|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tower of Babel | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3519 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
I'm not sure of your point? Does it have anything to do with the Tower of Babel?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So then the same thing could have happened with French, in that a change in how it was used, namely that it started being used in literature, caused an arbitrary decision to be made about its status as a language. Even if true, that is beside the point. The Tower of Babel story is very clear that it is not describing arbitrary classifications:
quote: The story is about intelligibilitywill not understand one another's speech'. Do you have any evidence of languages or dialects diverging beyond intelligibility because of 'technical jargon used by specialists'?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3519 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
This is a learning process for me to figure out the intended implication of this story and to maybe pass it on to others once I reach a conclusion that I am satisfied with. The basic premise is not an assertion, it is an assumption.
Do I need to reword my initial claim so you understand the point? Or do I really have to explain that people can, in fact, be mulilingual, speaking a variant of their mother language in their profession that is unintelligible to those not initiated in the profession? Or maybe we can actually discuss the Tower of Babel and chew through whether my assumption pans out or listen to an alternative explanation that goes beyond the literal interpretion? Would that be okay?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What do you want discussed in this thread?
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
This is a learning process for me to figure out the intended implication of this story and to maybe pass it on to others once I reach a conclusion that I am satisfied with. The basic premise is not an assertion, it is an assumption. The tower of Babel story is a myth, a just-so story. It has the scientific accuracy of attributing lightning to the anger of gods and disease to evil humours. It is based on earlier Babylonian myths.
Or do I really have to explain that people can, in fact, be mulilingual, speaking a variant of their mother language in their profession that is unintelligible to those not initiated in the profession? I do not see the relevance of this. Language diversification occurs among populations, not small groups, unless those groups become isolated from the larger groups. One of the best examples of a profession speaking a different language would be Catholic priests, who are all expected to speak Latin. There has been no linguistic speciation attributed to this.
Or maybe we can actually discuss the Tower of Babel and chew through whether my assumption pans out or listen to an alternative explanation that goes beyond the literal interpretion? The prehistoric California region is a classic example of linguistic differentiation. At contact, between 80 and 90 different languages were spoken within what is now California. These belonged to as many as 20 major language families, with at least seven of those language families entirely unrelated to one another (see Golla 2011). Time depths exceed 12,000 years based on archaeological data (and there is no evidence of a large-scale flood within that time). What we can take from this is that the Babel story is a myth and does not account for the evidence provided by either linguistics or archaeology. There is no reason other than religious belief to take it seriously.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Or do I really have to explain that people can, in fact, be mulilingual, speaking a variant of their mother language in their profession that is unintelligible to those not initiated in the profession?
Just how does that that variant (AKA "jargon") differ from the mother language? Same verb system. Same structure (AKA "grammar"). Even mostly the same vocabulary. Even most of the jargon's specialized vocabulary is drawn directly from the mother language, just with different definitions. The only real differences, besides the different specialized definitions, would be archac and foreign terms, plus some neologisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
As I said in Message 15 (part you left out of the quote in bold):
DWise1 writes:
I was commenting on Eli's statement about changes in French's status as a language, not how it originated. So then the same thing could have happened with French, in that a change in how it was used, namely that it started being used in literature, caused an arbitrary decision to be made about its status as a language. Says nothing about how French had developed over time. And I believe that my Message 21 answers your question:
Do you have any evidence of languages or dialects diverging beyond intelligibility because of 'technical jargon used by specialists'?
Mainly, I do not hold such a position myself and I find it very weak. What the Bable myth does not explain is how languages split off and develop and why they are so obviously related to each others in the ways that they are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WarriorArchangel Member (Idle past 4031 days) Posts: 14 From: Lynn MA US Joined: |
The forbidden fruit, of the tree in the middle of the 'Garden of Eden' caused Eve first, and Adam second, to experience autoerotic orgasm. Spilling the seed HaShem wanted to use to have His son born to the virgin He made.
