Subject: Re: `CRAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN'!
From: "Michael D. Painter"
Date: 19 Nov 1996 19:04:26 GMT
I believe all of the following "references" offered by Mr Ed were shown to
be false. There was a considerable amount of information provided to show
that his statements were misleading at best.
Ask Ed for the addresses of the individuals named and contact them
yourself......
Ed Conrad wrote in article
<56sdif$cgi@news.ptd.net>...
>
> Jukka Korpela wrote to sci.anthropology and many other news groups,
> seriously challenging the reputation of the human skull in the boulder
> as ``The Most Important Fossil."
>
> > edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) writes:
>
> > The WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL, unquestionably, is
> > a petrified human skull embedded in a boulder which was discovered
> > between anthracite veins in Carboniferous strata near Shenandoah, Pa.
> >
> > I suppose no-one is fool enough to take this kind of crap
> > seriously . . .
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I suppose you're right, Jukka. After all, ``The Book" says it can't
> be, so it certainly can't be.
>
> Funny, though, that two individuals highly respected in their fields
> -- Wilton M. Krogman, author of ``The Human Skeleton in Forensic
> Medicine," and Raymond M. Dart, M.D., discoverer of the significance
> of the Taung Skull and one of the world's most famous and respected
> human anatomists -- felt my specimens not only COULD be petrified
> bones, but are.
>
> I suppose another believer would have to be Jeremy Dahl, the bone
> expert at Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center -- the most
> prestigious laboratory of its kind in the world -- who stated in
> writing above his signature that one of the specimens he had examined
> microscopically indeed is petrified bone.
>
> Ditto for the expert at Teledyne Isotopes, the world's largest
> independent research laboratory, who also said a specimen is petrified
> bone.
>
> And how about the veteran dentist who took an Xray of one of the
> tooth-like specimens and confirmed, in writing, that it ``reads'' like
> a tooth?
>
> Or the physician-surgeon who interpreted the infra-red scan taken of a
> different ``tooth" and stated in writing that the subtance was ``bone
> or tooth" in origin?.
No one (except maybe Mr Ed) knows exactly what was done here. Many requests
for information about what he means were ignored
> And how about the comparison of the cell structure of the ``petrified
> bone" with non-petrified bone, revealing almost similiar-size
> Haversian canals.
Comparison done by Mr Ed. No one else agrees.
>
> Or the SEM (scanning electron photographs) comparing the surface
> features of the interior of the ``tibia-like" object, which
> dramaticlaly resembles the surface features of bone.
Completely debunked.
> I suppose you'r right, Jukka. There's just not enough physical
> evidence.
>
> ``Crappy days are here again!"
>
>
>
>
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 14:04:07 GMT
In article <56uq31$qdf@frysja.sn.no>, kalie@sn.no says...
>
>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>>Yes. Especially in the sense that Lexicon sometimes is construed to mean
>>simply vocabulary unencumbered by grammatical baggage.
>
>Vocabulary unencumbered by grammatical baggage?
>
>How do you count these words:
>
>long - longer - longest One word, two words or three words?
>good - better - best One word, two words or three words?
>walk - walked - walked One word, two words or three words?
>go - went - gone One word, two words or three words?
In each case, the Lexicon counts just the one word;
the vocabulary includes three.
>
>>Harcourt Brace "Standard College Dictionary" counts a vocabulary
>>for Old English of 40,000 words.
>
>'Old English' is the name of a language. Do you count it as one
>word or as two separate words?
I am counting the vocabulary; two words.
>
>In Norwegian, like in German (not to mention Sanskrit) composita
>are more easily formed than in English.
>
>English Norwegian
>
>old gammel
>english engelsk
>Old English gammelengelsk
>
>So - how do you count these words?
English uses two words in its vocabulary, where Norwegian uses three.
>
>Does this make the one language more or less sophisticated than
>the other?
No. I am doing a quantitative as opposed to a qualitative analysis.
Language might also be measured and compared qualitatively in many
other ways. You could then attempt to show how a language with a
smaller but more complex and sophisticated arrangement of words
would stack up to a language which simply had a larger collection
of words. My suspicion is that this would make a difference where
the sizes of the two languages differed by less than a factor of ten.
