Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


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 91 of 205 (434291)
11-15-2007 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by akhenaten
11-15-2007 9:26 AM


Re: Languages w/in their Kind
quote:
I had to pick myself off of the floor when you said that 1066 is "circa 800CE".
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:
First of all, everytime you use the word "microcosm", God kills a llama.
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:
Your claims contradict everything about standard English history. I wanted to debate creationists, but no creationist would want to be associated with your ideas.
English, like any other language emerged mostly through slow, gradual changes, sometime made more rapid by cultural events (none of which you have correctly identified). Old English can be said to have emerged when the Anglo-Saxons came to England around 450CE (you're right that there were already ancient Britons, also called Brythons living in England at that time. Their language had very little influence on English so they are not germane to this discussion). That's the fifth century, and it's not circa 800! And there are NO FRENCH YET! It's Anglo-Saxons!
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:
Their language, Anglo-Frisian slowly became what we call Old English. Got that? Old English. In the years 500-800! BEFORE THE FRENCH!
Obviously - else how could the french target briton's then prevailing language!
quote:
IAJ writes:
there is no written proof of english before this date
Have you ever heard of Beowulf? That's right, it's a new CGI movie with Angelina Jolie. Well, it turns out that it's based on an Old English epic composed somewhere in 700-750CE! Other examples of Old English text include Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica (731) and the aforementioned Cædmon's Hymn of about the same time.
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:
The vikings start coming in around 800-1000 (this is still BEFORE 1066 and there are NO FRENCH YET). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles are composed late 9th century and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FRENCH!
No contest.
quote:
1066: cue the French (Normans). The Norman conquerors bring in French and the common people mostly continue to speak Old English. The intersection of cultures will slowly and gradually transform Old English into Middle English.
In 1086, The English king, William I -- who happens to be French (Norman), remember -- orders the great survey that came to be known as the Domesday Book. It's written in ...(drumroll)... LATIN!
This French/Norman line of kings gradually over decades and centuries thinks of themselves as English. There is no act of rebellion against the French/Norman language which was the language of the English royalty for a few centuries. Instead the borrowing of words and other slow, gradual changes results in the emergence of Middle English. By the 1400s English has slowly become the language of the king and the Establishment. After the 1500s we have Early Modern English (again through slow changes). In the 1600s the word coffee/cafe is first used and it originally came from ... TURKISH! (kahveh) Coffee - Wikipedia. Incidentally the 1600s are NOT circa 800.
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:
To sum up from 500-1000 in England Old English was developing from its Anglo-Frisian roots BEFORE THE FRENCH came in 1066. There was NO Rebellious document to overturn the French language. The borrowing of French words played an important role in the gradual emergence of Middle English. Coffee came later still.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by akhenaten, posted 11-15-2007 9:26 AM akhenaten has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 12:16 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 92 of 205 (434293)
11-15-2007 10:05 AM


An Amusing Scene From Joseph's Microcosm Of Alternative Linguistic History.
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 6:39 PM Parasomnium has not replied

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


Message 93 of 205 (434299)
11-15-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 5:47 AM


Re: History as a Second Language
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 5:47 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 6:44 PM kuresu has not replied

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


Message 94 of 205 (434324)
11-15-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 9:54 AM


Re: Languages w/in their Kind
Amazing, that none here can back me up
That would be because you are wrong. Completely, categorically, absolutely wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 9:54 AM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 95 of 205 (434326)
11-15-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 5:39 AM


Re: Is English really all that different?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 5:39 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by dwise1, posted 11-15-2007 3:24 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 103 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 7:36 PM kuresu has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 205 (434337)
11-15-2007 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 5:39 AM


Utter Silliness
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.

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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 5:39 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 8:03 PM Jon has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 97 of 205 (434349)
11-15-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by kuresu
11-15-2007 12:28 PM


Re: Is English really all that different?
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:
"Man kennt die eigene Sprache nicht, bis man eine fremde Sprache lernt."
(You do not know your own language until you have learned a foreign language.)
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 12:28 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 7:53 PM dwise1 has replied

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


Message 98 of 205 (434409)
11-15-2007 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Parasomnium
11-15-2007 10:05 AM


Re: An Amusing Scene From Joseph's Microcosm Of Alternative Linguistic History.
quote:
This document here contains the specs of a language I have just invented. I call it English
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Parasomnium, posted 11-15-2007 10:05 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Wounded King, posted 11-15-2007 6:44 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 109 by dwise1, posted 11-15-2007 8:35 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 99 of 205 (434412)
11-15-2007 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 6:39 PM


Re: An Amusing Scene From Joseph's Microcosm Of Alternative Linguistic History.
Perhaps given the importance of this event you might be able to find some evidence to support your claims about it?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 6:39 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 6:48 PM Wounded King has replied

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


Message 100 of 205 (434413)
11-15-2007 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by kuresu
11-15-2007 10:55 AM


Re: History as a Second Language
quote:
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".
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:
even Shakespeare would not have written 'grammartical'. Maybe you meant to say "grammatical", which does exist?
You spellchecked me!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 10:55 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jon, posted 11-15-2007 7:38 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 101 of 205 (434415)
11-15-2007 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Wounded King
11-15-2007 6:44 PM


Re: An Amusing Scene From Joseph's Microcosm Of Alternative Linguistic History.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Wounded King, posted 11-15-2007 6:44 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 11-15-2007 7:03 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 102 of 205 (434422)
11-15-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 6:48 PM


Re: An Amusing Scene From Joseph's Microcosm Of Alternative Linguistic History.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 6:48 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 7:42 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 117 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 11:47 PM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 103 of 205 (434437)
11-15-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by kuresu
11-15-2007 12:28 PM


Re: Is English really all that different?
quote:
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.
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:
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?
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:
Or maybe, you just don't have a clue about physics. I'm betting that this is the case.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 12:28 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 11:36 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 205 (434440)
11-15-2007 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 6:44 PM


Re: History as a Second Language
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 6:44 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 7:47 PM Jon has not replied

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


Message 105 of 205 (434442)
11-15-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Wounded King
11-15-2007 7:03 PM


Re: An Amusing Scene From Joseph's Microcosm Of Alternative Linguistic History.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 11-15-2007 7:03 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024