news:ab0de77f.0402012018.5eacca04@posting.google.com...
> 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.
>
> Care to give some scientific examples?
>
> > 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.
>
> I doubt very much that you will even seriously consider reading
> them... however, try these for a start (you may have to watch URL
> wrapping);-
>
> http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/linguistics.html
>
>
http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~amag/langev/pubtype/inbook_TheEvolutionofHumanLanguages.html
I looked at these two. One is a reading list of stuff not available on the
web that I can't easily access, and the other is a very pleasant essay for
beginners in linguistics. It contains nothing to challenge my view about the
origins of language.
I didn't have time to look at the others, but maybe I will later.
Uncle Davey
|
|