Creation of the English Language

The word babble comes from the word bavel [Hebrew]; many of the later languages did not possess the V sound, thus it was substituted with the B, as in Abraham of the original Avraham. Those languages w/o the V would not belong to the main block of 70 primal languages which emerged from Babel, at which time only one language subsisted, called Edenite language - the first language. Many english words come from the hebrew directly, and many via osmosis of other languages. 'HELLO' [alio] comes from the hebrew, as do many ancient words like cherub, messiah, all, etc. The Indian Hindhi is 90% the same as Hebrew, in alphabet design and in ancient words [Man/Adam/Adami]; most of the Japanese letters are the same as the hebrew in design; arabic is also a kin.Although Hebrew is mentioned as a derivitive of phoenecian, sometimes sumerian - there is no equivalence of writings from those religions, while there is a copious archive of ancient hebrew: how is this explained, specially when those nations were older and mightier, and still prevailed a 1000 years after the hebrew emerged - in fact, we have not a single alphabetical book by those nations. One reasoning is, Abram in Ur [Mesopotamia] would have spoken a dialec derived from his ancester Shem, one of Noah's son, and this was a variation of the Edinite language, making hebrew closest to this first of languages. When Abraham arrived in canaan, and then Egypt - those nations did not speak the hebrew, which abraham did. This may overturn currently held premises of hebrew being a derivitive of pheonecian - it may be the other way around; this is specially plausable when we know that carbon datings are not accurate for small margins of time, and the bits and pieces of letters found which resemble hebrew and deemed older - may not be so.The Q is, why was hebrew not spoken by others in Ur - and they did not? This is somewhat a mystery, with only postulations at hand. It is possible that Abraham's immediate ancesters were not involved in the babel episode, thus leaving their ancient tongue in tact, undergoing minor adjuestments the next 1200 years, until Canaan. Alternatively, a sect of peoples remained in a warp, and did not become fully assimilated - thereby not having other languages become their first tongue.Both Edenite, spoken by God and Adam and Eve, and the Hebrew - also spoken by God at Sinai - at least according to the OT - have this common subscription.Languages do not appear to have emerged via evolution: this is less than 6000 years old, and appears to have come suddenly and in an already advanced state. Only one life form possesses it, negating the factor of adaptation and NS. Controversial? Yes - but so are the absence of evidences to support its antithesis.

English was iniated in England, circa 800 CE. At this time, French was spoken in England, which lost a war with the french. But english prevailed, when the English king himself decreed an important book of law be translated in the then new non-established english language, as an affront to the french. This grew and incorporated words from the surrounding nations, including welsh, french, german, etc - making enlish a microcosm of many languages.The english spread when Briton became a conquering sea power. British colonies learnt english before and better than did Europe, which maintained their own array of languages. Today, countries like India are more advanced in english than many european countries, due to the british influence.

quote:

---

Before the year 800CE there was no English; in England they were speaking French.

---

Yes, my understanding of it is there was no english before 800 CE. French is older than english, the latter being a microcosm of several other languages, and became formalised and incepted in England. France tried to impose its language on England, till an english king challenged this by translating all official documents into english, even formulating new english words of the french, such as pattisirie, cafe, and 1000s of other words taken from the french, and from the irish and german.

quote:

---

Are you talking about the Norman Conquest of 1066, and the Domesday Book? Because prior to this the English did not speak French. In fact the common people never spoke French.

---

I think so - it must have been the Normon C. The french agenda was to make its language the english lingus, but this failed.

quote:

---

So, former English colonies speak English better than the English speak English?

---

They speak better than the rest of europe, is what I said, not better than the english. Till today, many sectors of Europe have a lesser command of english than many british colonies. We this even in Europe's Political figures, who speak a dismal quality of english.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

England is only recently seen as part of the EU. But it is in many ways a cast-off separate island mass, and a different entity from Europe, in mindset and language. England is intrinsically different from all of europe and russia, and varied from the analogy of Japan and Asia. In the same way, modern America has intrinsic differences from the rest of the world: a chinese, italian, black or jewish American has become different from his past kin; this phenomenon exists, whereby a nation becomes a new treshold from the rest in some manner, similar to a new mindset and even a new accent.

quote:

---

English is an Anglo-Frisian language. Germanic-speaking peoples from northwest Germany (Saxons and Angles) and Jutland (Jutes) invaded what is now known as Eastern England around the fifth century AD. It is a matter of debate whether the Old English language spread by displacement of the original population, or the native Celts gradually adopted the language and culture of a new ruling class, or a combination of both of these processes (see Sub-Roman Britain).

---

Where is the contradiction? I said, circa 800 CE, and that english was a microcosm of several languages: which does not mean it is not a new language. Presently, the name of the english king escapes me, and I will try to retrieve it.

quote:

---

English language | Origin, History, Development, Characteristics, & Facts | Britannica

​

West Germanic language of the Indo-European language family that is closely related to Frisian, German, and Netherlandic languages. English originated in England and is now widely spoken on six continents.

