Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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 155 of 205 (434751)
11-17-2007 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Jon
11-17-2007 4:35 AM


Re: Points for IAJ to Address:
quote:
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the great 'facts' about English in the early modern period is that the language was used in exploration and conquest,...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Brits were not alone here: france, spain, norway, the moguls, the arabs - all engaged in conquests and exploration. English won.
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:
Demonstrate that English is naturally 'pliable'** despite the fact that it has not always been held up as the language of prestige.
Explain why the information in the rst three quotes could not have been sufcient in spreading English.
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
Firstly, I'm not conversant with many dead languages, but can see those ancient languages could have been very elaborate and possessed many fine traits. We know that older languages were far more complex and sophisticated; Hebrew is a fine example here, and we can see first hand the magnificance of the OT as a 'literary' work, its expressionisms and axioms utilised by the greatest writers, far more than any other.
However, these are apparently not the factors which made english the global language, even while english has a very disproprotionate and dislocated grammar, with almost no conformity of rules. Here, one can understand the problems faced by one learning english late in life - he will have to just take some things for granted, w/o rules, and learn them by heart. It appears, the world took to english because it is a true microcosm of all languages, thus its pliability. English has a cadence of europe, the M/E, asia and china; english also possesses more sounds, and with its vowels not separated; interestingly, the vowels were part of the alphabets in the hebrew, as were the numerals - it was the greeks which separated the vowels and numerlas from the hebrew, when they begat the greek alphabets from this source. Now, its back again to the original format, namely the vowels are back within the alphabets - this gives a greater flexibility and pliability.
Anther reason is that the world is moving away from the complex, to a fast track communication mode. We see this in the new PC & mobile 'text' language coming into sway, indicating that even english will fade to the new, faster writing mode.
Thus english represents a worldly mix, more pristine [less baggage], greater menu of sounds, and a more refined sound [less gutheral].

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Jon, posted 11-17-2007 4:35 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Jon, posted 11-17-2007 6:30 AM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 157 of 205 (434758)
11-17-2007 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Jon
11-17-2007 6:30 AM


Re: Points for IAJ to Address:
quote:
Gutheral? C'mon! What a joke.
Exactly. Why do you think knight is spelled that way? Because it was pronounced that way in the past, but the gutheral sound was dropped.
quote:
Firstly, I'm not conversant with many dead languages, but can see those ancient languages could have been very elaborate and possessed many fine traits. We know that older languages were far more complex and sophisticated; Hebrew is a fine example here, and we can see first hand the magnificance of the OT as a 'literary' work, its expressionisms and axioms utilised by the greatest writers, far more than any other.
Irrelevant.
Why - it shows how languges are made less burdersome and its ancient complexities dropped.
quote:
Honestly, did you write this whilst intoxicated? English has at least 13-15 vowel sounds. Count the vowels in the alphabet and tell me how many you nd. In case you forget, it's: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z.
six or seven. My point was, these vowels were originally part of the alphabets, then they got separated, and english has them back to the original format.
quote:
it was the greeks which separated the vowels and numerlas from the hebrew
What? That is nonsensical jabberwocky. Please type your posts in English.
No nonesense. Vowels were added to hebrew later, subsequent to the greeks translating of this language in 300 BCE. They also got their alphabetical writings mode from here [The Josephus Documents]. Ancient hebrew had the alphabets as numbers also, and was able to make cencus in their millions, w/o separate alphabets {the cencus of the israelites/Book of Exodus
quote:
English has a cadence of europe, the M/E, asia and china; english also possesses more sounds, and with its vowels not separated;
Again, utterly meaningless gibberish.
Not really. English developed using 100s of french and other european language words. Its not irrelevent, but in context to english being a true microcosm of all languages. Kismet, is an Indian word, but incorporated in english; same with pattisserie, croissaunt, castle, chutzpah, etc - these are imported words.
quote:
I noticed you quoted large portions of my message, as if you were going to address the points therein, but then went on talking about Greek and Hebrew and, yes again, writing. All completely unrelated to English. Do you want to address this one here (the major blow to your position):
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can't address that point, your position has not backing.
Check yourself - I did reespond. Briton was not the only nation which conquered, so this is not the main factor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Jon, posted 11-17-2007 6:30 AM Jon has not replied

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


Message 159 of 205 (434799)
11-17-2007 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by akhenaten
11-17-2007 11:35 AM


