|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation of the English Language | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
a parent does not teach a child to speak - they merely click a switch You haven't shown this to be true regardless of how many times you write it.
Language [speech] is a mysterious factor You haven't shown this to be true either. Its not enough to insist that its mysterious, you have to show why. A definition that differs from all the others that have been presented to you would be a good start.
It is also the sole item which enables our survival and to go forth and attain dominance of the universe Define dominance. I would suggest bacteria has us beat hands down.
Speech is correctly indefinable. Of course you say that. Without the mystery in your definition you have nothing to debate. You suggest mysterious qualities to English in much the same fashion as speech. It has no foundation. I could insist in much the same way that any language has mysterious properties and is magically imparted on our youth; as long as I do not specify what I mean by mysterious. French! Now thats a real mystery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
There is in your view, nothing of transcendence So you say. I have not.
everything is equal in different ways See above.
Life on this planet is no different from other planets without life See above.
there is no special differences Define special.
Speech being unique is negated because zebras have unique stripes too 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?
Thus the aspect of unique is superfluous thing, and not a reality, because all things are unique Be sure to specify that this is your opinion and not mine. While attempting to insert what you think is my outlook its important to then specify what is your opinion to alleviate confusion.
Hot is not hot This is an odd conclusion to make. I must say its a unique perspective.
The other side of this coin says you have no arguement. I haven't presented mine yet. Yours is much more interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I've learnt not to validate such distortive semantics I can understand why. If you attempt to apply meaning to your words then you would find attempts to make it magical are impossible. When you say that speech is magical and the brain is unimportant; denial of evidence to make speech magical. When you say that speech arrises magically in children and is not taught; denial of evidence to make speech magical. Your claims about speech mirror your claims about the rise of english. You deny all claims that could possibly impact your ideas of magical origins. Any attempt to debate these issues becomes futile as you refuse to provide meaning for your words, this allows you to deny whatever evidence is presented and may then continue to make magical claims.
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. {A} is unique from {B}. Regardless of speech or zebra stripes {A} remains unique from {B}. There is no particular importance when simply listing off what is unique in our universe. Speech is important for humanity, that is obvious. What you have not done is show why human speech is more unique, or more important than any other unique example that can be found in the universe. There is nothing like zebra stripes, nor anything like Mars, me, or you. Why is speech so important? Whats your definition of speech that differs from the norm in that its suddenly elevated above all other examples of unique. Its a reasonable question as its the basis for all your posts on this forum. (or a large majority)
It means there is no difference in speech propelling humans to Mars, with a zebra have a particular stripe as no other. Sure there is a difference. They are both unique. I asked you before, now I am asking once again - define special. From message 123:
There is no such thing as adaptation in evolution, because all things adapt, whether in evolution or tabble tennis and cutting a pineapple. Hold that thought.
Global Wording: The Fascinating Story of the Evolution of English by Charles Hodgson
The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome by Leslie A. White
The Evolution of Electronic Music by David Ernst
The Book of London: The Evolution of a Great City by Michael Leapman
On the Land: The Evolution of American Agriculture by Elinor Lander Horwitz
Engines of the Mind: The Evolution of the Computer from Mainframes to Microprocessors by Joel N. Shurkin I can go on forever, grabbing names of books talking about any number of topics and the evolution of those subjects (telephones, websites, guitars, bicycles, home decorating, childrens toys). You name it, it probably has a history of evolution. So am I correct in that you agree that biology; like music, english, cities, toys, coffee pots and cultures; changes over time? I doubt it, but your post certainly suggests it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
There is something peculiar about English language Could you specify what it is that you think is peculiar? From your post it seems to suggest that you believe English is best for a technological or biological world, German seems best for literature and philosophy, and French for war. I am prepared to accept this position if you are willing to state why one is peculiar from the other two. How would you begin to define this peculiar nature if I was to simply reply by saying war/French is the oddity?
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. According to him the language is old and degenerated,
There is no such danger using English. according to you the language is young and superior. I am a bit unclear as to what side you are trying to promote. I have ran into the "languages are falling apart" claim before, but you also appear to be contradicting Schopenhauers reasoning.
