|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation of the English Language | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Yes, that's very obtuse, but I never intended the date as the operative factor here. The issue is, that none here can vindicate my stated premise, english was established/saved from destruction - by a British king. I stand by it, al biet w/o evidencing it as yet.
quote: Death is factored in - the universe is finite. A counterpart of your statement is also that everytime you use the word microcosm: God takes life - *and also gives life*.
quote: Nothing I stated contradicts or addresses those issues. 'slow and gradual' are subjective terms, and not disputed. I never said that olde english was exclusively anglo-saxon.
quote: Obviously - else how could the french target briton's then prevailing language!
quote: I quoted a link, as an estimated timeframe. If you are making an alternative assertion, then point us to the museum where a hard copy relic exists.
quote: No contest.
quote: Yes, I know of all this, but there is a pivotal factor missing here, namely which I stated: the english did rebel against the french decree to have all official writ in french, and this challenge was initiated by an english king. My specs are missing, while this factor is missing from your historical vocab of this issue. But for this king, the Brits would have a french language today.
quote: And I remain in contradiction with your 'There was NO Rebellious document to overturn the French language'. Amazing, that none here can back me up!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Scene: the court of an unknown English king, around 800 AD. (Which is sort of the second half of the eleventh century, give or take.)
King: (with a French accent) Listen carefully, everyone, I will say this only once. This document here contains the specs of a language I have just invented. I call it English. From now on, I want you all to speak this language.All: Quoi?!? King: You heard me. This meeting is over, you're all dismissed. Queen: Oh, ma cherie! You are so strong! Let me kiss you! King: I have a better idea: why don't you make me a latte macchiato, with a croissant, er... French roll on the side? Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Ah, so you think swedish has no prefixes like "a" and "the"?
Well, on that account your wrong. Oh, and my relatives there definitely know how to use the prefixes. I'm not sure which Europeans you're talking about. When my relatives speak of god, unless it's "the god of X", they say god. This holds true in their native tongue as well. Again, you're running into the problem of education. All languages all pliable and adaptable. The reason english became the international language has much to do with the british empire, not with any "critical difference". ABE:another problem with "grammartical" is that it makes no sense. Sure, english is pliable and adaptable, but even Shakespeare would not have written 'grammartical'. Maybe you meant to say "grammatical", which does exist? Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Amazing, that none here can back me up That would be because you are wrong. Completely, categorically, absolutely wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Yet, a sweed speaking english is different, both in the pronouncement of certain alphabetical phonations, and a loss of prefix, which is not seen when some asians [eg. Indians], who speak english as a second language, but do not have the same affectation as do Europeans. I'm not sure why this is so. 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. Do you know any foreign languages? Something tells me you don't.
After all, if one does not know a word and its meaning, one cannot think in terms of that word; this impacts one's thinking
This too is wrong. I often find myself thinking of something about which I have no clue what word to use to describe what I am thinking. Or I know the word but can't recall it. You don't have to know the word and its meaning in order to think in terms of that word and its meaning. By the way, I like the contradiction:
All of humanity's output is from language, which is represented by a word
Later you claim that the word is the source of everything.Another contradiction: If everything is post creation of the universe, then how can "word" (which you describe as a force) exist to create the universe, when it must exist after creation like everything else, because it is a force, a tool? Or maybe, you just don't have a clue about physics. I'm betting that this is the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
alphabetical phonations You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?
the difference of english strikes all european languages, but the same factor does not exist inter-european languages.
phonation
After all, if one does not know a word and its meaning, one cannot think in terms of that word; this impacts one's thinking.
I understand that evolutionists would not take such thinking as imperical, Evolutionists wouldn't care!
they have not a clue how the universe came about, and appear in a path which will not yield any answers. Would that be the path where they study biological entities as opposed to star clusters?
It is thus a question of perspectives, whether language is a force of its own, same as light, heat, energy, etc. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Why 'invented'? - all I said was he refused to make french the national language, and made all british writs in old english. A team of scholars was formed, which house did form new english words and incorporated many other language words into english. This is an important event in the history of the english language, which overturned what would have emerged as a french speaking briton.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Perhaps given the importance of this event you might be able to find some evidence to support your claims about it?
