Creation of the English Language

quote:

---

By far, the native speakers are the worst writers, often unintelligible, who constantly confuse homonyms and end up using the wrong words.

---

This appears very true and commonplace. It is most probably related to taking one's own for granted and an indifference, while a new immigrant must make greater input to adapt and is usually far more enthusiastic of making it in the new scenario. Here, the native can well fear the new comer.

quote:

---

alphabetical phonations

​

You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?

---

I mean here, what the alphabet 'V' sounds like, when it is spoken. The latin and arabic, for example, did not possess the V sound, while the Hebrew did. Many such alphabetical sounds are missing in european languages, and thus there is a displacement factor, resulting in different pronounciations of words. We call this accents, but mainly it is resultant from the lack of alphabetical sounds.

quote:

---

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?

---

The problem is, your analogy refers to a post-universe process, namely the B to Z, with the 'A' factor remaining outside it. There is a difference in exploring the process of an action, and the factors which predate it.

quote:

---

Unlike other languages, there is no Academy to define officially accepted words.

---

And my position is, this is not the case, that an academy was formed, and that english begat its formal construction here, as well as the 'purposeful and improvising' incorporation of words from many languages into english - performed by this body, and established and initiated by a British king. Further, that its purpose was to challenge the french, and use english as the weaponry. There seems to be an alluding to this here, but w/o sufficient detail:Q: 'In this period the reshaping of the grammatical system of English from the originally synthetic to the present-day analytical pattern was completed' UnQ

quote:

---

http://www.ucm.sk/...tina/sylabus/sylabus2/uvoddoljazyka.doc

​

The most famous invasion of all, led by Duke William of Normandy (William the Conqueror) in 1066 came to identify the second main period in English language history - Middle English period. In this period the reshaping of the grammatical system of English from the originally synthetic to the present-day analytical pattern was completed. This period runs from the beginning of 12th century until the middle of the 15th century. The main influence on English was, of course, French.

​

Following the accession of William the Conqueror, who was to become the 1st of the Norman kings ruling over England, French was rapidly established in the corridors of power. The places of the domestic nobility were taken over by the Norman aristocrats. The written records show that there was very little use of English among the hierarchy. French remained in England the official language of law-suits until 1362- only after that date it was to be replaced by English.

​

Later on, English was winnig back its old positions. The new literary standard of English was no longer based on the dialects of south-western England (in Old English), but on the dialects of central England. (in Middle English). This was due to the increasing political, economic and cultural importance of London and its area.

​

Among many linguistic developments which identify the period of Middle English belongs the first translation of the Bible by John Wicliffe (the latter half of the 14th century) and the work of Geoffrey Chaucer (died in 1400), the author of Canterbury Tales. (1390s).

---

quote:

---

but think back to your English classes. They tried to teach you grammar, but did you bother to learn it? Parts of speech? You learned enough to get your homework grade and to pass the test, but then you forgot it.

---

This is what I concurred. The issue of what factor causes this syndrome, is less important than that it is prevalent. It is because one takes what he has for granted, while a foreigner immigrating has a far more existential reason to 'learn' the new grammar.The learning of a language trait becomes diminished with age, whereby this is an inherent attribute which is triggered, more than learnt: a parent does not teach a child to speak - they merely click a switch, and the rest follows. Language [speech] is a mysterious factor, on a plane with such elusive phenomenons as soul, thoughts, emotions, desires, etc., namely it is an action predating and independent of the action, and the only factor which separates humans from all other life forms. It is also the sole item which enables our survival and to go forth and attain dominance of the universe; without it, humans would be just another of the billions of life forms, and probably we would not have survived. equally, another life form improvising speech, would not achieve the same results as do humans. Speech is correctly indefinable.

Fine if you want to stick to such credibilities. There is in your view, nothing of transcendence, and everything is equal in different ways. Life on this planet is no different from other planets without life: its just different forms of differences, but there is no special differences. Speech being unique is negated because zebras have unique stripes too. Thus the aspect of unique is superfluous thing, and not a reality, because all things are unique. Hot is not hot.The other side of this coin says you have no arguement.

Nice of you to research this, however, I don't think it is this episode, which I could have but did not post previously. The episode I refer to is much more definitive than this. My recall is poor because I knew of this some 15 years ago. the issue of middle-english and that many french words were already into the english does not factor here.

quote:

---

I am sure I am correct in your definition of "stripes", so what is your definition of "speech"? They appear to be similar in that ones uniqueness disqualifies the other, why is that?

