On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 14:19:52 +0000 (UTC),
Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>
> news:ab0de77f.0401292218.3076200c@posting.google.com...
>> branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski) wrote in message
> news:<b9b3de8.0401290517.2f22cb8d@posting.google.com>...
>> > eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) wrote in message
> news:<ab0de77f.0401272216.396eeb1@posting.google.com>...
>> > > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> news:<bv3eev$7lr$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
>> > >
>> > > [snip childish linguistic fantasy]
>> > >
>> > > > > Incidently, even broader groups than Nostratic have been proposed,
>> > > > > including attempts to reconstruct words of Proto-World.
> Unfortunately
>> > > > > the only one I recall at the moment is rather indelicate.
>> > > >
>> > > > There's every chance that we can guess at a word that was in the
> vocabulary
>> > > > of somebody who walked out of Babel, maybe in a sound-shifted or
> abbreviated
>> > > > form. After all, all the material in every tribal or supertribal
> language
>> > > > came from someone or other's Babel exit language. It's not common
> for
>> > > > languages to invent words, so even 'shit' has good cognates in
> Greek. If we
>> > > > say that 'skata' is closer, because we can tell it didn't go through
> the
>> > > > Germanic sound shifts which we know all about thanks to Grimm, then
> we can
>> > > > ascert with a good probability of truth that some rather powerful
> man or his
>> > > > wife, with a penchant for talking about his or her bodily functions,
>> > > > received the ancestor word for 'skata/shit' in his or her personal
> language
>> > > > at Babel.
>> > >
>> > > My personal opinion is that your hypothesis is a load of 'shit'... I
> mean 'skata'!
>> >
>> > OK. So which alternative hypothesis do you find more convincing and why?
>>
>> You don't even *have* a serious linguistic hypothesis, only wild
>> conjecture based on the presumption that the Bible stories are
>> correct. Trying to make all the facts fit a fundamentalist religious
>> mindset is hardly a scientific approach, is it!
>
> Too right. Trying to make the facts fit an atheist mindset is the correct
> scientific approach. No-one in your circles will object if someone does
> that.
This has nothing to do with atheism. It is a sound scientific principle
that you only consider claims you can actually find evidence for. Some
times scientists simply have to say "we don't know". If there was an
original language, it is very likely that we will never know what it was,
since it seems, as far as or current understanding of physics goes, that
time machines will be unavailable for us to pop back and take a look.
>
>>
>> I suggest you get your head out of the ancient texts and read up on
>> some modern scientific theories on the evolution of human language...
>> any good library would be a start.
>>
>> EROS.
>
> Why don't you stop bluffing and name some of those theories and authors you
> recommend me to start reading?
There is no bluff. You tried to conflate unrelated theories and no one
accepted it.
>
> Well, there we go. All evolution is, is bluff.
Evolution has firm evidence. I'm still waiting for you to provide some
evidence that the alleged events at Babel actually occured.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |
|