"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<bvo36l$hmq$0@pita.alt.net>...
> 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,
Then I suggest you try harder. Not everything is "available on the
web". Until you have examined all the available evidence against it,
you can't claim that your hypothesis is correct, can you!
> and the other is a very pleasant essay for
> beginners in linguistics. It contains nothing to challenge my view about the
> origins of language.
Hmmm... So it mentions Babel, does it? Did it discuss supernatural
origins of language... or did it actually contain evidence for a
natural origin? If so, please explain why it contains nothing to
challenge your view about the origins of language"?
> I didn't have time to look at the others, but maybe I will later.
Based on your past performance, I'm not holding my breath.
EROS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or
another, be made to fit the creation model." -- Dr. Henry Morris
(Institute for Creation Research)
|
|