---

I've learnt not to validate such distortive semantics, from experience in a thread on this subject: if speech cannot be defined, it means its not unique; if it is unique, it is not so because everything is unique - as opposed to being indefinable because there is nothing like it. It means there is no difference in speech propelling humans to Mars, with a zebra have a particular stripe as no other.

There is no such thing as adaptation in evolution, because all things adapt, whether in evolution or tabble tennis and cutting a pineapple. howszat!

quote:

---

Read the sentence after the one you quoted. I said that I still think of things that I can't get the word for because I've simply forgotten it.

---

Your memory loss at that point, is a separate, unrelated matter.

quote:

---

As you will know, a thought must precede any action

​

I blink my eyes without thinking. It's something that happens without need for thought. My heart beats at about 70 bpm without me thinking about it. Kick my balls and I will scream without thinking "hey, I should scream to reveal my pain".
Actions don't need thoughts.

---

Involuntary reflexes cannot occur w/o a thought resulted construct underlieing it. When you blink your eyes, your mind still operates, following the program embedded therein. For a conscious action, you need a conscious thought.

quote:

---

whatever is finite, makes all its components finite:

​

Fallacy of composition. It does not necessarily follow that because the components are finite the whole must be, or that because the whole is the constituent parts must be. An example: Humans are visible to the naked eye, and humans are made of atoms. Therefore, atoms are visible to the naked eye. In fact, if physics is right, every single one of the particles that make up our bodies are flitting in and out of existence. By your illogic, that would mean we are flitting in and out of experience constantly. Also, a particle can be in two places at once. By your illogic, that would mean we can be at two places at once.

---

This does not change the premise - the atom is still finite. I'm not sure if you reject the uni being finite, or the premise of finite itself. But there is no illogic of the universe being finite, nor that a finite entity cannot contain an infinite. There is also no illogic that based on a finite, there would be an instant when the universe never existed, including all its components. This renders any contemplation of the universe unscientific, where its finity is not factored in the equation. The only scientific question is, how did a 'finite' universe come about.

quote:

---

An expanding universe means it was not infinite 10 seconds ago

​

You've never taken math, have you? What happens when you expand infinity? You get infinity.

---

I know that in maths there is another working premise of infinite, but this is not an actual but an academic bridge facility, and is unrelated to actual infinity. You cannot expand infinity; there are no different kinds of infinity, eg small and larger ones.

quote:

---

if you add or subtract $5 from an infinite number of $ - it means you never had an infinite in the first place.

​

Oh, okay. You never have taken higher level math. I guess that makes sense, given that it seems you don't know any foreign languages and think that native speakers are far better than non-native speakers.

---

I know my maths and two other languages. You cannot add $ to an infinite number of $. The components of a finite universe are younger than the universe.

quote:

---

even the greatest scientists of the day see language as a mysterious factor - they cannot even 'define' it

​

False.

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community
audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs

​

a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

And that's from merrian-webster.

---

All dictionaries do that, as an encumbancy; they bypass the controvery. But I have posted also, from leading scientists, that speech is not definable. Our resident neysayers will easily dislodge any definition, or reduce it to whatever suits them. Many life forms can perform the task set out in your definition, and that they have no speech nonetheless does not factor: neighter do humans have zebra stripes!

quote:

---

force not exist before universe.
force create universe.

---

This ends in the cyclical, so I won't respond with what created the force. Clearly, you have disregarded the finity factor here - else you would not fall into an unscientific circular position: an indication the path taken is wrong. To better deal with this issue, the preamble needs to be established, namely the universe being finite or not; and whether a finite can contain infinite. You should start with a stated preamble here: Genesis does that.

quote:

---

We do not know how languages came about originally

​

Um, okay. Then why do you say:
all evidences negate the latter

​

This implies that at least you know how languages originally came about.

---

We do not know how language and speech originally emerged. English does not fall in an original language category, being an evidential conglomoration of other languages. There are such other instances, namely what is called pidgeon english.

quote:

---

there is sufficient evidence to back the inexplicable premise that language appeared suddenly

​

If you can explain it, it is not inexplicable. Do you not read what you write?

---

there are no explanations which correctly expound speech and language. Definition is varied from description. We can describe life, but not define it.

quote:

---

I doubt it, when you can't even handle the math on infinity.

---

It transcends maths, and is not explained via any maths. You are using the mathematical device of infinity with a misrepresentation. I see an anticipated problem here: the finity factor is a stumbling block for your premise. This explains why we cannot agree on so much, and now you should clearly state if you see the universe as infinite, and how would that same universe look if it is not finite: what differences impact?

quote:

---

Do I really need to show you more? We know the histories of many, many, many languages.