---

While old english began in England as a formal language, as a political means to defy the french, the components it took from Europe were not a formal language. English, and its different grammar from Europe, was also systemised in england. Europe begat language and writings relatively late, compared to the M/E and Asia. The greeks got their alphabetical writings when they were the first to translate the OT in 300 BCE.

quote:

---

Look, IAJ, Let's assume that this is what you believe about the Creation of Man.

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

That's pretty straighforward. There's nothing in there about systemizing, initializing, formalising, incorporating, or any other abstract nonsense. God did it, snap, it's done.

---

Its got nothing to do with 'belief', only logic. Since I agree with creationism, and the creation of the universe which is 'finite' and thus had to be performed without any tools or materials [there were'nt any pre-universe!]- it has no alternative than a 'SNAP OF THE FINGER', so to speak, but which is better expressed by creation from nothing, by a word. I note that you never gave an alternative view how this could occur with a finite uni, in the absence of anything such as heat, energy, matter, space, etc, etc. I would appreciate you enlightening me of any alternative premise - I will gladly change my mind!

quote:

---

So could you please explain in a similarly straighforward way the Creation of the English Language. Which king was it that decided in 800CE, "Hmmm, this French is crimping my style. You servants there, I want you to formulate Old English now. Make it a 'microcosm' You have until sundown."
"Er, doesn't "microcosm" mean a world in miniature?"
"Off with his head!" *LOP*
"Er, isn't it a French word?"
"Off with his head, too!" *LOP*

---

If you deliberate it, you should know what I am referring to, else your knowledge of it is deficient: my answer was and is correct, save only for a memory recall of the relevent name. This king [?/not sure!] defied the french which then ruled england; at this time there was a loose primitive communication system, which was the protoypte of old english, mainly derived from the viking invasions - from which most old english words come from; an important document [?] was decreed by the french to be released in the french language; the english king himself studied and formed that document in old english, defying the french; thereafter, the people continued to use and form what became old english.

quote:

---

Before you try to understand the origins of the English language, you should at least have a hint of a clue about English history - which you don't. 1066 and All That might be a place to start.

---

Use you own link to see all I said was correct, despite it focuses more on military than the impacts on the english language:

quote:

---

The conquest changed the English language and culture, and set the stage for a rivalry with France that would continue intermittently until the 20th century. It has an iconic role in English national identity as the last successful foreign conquest of England

---

Underlieing the above quote, but not elaborated there, is that the english language became the weapon of victory over the french rule, but this is not discussed. Namely, the britons refused to follow the french decree that all official archives be in french; it is only the name of thie british king which escapes me, who challenged the french and used olde english instead - even forming an official group of scholars and clergy who would translate all archives, including the bible, in english. Here, english grammar was born [the reversal of the subject-verb-object], and 1000s of words which were not contained in english were successfully adapted into english.

quote:

---

Language
Significance
The changes that took place because of the Norman Conquest were significant for both English and European development.

---

It is apparent, aside from gooogling links, there is not yet any indication here the historical significance of what made english the world language is correctly known by the posters. It will be found that the use of words such as gibberish and babble are misplaced here, and not applicable to anything I've stated.

quote:

---

Maybe the whole problem with the EvC debate is that people see the creationists as wrong but wromantic.

---

Take it easy - science requires honesty and logic. You have not proved creationism wrongmantic yet - none have anywhere; all they do is shout and scream how wrong it is, with no premise of their own. Zilch. Unless I missed your terrific proof? FYI, genesis is not based on belief but 100% science and logic, with no alternatives: zilch! It says of creationism, there were no tools or materials when the event occured - the part all clever anti-creationists like to run far away from: because it steadies those making illogical statements. To render genesis wrong [which has never occured in a single instance], one has to put something else on the table: aside from shouting loudly. Who's wrongamatic again?

quote:

---

In my first post, I said that I'm pretending that I also agree with creationism. I only meant to compare the creation of man story to the creation of English story.

---

In one sense this is correct: both are microcosms of past creations!

quote:

---

I'm confused. What were the people speaking before Old English? Was it French or viking?

---

Preamble your question with the fact there is no written proof of english before this date. I posted that english began in England, as a separate language. Yours is an interesting question, but not related to, or a disputation that old english was prevalent in briton. It is to do with the elusive question of language itself, throughout humanity and the planet: we do not know how latin, greek, indian or hebrew emerged, thus olde english is the point of reference we can take it up from. Despite english being a microcosm of almost all other languages, it remains a new kind of language.We know that some form of language would have existed earlier, eg when Rome conquered briton; we know there were 10,000 britons as paid mercenaries when Rome destroyed Jerusalem [The Josephus documents]. I would say here, it will be interesting to know what language prevailed before briton interacted with the vikings, welsh, irish and other European peoples and languages. Not much is known about pre-Roman briton, and it is possible this was not an advanced nation at this time, mainly due to its isolation by a sea from the rest of the European/Asian block. There is some evidences the ancient britons were pagan, and believed in dieties different from other countries.

quote:

---

Politically, Culturally, and Geographically the UK is part of Europe.

