Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 11:29 AM
39 online now:
Diomedes, DrJones*, edge, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (7 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,526 Year: 3,563/19,786 Month: 558/1,087 Week: 148/212 Day: 15/49 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Creation of the English Language
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1744 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 121 of 205 (434488)
11-16-2007 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by akhenaten
11-15-2007 11:50 PM


Re: The King who issued a decree
Nice of you to research this, however, I don't think it is this episode, which I could have but did not post previously. The episode I refer to is much more definitive than this. My recall is poor because I knew of this some 15 years ago. the issue of middle-english and that many french words were already into the english does not factor here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by akhenaten, posted 11-15-2007 11:50 PM akhenaten has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1744 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 122 of 205 (434489)
11-16-2007 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Vacate
11-15-2007 11:47 PM


Re: Lack of definitions
quote:
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?

I've learnt not to validate such distortive semantics, from experience in a thread on this subject: 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. It means there is no difference in speech propelling humans to Mars, with a zebra have a particular stripe as no other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Vacate, posted 11-15-2007 11:47 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Vacate, posted 11-16-2007 5:14 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1744 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 123 of 205 (434490)
11-16-2007 1:05 AM


There is no such thing as adaptation in evolution, because all things adapt, whether in evolution or tabble tennis and cutting a pineapple. howszat!
Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Wounded King, posted 11-16-2007 2:16 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1744 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 124 of 205 (434492)
11-16-2007 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by kuresu
11-15-2007 11:36 PM


Re: Is English really all that different?
quote:
Read the sentence after the one you quoted. I said that I still think of things that I can't get the word for because I've simply forgotten it.

Your memory loss at that point, is a separate, unrelated matter.

quote:

As you will know, a thought must precede any action

I blink my eyes without thinking. It's something that happens without need for thought. My heart beats at about 70 bpm without me thinking about it. Kick my balls and I will scream without thinking "hey, I should scream to reveal my pain".
Actions don't need thoughts.


Involuntary reflexes cannot occur w/o a thought resulted construct underlieing it. When you blink your eyes, your mind still operates, following the program embedded therein. For a conscious action, you need a conscious thought.

quote:

whatever is finite, makes all its components finite:

Fallacy of composition. It does not necessarily follow that because the components are finite the whole must be, or that because the whole is the constituent parts must be. An example: Humans are visible to the naked eye, and humans are made of atoms. Therefore, atoms are visible to the naked eye. In fact, if physics is right, every single one of the particles that make up our bodies are flitting in and out of existence. By your illogic, that would mean we are flitting in and out of experience constantly. Also, a particle can be in two places at once. By your illogic, that would mean we can be at two places at once.


This does not change the premise - the atom is still finite. I'm not sure if you reject the uni being finite, or the premise of finite itself. But there is no illogic of the universe being finite, nor that a finite entity cannot contain an infinite. There is also no illogic that based on a finite, there would be an instant when the universe never existed, including all its components. This renders any contemplation of the universe unscientific, where its finity is not factored in the equation. The only scientific question is, how did a 'finite' universe come about.

quote:

An expanding universe means it was not infinite 10 seconds ago

You've never taken math, have you? What happens when you expand infinity? You get infinity.


I know that in maths there is another working premise of infinite, but this is not an actual but an academic bridge facility, and is unrelated to actual infinity. You cannot expand infinity; there are no different kinds of infinity, eg small and larger ones.

quote:

if you add or subtract $5 from an infinite number of $ - it means you never had an infinite in the first place.

Oh, okay. You never have taken higher level math. I guess that makes sense, given that it seems you don't know any foreign languages and think that native speakers are far better than non-native speakers.


I know my maths and two other languages. You cannot add $ to an infinite number of $. The components of a finite universe are younger than the universe.

quote:

even the greatest scientists of the day see language as a mysterious factor - they cannot even 'define' it

False.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community
audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs

a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's from merrian-webster.


All dictionaries do that, as an encumbancy; they bypass the controvery. But I have posted also, from leading scientists, that speech is not definable. Our resident neysayers will easily dislodge any definition, or reduce it to whatever suits them. Many life forms can perform the task set out in your definition, and that they have no speech nonetheless does not factor: neighter do humans have zebra stripes!

quote:

force not exist before universe.
force create universe.

This ends in the cyclical, so I won't respond with what created the force. Clearly, you have disregarded the finity factor here - else you would not fall into an unscientific circular position: an indication the path taken is wrong. To better deal with this issue, the preamble needs to be established, namely the universe being finite or not; and whether a finite can contain infinite. You should start with a stated preamble here: Genesis does that.

quote:

We do not know how languages came about originally

Um, okay. Then why do you say:
all evidences negate the latter

This implies that at least you know how languages originally came about.


