On 30-Jan-2004, "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote:
> Path:
> be1.columbus.rr.com!news-server.columbus.rr.com!cyclone.rdc-nyc.rr.com!news-west.rr.com!news.rr.com!cyclone.southeast.rr.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!canoe.uoregon.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
> From: "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl>
> Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.fan.uncle-davey,free.christians
> Subject: Re: A short account of the possible history of human languages
> from Babel (was Re: Evolution - Blind Heart Surgery)
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:27:54 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: Tadex Niejadex
> Lines: 388
> Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
> Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
> Message-ID: <bvd113$k18$1@news.onet.pl>
> References: <laurieappieton-20040124035057.21792.00000635@mb-m06.aol.com>
> <Xns947A5DCE18BC0ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.121>
> <thm5105ind7aimbgpvso916tag2851i87h@4ax.com>
> <Xns947A8AA8360C3ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119>
> <chq5109d7sb94c4vr308v0459u33utt8df@4ax.com>
> <Xns947A9BD5F8270ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.119>
> <buuvmq$cpc$0@pita.alt.net>
> <Xns947AAACC86676ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.121>
> <bv0jsq$6uk$2@news.onet.pl>
> <Xns947B7CBC12A9Cericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119>
> <bv13qe$7ej$1@news.onet.pl>
> <47c45a21.0401252152.227d4c19@posting.google.com>
> <bv3eev$7lr$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>
> <slrnc1akrr.1pk.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>
> <uvdRb.64132$f97.17809@fe3.columbus.rr.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075447674 79374 128.100.83.246 (30 Jan 2004
> 07:27:54 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:27:54 +0000 (UTC)
> Fake-Sender: piorokrat@autograf.pl@r-213-158-201-107.ppp.eranet.pl
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: r-213-158-201-107.ppp.eranet.pl
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
> X-Spamscanner: mailbox3.ucsd.edu (v1.4 Dec 3 2003 15:07:19, 0.7/5.0
> 2.60)
> X-Spam-Level: Level
> X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 48220 i0U7MS53062491 mailbox3.ucsd.edu)
> Xref: news-server.columbus.rr.com talk.origins:1309356
> alt.fan.uncle-davey:1591 free.christians:25313
>
>
> >
> > On 26-Jan-2004, AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Path:
> > >
> be1.columbus.rr.com!news-server.columbus.rr.com!cyclone.rdc-nyc.rr.com!news.
> maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
> > > From: AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca>
> > > Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.fan.uncle-davey,free.christians
> > > Subject: Re: A short account of the possible history of human
> > > languages
> > > from Babel (was Re: Evolution - Blind Heart Surgery)
> > > Followup-To: talk.origins
> > > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:51:37 +0000 (UTC)
> > > Organization: The Tao of Cow
> > > Lines: 238
> > > Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
> > > Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
> > > Message-ID: <slrnc1akrr.1pk.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>
> > > References:
> <laurieappieton-20040124035057.21792.00000635@mb-m06.aol.com>
> > > <Xns947A5DCE18BC0ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.121>
> > > <thm5105ind7aimbgpvso916tag2851i87h@4ax.com>
> > > <Xns947A8AA8360C3ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119>
> > > <chq5109d7sb94c4vr308v0459u33utt8df@4ax.com>
> > > <Xns947A9BD5F8270ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.119>
> > > <buuvmq$cpc$0@pita.alt.net>
> > > <Xns947AAACC86676ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.121>
> > > <bv0jsq$6uk$2@news.onet.pl>
> > > <Xns947B7CBC12A9Cericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119>
> > > <bv13qe$7ej$1@news.onet.pl>
> > > <47c45a21.0401252152.227d4c19@posting.google.com>
> > > <bv3eev$7lr$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>
> > > Reply-To: mightymartianca@yahoo.ca
> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
> > > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > > X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075139498 86009 128.100.83.246 (26 Jan
> 2004
> > > 17:51:38 GMT)
> > > X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
> > > NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:51:38 +0000 (UTC)
> > > X-Orig-NNTP-Posting-Host: tandem.alberni.net (64.141.6.11)
> > > X-Orig-X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1075139452 24812519 64.141.6.11
> > > ([211612])
> > > User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (CYGWIN_NT-5.0)
> > > Xref: news-server.columbus.rr.com talk.origins:1307524
> > > alt.fan.uncle-davey:1496 free.christians:24870
> > >
> > > ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:16:19 +0000 (UTC),
> > > Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > news:47c45a21.0401252152.227d4c19@posting.google.com...