At HaShem's morning visit, both were covering their genitals. Both were chastised and thrown out of the garden. Now outside the garden gate, in the Northern Israeli wilderness, they bore twin boys. Cain murdered Abel in pre-meditated cold blooded murder. Cainwas told he would have to wander the wilderness. He was afraid the "people" in the wilderness would kill him, for he killing his brother. He was assured by HaShem they wouldn't. He and his offspring interbred with them instead. Bringing forth the first modern humans. The Cro-Magnon. Seth was born at that time. 30,000 years after Cain. He in turn inbred with his brother's offspring, making us a species of "interbred/inbred hybrids". And NOT evolved. That truism negates ALL Gods and religions on the planet, and entailsthe Almighty God. No worship need apply.... HaShem is all about electricity, genetics, psychology and technology.He has a kingdom/house in Creation. Measured in the Apocalypse to be 1500 cubic miles. Must be a technological marvel. Bending and dilating space time, and distance... At least now I know my "ancestor of origin", Cain. In evolution one has no "ancestor of origin". How good is that......?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
WarriorArchangel writes:
The Bible you're reading must be in one of those original languages from the Tower of Babble.
The forbidden fruit, of the tree in the middle of the 'Garden of Eden' caused Eve first, and Adam second, to experience autoerotic orgasm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WarriorArchangel Member (Idle past 4031 days) Posts: 14 From: Lynn MA US Joined: |
"Their eyes were opened"...
We are 99.8% Neanderthal genome...We were made by Lucifer to be sexually compatible with the modern humans, the Adam aka 'new species', that HaShem would make... We Neanderthal ended up (stopped roaming) in Northern Israel circa 700,000 years ago... I find it fascinating that our species is 99.8% Neanderthal genome.When I read: "And Cain knew his wife", I asked myself, "Who the hell is she?" Simple answer...Cain knew his Neanderthal wife! That truth negates/trashes ALL Gods and religions on the planet, and replaces them with the Almighty God of Israel. No worship need apply. We have an intelligence gene. That alone puts Darwin down the toilet, because intelligence doesn't evolve, it's inherited. Embeddedin the womb, and will learn to its capacity. Unless an ape with the intelligence gene can be found. Until then, evolution of modern man, is now, with todays knowledge, a deliberate lie.... Sorry for being truthful and sending the "theory" of evolution, straight to hell.... Ps...We have a longevity gene also. Xtreme longevity, like for eternity. Adam lived 930 years. But; "Mans years will be 120." The longest so far, that I know of, is a 123 year old black woman...Anybody going to respond? Maybe even agree/disagree on certain points... Edited by WarriorArchangel, : No reason given. Edited by WarriorArchangel, : To correct and clarify. I'm thankful for the opportunity to do so....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ossat Member (Idle past 2510 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
were we made by Lucifer? can Lucifer create anything?
aren't we "modern humans"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
WarriorArchangel writes:
Gene or no gene, apes are intelligent. So are whales, pigs, ravens. There's a whole spectrum of intelligence with modern humans (supposedly) at one end. Unless an ape with the intelligence gene can be found. Apes, whales, etc. also use language. Maybe their languages were scattered at Babel too?
WarriorArchangel writes:
The question is: Are you going to respond intelligently or with more babble?
Anybody going to respond?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asteragros Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 40 From: Modena, Italy Joined: |
Every man (or, woman) that is Bible believer has no problem to consider Bible a truthful source story about the Tower of Babel, and the by-God-triggered linguistic Division of Mankind.
