Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
81 online now:
AZPaul3, Tanypteryx (2 members, 79 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,317 Year: 4,429/6,534 Month: 643/900 Week: 167/182 Day: 47/27 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation of the English Language
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 205 (434744)
11-17-2007 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by IamJoseph
11-17-2007 3:52 AM


Re: Is English really all that different?
We can trace english's emergence, because this is observable from a certain period, and did not exist before then. In contrast, an ancient, primal language is not traceable: we can point to its oldest existence, but not how it got there. This is made more enigmatic that languages are not evidenced more than 6000 years: the reason of no writings is not relevent here, while the evidences of older civilizations by a small period can be allocated to carbon dating being unreliable for small margins. The operable factor here is, we have no writings in a copious supply, over grads of transitory periods, older than 6000; not in hard copy. We have no history per se pre-6000!

If you want to argue for how good the English language is, could you perhaps start to speak it in your posts? You string together 'smart-sounding' words in such a way as to make your message almost as indecipherable as members like CrazyDiamond (no offence to that member ;)).

Would you mind telling us why writing is necessary for having a language?

As for the rest of your message:

:laugh::laugh:

Jon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 3:52 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 5:28 AM Jon has taken no action

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 1111 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 152 of 205 (434747)
11-17-2007 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by IamJoseph
11-17-2007 3:52 AM


Re: Is English really all that different?
IamJoseph writes:

quote:
We have no history per se pre-6000!

Not really. While writing is somewhat young, mathematics is not. We have counting sticks as old as 30,000 years.

The roots of language are quite old.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 3:52 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 5:37 AM Rrhain has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2907 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 153 of 205 (434749)
11-17-2007 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Jon
11-17-2007 4:48 AM


Re: Is English really all that different?
quote:
Would you mind telling us why writing is necessary for having a language?

I can't see what was confusing - I mentioned english origins being traceable in context why original languages were not so.

I never said language is subject to writings; in fact, I dismissed that writings are essential to prove language. Thus the claim that language being older than 6000 cannot be proved due to lack of writings being developed, is nonesense. There are numerous other indicators of a language, and here, I do not refer to mass burials, colored beads or semblances of fireplaces. A language can be evidenced without writings by the recalling of a NAME, A KING, AN EVENT, A FOLKSONG, A RECIPE: these do not require writings. Unless we are also saying the human brain was not developed - thus the case for a language becomees mooted!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Jon, posted 11-17-2007 4:48 AM Jon has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2907 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 154 of 205 (434750)
11-17-2007 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Rrhain
11-17-2007 5:02 AM


Re: Is English really all that different?
quote:
Not really. While writing is somewhat young, mathematics is not. We have counting sticks as old as 30,000 years.

And that's hardly a proof of history.

If you have proof of counting sticks [amazing!] from 30K years, you will have a thread of development of stick counting, observable every 500 years. My understanding is, that language emerged prior to maths, while both these faculties are inherent in humans.

What I find amazing about otherwise science oriented evolutionists, is their science becomes suspiciously contraversial - even non-science, when they have to prove anything they say, and retreat to the most precarious form of counter evidence, with caveats and qualifications which are untenable: millions of years scenarios; virus dna; deviational paths of so-called speciation which remain untrackable; etc. How convenient.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Rrhain, posted 11-17-2007 5:02 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Rrhain, posted 11-19-2007 12:28 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2907 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,...¹
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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 first three quotes could not have been sufficient 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

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 205 (434754)
11-17-2007 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by IamJoseph
11-17-2007 6:02 AM


Re: Points for IAJ to Address:
Thus english represents a worldly mix, more pristine [less baggage], greater menu of sounds, and a more refined sound [less gutheral].

Gutheral? C'mon! What a joke.

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.

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.

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 find. 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.

it was the greeks which separated the vowels and numerlas from the hebrew

What? That is nonsensical jabberwocky. Please type your posts in English.

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.

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.¹

If you can't address that point, your position has not backing.

Jon
__________
¹ "English World-Wide in the Twentieth Century" Tom McArthur in The Oxford History of the English Language Ed Lynda Mugglestone (Oxford:2006) 379.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 6:02 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 6:54 AM Jon has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2907 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 find. 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.¹
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 taken no action

  
akhenaten
Junior Member (Idle past 5140 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 11-06-2007


Message 158 of 205 (434787)
11-17-2007 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by IamJoseph
11-17-2007 3:52 AM


Re: Is English really all that different?
IAJ writes:

We can trace english's emergence, because this is observable from a certain period, and did not exist before then.

Oh no, not this again.

