 74 of 205 (434247)
11-15-2007 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by akhenaten
11-14-2007 8:14 AM


Re: Languages w/in their Kind
quote:
I'm confused. What were the people speaking before Old English? Was it French or viking?
HERE:
quote:
HOW DID ENGLISH HAPPEN?
by Asst General Secretary
JEREMY MULDOWNEY
Nobody in Britain spoke English before the Anglo Saxons settled here following the collapse of the Roman Empire. The native population at that time spoke a variety of Celtic languages and some, especially in the old Roman towns, would have had a good working knowledge of Latin. (Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish and Manx all originated in this early period)
When the Anglo Saxons came across the North Sea from Germany and parts of Denmark, they naturally brought their language with them. This language, now usually referred to as Old English, was the direct ancestor of modern English. Today, English, German, Dutch and the Scandinavian languages (except Finnish) are all still related and belong to the Germanic group. The grammar and spelling may be very different, but much of the vocabulary is shared eg house / haus / hus etc.
http://www.ydsociety.org.uk/id8.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by akhenaten, posted 11-14-2007 8:14 AM akhenaten has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 75 of 205 (434248)
11-15-2007 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 1:10 AM


Re: History as a Second Language
A point about grammar.
I am going to the store (English)
Jag gr till affren (Swedish)
Direct translation: I go to store-the.
What are you doing?
Vad gr du?
Direct translation: What do you?
It is sunny.
Det r soligt.
Direct translation: It is sunny.
I can go on and on about how similar Swedish, a germanic language, and English, another germanic language are in terms of grammar. Here's the kicker--those direct translations are fairly understandable, aren't they?
If you are going to argue that because English is a different language from French and therefore not European, then every single state in Europe is not European. I garuantee there are more differences between the french and german languages than there are between spanish and french and italian.
US Constitution is based on the OT
This is getting ridiculously off topic, but how about starting a new one on whether the US constitution is based off of the old testament. I can categorically claim that it isn't. Funny thing though, you're right about it not being based off of the NT, but not for the reasons you probably think. I'm going to venture a guess and state that you're one of those people who think the US is a christian nation versus being a nation of christians.
I find it telling that you have to resort to arguments that rely on the US in order to explain that the UK is not part of Europe and that you have barely touched on my original points. The UK has long been a key player in European politics, and has been treated as if it is part of Europe. Naturally, that would be because it is part of Europe. Check the real history, not the made up one in your head. Check the real current situation, not the one made up in your head.
What are you hoping to show by proving that the UK is not a part of Europe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 1:10 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 2:52 AM kuresu 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