---

History is not the problem; origins is. We do not know the origins of 'ANYTHING' whatsoever, yet we must agree it came from some source point and time. There is a most controversial stat in Genesis, which deems speech less than 6000 years old. It is countered by speech is 100s of 1000s of years old, but not evidential because there was no writings. This is too convenient, and I reject it totally: evidencing speech is certainly not subject to writings - a derivitive of speech. There are 100s, if not 1000s of other means to verify speech, including the recalling of a singular 'name' of a human, or a recipe, or any event, a folksong, a complexity; further, these imprints should be pervasively seen across the span of geo-history, in periods of gradual elevations. Nothing of this exists, just a big bang which culminates on the genesis datings.Otherwise, numerous ficticious premises are put forth, of 10K and 50K year old civilizations - again devoid of all surrounding but encumbent evidences. The overiding fact here is, that there is no manifest evidence of speech before the genesis dating, nor is there any history per se, before this date. All available factors, including population and mental prowess, fit only in the genesis datings. Co-incidence?Here, no alarm is acknowledged, not even that a 3,500 document made such a bold and risky statement - and somehow managed to become vindicated today. There is no reason for the proven display of speech to be only in the 6000 cycle, nor for agriculture and other factors to be limited to this juncture, nor the evidencing of all mankind's history limited to this date. It would be better acceptable if someone said 'WOW! WHAT A GREAT GUESSMATIC FLUKE BY GENESIS!' - not even this can be mustered by the negators of this issue. Still, the overwhelming facts incline with genesis here - whether it is acknowledged or not. What is occuring here, aside from the counter arguements of speech, is that if accepted, the genesis pointer casts a stumbling block for numerous heavy-duty premises of anti-creationists! Here, it parallels the finite issue of the universe, again in a face-off with genesis, and all evidence at hand.

quote:

---

The point is--there are multiple global languages. Further, the reason that english is spoken by so many has more to do with the UK's empire than any 'pliability'. In fact, I highly doubt pliability has anything to do with why english is spoken by up to 1.8 billion people.

---

What you avoided is, that despite numerous languages being entrenched fastediously, and over many 1000s of years, and despite that all nations were invading nations - english broke that barrier and came up as the worldly language. If YOU recall the point of this debate of english, do tell me.

{Content off-topic - hidden. Use "peek" if you feel you must see it. Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Comments and off-topic banner.

{Content off-topic - hidden. Use "peek" if you feel you must see it. Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Comments and off-topic banner.

It is not essential one must speak another language fluently as the native one, and one can read and write it, know expressionism and songs of it, and its history. What I meant with immigrants, is they obviously have an existential reason to adapt to the new country, and have to apply themselves more. Most new immigrants end up wealthier and produce greater benefits to the new country, and to science [Einstein] than the natives.We can trace english's emergence, because this is observable from a certain period, and did not exist before then. In contrast, an ancient, primal language is not traceable: we can point to its oldest existence, but not how it got there. This is made more enigmatic that languages are not evidenced more than 6000 years: the reason of no writings is not relevent here, while the evidences of older civilizations by a small period can be allocated to carbon dating being unreliable for small margins. The operable factor here is, we have no writings in a copious supply, over grads of transitory periods, older than 6000; not in hard copy. We have no history per se pre-6000!

quote:

---

Would you mind telling us why writing is necessary for having a language?

---

I can't see what was confusing - I mentioned english origins being traceable in context why original languages were not so.I never said language is subject to writings; in fact, I dismissed that writings are essential to prove language. Thus the claim that language being older than 6000 cannot be proved due to lack of writings being developed, is nonesense. There are numerous other indicators of a language, and here, I do not refer to mass burials, colored beads or semblances of fireplaces. A language can be evidenced without writings by the recalling of a NAME, A KING, AN EVENT, A FOLKSONG, A RECIPE: these do not require writings. Unless we are also saying the human brain was not developed - thus the case for a language becomees mooted!

quote:

---

Not really. While writing is somewhat young, mathematics is not. We have counting sticks as old as 30,000 years.

---

And that's hardly a proof of history.If you have proof of counting sticks [amazing!] from 30K years, you will have a thread of development of stick counting, observable every 500 years. My understanding is, that language emerged prior to maths, while both these faculties are inherent in humans.What I find amazing about otherwise science oriented evolutionists, is their science becomes suspiciously contraversial - even non-science, when they have to prove anything they say, and retreat to the most precarious form of counter evidence, with caveats and qualifications which are untenable: millions of years scenarios; virus dna; deviational paths of so-called speciation which remain untrackable; etc. How convenient.