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Also, many languages are dead, or not spoken outside its own; many european nations were, like Briton, conquering states. France tried desperately to make french a global language, but was felled by english. All languages are not equally pliable.
quote: You spellchecked me!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I will try to this weekend, or drop it. I will lose by technicality, but not by being incorrect. In fact I'm surprised this king is not adequately celebrated for this deed, as I am surprised none here know what I'm talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I'm very surprised too if such a king existed. The only thing I can think of that would lend any support to the idea is perhaps the phrase 'The King's English'.
You don't think that not being able to find any evidence might in fact suggest that you haven't recalled things correctly? THat you might in fact be incorrect? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This confirms my point. You won't do that once you know that word. The action of that word also becomes stymied till you have that word in your vocab, which calls for interaction with others.
quote: Its a good question. As you will know, a thought must precede any action, and the former is represented by a word. Its like the house that jack built: first jack sees the completed house image in his mind [the thought], then comes the blueprint [the word], then the ingredients [the universe], then the action [verb: creating]. The word is the conduit here for the thought, which must precede the action - namely, of the universe's creation. There is a logic here, whereby we have to illustrate how a 'finite' entity can emerge, meaning we cannot nominate anything already contained in that finite entity as the source's instrumentation, thus no tools or ingredients at this stage - not even the BB particle, nor the act of expansion per se, nor heat or space. Therein is the rub! This is not my thought, but is in the source which introduced creationism [cosmology], and I do agree with it, there being no alternatives possible here. Mostly, anti-creationists resort to challenging the 'finite' factor, thereby totally loosing it from a science POV: they avoid the enigma presented them - because the universe IS finite, from an imperical view and from all evidence presented us. An expanding universe means it was not infinite 10 seconds ago; and whatever is finite, makes all its components finite: if you add or subtract $5 from an infinite number of $ - it means you never had an infinite in the first place. Mostly, the disdain of theology is the reason to put genesis in the same green bag - but this may require examing this document on its own instead - it is as varied from theologies and religions as can be, and constitues an enigma in its precedence and transcendence. That genesis nominated the 'word' [language] as the instrument, is backed by all deeds of creating and forming by humans. So your question contains a contradiction if pursued: namely, if it is vested in the realm of creation, why is it not feasable that if the universe was created, that the word would not be? And why not in its correct order - before creation? I have posted elsewhere in this forum, even the greatest scientists of the day see language as a mysterious factor - they cannot even 'define' it. But if the thought is imperitive for an intelligent and complex action, then there is good science in genesis, namely that the word, an abstract utility requiring no material parts, able to exist w/o material parts, apparently occured and pre-existed the uni, and with no alternative scenario possible. We do not know how languages came about originally, and there is not a shred of evidence this occured via grunts and coos; in fact all evidences negate the latter. Without going into that subject again, there is sufficient evidence to back the inexplicable premise that language appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state, before its evolving, bypassing the evolutionary thread, confounding any means to define it and its hollistic and intrinsic connection with the brain and every cell in humans, and responsible for all of man's works. Genesis is saying, the word and the thought likewise predated the universe.
quote: There is remarkable science and logic there, and science is but one of the faculties of acquiring knowledge, in line with maths, history and geography; all are equally inter-dependential, and must be equally factored in. The universe is an 'intergrated' system - the first factor, and there is no physics w/o this as the preamble. And correct physics says, an intergration negates any possibility of a randomity: I know my physics!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Also, many languages are dead, or not spoken outside its own; many european nations were, like Briton, conquering states. France tried desperately to make french a global language, but was felled by english. Felled by English? C'mon! Do you have any grasp on history prior to, oh, the last 20 minutes? There's a much larger player in the story of English-language domination; let's see if you can guess who it is.
All languages are not equally pliable. First: dene pliable. Second: provide evidence showing that English is more pliable than other languages. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I know of this event from many years ago, having read up on it. My surprise is, it does not appear to be known. Its not something I invented: there is no motive in such.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024