I would say that opinion why neo(darwinism) is and was prevalent in English speaking country is the english itself is of interest. I do not understand. The only connection I can come up with is that you are trying to imply God made English so we could understand The Theory of Evolution correctly.
Frankly speaking I doubt there was a king IaJ insisted upon, but neverthenless he hit the nail. There is something peculiar about English... Frankly I see nothing different about English that would deem it any different than the other two you mentioned. This obsession to make English the most unique language I find to be the real mystery. Where did IaJ "hit the nail"? If he did manage to prove that English somehow rose out of the ether to mystify everyone I would simply wonder if he has evidence that all other languages do not share the same qualities further back in history. IaJ said further back in the thread that he would not define what he meant by special/unique/peculiar. This is the only real issue I have with his and your position. How does one rate uniqueness? Does your unique English trump my unique French? If so, why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Such opinion would be in accordance with IaJ reasoning. Perhaps you understand his reasoning better. I always interpreted him as thinking is magical or some such thing. Given that you say English is similar to Swedish, Chinese, Spanish, and Italian its difficult to figure out why you feel that its peculiar.
IaJ claimed that modern English has arisen suddenly, by saltus. I would agree with him. What do you mean "modern English"? Do you mean that it appeared suddenly from old English?
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) That makes no sense at all. If you are saying that English is the practical and technical language than it is obviously the best choice for the explanation of a scientific theory. (I am going by your division of languages in an attempt to understand the peculiarness of English)
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. For those reasons and the method you have used to describe the usefullness of various languages it seems very apparent that German would not be a wise choice for scientific literature. Sorry to drive the discussion away from my original point. I am more interested in understanding the reasons for English being declared unusual, peculiar, or unique when the more I read about your views on languages it appears that English is really quite unoriginal. Is it simply that its a "new" language?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
German language ability going into the depth of evolution and it's secrets is something outside the scope of English. According to your assigned differences of the languages this is incorrect. You state that German is a philosophical language and as such is inadequate for a descriptive language of a scientific theory. In your post you mention "neodarwinism" and "anglo-american neodarwinian" - could you define what you mean? In my post I was specifically refering to the Theory of Evolution and requires the concise and technical attributes of English. I cannot really address your comments, as it appears you are not talking about ToE but something else? Your use of the suffix "ism" leads me to believe you are talking about the philosophy of evolution or the philosophy of Darwin - I am not sure if this is accurate. I see I was the one who first introduced the words ToE, I stand by my original claims. If however you are in fact talking of the philosophy of evolution I would concede your point.
192 writes: My opinion is that prevalence of (neo)darwinism is tightly connected with English language. If your opinion is that German is best for philosophy then (neo)darwinism is not connected with english. Science is technical and a "philosophy of science" is philosophy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
This is another linguistic attack regarding evolution. Why would you say that? I was simply inquiring about the nature of your discussion.
Neodarwinism is only one of theories of evolution. The Theory of Evolution is a science, Neodarwinism is a philosophy. Are you saying this is a linguistic attack of some sort? There is no need for philosophy in the study of natural processes. Its not an attack to recognize the difference between a philisophical conculsion based upon a theory and the theory itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Again - there are many theories of evolution. Well sure there are. Analysis of the data does not always result in the same opinions. There is however no differing opinion that the data is not philisophical, people are. The Theory of Evolution is not an "ism". So agian:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
So did you involve in TOE also Orthogenesis proposed by Theodor Eimer? If by Orthogenesis you mean "life has an innate tendency to move in a unilinear fashion due to some internal or external "driving force" and an "intrinsic drive towards perfection; natural selection unimportant". then no. (Wiki on Orthogenesis)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
MartinV writes: And what (or who) authorized neodarwinism (or New synthesis) to be the exclusively and the only "theory of evolution"? When did I say that neodarwinism is the theory of evolution? As a matter of fact I have already made clear that I do not agree with this. I said earlier:
quote: I can appreciate what you are trying to say, but I disagree with the use of the word neodarwinism as a replacement of the Theory of Evolution. I have made this point several times now and in each case I was ignored or said to be making a linguistic attack. If you don't want to discuss what I have said, but instead wish to argue something I don't even agree with we are likely caught in a standstill. I asked for clarification on what you mean by neodarwinism or anglo-american neodarwinian and was clear on my reason for asking. (At least I thought I was! )
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024