Creation of the English Language

After reading the whole thread I appreciate IamJoseph arguments and his way of thinking. He had no real adversaries here but Kuresu and DWISE1. I don't underestand why Adminosy threatened banning him.Frankly speaking I doubt there was a king IaJ insisted upon, but neverthenless he hit the nail. There is something peculiar about English language and IaJ inspired me very with his reasoning that Britain is in fact not a part of Europe. Such idea has never come on my mind.According Schopenhauer when a language originated it was perfect. During time it degenerates, it means it get rid of inflections (or deflections in English?), prefixes and suffixes. Using his reasoning I would say English is an old language.On the other hand I must agree with IaJ concept of language and "mindset" of its users. Just for a record - there are no genders in English. It is very peculiar, because German always use "der, die, das" in sentences. In Slavonic languages it is even more evident. Women and men use different grammar. Btw. old-Slovakian language was accepted by Catholic church as the fourth liturgical language after Greek, Latin and Hebrew in the 9th century.I don't say there are more perfect and less perfect languages. What I say is that language and it's structure influences the way we are thinking and somehow what we are thinking about.Reading book where are biological and philosophical articles in German and English I was surprised what differences are between those languages - none of them is my nativ language btw. and I am not very fluent in them, so take it easy. Reading German your mind is so to say occupied with many collateral thoughts. This is not the case of English - the language itself focuses your mind on the topic discussed and there are no other hidden meaning in English sentences. English with it's analytical structure and almost no redundancies give you no possibility to asses or rethink when reading.I've read an scholarly opinion that some philosophical-biological works of German school of idealistic morphology or orthogenesis is not fit to translate into Czech without loss of some meaning. I would say that opinion why neo(darwinism) is and was prevalent in English speaking country is the english itself is of interest. Using German studying secrets of evolution you are playing with a dynamite (see the many racist and biological and even linguistical theories in pre war Germany). There is no such danger using English.And that's why English win in post - war world. Napoleon lost but French was popular in 19 century in Europe. Economic had nothing to do it. It was a Europe of literature and philosophy - German. Nowadays world is a world of technology and of hands-of-approach. And here is the English best, no doubt.

Not exactly. Preliminary crude division of European languages would be this:
English - practical, technical language
French - language of literature
German - philosophy
Russian - religious languageThis division is open for discussion. There are other languages like Swedish mentioned by Kuresu. Yet Swedish grammar is more close to English, while German grammar is more complex. I've read that there are some similarities between Chinese and English grammar. Such opinion would be in accordance with IaJ reasoning.IaJ claimed that modern English has arisen suddenly, by saltus. I would agree with him. As far as I remember the same is valid for German. It was Martin Luther who translated Bible into German and created so norms. I've also read that differences between German vernaculars are greater than differences between Slavonic languages. Somebody can correct me, but Johanes Calvin made the same think for modern French.As to Schopenhauer explanation I don't know what mordern linguists think about it. Declension in English is almost lost. But as far as I know the same is valid for Spanish and Italian language.Considering Latin as source of Spanish and Italian language we can really observe that aging of language is connected with it's simplification. There are 6 cases in Latin, 4 cases in German, none in English (or two with genitive?)The question is what impact has such reduced grammar at thinking of their users. In Latin and Slavonic language there is grammatical coherence between adjectives, verbs and nouns. In English words have their fixed place in the sentences (subj + verb + object etc..). I can imagine my language to be as simple as English regarding cases, eg. without suffixes and prefixes. It would sounds weird but it would be intelligible. Then I expressed myself wrong. My opinion is that prevalence of (neo)darwinism is tightly connected with English language. In pre-war Germany there were theories of idealistic morphology and orthogenesis with more than 50 years of tradition and intensive scientific study. This world with all of it's scientific biological journals is forgotten nowadays. My heretical thought was that German was perhaps more apt for study of secrets of evolution than English (as it is in the case of philosophy). English as practical language do not inspire perhaps their users for collateral associations. On the other hands it doesn't block the flow of clear thinking and this is advantage of English in modern world.Translating 20 pages text from a Slavonic language (and I almost sure from German) into English you obtain let say 16 pages. It would mean English is more concise. There are probably no redundancies. On the other hand you have your mind to be focused what you are listening. Capacity of mind to process syllables or morphems is limited. Japanesse use some "padded" words without meaning just to give a mind some time to process what has been heard. So listening the same think in German/Slavonic language give you more time to rethink it or just to dream - your mind is not so busy as it is in the case of English.

-Edited by MartinV, : the response resent.

Acording the Czech biologist Komarek Uni Prague there is a difference between German and English language. German language - according his opinion -is more apt to solve the hidden problems of life. German language ability going into the depth of evolution and it's secrets is something outside the scope of English. He compared the German with dynamite - it can also make a great damages.It is also the problem of German view of orthogenesis vs. anglo-american neodarwinism. After the 2WW the German school of biology connected with fascism has been dismissed. It survives only at by German influenced Uni like Prague, Swiss Unis and St.Peterburg. Anyway the great zoologist and humanist professor Adolf Portmann who dismissed neodarwinism as the head of a Swiss Uni has been replaced by a neodarwinian manager. I presented Portmann views' about descent of testicles at "Biological evolution" thread. But there are also cultural differences between the old German school and anglo-american neodarwinian school regarding "competition" in society.Anyway the great biologist, multilinguist and philosopher Neubauer Uni Prague who published as 21 years old scientist of biology in the Nature turned out to be a strong critic of neodarwinism nowadays. He support his views by the work of F.Nietzsche.

This is another linguistic attack regarding evolution. I don't see why neodarwinism (or new synthesis) equals TOE. Are perhaps Orthogenesis, Nomogenesis or Prescribed evolutionary hypothesis not theories of evolution? Of course Orthogenesis is another theory of evolution. Neodarwinism is only one of theories of evolution.

Again - there are many theories of evolution.

So did you involve in TOE also Orthogenesis proposed by Theodor Eimer?

OK. And what (or who) authorized neodarwinism (or New synthesis) to be the exclusively and the only "theory of evolution"? Orthogenesis, Nomogenesis (Berg's evolution by law) and Prescribed evolutionary hypothesis are theories of evolution as well I dare say. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.