This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - osmanthus
Come to think of it, stone age languages are far more sophisticated than Trump's English.
Which is not a high bar to clear, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
Which is not a high bar to clear, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
There is good evidence available that supports the idea that Genesis is an extremely accurate collection of eyewitness accounts.The why have you never been able to provide any, over a period of more than a decade?
Dave, you wally, stone age languages are highly sophisitcated. We have living examples of them for reference.For one thing, the location of where to look for the original post Babel languages. Also they would have expected to find evidence for more than one "mother tongue" not just one. Also they would know that these "more than one" post Babel tongues would have been in existence less than 5000 years ago. Also they would have expected to find highly sophisticated proto languages, rather than expecting to find "stone age" grunt languages such as those depicted in movies like 1 million BC and so on.Here's the bottom line... Again...Why?
Linguists should not have jumped on the "Genesis is a myth" bandwagon because by doing so they became lost in the woods for a couple hundred years and now are slowly finding their way again.
Could have been a whole lot easier if they had not jumped on that bandwagon in the first place.
What could Genesis have told them about language if they had not decided it was a myth?
Lizzie's "Wiki list of proto languages"Hey Dave: when do you think the last ice age ended. For the moment let's not worry about when the evil Darwinists think it ended. Let's just take your timeline.
2000 BC or 3000 BC
You link here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proto-languages ... makes no mention of WHEN these proto languages supposedly existed.
The reason it's relevant is because Australian aborigines have oral traditions that tell of the end of the last ice age, when the continental shelves of Australia (but not all of Australia, obviously) became permanently flooded.
They have been passing down these oral traditions in their own languages, which had no contact with any other languages until very recently. Aboriginal languages do not fit into any of Jones' three groups. Aboriginal languages have obviously existed since the end of the last ice age.
So, in your timeline, when was this?
The fact that your selected quotation "does not mention any EVIDENCE of any others except these two" is no more evidence "that there weren't others" than the fact that you own only two goats is evidence that no other goats exist.
Just doing a Sunday morning catch up and chortle. This post of Dave's would have to be one of the most stupid posts in the history of the internet.If we Google this, we get a hit entitled "History of Language" ... hmm ... looks promising ... let's make sure it's not s "religious fundy wacko" site ... good ... doesn't appear to be ...Now if we use our brains for something besides a hat rack ... we notice a couple key things here ...
Ok then ...QuoteOrigins of language
The origins of human language will perhaps remain for ever obscure. By contrast the origin of individual languages has been the subject of very precise study over the past two centuries.
There are about 5000 languages spoken in the world today (a third of them in Africa), but scholars group them together into relatively few families - probably less than twenty. Languages are linked to each other by shared words or sounds or grammatical constructions. The theory is that the members of each linguistic group have descended from one language, a common ancestor. In many cases that original language is judged by the experts to have been spoken in surprisingly recent times - as little as a few thousand years ago.
Linguistic groups: from 3000 BC
The most widespread group of languages today is the Indo-European, spoken by half the world's population. This entire group, ranging from Hindi and Persian to Norwegian and English, is believed to descend from the language of a tribe of nomads roaming the plains of eastern Europe and western Asia (in modern terms centring on the Ukraine) as recently as about 3000 BC.
From about 2000 BC people speaking Indo-European languages begin to spread through Europe, eventually reaching the Atlantic coast and the northern shores of the Mediterranean. They also penetrate far into Asia - occupying the Iranian plateau and much of India.
Another linguistic group, of significance in the early history of west Asia and still of great importance today, is the Semitic family of languages. These also are believed to derive from the language of just one tribal group, possibly nomads in southern Arabia.
By about 3000 BC Semitic languages are spoken over a large tract of desert territory from southern Arabia to the north of Syria. Several Semitic peoples play a prominent part in the early civilization of the region, from the Babylonians and Assyrians to the Hebrews and Phoenicians. And one Semitic language, Aramaic, becomes for a while the Lingua franca of the Middle East.
Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab13#ixzz4gJHgN4iV
1) The article says there are probably less than 20 language families (this is consistent with Jones)
2) The article lists ONLY TWO language families in existence back in 3000 BC
3) The article says that these two major groups probably each came from a single tribe
This article lists only two language families back that far ... 2000 - 3000 BC.
Of course this doesn't PROVE that there weren't others ... but this article does not mention any EVIDENCE of any others except these two.
He's just explaining how things are, not how they came to be.
I have a bulletproof solution to that problem. I don't wear boots with laces.
What about the Bhagavad Gita? That's a written record too. So is the Book of the Dead.
In other news, Tea Party wingnut from Klan country goes after Democrat who coincidentally happens to have made the grievous errors of being female and black.
"Thus has it been proved by clear evidence and plain reasoning, that a powerful monarchy was established in Iran long before the Assyrian or Pishdadi government: "
I guess I need to go searching for this clear evidence. Since I'm pretty sure no one else will. Since everyone else here is quite comfortable with their preferred fairytales. And you know all the modern linguists are so much smarter than Sir William Jones. And we have all this new archaeology over the past 250 years and such. Oh and let's not forget that our brains have evolved to be even smarter than they were 250 years ago. Let's not forget that. ( well unless you're a creationist and then your brain is going downhill. )
Nobody tell the Basques. They'll be terribly upset.
Yeah, "pretty sure". Of course. FFS.
She'd have to be nuts if she tried to build a wall in the Channel.
Watch out. He's going for the old divide and conquer trick.
Yes the system has been holding up remarkably well, but I'm still going to stir Guapo anyway.
Yeah totes. I mean Liz comes around every six months, all decked out in leather and stilettos, and abuses the fuck out of us. We love it.
Also, we have this curious observation by linguists that when it comes to languages, "older" = " more sophisticated" ... i.e. van der Tuuk's statement that "All languages are something of a ruin."Yup, whoever called it a couple of pages back was right. Not that it was much of a stretch.
Exactly the same observation as that made by geneticists like Sanford and Lynch about the human genome.