We do not know how language and speech originally emerged. English does not fall in an original language category, being an evidential conglomoration of other languages. There are such other instances, namely what is called pidgeon english.

quote:

there is sufficient evidence to back the inexplicable premise that language appeared suddenly

If you can explain it, it is not inexplicable. Do you not read what you write?


there are no explanations which correctly expound speech and language. Definition is varied from description. We can describe life, but not define it.

quote:

I doubt it, when you can't even handle the math on infinity.


It transcends maths, and is not explained via any maths. You are using the mathematical device of infinity with a misrepresentation. I see an anticipated problem here: the finity factor is a stumbling block for your premise. This explains why we cannot agree on so much, and now you should clearly state if you see the universe as infinite, and how would that same universe look if it is not finite: what differences impact?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 11:36 PM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by AdminNosy, posted 11-16-2007 2:15 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 130 by Rrhain, posted 11-16-2007 2:26 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 138 by dwise1, posted 11-16-2007 4:02 PM IamJoseph has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 125 of 205 (434494)
11-16-2007 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by IamJoseph
11-15-2007 9:04 PM


Re: An Amusing Scene From Joseph's Microcosm Of Alternative Linguistic History.
IamJoseph writes:

quote:
And my position is, this is not the case, that an academy was formed, and that english begat its formal construction here

No, not really. While there were grammarians who established "rules" and one can easily find grammar books of English, it has never had a formal academy.

Shakespeare was writing on the tail end of the shift from Middle English to modern English. As can be seen from the text, spelling wasn't standardized and he, personally, coined some of the most important words in modern English. The Great Vowel Shift was still in play (though winding down).

The closest English has had to an academy is basically a bunch of independent grammarians insisting that they know the proper way to speak.


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 111 by IamJoseph, posted 11-15-2007 9:04 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by kuresu, posted 11-16-2007 2:01 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 589 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 126 of 205 (434495)
11-16-2007 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Rrhain
11-16-2007 1:52 AM


Re: An Amusing Scene From Joseph's Microcosm Of Alternative Linguistic History.
you forgot to say . . .

OED.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Rrhain, posted 11-16-2007 1:52 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 127 of 205 (434497)
11-16-2007 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by IamJoseph
11-16-2007 1:42 AM


Incoherent Ramblings IaJ
You are suspended for a day. Think before typing Joey.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by IamJoseph, posted 11-16-2007 1:42 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1744 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 128 of 205 (434498)
11-16-2007 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by kuresu
11-16-2007 12:12 AM


Re: History as a Second Language
quote:
Do I really need to show you more? We know the histories of many, many, many languages.

History is not the problem; origins is. We do not know the origins of 'ANYTHING' whatsoever, yet we must agree it came from some source point and time. There is a most controversial stat in Genesis, which deems speech less than 6000 years old. It is countered by speech is 100s of 1000s of years old, but not evidential because there was no writings. This is too convenient, and I reject it totally: evidencing speech is certainly not subject to writings - a derivitive of speech. There are 100s, if not 1000s of other means to verify speech, including the recalling of a singular 'name' of a human, or a recipe, or any event, a folksong, a complexity; further, these imprints should be pervasively seen across the span of geo-history, in periods of gradual elevations. Nothing of this exists, just a big bang which culminates on the genesis datings.

Otherwise, numerous ficticious premises are put forth, of 10K and 50K year old civilizations - again devoid of all surrounding but encumbent evidences. The overiding fact here is, that there is no manifest evidence of speech before the genesis dating, nor is there any history per se, before this date. All available factors, including population and mental prowess, fit only in the genesis datings. Co-incidence?

Here, no alarm is acknowledged, not even that a 3,500 document made such a bold and risky statement - and somehow managed to become vindicated today. There is no reason for the proven display of speech to be only in the 6000 cycle, nor for agriculture and other factors to be limited to this juncture, nor the evidencing of all mankind's history limited to this date. It would be better acceptable if someone said 'WOW! WHAT A GREAT GUESSMATIC FLUKE BY GENESIS!' - not even this can be mustered by the negators of this issue. Still, the overwhelming facts incline with genesis here - whether it is acknowledged or not. What is occuring here, aside from the counter arguements of speech, is that if accepted, the genesis pointer casts a stumbling block for numerous heavy-duty premises of anti-creationists! Here, it parallels the finite issue of the universe, again in a face-off with genesis, and all evidence at hand.

quote:

The point is--there are multiple global languages. Further, the reason that english is spoken by so many has more to do with the UK's empire than any 'pliability'. In fact, I highly doubt pliability has anything to do with why english is spoken by up to 1.8 billion people.


