|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation of the English Language | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: HERE:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I never said before 1066, only that during an early period, circa 800, [which includes 1066], the french ruled england, and made decrees to enforce the french language in briton; and that one of briton's kings was responsible for over-turning this goal, thereafter establishing english as a british language.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Above examples are non-english grammar. It is not a mystery - one can instantly see it when a european speaks english, which becomes an easy exposure he is not a native english speaking person.
quote:This is correct english grammar, but the example is not a conclusive one, being too short. quote: Let me put it this way, it is easy to see that one english speaker is from europe [no matter which part of europe], and not from england - by his english rendition. Amazingly, Indians do not have the same problem, and seem to take on board the prefix factors very well, while much adjustments are required when the same thing is said by a european speaking english - be it a french, german, polish or russian.
quote: I'm not trying to prove anything in particular, and now must recall how this topic came to this point. But yes, I do maintain UK as different in many intrinsic respects than Europe, and closer with US - despite the proximity factor. Also, that the US Constitution is based on the OT laws and advocations, which Europe unsuccessfully tried to negate and make obsolete. There is no question that liberty, democrasy and inalienable human rights, as well as the entire corpus of judiciary laws, family, workers and animal rights laws - are OT, not NT, premises. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The french, scandis, vikings, romans - all invaded England. The significant factor here is, Briton caused a new breakaway language, which is representative of a new mindset as well. So yes, in a sense, the break is confirmed and highlighted, that this was achieved while encompasing all the input of Europe into Briton's new invention: ENGLISH. This does represent a triumph of sorts, whereby the invading input became the booty of the new enterprize. It was briton and the english language, which made french and other european words part of an international, universal lingo. Europe lost something here, which is represented by briton's triumph with english. It is understandable that briton declares as her greatest asset Shakespeare and other british writers: there is much truth in it. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This is not the point, and there is no dispute of similarities or being understood; my point is there is a narrow but critical difference, which renders english different from all the commonalities it contains with all european languages. This difference is not seen between english of americans and some asian countries, who don't seem to have a problem with the critical grammartical inflections. This subtle variation is seen in your examples also. It is possible, this reflects a variation in mindset, or at least it would stand for something, language being a mysterious phenomenon in itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I agree that with translations of languages, adjustments have to be made. 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. Also, I have a problem when you say all european languages are different from one another, equally as english is different from any european language: the difference of english strikes all european languages, but the same factor does not exist inter-european languages. I do not think this is attributed to phonation only, e.g., that certain alphabets were not contained in the latin, such as the 'V' [thus we have Abraham, instead of the original AVraham with a V]. There are other such variations of alphabets between the Hebrew and Indian, and all european and Russian languages; however, this does not seem to have impacted english, which had no problem here. The different grammatical construction impacts more than the phonation: a different grammar means one percieves things differently, in a different order, placing an emphasis differently. It could mean, that the source points of european and hebrew are not the same, and evolved via different paths, or are among the different kinds of 70 primal languages which later became widespread. I suspect that grammar came to Europe via the Hebrew [which introduced this faculty in the OT], via greece [which first translated the hebrew in 300 BCE], and which impacted strongly on philosophy, Europe, the Latin, and even on christianity itself. To take this thought further, languages have the single most powerful impact on all aspects of humanity, and it cannot be under-estimated. 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. Equally, there is nothing which mankind has done, which was outside of a language utility, which includes the wheel, cars, planes and PCs. All of humanity's output is from language, which is represented by a word. To take this to a furtherest level, one can say that man creates everything via a word, and thus the universe itself could have emerged from a word, which represents a thought/will/action process. From such a vista, it is feasable, or even w/o alternatives, that Genesis deems the universe came about by a word: consider that there were no tools or forces, and that all products are post-universe, including matter, space, energy and time [the universe is finite]. So what's left? The same which occured for mankind, all came from the word, and this makes the verse, 'AND THE LORD *SAID* LET THERE BY LIGHT - AND THERE WAS LIGHT'. Here, the word 'said' refers to language, thought/will/action - with the caveat there were no tools, obviously so in a 'FINITE' universe: if the universe is finite - all its components are finite - meaning at one time they never existed, yet the universe emerged. I understand that evolutionists would not take such thinking as imperical, but equally, they have not a clue how the universe came about, and appear in a path which will not yield any answers. It is thus a question of perspectives, whether language is a force of its own, same as light, heat, energy, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: narrow, meaning the A's and THE's appear minor, but make a big difference. Why do most Europeans say, 'THE' God, instead of just God, as in the english - it is a dead give-away?
quote: This shows english as a very pliable and adaptive language, and one of the reasons it became a global-speak.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No. I'm not certain of the date [circa]; english was already spoken in some form, while the french saught to establish french as the operative language for briton: this failed, by the actions of a british king.
quote: There were no belly laffs, the people supported the king against the french goal; the term cafe and many other french words were incorporated into the english.
quote: You must look in the mirror if I'm right. Yes/no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 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 3698 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: As in a person? I know not.
quote: English emerged differently from other languages, whereby we can actually trace its emergence, and not so with other languages. This, and the fact it contains more outside words than any other language, makes it a true microcosm. That english is the only global language today, nicely answers your question it is more pliable. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024