AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<slrnc1nnoe.1cg.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>...
> 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.
Sorry AC, I responded to your message instead of Uncle Davey's, by mistake.
EROS.
|
| 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 |
|