> > > >> "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in message
> > > > news:<bv13qe$7ej$1@news.onet.pl>...
> > > >> > news:Xns947B7CBC12A9Cericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
> > > >> > > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in
> > > >> > > news:bv0jsq$6uk$2@news.onet.pl:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > news:Xns947AAACC86676ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.121...
> > > >> > > >> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in
> > > >> > > >> news:buuvmq$cpc$0@pita.alt.net:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > You're just trying to spin your way out, now.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> Hypocrite.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Not in the slightest,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Wishful thinking won't help you, either. Developing a sudden
> attack
> > > >> > > of
> > > >> > > honesty and straightfowardness is what you need.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > I'm waiting for a god reason why they shouldn't
> > > >> > > > be conflated.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Of course, the way it works is YOU should you be showing why it
> > > >> > > should
> > > > be.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > If the theory of evolution is true, it should cover language
> too.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > That's *your* claim. We've been trying to get you to show why
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > tens
> > > > of
> > > >> > > messages now, and here you are still stating it as a bald fact.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > No no. The onus is on you to show why language should be an
> > > >> > exception,
> > > > and
> > > >> > you are totally at a loss to do so.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Uncle Davey
> > > >>
> > > >> Well, Uncle Davey, you've confused a lurker pretty well here. If
> > > >> you
> > > >> would be so kind as to clarify:
> > > >>
> > > >> When you speak of linguistic evolution do you mean
> > > >> 1) The evolution of the *capacity for language* in humans?
> > > >> Biological
> > > >> evolution must indeed be able to explain this.
> > > >> or
> > > >> 2) What everyone else means, i.e. change in language, such as that
> > > >> which produced French and Spanish from Latin? There is no reason
> > > >> why
> a
> > > >> theory which deals with genetic change should address a purely
> > > >> cultural phenomenon, beyond explaining how it is biologically
> possible
> > > >> in the first place.
> > > >> or even
> > > >> 3) If one cannot trace linguistic evolution beyond the known
> families,
> > > >> (which probably arose at some time in the past that could very
> loosely
> > > >> fit the Babel account), then the Babel account is thereby not
> > > >> contradicted?
> > > >
> > > > The way I see it is that everyone received their own language at
> Babel.
> > > > Even
> > > > husbands and wives could not talk and little kids could not
> communicate
> > > > with
> > > > their parents. This meant that in order to have an established
> > > > family
> > > > language, families needed to isolate themselves, and then they would
> all
> > > > learn the language of the mother of that family, as mothers are and
> > > > always
> > > > have been the main one to teach the little children language. The
> > > > men
> > > > therefore would also have needed to take their wive's grammar and
> > > > syntax,
> > > > but the wife would in return take a lot of the lexicon from her
> husband,
> > > > and
> > > > in the process already the family language would become at once
> > > > grammatically simpler but also lexically richer than the Babel exit
> > > > languages each member spoke. We have the expression 'mother tongue'
> > > > in
> > > > almost every language but Welsh, which is like the exception that
> proves
> > > > the
> > > > rule, exactly from this time, which was only one generation in the
> > > > history
> > > > of man.
> > >
> > > It's amazing what you can come up with when you don't give a damn
> > > about
> > > evidence.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This was the mechanism that would have driven people out of Babel
> > > > into
> > > > their
> > > > own place, so that they could quietly re-establish a common language
> > > > with
> > > > those who meant most to them, their family, without linguistic
> > > > interference
> > > > from all the others who would come babbling over the horizon,
> preventing
> > > > their children from achieving any linguistic competence.
