Creation of the English Language

Hi Akhenaten!English has undoubtedly changed over time. However, much like post-Flood biological evolution, post-Babel linguistic evolution has only occurred within the divided kinds created there (Gen. 11:9).English is a good example, in fact. Only 2.4% of world languages make use of the interdental fricatives (the 'th' sound). In the OE text shown in the post above, we see the same sound (represented by ,), which demonstrates that English has always possessed the key characteristics that dene its kind, even if there has been slight changes within.Languages can add words, such as English did during the Middle English period from French, but only words that posses the characteristics of that language's kind. Imagine if you saw a dog that had all the characteristics of a human. It would not be improbable to assume that that 'creature' would be accepted into the human kind because of the similarities that it shared. Speaking of biological creatures, however, can be a bad example, since there would never be any cross-kind similarities because we know they were all created from separate kinds (Gen. 1-2), and have remained separate throughout history. But with languages, we know that they were all created from one language (Gen. 11:6), and we see that reected in that some of them share similar features. So, when words mimicking English features are found in French, it's not unlikely that they could be assimilated into the language, provided there was some sort of physical contact between the two languages (such as in the French invasion of English).Imagine that the Animal kinds all look like this:

|1| |2| |3| |4| |5| |6|
|1| |2| |3| |4| |5| |6|
|1| |2| |3| |4| |5| |6|
|1| |2| |3| |4| |5| |6|

(where cross-kind mixing is then impossible due to separate origins).And Language kinds all look like this:

|1|1:2|2|2:3|3|3:4|4|4:5|5|5:5|5|5:6|6|
| | : | | : | | : | | : | | : | | : | |
| | : | | : | | : | | : | | : | | : | |
| | : | | : | | : | | : | | : | | : | |
| | : | | : | | : | | : | | : | | : | |
|1|1:2|2|2:3|3|3:4|4|4:5|5|5:5|5|5:6|6|

(where each language kind has a strict column of features, but also 'shades over' a little into the other kinds, due to having the same origin).I hope this answers your questions, and Good Luck in your debate!Jon

You can't use the definition that's been given to the languages by evilutionists to credit your position of supporting evilutionists. Talk about going in circles!Edited by Jon, : Wrong prefix

We simply cannot know, but it is unlikely to have been anything with which we are today familiar. This is one of an interesting question, and I, of course, agree. The thing is, however, if a newborn child were placed into an OE setting, he could learn the language with no problems. We know that all humans are descendent from a single man. Interestingly enough, humans all share a common gene that allows for us to acquire language 'naturally'. But, just as the gene is one derived from the original man, so to must be the language a language derived from the original language. This, then, makes even more sense when we realise that all humans can learn any language if born in any part of the world. This is because all languages have the same base (Gen. 11:1), and all humans have the same genetic predisposition to that base (Gen. 9:1).This information, of course, only makes sense if we recognise that all languages have a single common origin, that all humans have a single common origin, and that the split between the language lineages must have happened after the split in the human lineages. In other words, this information all makes sense in light of what the Bible tells us to be the truth.Edited by Jon, : Added some meat to the bones

I'm going to add this reply here, too, just because it took me longer than I thought it would to get that other one posted up there. We simply cannot know, but it is unlikely to have been anything with which we are today familiar. This is one of an interesting question, and I, of course, agree. The thing is, however, if a newborn child were placed into an OE setting, he could learn the language with no problems. We know that all humans are descendent from a single man. Interestingly enough, humans all share a common gene that allows for us to acquire language 'naturally'. But, just as the gene is one derived from the original man, so to must be the language a language derived from the original language. This, then, makes even more sense when we realise that all humans can learn any language if born in any part of the world. This is because all languages have the same base (Gen. 11:1), and all humans have the same genetic predisposition to that base (Gen. 9:1).This information, of course, only makes sense if we recognise that all languages have a single common origin, that all humans have a single common origin, and that the split between the language lineages must have happened after the split in the human lineages. In other words, this information all makes sense in light of what the Bible tells us to be the truth.Jon

Both are correct, in fact. Children learn the language they are a part of, no matter where they are originally born or what language their parents spoke; they can learn any language so long as they grow up with the language, and they will sound like any other native speaker when they do.As for your second question, it pretty much rules itself. If language has one common root, then there could only be one language invention event (the invention by God when He rst spoke”Gen. 1:3).Edited by Jon, : preposition confusion

Sort of, but not quite. Most linguists would agree that there is a certain innateness about the ability to use language. The process of learning when we are children is not the same as when we become adults. There is a Critical Age at which a child must be exposed to language if they are to ever develop it properly. This is usually during the period where the right and left brains are beginning to specialise at certain tasks. The left brain does language, and if it is not stimulated during these crucial times, it will not properly develop, and the person may never learn language. Further proof that language is a part of us; a part of what we do naturally, and not merely something we've developed. No, invented by God (see my reply to Jar), when God spoke. It was then altered, by God, to form the different kinds of language we see today. Perhaps we need to realise that it is important to look at the intent behind the actions in the story. God's purpose for scattering the people was so that they could not get together in large enough groups to build something to reach to heaven again. It is entirely plausible to expect God to intervene further, here and there, when groups of people speaking the same language get too large, splitting them up and creating two or more new kinds of language.This makes good sense when we look at the data, which show that new languages come about when the population increases, and the creation of different languages seems to correspond directly to the splitting up of groups of people.Jon

I cop. I'm not a creationist. I can't keep this up. Babel is the most ridiculous idea in the history of linguistics.Sorry, but you seem rather informed on these matters, and I'd prefer to talk to you in science terms about linguistics instead of trying to keep up this charade Sorry to have strung you along, but I need to be honest and tell you that no Creationist will ever answer your question. They don't ever present evidence to support their position. Instead, they try to saw away at the evolutionary anvil using soft-tooth saws. Then, they look at the metal lings on the oor from their saw, and conclude they are actually from the anvil.I hope to see you in chat so we can talk some real linguistics! JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

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]

I've been thinking a little bit, and I am wondering what others think on this one: would it be technically accurate to refer to Modern English as a creole language?Jon

You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? Evolutionists wouldn't care! Would that be the path where they study biological entities as opposed to star clusters?