Granted, there are many Bible passages that must be viewed in a symbolic way, but in this case there’s no indication — from context, or other factors - we have to view this passage in that way. On the contrary, the geographical, and anthropological indication showed here (the journey east-ward, the plain of Shinar, the use of bitumen served as mortar between bricks of baked clay) indicates that this account is a historical account.If we take so this story we receive a big tip about the origin of languages (except the so-called Sumerian and the languages derived from it). According the Bible (here we are in a Bible Study thread), the original language was the first form of what we call today, ‘Hebrew Language’. But, what the Bible really say about this argument? The historical account is reported in Genesis 11:1-9. Everyone may read it in the his own Bible. I now focus only on two verses. Genesis 11:7, 9 (Good News Bible) Let us go down and mix up their language so that they will not understand each other. [] The city was called Babylon, because there the LORD mixed up the language of all the people, and from there he scattered them all over the earth. (God’s Word) Let us go down there and mix up their language so that they won't understand each other." [only 11:7] (Spanish Sagradas Escrituras) Ahora pues, descendamos, y mezclemos all sus lenguas, que ninguno entienda la lengua de su compaero. [] Por esto fue llamado el nombre de ella Babel, porque all mezcl el SEOR el lenguaje de toda la tierra, y de all los esparci sobre la faz de toda la tierra. (Young, 1898) Give help, let us go down, and mingle there their pronunciation, so that a man doth not under-stand the pronunciation of his companion. [] therefore hath one called its name Babel, for there hath Jehovah mingled the pronunciation of all the earth, and from thence hath Jehovah scattered them over the face of all the earth. Note the Bible doesn’t speak about the [1] confusion of [2] tongues, like many say, but about mixing up of the tongue (שפת בלל; שפתם שם ונבלה). The translations above mentioned are based on a particular Hebraic verb which includes the original concept of to mix, to mingle.If we make a collation of the entire corpus of the occurrences of that verb in the Hebrew Bible we discover that the translation confusion is only a conceptually derived one. The original meaning — instead - revolves around the concept of to mix, to mingle. So much so that from this verb did come out the derived noun בּליל. Strong applies to it this mean-ing: From H1101 [בּלל]; mixed, that is, (specifically) feed (for cattle): - corn, fodder, provender.We cannot apply — logically - a confusion concept to the fodder/provender, whereas a concept of mixing/mingling is perfectly suitable to describe the vegetal blend the stockbreeders use for their animals. And, since the verb along the derived noun are to retain the same basic concept we may conclude the original meaning is to mix, to mingle. We have to mention also the homologous Greek verb the LXX used in this verses.In fact, the Strong states: From G4862 [σύν] and χέω cheō (to pour) or its alternate; to commingle promiscuously []. It was used also to describe melting metals actions. In every case we may note in this Greek verb the same original concept, like the Hebrew verb used in TM. What about Vulgata?It’s all the same meaning. The verb used there is confundo, perfectly homologous the Greek one of the LXX. Even to the basic construction preposition + verb (σύν + χέω, in Greek; con + fundo, in Latin). The original concept of confundo was to melt with, blend something through fusion. So, instead to consider this Bible account a metaphorical or legendary story, we may conclude is a plausible historical account that inform us about the origin of the tongues. God created various languages (family of languages?) operating by some mixing some linguistic components of the original tongue (sin-tax/radicals/vocals between radicals?).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3847 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
We cannot apply — logically - a confusion concept to the fodder/provender, whereas a concept of mixing/mingling is perfectly suitable to describe the vegetal blend the stockbreeders use for their animals.
I agree with this but see the idea of "language" as reference to one psychic, archetypal state of mind, Libidinal, [Hebrew: saphah/ meaning: boundary]). ...and of one way of thinking, of one manner of psychological "speech," ([Hebrew: dabar/ means: "content of what is bound"]; in the context of one's Subconscious mind having differentiated or split. This is all psychological in meaning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Languages and dialects develop easily and naturally given isolation of one group from another.
Example: The US before television had distinctive regional dialects of English, although the people had relatively similar origins only a few hundred (at the most) years earlier. Example: California Indians spoke over 300 dialects of approximately one hundred distinct languages. These developed in (at the most) 14,000 years. Most probably developed in half that time, or less.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024