What you avoided is, that despite numerous languages being entrenched fastediously, and over many 1000s of years, and despite that all nations were invading nations - english broke that barrier and came up as the worldly language. If YOU recall the point of this debate of english, do tell me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by kuresu, posted 11-16-2007 12:12 AM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by akhenaten, posted 11-16-2007 8:04 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 135 by kuresu, posted 11-16-2007 11:50 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 129 of 205 (434499)
11-16-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by IamJoseph
11-16-2007 1:05 AM


howszat!

Nonsensical and off topic?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by IamJoseph, posted 11-16-2007 1:05 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 130 of 205 (434500)
11-16-2007 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by IamJoseph
11-16-2007 1:42 AM


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

quote:
Involuntary reflexes cannot occur w/o a thought resulted construct underlieing it.

Incorrect. That's the entire point in calling them involuntary.

When the doctor strikes your knee with the hammer to test your reflexes, your knee twitches faster than it could take for the signal to travel to your brain and back. That's because the signal isn't processed by your brain but rather by the spine. It's called a "reflex arc." You still notice the tap and the feeling of having your leg jerk, but you detect it after it happens. Your brain doesn't get a chance to participate.

quote:
I'm not sure if you reject the uni being finite

This might be a good time to distinguish between "finite" and "bounded." The two are not the same.

There are three things involved in a set: The elements of the set, the elements outside the set, and the boundary. Depending upon the set, the boundary may or may not be part of the set. The boundary is defined as an element such that no matter how small a delta you draw around it, there will always be elements both inside and outside the set.

A "bounded" set is a set that includes its own boundary. An "unbounded" set is a set that excludes its own boundary.

Take the set of numbers between 0 and 1. Are we going to include 0 and 1? If we do, then we call the set "bounded" because the boundary of the set are the points 0 and 1. This is because for 0 and 1, every subset drawn around it will contain both numbers in the set and outside the set.

But, we don't have to include 0 and 1. This makes the set unbounded. Both sets are infinite, but one has a boundary and the other does not.

The universe is finite but unbounded. It also has no center.

quote:
But there is no illogic ... that a finite entity cannot contain an infinite.

Actually, that is illogical. If a set is finite, it cannot have an infinite subset. An infinite set cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with a finite set. However, a subset of a finite set can always be put into one-to-one correspondence with the set. Therefore, it is impossible for a subset of a finite set to be infinite since we have a contradiction: Infinite sets cannot be 1-1 to finite sets yet subsets of finite sets can always be 1-1.

quote:
The only scientific question is, how did a 'finite' universe come about.

I suggest you look into quantum cosmology.

quote:
You cannot expand infinity; there are no different kinds of infinity, eg small and larger ones.

Incorrect. There is a hierarchy of infinities. Some are larger than others.

The cardinality of the Reals is larger than the cardinality of the Rationals. This is easy to prove. The Rationals are denumerable. That means they can be put into 1-1 correspondance with the positive Integers.

Let's construct a list of all numbers. Every number will be in its infinite repeating format. That is, rather than saying "1," we'll say "0.999...." We thus have a list:

n1 = a1a2a3a4...
n2 = b1b2b3b4...
...

Construct q such that:

qi = 2 if ni <> 2
qi = 3 if ni = 2

It is clear that q is not in the list of n's as it differs from every single n in at least one place.

Therefore, the size of the Reals is larger than the size of the Rationals and yet both are infinite.

quote:
You cannot add $ to an infinite number of $.

Yes, you can. This is basic Real Analysis.

Suppose you have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. You're booked solid. A new guest shows up. Can you fit him in? Of course: Just have all of your guests move down one room. This leaves Room 1 open and your guest can take that room. For any finite number of guests, you just have them move that number of rooms down.

You can even add an infinite number of people. Just have every guest move to the room twice as large as they are currently in: 1 moves to 2, 2 moves to 4, 3 moves to 6, etc. This leaves all the odd-numbered rooms empty (of which there are an infinite number), and you can fit them in.

This, of course, assumes that the two infinities are denumerable.


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 124 by IamJoseph, posted 11-16-2007 1:42 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Wounded King, posted 11-16-2007 9:46 AM Rrhain has responded
 Message 145 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2007 2:28 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 131 of 205 (434506)
11-16-2007 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by kuresu
11-15-2007 11:47 PM


Re: An Amusing Scene From Joseph's Microcosm Of Alternative Linguistic History.
At the time, it was the vikings invading england (yay ancestors!), and they controlled the northern tip of scotland.

