Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for the Biblical Record
JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 212 of 348 (551579)
03-23-2010 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Peg
03-23-2010 4:16 AM


Re: Denial Of The Evidence
yet its interesting that the Chinese character for ship is made up of eight people in a vessel.
Oh, Peg, Peg, Peg, have you learned no evaluation skills in your years her. of course the Chinese character for ship isn't made up of eight people in a vessel.!!
From Inquiry regarding the mythical barge ('Noah's ark'):
quote:
The notion that the character in question has anything to do with Noah's ark is simply wrong. It is based on a common misperception about how Chinese characters are constructed, namely that they are basically pictographic (i.e., crude pictures of the thing being named) or ideographic (i.e., that they combine pictures in such a way as to "get across" the idea of the thing or concept being described). Actually, almost all characters in Chinese, including this one, are formed using phonetic principles, although the phonetics in question apply to the language as spoken at the time and place where the character was coined, and not necessarily the way things are pronounced in Modern Standard Chinese. There _are_ a few pictograms, and an even smaller number of true ideograms, but this character isn't one of them.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Peg, posted 03-23-2010 4:16 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by slevesque, posted 03-23-2010 2:35 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 214 of 348 (551691)
03-23-2010 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by slevesque
03-23-2010 2:35 PM


Re: Denial Of The Evidence
Considering this, and also that the studies of these chinese characters were done by other native-speaking chinese people, I will ask a question (so as it does not become an argument from authority on my part): How much have you read on the subject, particularly the research done by Dr. Tong Chock ? I consider that reading from both sides of an issue would be one of the most basic ''evaluation skills'', as you call them.
I haven't seen any credible evidence for Peg's claim. You got some, you trot it out.
Google shows zero hits for "Dr. Tong Chock". I can't come with any relevant hits using no quotes. CreationWiki gives two references, one which just repeats the claim and one which is in Chinese. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2/j19_2_96-108.pdf has one author with a possibly Chinese name who may or may not know Chinese (his brief bio seems to indicate he may be US-born) and two non-Chines authors.
ABE: I've done a lot of reading on both sides of the issue on Noah's Fludde. It didn't happen. Therefore, any claim that rests on the assumption that there was a fludde is prima facie wrong.
Edited by JonF, : Added last paragraph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by slevesque, posted 03-23-2010 2:35 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Peg, posted 03-24-2010 2:59 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 226 of 348 (551783)
03-24-2010 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Peg
03-24-2010 2:59 AM


Re: back to topic of linguistics
If you deny that the character for ship consits of the numeral 8, a vessel and mouths/people, then please address the evidence for that as your reply has nothing to do with the topic as it stands.
I haven't seen any credible evidence for it yet. You haven't offered any evidence at all. I can't address what doesn't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Peg, posted 03-24-2010 2:59 AM Peg has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 240 of 348 (551916)
03-25-2010 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Peg
03-25-2010 7:25 AM


Re: Denial Of The Evidence
You are assuming that Chinese characters are pictographic or ideographic. You have not addressed the points raised in Message 214.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Peg, posted 03-25-2010 7:25 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Peg, posted 03-25-2010 8:19 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 255 of 348 (552009)
03-25-2010 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Peg
03-25-2010 8:19 AM


Re: Denial Of The Evidence
what was your point back then?
Ah, I linked to the wrong message. I meant Message 212:
quote:
The notion that the character in question has anything to do with Noah's ark is simply wrong. It is based on a common misperception about how Chinese characters are constructed, namely that they are basically pictographic (i.e., crude pictures of the thing being named) or ideographic (i.e., that they combine pictures in such a way as to "get across" the idea of the thing or concept being described). Actually, almost all characters in Chinese, including this one, are formed using phonetic principles, although the phonetics in question apply to the language as spoken at the time and place where the character was coined, and not necessarily the way things are pronounced in Modern Standard Chinese. There _are_ a few pictograms, and an even smaller number of true ideograms, but this character isn't one of them.
So, before you run wild interpreting written Chinese words as phrases made up of the word radicals, you first need to establish whether (for example) the radical for "mouth" as an element means the concept of mouth or the sound of the word for mouth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Peg, posted 03-25-2010 8:19 AM Peg has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 270 of 348 (552339)
03-28-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Peg
03-24-2010 2:59 AM


Re: back to topic of linguistics
If you deny that the character for ship consits of the numeral 8, a vessel and mouths/people, then please address the evidence for that
Well, I guess nobody wants to present any, you know, evidence that the interpretation of that character as a phrase is valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Peg, posted 03-24-2010 2:59 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-28-2010 10:54 AM JonF has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024