> > >
> > > Except that by the time of the particular ziggurat in question was
> > > built
> > > there were humans on every continent but Antarctica. I said this
> before,
> > > but you ignored it. Were American Indians, Chinese, Egyptians,
> > > sub-Saharan
> > > Africans and all the rest except for the folks in Mesopotomia mute?
> >
> > The stanard Creationist answer will be something like "those people
> weren't
> > there yet so...<fill in with pseudoarchaeo-drivel/goo>"
> >
> > I'm not going to put words in other poster's mouths, so I'm wondering
> > what
> > the response will be.
>
> By definition they weren't there yet. I don't need no archaeology to help
> me
> know that.
>
> It's in Scripture.
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Within forty years, one language per family (already maybe one
> > > > fifth
> of
> > > > the
> > > > number actually made at Babel) was similar conflating and merging
> > > > into
> > > > tribal languages. The basic model would then be the family language
> > > > of
> > > > the
> > > > most dominant family in the tribe. This process took longer than the
> > > > family
> > > > language process, as the new languages were being learned as foreign
> > > > languages by all in the tribe but the dominant family. These
> > > > dominant
> > > > families are the ancestors of the aristocratic families that grew up
> > > > later
> > > > in almost every culture.
> > >
> > > Uh huh. Perhaps you can provide some evidence for this claim as well.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The tribal languages would have taken over from the family languages
> so
> > > > that
> > > > about four hundred years after Babel the single family language was
> > > > as
> > > > redundant and extinct as the single person language had been forty
> years
> > > > after the Babel event.
> > >
> > > Four hundred years ain't a long time. 16th century English might have
> > > some
> > > odd words and usages, but by and by people have no problems
> understanding
> > > Shakespeare.
> >
> > In written form, it is easy. When done with period pronounciation, it
> does
> > sound alittle weird-but followable. Much earlier in time though,
> > things
> > start to sound *really* strange though.
>
> You got, like, a time machine there, buddy?
>
> With your unique knowledge of period pronunciations, perhaps you could
> help
> me with a query. I have heard that theta was pronounced not as the 'th' of
> things but as the 't-h' of 'met her' in the Greek of Sophocles and
> Aeschylos. I thought that the shift to a true fricative came earlier. Can
> you use your linguistic time machine to settle that one for me?
>
> Or, what a typical evolutionist comment, mixing fantasy with fact! You
> don't
> know what Shakespeare sounded like any more than you know what a
> Brontosaurus looked like.
>
> You can, at the most, have a theory about the Brontosaurus, ahem ahem, but
> at this rate it'll be yours and nobody else's. <Cough! Cough! Cough!>
>
> > It's worth noting that "tribe" is a unit of social-structural
> > organization-not language. At least when the term is used by
> anthro-types;
> > historians use it in a different sense (which drives me crazy
> > sometimes).
>
> Tribe means a group of people unified by language, or other communality.
> You
> can find references to more than one tribe in a language (then I call the
> linguistic tribal level the supertribe, and supertribe is my coinage so
> don't worry about the dictionary and then getting all offended that it's
> not
> there, I'll save you the trip) you can find one language = one tribe,
> which
> is pretty much the default setting and people continually try to get back
> to
> that, (as in the case of Hebrew and Greek, which went supertribal and then
> went back to being single tribe languages again, but are still supertribal
> in another way, as they are learned by Biblical scholars all over the
> world), and you only rarely get the converse, where a tribe is made up of
> a
> bunch of languages. We can refer the Mongol horde, Attila's horde, and the
> European Union.
>
> In taxonomy the word 'tribe' has yet another meaning, but not relevant
> here.
>
>
> > > > But each would have been a selection of grammars, phonologies and
> > > > lexical
> > > > materials that came out of the Babel event.
> > > >
> > > > Some of these tribal languages exist until today. Basque is a good
> > > > example.