Your ancestors did much better than that, Kuresu. They controlled large parts of Northern England too, especially round here. And the local accent and dialect still show the evidence - flattened vowels and lots of words of Scandinavian origin.


'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang
This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by kuresu, posted 11-15-2007 11:47 PM kuresu has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 132 of 205 (434513)
11-16-2007 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by IamJoseph
11-16-2007 1:03 AM


Re: Lack of definitions
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by IamJoseph, posted 11-16-2007 1:03 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
akhenaten
Junior Member (Idle past 3976 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 11-06-2007


Message 133 of 205 (434538)
11-16-2007 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by IamJoseph
11-16-2007 2:15 AM


Re: History as a Second Language
But you did not address at all the argument that kuresu made. In fact, you sidestepped it completely!

You originally said, "we can actually trace [the] emergence [of the English language], and not so with other languages". So you said that we can trace the emergence of English, but we can't trace the emergence of other languages.

Then kuresu countered you saying that, in fact, we can trace the emergence of many other languages. As evidence he presented some of the histories of the other languages. You wrote quite a bit in response, but you never disputed his argument (that we can trace the emergence of other languages) or his evidence.

If you still disagree with his argument then you must address the evidence. Do you think we can't trace the emergence of other languages? Remember you said we can trace the emergence of English. And kuresu presented evidence tracing the emergence of other languages.

Otherwise, if you cannot dispute the evidence, then you have to concede that we can trace the emergence of many other languages just like we can trace the emergence of English. Since this negates some your evidence for the unique "pliability" of English, you may have to reevaluate you claim. (I don't disagree that there are aspects of English that are unique; I disagree with the reasons that you say English is unique)

Oh incidentally, until you can give the exact name or exact year of your "Defender of English" king, then he doesn't exist. Sorry, I know you don't like that, and that you believe that he exists, but it's ridiculous for the rest of us to discuss something without a shred of evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by IamJoseph, posted 11-16-2007 2:15 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 134 of 205 (434548)
11-16-2007 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rrhain
11-16-2007 2:26 AM


Re: Is English really all that different?
Suppose you have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. You're booked solid. A new guest shows up. Can you fit him in? Of course: Just have all of your guests move down one room. This leaves Room 1 open and your guest can take that room. For any finite number of guests, you just have them move that number of rooms down.

You can even add an infinite number of people. Just have every guest move to the room twice as large as they are currently in: 1 moves to 2, 2 moves to 4, 3 moves to 6, etc. This leaves all the odd-numbered rooms empty (of which there are an infinite number), and you can fit them in.

That sounds familiar, is it something to do with Hilbert space?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rrhain, posted 11-16-2007 2:26 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Rrhain, posted 11-16-2007 10:48 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 589 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 135 of 205 (434571)
11-16-2007 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by IamJoseph
11-16-2007 2:15 AM


Re: History as a Second Language
If YOU recall the point of this debate of english, do tell me.

Read the OP.

No one I'm aware of has posited civilizations that are 50 thousand years old. The first civilizations we are aware of all spring up roughly around the same time as Sumer--roughly 6000 years ago. The earliest writings I can find are 8,000 years old (Chinese). There are potentially older writings.

As to the 50K date, you might be thinking of the emergence of culture. Some hypotheses put the emergence of culture at roughly the same time H. sapiens came into being--180,000 or so years ago. One part of culture is language.

Another thing we can use to push the emergence of language further back is agriculture. Agriculture is about 10,000 years old, and requires communication with the people in your tribes. Without communication, it's difficult to grow crops.

Another thing that pushes the date further back is the tribal society. Tribes have existed far longer than civilization. A key part of tribal organization is communication, which requires language.

Now why can we trust those ideas for dating the emergence of language? You say we need physical writing. I don't think so. Tell me, did Beowulf exist before it was transcribed? How about the tales of the native americans, or the aborigines (who are 90,000 or so years old)? To say they didn't is to be idiotic.

despite that all nations were invading nations - english broke that barrier and came up as the worldly language.

Ever heard the phrase "The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire"? The British empire was the largest empire to date, containing over 36 million square kilometers (14 million square miles).
Next, add the commercial power of the US immediately following WWII.
Coinciding with this is the explosion in accessibility to communication. Suddenly, a person in India can relatively easily talk to someone in the US. Further, those on top set the rules of the game, and for the last 200 years, those on top have spoken English.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by IamJoseph, posted 11-16-2007 2:15 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Jon, posted 11-16-2007 2:25 PM kuresu has responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019