>You can count the number of entries in a particular dictionary.
>What can you learn from that?
You can compare the relative size of languages at various stages
of a languages development. If you compare the language Washoe
uses to the language I use, I am probably better able to discuss
the historical evolution of language with the language I use
than she is with the language she uses.
If you compare Sumerian and Akkadian with the language Washoe
uses and the language I use, I expect you will find that those
languages come somewhere in between. Presumably by the time
you get around to comparing Greek and Latin with German the
difference is slight enough that linguistic complexity and
sophistication are factors.
>The answer is that you will learn
>the number of entries in that particular dictionary. Nothing
>more. Nothing less.
That might be true if you limited your study to dictionaries.
Most dictionaries deal with historically well defined languages.
When you begin to compare reconstructions of prehistoric languages
to historic languages the difference is great enough to benefit by
the simple quantitative analysis.
The purpose of the quantitative analysis is just to see if the
rate of change in language may have changed at different rates
perhaps according to the degree of urbanization and the number
of social interactions in a society.
If that is the case then it affects the adjacencies of people and
the mechanisms by which language may have been transmitted.
If certain assumptions about who might have been in contact with
whom are based on a linear model of linguistic development, then
when we alternatively apply a non linear model, very different
adjacencies and mechanisms for the diffusion of language emerge.
>Comparing languages by word counts is of very little value. You
>will learn very little by using statistical methods here.
>
>Please study some basic facts about language!
One basic fact is that to get the right answers you must
ask the right questions. What I am doing is rephrasing
the question of how language evolved to include the
possibility that language evolved at a rate of change
which changed.
>
>
>______________________________________________________________
>
>Kåre Albert Lie
steve
>
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: Saida
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:07:56 -0600
Daniel von Brighoff wrote:
>
> Saida:
> >>>>I would be the last one to say that Hebrew (or Arabic) is easy to
> >>>>learn, but, in case anybody is interested, the Hebrew Bible is
> >>>>written in simple prose, not much resembling the fancy, stilted
> >>>>language of, say, the King James version.
>
> Mr. Dunsmuir:
> >>>I'm sorry? That 'fancy stilted language' was the standard formal
> >>>written English of the late 16th, early 17th centuries. This whole
> >>>discussion has suffered abyssmally from an overdose of egocentrism, just
> >>>as disastrous a folly in anthropology as is anthropomorphism in the
> >>>scientific study of non-human societies.
>
> >>>Your above statement simply indicates that you are more familiar
> >>>with the Hebrew of the Bible than you are with the language of 17th
> >>>century English literature.
>
> Saida:
> >>I think that arrow must be stuck between your ears, Banana Picker! What
> >>I was saying is that the old-style English is NOT a literal translation
> >>of the Hebrew. The Hebrew is much less complicated in its prosaic
> >>style and therefore, in itself, more modern than the translations most
> >>people are accustomed to reading. I don't know how much more simply I can
> >>put this SO THAT THOU WILT COMPREHEND MY MEANING, YORICK!
>
> Holoholona:
> >. What you call fancy, stilted language in the King James version of
> >the Bible was neither fancy nor stilted at the time, but rather a
> >readable translation written in a way that any common man could
> >understand.
>
> Saida:
> >So what? You are completely misunderstanding the jist of what I said,
> >which is that the English is NOT a literal translation. What is the
> >matter with you people?
>
> I don't know, but I have much the same "misunderstanding" as
> Holoholona. In your original post (quoted above), you seem to be saying
> that the *styles* do not match: That the Hebrew Bible is written in
> simple prose, while the KJV is written in fancy and stilted prose. (Have
> I followed so far?) Later, you say that the KJV is not a "literal
> translation" of the Hebrew Bible, and call this the "jist" of your
> argument.
>
> Speaking as a freelance translator, I hope you understand that
> these two statements are not equivalent. There is a great deal of
> difference between a "literal" translation and a "faithful" one. The
> former tend to sound quite stilted because they make use of words and
> expressions that are infrequent in the target language, if they appear
> in it at all.