> > >
> > > Again, it is amazing what bafflegab you can come up with when you
> > > don't
> > > need
> > > to worry about evidence. Basque is an isolate from an earlier layer
> > > of
> > > European colonization. The Basques were there when the Indo-Europeans
> > > arrived.
> >
> > And given the tenacity of the Basques, I imagine that they will still be
> > there when the current wave of Indo-Europeans are no more...
> >
>
> I doubt that. I given them thirty more years.
>
> > > >
> > > > Other tribes conflated again into the supertribe, and the supertribe
> is
> > > > where we find the original languages at the heads of the family
> > > > trees
> > > > that
> > > > we can easily recognise. The Aryan supertribe spoke a language whose
> > > > name we
> > > > don't know, but call it Proto Indo European. They could have called
> > > > it
> > > > Yaspriyakis, or something like that, for all we know.
> > >
> > > Scientists don't make things up just because they don't know.
> > >
> > > >It was a supertribe,
> > > > and as with all supertribes, it fell apart, with people who spoke it
> > > > leaving
> > > > and mingling with the languages of the substrate where they went,
> which
> > > > were
> > > > generally tribal, not supertribal peoples, and could not compete
> > > > with
> > > > them.
> > > > So we have a tendency for common grammatical elements to be seen,
> > > > but
> a
> > > > lot
> > > > of different lexical stock from the borrowings. Even the supertribe
> > > > itself
> > > > had not been stable long when the emigrations started; some thought
> the
> > > > word
> > > > for 'a hundred' should be 'kentum' and others thought it should be
> > > > 'sati'.
> > > > About all they could really agree on was the words for beech trees,
> > > > snow,
> > > > and about twenty other matters.
> > >
> > > Are you saying that the breakup of PIE was a conscious effort?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So the supertribal language was the turning point. From Babel to the
> > > > supertribal period, maybe a million languages got down to maybe
> > > > thirty
> > > > thousand. After that time the supertribal languages started to have
> > > > multiple
> > > > descendents, and even some descendents had multiple descendents
> > > > themselves,
> > > > so that they replaced the exit languages being spoken by peoples
> > > > like
> > > > the
> > > > pre-Celtic cultures of Ireland, and then many of those languages,
> > > > like
> > > > Irish
> > > > Celtic, themselves became forced into a minor role or often made
> extinct
> > > > altogether, like Cornish, by more vigorous languages of their
> > > > distant
> > > > cousins, such as English.
> > > >
> > > >> 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.
> > >
> > > I'm loving this. A little bit of knowledge can indeed be dangerous.
> You
> > > so
> > > seamlessly mix fact and fiction that I'm sure there are people
> > > sufficiently
> > > unversed in linguistics that they actually buy it.
> >
> > I like the way you put that. Having taken a year of lingusitics, it was
> an
> > odd thing to read the original post: terms and conventions I
> understood-but
> > used so...differently. After reading it the first thing I thought was
> "this
> > needs to be responded to-but where to start..."
> >
> > I'm glad someone else made a good start. Thanks for that.
> >
>
> You have a year of linguistics, eh?
>
> WoooooOOOooooooOOOoooooh! Jerry! Jerry!
>
> So, how many languages do you speak?
The fact that I am fluent (as a native speaker) in American English, and
have taken: French (7 years at the middle and high school levels), Spanish
(two years at the college level), and German (one quarter at the college
level), as well as a smattering of Esperanto, Latin and Japanese (just a bit
of personal reading for those) is utterly irrelevant to my study and
knowledge of linguistics. For the record, I'm not particularly good at
communicating in anything other than my native tongue.
The number of languages one knows or the ability of someone to learn to
speak their non-native language is, however and of course, irrelevant to
their ability to do (or understand) the science of language(s).
Or didn't you know that learning "foreign" languages is quite different from
studying linguistics?
Generally, I think that is one of the first lessons taught in Intro
Linguistics.
Did you skip that particular course of study, or are you just trying a
diversion and implied insult as a rhetorical tricks again?
Skitter the Cat
|
| 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 |
|