It is true that we can trace English's emergence. We can similarly trace the emergence of many other languages, and evidence was presented to support that.

It is not true that there is any period in history that marks a point before which English does not exist, and after which English exists. Old English emerged slowly and gradually from Anglo-Frisian roots, Middle English emerged slowly and gradually from Old English with added French-Norman words, and Early Modern English emerged the same way from Middle English. The Anglo-Frisian precursor would have itself emerged slowly and gradually from something else.

English emerged gradually, just like autumn emerges gradually without a clear defninite break from summer.

If you disagree, if you think that there was a point in history that marked a clear definite break when English came to be, then you must present the evidence -- not just a suggestion of something you remember.

Otherwise you should concede that English emerged gradually, just as many other languages did.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 3:52 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 12:36 PM akhenaten has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2907 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 taken no action
 Message 162 by kuresu, posted 11-17-2007 2:25 PM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
akhenaten
Junior Member (Idle past 5140 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 11-06-2007


Message 160 of 205 (434814)
11-17-2007 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by IamJoseph
11-17-2007 12:36 PM


Re: Is English really all that different?
IAJ writes:

We do not know the same about Greek, Indian or Hebrew - these were outside of observable history: their origins are mysterious and untraceable.

What about French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish. etc.? (All of these histories were referred to by kuresu in his www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=125&m=106#119>earlier post)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 12:36 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 2:31 PM akhenaten has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33908
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 161 of 205 (434816)
11-17-2007 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by IamJoseph
11-17-2007 12:36 PM


Of course we know much about the origins of Hebrew
Of course we know much about the origins of Hebrew.

Origins of Hebrew

Hebrew is a Semitic language, and as such a member of the larger Afro-Asiatic phylum.

Within Semitic, the Northwest Semitic languages formed around the 3rd millennium BCE, grouped with the Arabic languages as Central Semitic. The Canaanite languages are a group within Northwest Semitic, emerging in the 2nd millennium BCE in the Levant, gradually separating from Aramaic and Ugaritic.

Within the Canaanite group, Hebrew belongs to the sub-group also containing Edomite, Ammonite and Moabite: see Hebrew languages. Another Canaanite sub-group contains Phoenician and its descendant Punic.

A lot is also known about the origins of Greek and many of the Indian (whatever that means) languages.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 12:36 PM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1752 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 162 of 205 (434818)
11-17-2007 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by IamJoseph
11-17-2007 12:36 PM


Re: Is English really all that different?
We do not know the same about Greek, Indian or Hebrew

Um, ookay.

Greek:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language#History

Indian:
oh wait, which indian language do you mean?
a map of native languages in India:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:South_asia_local_lang.PNG
a general source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_language

Hebrew:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew#Origins_of_Hebrew

Can you honestly do no research of your own? Something tells me this is impossible bor you. Not only have I found your king from ca 800 c.e. who standardized Old English, but I've also found the histories of all these languages, and these histories include the origins.

That english has a definitive and observable development period

Try telling that to linguists. They will laugh at you. Again, look at the histories I posted for 13 plus languages. We know there development periods, they have definite (as definite as can be) periods of development.

Really, stop pulling this shit out of your ass and do some reading.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 12:36 PM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2907 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 taken no action

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

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1752 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 164 of 205 (434823)
11-17-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Jon
11-16-2007 2:25 PM


Re: History as a Second Language
In 2003, tentative evidence was found at 賈湖/贾湖 Jiǎhú, an archaeological site in the 河南 Hénán province of China, for a still earlier form of Chinese writing. Some symbols were found that bear striking resemblance to certain modern characters, such as 目 mù "eye". Since the Jiǎhú site dates from about 7000 to 5800 BCE, it predates the earliest confirmed Chinese writing by well over 3,000 years. The nature of this finding—in particular, whether it represents true writing (that is, a general mechanism for expression) or simply proto-writing (which comprises a limited set of symbols)—is still disputed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_writing_system#Earlier_forms

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Jon, posted 11-16-2007 2:25 PM Jon has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 9:01 PM kuresu has taken no action

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1752 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 165 of 205 (434826)
11-17-2007 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by IamJoseph
11-17-2007 2:31 PM


Re: Is English really all that different?
The source of german is known, though.

That would be the indo-european language. And even that has an origin hypothesis--proto indo european.

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--they are the popularization of modern culture, not a historical fact (yes, people lived in caves at times, but I highly doubt hunter-gatherers did so on a permament basis). Second, grunts can mean anything, from a morning groan to an expression of pain or discomfort. Linguists and others try to be more precise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 2:31 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 9:14 PM kuresu has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022