|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation of the English Language | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
There is no such thing as adaptation in evolution, because all things adapt, whether in evolution or tabble tennis and cutting a pineapple. howszat!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Your memory loss at that point, is a separate, unrelated matter.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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 are no explanations which correctly expound speech and language. Definition is varied from description. We can describe life, but not define it.
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote:Doesn’t have to show brain connection [tho these are connected], and we know this action can occur even after death for some hours. Like the involuntary actions of other organs, the involuntary process does not occur because of the knee joint, but that this process is incorporated in the body mechanism. Its like your computer, whereby most of the actions it performs are involuntary and hidden from the user - yet they are incorporated in the pc system. Involuntary does not mean by itself, but not controlled by one’s self; it does not mean there is no control factor - which is thought based, both the knee and your pc. quote: These are mathematical placebos, and not reflected in reality. You cannot prove a math premise using math back-up; this is limited to the academic. The concept of infinity is not grasspable or explainable by maths; we use the term infinite generally to express a vast number, as an expressionism only, but not as an actuality; we use it maths as a term for a large number/quatity which cannot be or need not be, accounted.
quote: This is not the case, and is presented to escape the ”finity’ factor. The universe does have a centre: the original point [BB?], eg. A particle, expanded to the current status quo. This means the original diameter of the BB particle, expanded to become the diameter of the current universe, and we and everything else, is in the centre. The original centroid has expanded. There is no way a finite body cannot have a centre! And we know, an infinity being expanded is a self-contradictory moot point.
quote: They were not infinite to begin with.
quote: Incorrect. Another room is not an addition/expansion of the infinite number of rooms [your nominated infinite entity here]. Your glitch is: that the infinite rooms were ”booked solid’ [meaning, to the capacity of infinite], so where did the additional room come from? - its an impossibility, else you never had infinity to begin with. Do you see what I mean by academic placebos? - here, one can ”write’ the notion of ”infinite + 1’ - but this is limited to the academic premise only. So, what's your preamble - the uni is finite - or finite and infinite together?! {Content off-topic - hidden. Use "peek" if you feel you must see it. Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Comments and off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The above is plausable, even though dating predictions range from 100 CE to 2000 BCE, because we have surrounding evidence of India being an older civilisation, and had interaction with ancient Egypt over 3000 years ago. [as an aside, Hindhi is almost the same as the hebrew, both in alphabet design and ancient word meanings]. The issue of Thracian does not satisfy the criteria:
quote: Neither sanskrit or chinese is older than the Hebrew: point us to proof matching the hebrew and its hard copy? {Content off-topic - hidden. Use "peek" if you feel you must see it. Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Comments and off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024