>
> No one has claimed that the KJV is a literal translation of the
> Hebrew. However, Mr. Dunsmuir and Holoholona have both said that is a
> *faithful* one within the context of the time it was written.
>
> Holoholona:
> > You further compound your misunderstanding by comparing the KJV to
> >Shakespeare, indeed, _Hamlet_, when in fact the KJV and Shakespeare are
> >poles apart in their place in English literature. Shakespeare did
> >indeed use fancy and stilted language, even invented vocabulary to suit his
> >purpose > (_Hamlet_, for instance).
>
> Saida:
> >Oh, really? You mean the Elizabethans didn't really talk that way?
> >Then how do you know the Jacobeans did?
>
> There is a very large corpus of Elizabethan and Jacobean writings
> from a variety of different registers (e.g. informal letters, poems, legal
> documents, etc.). From these, we can reconstruct the common formal
> standard written registers of each period (you are the first to bring up
> spoken registers, which are a different matter) and compare them to the
> language of the KJV and Shakespeare, respectively. This comparison
> reveals that Shakespeare's language diverged quite a deal more from the
> standard of his time than the language of the KJV did from the standard of
> its time.
>
> May I remind you that Shakespeare was writing in verse (blank
> verse, but verse nevertheless). Although people are fond of quoting
> "chapter and verse" of the KJV it, by contrast, was written in prose and
> with the express intention of being intelligible to the greatest number of
> people. Stylistically, there's no comparison.
>
> Holoholona:
> >> The fact that English has changed over the years, and that people think
> >>archaic expressions sound "old fashioned" or conservative has nothing
> >>to do with "fancy" or stilted language (although it may seem that way
> >>to you).
>
> Saida:
> >Yes, it does, actually, but that doesn't mean I don't like it. In fact,
> >I do, and I never said I didn't.
>
> This sounds like a complete non sequitur to me. Could you restate
> it in a less confusing fashion?
>
> Holoholona:
> >> The fact that Modern Hebrew was revived from the older form
> >>structurally intact simply means that the divergence found between 16c
> >>English and 20c English is impossible in 20c Hebrew.
>
> Saida:
> >May be now you're beginning to understand what I meant--a literal
> >translation is virtually impossible then and now. The languages are too > >different.
Thou shallt not kill Lo tirtza'ach (Not will you kill)
Thou shallt not commit adultery Lo tinaf (Not will you commit
adultery)
Thou shallt not steal Lo tignov (Not will you steal)
Actually, the "lo" simply means "no" and the verbs are in the form of
the second person singular, future tense. That is the nature of the
Semitic languages--economy of words but a complicated grammar to learn
and remember.
Subject: Earth's Chronology By Science (Repost Sorting Out the Facts)
From: Xina
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:43:48 -0600
My apologies for the redundnance, this is the companion post to the
Egyptian Chronologies posts of 11/19/96.
Regards,
**************************REPOSTED MATERIAL***********************
I have no concrete date that I can cite with certainty about the earth's
true age. I will therefore post in chronological order the first life
to modern man and then in a later post we can go through whether or not
there are dates that correspond with the bible, or not. All information
posted is the opinion and research of the author, no claims to its
spritiual or scientific absoluteness is implied outside of what is now
available to us through scientific research.
1) bacteria - 3.8 billion years
2) Blue Green Algae or Cyanobacteria - 2.9 billion years
3) Eukaryotes( first plant and animal cells with nucleus) - 1.45
billion years
4) Multicelled animals - 680 million years
5) Fish - 530 Million years
6) Land Plants - 400 million years
7) Amphibians - 370 million years
8) Reptiles - 340 Million years
9) Mammals - 200 Million years
10) Dinosaurs 200 million years
11) Birds - 175 Million Years
12) Austrolpithencus Africanus - 4.5 million years
13) Australopithecs rubustus - 4 million years
14) Homo Habilus - 3.5 million years
15) Homo Erectus - 2 million years
16) Homo Sapiens Neanderthalenesis - 200,000 years
17) Homo Sapiens Sapiens - 30,000 years (See source #1)
This puts us right up to the Upper Paleolithic Age, which went from
30,000 BC to 10,000 BC. From there we can go to our second source
(2)"Archeaology of the Land of the Bible 10,000 BC - 586 BC by Amihai
Mazar(Professor at the University of Tel-Aviv in Israel) 1992 Doubleday
Publishing) We are now into the Neoltihtic age.