Re: Is English really all that different?
quote:
Otherwise you should concede that English emerged gradually, just as many other languages did.
This is silly. Gradually with english, is not gradually as all languages do. That english has a definitive and observable development period, and this being different from the host of original, national languages which development is not definitive - is not disputable.
It does not mean we have a specific date when english occured; rather, it means the period of its development and rise to a real, new language is known. We do not know the same about Greek, Indian or Hebrew - these were outside of observable history: their origins are mysterious and untraceable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by akhenaten, posted 11-17-2007 11:35 AM akhenaten has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by akhenaten, posted 11-17-2007 2:14 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 161 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 2:22 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 162 by kuresu, posted 11-17-2007 2:25 PM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 163 of 205 (434821)
11-17-2007 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by akhenaten
11-17-2007 2:14 PM


Re: Is English really all that different?
Yes, he did post histories, and how most N. Europe languages are germain related hybrids, as well as many other european languages having inter-connections. Here, one has to look whether german is one of the original languages which original source is unknown, my premise being that languages did not originally emerge from grunts of cave people. The adaptation factor relates to their development and refinement, not their causation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by akhenaten, posted 11-17-2007 2:14 PM akhenaten has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by kuresu, posted 11-17-2007 2:49 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 166 of 205 (434873)
11-17-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by kuresu
11-17-2007 2:38 PM


Re: History as a Second Language
quote:
The big question, it seems, is whether this writing is the direct ancestor of modern chinese. More evidence is needed, but I would say that a form of writing dates back 8,000 years, at least.
Given that we were drawing 30,000 years ago, it's not a stretch to imagine a written language to develop is the need arose.
Australian abs are said to be 60K years old, thanks to some cave scratchings. But my response to this is it should be deemed as a total and absolute falsity, even a contrived and improvised one, that it should not be allowed as a professional declaration. Not untill it can be verified by a 60k Year population [where are the 50 Trillian Aboriginals?], the equivalent mental prowess [else forget about ToE] - and graduated imprints of both the former factors the past 60K years. I believe that is the way to go about it.
And IMHO, these are not effected by deaths, deseases, wars, barren and dry terrains - not even as much as the Middle-east, where we have an actual historical poll to determine applicable ratios the last 6000, which displays all the excuses put forth as inapplicable and false.
I say the same criteria must apply everywhere, including 30K year drawings or with china: no surrounding evidences - no go. Else science, history and logic becomes abandoned. This issue is up against a 6000 year factual period, on the same planet, under the same condition, and which which shows no gaps of silence and absence - no vacuum in the 6000 circle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by kuresu, posted 11-17-2007 2:38 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Jon, posted 11-17-2007 9:11 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 168 of 205 (434877)
11-17-2007 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by kuresu
11-17-2007 2:49 PM


Re: Is English really all that different?
quote:
The source of german is known, though.
That would be the indo-european language. And even that has an origin hypothesis--proto indo european.
That's why it is NOT known: we've no idea where and how the indo-euro emerged; we don't know how language appeared. IMHO, this must align with history: no history - no speech endowed life forms; and history refers to recallable names and specific characters and events - absolutely not by generic and de-constructed cave scratchings, agriculture, sticks and stones, etc.
This is a vital and pivotal issue, and critical conditions must be placed before shouting Eureka! Here, I find perhaps the biggest let down by so-called evolutionists - they apply impossible and inapplicable demands on everyone else, but want to breeze through whatever they like as science and fact. It should be the reverse: the one over-turning hard facts has to apply the most strict criteria upon themselves. You can't have it both ways.
quote:
By the way, I highly doubt that anyone proposes that languages derived from grunts of cave people. The biggest reason being is that cave people really didn't exist--
I dont think that reason even applies. Whether they existed or not, the required critical crieria must apply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by kuresu, posted 11-17-2007 2:49 PM kuresu has not replied

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


Message 169 of 205 (434878)
11-17-2007 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Jon
11-17-2007 9:11 PM


Re: ADDRESS THE POINTS
quote:
Now, get on the Google and do some actual research to support your assertions!
I do, and found most do not apply the required criteria, and are embellished with such unscientific terms as IT IS BELIEVED; PERHAPS; and MOST PROBABLY. Evolutionists have no problem accepting these - if it aligns with what they want to hear. If you ask, are all scientists lieing or stupid, I say that there are sufficient disputations, and sufficient academic exaggerations, which are never saistified against hard copy proof.
Obviously, this debate is about a neo-scientific view which opposes established hard facts and criteria - thus the googling is not the appropriate response. As previously stated, the issue of cave marks, without surrounding and applicable evidences, or that speech cannot be verified before 6000 - are unaceptable. The premise of the criteria is false, thus the minutae details after that fact is rejected.
I responded to your questions. France and Spain were conquering nations same as Briton, but lost the language war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Jon, posted 11-17-2007 9:11 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 9:42 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 171 by AdminNosy, posted 11-17-2007 9:51 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 172 by Jon, posted 11-17-2007 9:57 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 173 of 205 (434893)
11-17-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by AdminNosy
11-17-2007 9:51 PM