---

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]

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. First: dene pliable. Second: provide evidence showing that English is more pliable than other languages.Jon

Huh? Are you sure? According to whom? Some, including myself, would say that language probably goes back to even earlier forms of H. sapiens, such as H. sapiens neandertalensis, or (even) H. sapiens erectus. That's at least 1.5 MYA!Of course, like you say, one thing is certain; language goes back at least 2KYA.Jon

Yeah, but since when was China part of the south Nile area?

Some of us pronounce those minimal pairs the same , like with a ap, an allophone of both /t/ and /d/... so without context we wouldn't know which phoneme to 'translate' it into.And that, folks, was my 'I-just-nished-my-phonetics-exam' show-off post Jon

I am going to throw out some information that I would like IAJ to address. From The Oxford History of the English Language re the globalisation of English:

quote:

---

One of the great 'facts' about English in the early modern period is that the language was used in exploration and conquest,...

---

quote:

---

It is, as the previous chapter has already indicated, entirely the case that the activities of the UK in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries spread English world-wide in commercial and imperial terms, and that those of the USA in the twentieth consolidated its global role culturally, technologically, and militarily.

---

quote:

---

1. Two World Wars (1914-18, 1939-45) in which the key victorious nations were English-speaking. Especially in World War II [AmE and BrE] the Second World War [BrE], the use of English for military, political, economic, and other purposes expanded greatly in the various war zones. In Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Pacic millions of people came into regular contact with English who would not otherwise have had much (or anything) to do with it. And where English arrived it tended to stay on after the hostilities ended, for a variety of reasons that included reconstruction, trade, and education.
2. A political and economic Cold War (1945-89) between a capitalist West and a communist East. In this long and often tense struggle for territorial and ideological inuence, the USA was the foremost Western contestant. However, after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, the USA became the world's sole 'super power', the perceived prestige of which impelled many people in ex-Soviet satellites, such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland, to switch from Russian to English as their language of wider communication, having already regarded it for years as a”if not indeed the”language of freedom. Inevitably, Russians also began to nd it useful to know some English, especially in trying to catch up on a West that was now both technologically and economically far ahead of them.
3. Globalization, the name of a process, set in train after the Soviet collapse, of world-wide social, cultural, and commercial expansion (and exploitation), in which the USA was the center [AmE] or centre [BrE] of socio-economic, political, cultural, and linguistic interest. In the closing quarter of the century, English was not only a key socio-cultural language but also the communicative linchpin of both international capitalism and the world's media. By this point, the American variety had also become the main inuence not only on other languages but on other Englishes (included the British variety). In its standard spoken form, AmE was now also the primary model for teaching English as a second or foreign language. For many years, key publishers in the UK's 'English language industry' had resisted this tide but when it became clear that the tide was becoming ever stronger, they began to publish courses in US usage from ofces in New York, alongside their continuing operations at home and elsewhere. In this, they proted from both Englishes (and, if BrE ever did ecline beyond a certain unwished-for point, they would be well placed to transfer more resources to selling the US variety).*

---

Such status, however, was not always given English, as Richard W. Bailey (same book) points out about the English of the 14th Century⁴:

quote:

---

English is the 'slangy' language; Latin is the vehicle for serious business. Two other English insertions in this sermon quote a tapster and a glutton. In both cases, English is the language of silliness and sin.

---

From this I think IAJ needs to address the following points:

1. Demonstrate that English is naturally 'pliable'** despite the fact that it has not always been held up as the language of prestige.
2. Explain why the information in the rst three quotes could not have been sufcient in spreading English.
3. Provide an alternate hypothesis by which English became the global language that takes into account all the actual evidence”e.g., real kings”that is known on the history and development of English.

Until IAJ can do these things his ideas will not be anything more than existing in fanciful dream worlds, and he will have failed to have demonstrated why 'his insistence that English is somehow fundamentally different' adequately provides the information asked for in the OP: "Who, when, where, how and in what form was it created?"In other words, he will need to either directly answer these questions”provide a straight-up creation model”, or explain how the 'pliability' of English demonstrates a creation scenario instead of being a result of the facts listed within this thread.Jon
__________
"English Among the Languages" Richard W. Bailey in The Oxford History of the English Language Ed Lynda Mugglestone (Oxford:2006) 340.
"English World-Wide in the Twentieth Century" Tom McArthur in The Oxford History of the English Language Ed Lynda Mugglestone (Oxford:2006) 379.
McArthur 369-70.
⁴ Bailey 337.
_____
* The bracketed information in this quote appears in the original text in which it is also in brackets.
** I've decided to use the term 'pliable', in the same way as IAJ, to mean 'the characteristics of English, both in linguistic and cultural anthropological terms'.Edited by AgamemJon, : -/=

---

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]

If you want to argue for how good the English language is, could you perhaps start to speak it in your posts? You string together 'smart-sounding' words in such a way as to make your message almost as indecipherable as members like CrazyDiamond (no offence to that member ).Would you mind telling us why writing is necessary for having a language?As for the rest of your message:Jon