---

The resultant facts dispute that premise: never before was a landmass of peoples so close and yet so different. If anything, Briton marks the breakaway from its kin in Europe. The fact that most words in the english language can be traced to Europe and elsewhere, does not assist your premise, but it actually shows this stark breakaway syndrome.France and Poland is more like the rest of Europe, while briton is markedly different; europe is more related to Russia than Briton. America appears more closer tied to Briton, and emerged as the deciding treshold between olde Europe and a new nation: like the english language, America too is a microcosm of all nations. Europe became quagmired in Roman rule, then by medevial christianity; the NWO was its peoples escaping to America and other parts outside Europe, negating Europe's doctrines for Liberty and inalienable human rights. Today, it is Europe taking lessons from America, enshrining the provisions of the US Constitution, while not openly acknowledging this phenomenon. Rome and olde Europe lost, and it all started here:'WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR'

quote:

---

Umm, okay. English being a germanic language helps disprove that the UK is european? This is more nonsensical that some things I've seen you right.

---

Yes, exactly - that the english emerged very different, despite the underlieing commonalities - gives a focused credence to the breakaway factor from europe. Its like one offspring breaks away from the fold.

quote:

---

Reminds me of Randman arguing that prove for evolution is actually prove against evolution. You must have an olympic caliber mental gymnastics team inside you to pull this off.

---

I see no connection with that analogy. One can only perform a breaway when there is a connection.

quote:

---

I find it rich that you think the europeans are taking lessons from us on freedoms and liberties. Though that could explain Putin. If you look through history, you'll see that our declaration of independence was based on the second treatise of government by John Locke--a brit. You'll also notice that the constitution is based largely on enlightenment ideas--a movement that was created in Europe and also led to the French Revolution.

---

US Constitution is based on the OT, not the NT; and US reversed the European medevial church's doctrine of FULLFILLED. Not a single law of the OT was ever negated, while not a single law from the NT ever became accepted by the world. Briton, which is more imprical based, seems to have taken a different view, and its peoples were among those who enacted the US Constitution. Isabela's Spain lost this battle, and one can even say Columbus never really got lost. America represents the breakaway of all medevial Europe represented, and UK appears a fulcrum factor here, even by default. Much of today's politicing between the EU & US today stems from the past of Europe being transcended by US. These kinds of paradigm shifts happens in many areas throughout history. Liberty and democracy became stymied under Europe, but freed via America; its initiation came from the war between Rome and Israel, and the notion of freedom of belief.

quote:

---

By the way, I dare you to tell a Pole he is more similar to the French that the British, or to tell a Frenchman he has more in common with Poles than with Brits. Ask a Brit who he has more in common with, a pole or a frenchman. I garuantee he'll say the frenchman, and the frenchman would say the same of him. A pole, given a third choice, would probably say he has more in common with russians than with the french or british.

---

They say otherwise here, but for reasons other than the facts at hand. more than any individual European state, Briton is a breakaway from the whole of Europe, while the french and poles do not share this factor. This is also seen in languages: english is different from all european languages, despite the loads of derivings and common source. Check the grammar of english, and all European languages: it is very telling!

quote:

---

If Europe is so much closer to Russia than Britian, why does Russia have a significant anti West, anti Europe movement?

---

That syndrome is also represented by Europe towards America. Its a love/hate thing.

quote:

---

My point still stands--politically, culturally, and geographically the UK is a part of Europe. Your refusal to believe this doesn't make it false, and that's all you have. A refusal to accept this fact.

---

The close geographical proximity 'highlights' the difference and breakaway more than any commonalities. A refusal to accept this fact applies here too. Briton stands out like an alien body in the EU!

quote:

---

English is what emerged as the two languages merged after 1066. Before that you might call it "old English" but it was hardly the language we call English now.

---

I agree: english emerged as a new and different language from all the languages it borrowed from. It appears there was a strong breakaway syndrome here, enabling the brits to do the oppositte from Europe. Today, many Europeans find english very difficult to absorb, even though loads of languages are spoken in Europe, sometimes being only a few villages apart from each other.It is an anomoly that many EU Ministers still cannot speak in english, and if they ever do - it is an inferior english, which does not include the new english grammar, mainly seen by the generic European inability to contend with 'A' and 'THE' prefixes: THE GOD, instead of God; Sun is hot, instead of THE SUN is hot; etc. How this new english grammar arose is a mysterious factor - it appears a compulsion from which a new totally different language and grammar emerged: a breakaway, marked by an underlieing, subtle apprehension syndrome between a competing Briton and Europe.

quote:

---

The name escapes everybody else too, because there was no such king.

---

I accept your premise as a challenge. It means if I turn out right, you never knew what you guys were talking about.The name will come to me, then I can check up on that king's reign. I suspect it had something to do with Westminister, and the success of the english language will be pointed to the specific actions of one british king, who defied the French decree!