Re: Gibberish IaJ
quote:
I will not carry on a discussion with you. Sometime you will be simply banned outright as an utter waste of time.
Don't threaten me - my breathing remains at a good steady pace. Ban me if you like, but you cannot stop responsa of participants in all forums, as you seem not to be able to do so here either. I have discussed my views with far more advanced science forums than you imagine.
YOUR THOUGHTS ARE NOT MINE, NOR YOUR WAYS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by AdminNosy, posted 11-17-2007 9:51 PM AdminNosy has not replied

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


Message 174 of 205 (434895)
11-17-2007 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by jar
11-17-2007 9:42 PM


Re: Will you ever get anything right?
quote:
So English is the Primary language in eight nations and Spanish is the Primary language in twenty-one nations.
This factor is effected by those countries being conquered by english. This is the point of english being the global language - the nations subjected to a previous language, whether by conquering or nativity - are being taken over by english. You cannot use the negative impact as a positive one: its not the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 9:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 10:28 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 176 of 205 (434897)
11-17-2007 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Jon
11-17-2007 9:57 PM


Re: Still didn't address anything... try again:
quote:
If so, why? Provide linked-to information to support your claims, please.
Sure. Take Singapore for example: 1000s of years of chinese are becoming overturned with the government mandating english education at schools. Why -because of the global and advancement propspects, and the real fear of not being in the backwaters. There is a logical and evidential reason why many countries are lacking, and which are advancing, and why. Aside from minerals and oil deposits, only english speaking nations are advancing. The service workforce is beling allocated to India, not south America or Europe!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Jon, posted 11-17-2007 9:57 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 11-17-2007 10:38 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 177 of 205 (434898)
11-17-2007 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by jar
11-17-2007 10:28 PM


Re: Will you ever get anything right?
There's nothing false about english taking over nations, and that those who cannot attain parity here are going backwards. Today, some nations are trying desperately to hold off the english invasion, by enforcing laws which will stop this encroachment, including not stating in english any words which are also available in the host nation's language: this is an astonishing display of my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 10:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 10:50 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 181 of 205 (434906)
11-17-2007 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by jar
11-17-2007 10:50 PM


Re: Will you ever get anything right?
quote:
Between 1998 and 2001, English on the web decreased from 75% to 52% and the trend has continued. The fastest growing segments are Spanish, Japanese and Chinese. The majority of websites today are NOT in English.
The conclusion is wrong. All that is occuring here is, that many nations which do not yet speak english, have become computerised. This sector cannot be expected to communicate in english overnight. IOW, the prowess of english has not been decreased, only the number of non-english populations have entered the net. It means that just as in all other sectors, english will dominate them as it has elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 10:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 11:11 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 182 of 205 (434907)
11-17-2007 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jon
11-17-2007 10:38 PM


Re: Please, try yet again...
I did provide evidence. Why are nations like Singapore and India, mandating english in schools - and not spanish or french? And what do you think this means for the future?
You are expecting response to criteria which you have accepted; I am disputing those criterias - so there is no point in submitting evidences which are inside the rejected premise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 11-17-2007 10:38 PM Jon has not replied

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


Message 184 of 205 (434910)
11-17-2007 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by akhenaten
11-17-2007 10:56 PM


Re: Please, try yet again...
quote:
Joseph, I did get you to admit that the English language arose from the accumulation of slow, gradual, random, non-directed changes. I would hope that this might cause you to reconsider the evolution of species, but if not, or if you choose to deny my claims, I won't be surprised.
This is totally warped. That english displays those factors - the observable development in our historical midst - credits my premise - not its antithesis! This is what I said - and that this factor is not seen in original languages. This was countered that european languages rose the same way - but this is also wrong, because the dialecs of europe does not answer where the original language came from, and this is not in our observable midst as with english.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by akhenaten, posted 11-17-2007 10:56 PM akhenaten has not replied

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


Message 185 of 205 (434912)
11-17-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by jar
11-17-2007 11:11 PM


Re: Still wrong.
quote:
I'm sorry but all you are posting is nonsense.
In fact, between 2000-20007 the number of Chinese websites increased by almost 500% and the percentage of English language sites decreased to 31%.
Sorry but once again the facts seem to show your posts are full of shit.
I don't think so. All that has happened in China is, chinese people have become net users, and are doing so in chinese. The factor of impact here is, gradually but surely, sectors of chinese speaking net users are secummbing to english! You have not factored the critical items here. In the short and coming future, it means we will have more chinese people speaking and communicating in english.
FYI, by first hand experience, I know that China is already implementing laws to avoid this future: it has rejected shows such as AMERICAN IDOL, and is insisting chinese be spoken, and also represented in songs and music. Guess why!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 11:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 11:30 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024