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A ca. 8500 - 7500 BCE
Pre Pottery Neolithic B ca. 7500 - 6000 BCE
Pottery Neolithic A ca. 6000 - 5000 BCE
Pottery Neolithic B ca. 5000 - 4300 BCE
Chalcolithic ca. 4300 - 3300 BCE
Early Bronze ca. 3300 - 3050 BCE
Early Bronze II -III ca. 3050 - 2300 BCE*
Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I ca. 2300 - 2000 BCE*
Middle Bronze IIA ca. 2000 - 1800/1750 BCE
Middle Bronze IIB-C ca. 1800/1750 - 1550 BCE
Late Bronze I ca. 1500 - 1400 BCE
Late Bronze II A-B ca. 1400 - 1200 BCE
Iron IA ca. 1200 - 1150 BCE
Iron IB ca. 1150 - 1000 BCE
Iron IIA ca. 1000 - 925 BCE
Iron IIB ca. 925 - 720 BCE
Iron IIC ca. 720- 586 BCE
* Elijah's alleged date for the biblical flood.
Essentially the Pyramids were built within the period around the Early
Bronze Age, if the flood occured there would be an interuption of this
age into the next one, in fact there would be noticable setback in
pottery and in building etc.
I will post a pharonic chronology later this week.
My questions are:
If Adam was the 'first man' (or was he the first white man as some here
have proposed) then we can actually date him to over 10,000 years ago.
If the biblical flood was an actuality, *why* was there no break in the
architecture, art and culture of any civilization in the areas of africa
and Europe at that time?
I will need to see how you explain away several billion years of
pre-history.
SOURCE LIST:
(1) 'Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life' by Beverly Halstead 1989 Running
Press
(2)"Archeaology of the Land of the Bible 10,000 BC - 586 BC by Amihai
Mazar(Professor at the University of Tel-Aviv in Israel) 1992 Doubleday
Publishing)
Also cited in part one The World Atlas of Archeaology, by GK K Hall and
Co. (page 23)
Regards,
Xina
Subject: Re: C-14 variance of 3% doesnt cover 720-year error
From: August Matthusen
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:51:30 -0800
Richard Schiller (posing as radiochronologist/prophet) wrote:
>
> This is a reply to a poster who claimed the variance of C-14
> is due to Libby's 5570-yr half-life being a 3% variation from
> the current figure used for C-14 half-life.
That isn't what I wrote, Richard. You snipped all of my text
and then distorted what I wrote. That's bearing false witness
(again). How long do you think you can keep bearing false
witness without divine retribution? You seem to have a distinct
problem quoting me accurately. It really isn't hard, Netscape
will do it for you.
Let's see, In a post entitled "Re: exalted teachers who
label students as lost cause", dated "Tue, 19 Nov 1996
09:16:31 -0800" I wrote in response to a statement/pun
regarding conventions:
[begin quote]
Yeah, just as the "Libby half-life" is about 3% off from the actual
C-14 half-life which is partially why the skew of C-14 vs actual dates
occurs. But don't expect Richard Schiller to understand.
[end quote]
Note the word "partially" in my quote, look it up if you don't
know what it means. That's only *one* of the reasons C-14
dating is skewed. Calibration is such a currently hot topic
that authors are always referring to the most recent calibration
curve and presenting their data in "radiocarbon years" to
differentiate it from calendar years and so that when a new
curve is produced the radiocarbon years can be calibrated.
>
> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/c14TPC.gif
>
> C-14 variance of 3% doesnt cover the 720-year error in which
> science uses dendrochronology to make the stretch.
> Does 720 years look like 3 % of 5570 years.
> A 3% as 167 years isnt even enough to explain Egypt's Papyrus
> being 720 years more than the Hebrew Genesis account.
> Further scholastic jackasses act as if I dont know the epoch
> is 1950 AD....where else do they think all the ...50s BC on the chart
> comes from. How else is 3200 BP going to equal 1250 BC !
> See how in public they will present any lie that they know they
> dare not make in a convention.
Kind of like you will snip material and distort it in public?
Nice strawman argument above, arguing against something I
didn't write and not even quoting what I did write so people
won't know (kinda sounds like bearing false witness to me).
By the way, I notice you also removed sci.arch from the
newsgroups list. It's nice to see you can do that when you
want to, or do you only do it and start an absolutely new
thread with no reference to previous posts when you don't
people to see what was previously posted?
[sci.arch re-added].
> Simply these people have no respect for the scholastic work
> of Damon and Long and Grey and Suess and Ralph and Michael
> in 1966 and 1967.
It's hard to have respect when your gif only contains names
and dates but no full bibliographic citations.
Libby developed C-14 dating in the early 1950s. He published
on it in 1955. By 1966 and 1967 people were beginning to
realize that there were problems between calendar dates
and radiocarbon dates. They *began* to investigate why this
divergence occurred. Science didn't stop in 1966 and 1967;
much has been done in the past 30 years. It appears that
since you have found something from '66 and '67 that you
believe lends credence to your mythology, you want to stop
science 30 years ago. I hope you don't mind if the rest of the
world stays a bit more up-to-date.
For a fairly good, up-to-date web page on radiocarbon dating,
I suggest that anyone who is interested see:
http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/index.html
It discusses all aspects of radiocarbon: basis of method,
applications, other www sites (sorry, but they don't cross
reference the Richard Schiller home page or C-14 gif for
some perplexing reason), calibration, measurement methods,
date calculation, corrections to dates, pulication of
dates, and references. If you want more info, try
Bradley, 1985, _Quaternary Paleoclimatology_ pages
47 to 69 and see some of the references Bradley cites.
It's a bit dated, but it's more up-to-date than 1967
publications. Better still, go to a good university
library and review the journal _Radiocarbon_ or recent
texts on radiocarbon dating.
> And Christina dares to jump to claiming these
> are fanatic bible scholars.
I don't know if she said that or not or jumped or not
(not that I *doubt* you, of course, but you occasionally
have a tendency to put words in others' mouths; see above
and previous posts too voluminous to cite).
Damon, Long, and Grey are not fanatics. If you
are taking your material from their paper
(Damon, Long, and Grey, 1966, Fluctuation of
Atmospheric C-14 During the Last Six Millenia,
_Journal of Geophysical Research_, Vol. 71,
pp. 1055-1063) for some strange reason, I don't
think they would agree with your conclusions.
[non sequiturs, ad hominems, and unheard cries
for support snipped]
Regards,
August Matthusen
PS Nice to see you got a job, finally (if you
did). I hope it isn't with Motorola again,
I own stock in that comapany.
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 03:55:37 GMT
In article <56s5i5$k99@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
Vidhyanath K. Rao wrote:
>In article <56kri8$nd0@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Stella Nemeth wrote:
>>Think about it for a minute. If the size of your personal vocabulary
>>didn't mean something, why did they test you on vocabulary and word
>>usage before they let you go to college, or for that matter in some
>>states before they let you go to high school.
>
>I am currently teaching Integral Calculus, where students get tested
>on such things as their ability to find the integral from 0 to 1 of
>1/(1+e^(2x)). Engineering and Science departments use the grade from
>such courses in deciding who is allowed to major in their departments.
>Hence someone who knows how to find such integrals is more sophisticated
>than someone who does not know that.
>
>Now, how many readers of sci.lang agree with that assessment?
Um, like, what was the question? (Sorry, but as language goes on
changing, um, what was the word? Expotentally? In any case, it's gettin
faster 'n' faster and leaving this backwoods rube, who knows only one word
for 'snow', way behind. Must be I'm diaphosellophani--um, long-headed.
Or my pharynx hasn't dropped yet.)
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!
Subject: Re: Why Satan is released
From: Cristian Ernesto Arredondo Carrasco
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 21:56:49 -0600
You are a fuckin bunch of stupid people that don't know anything about
what is good and what is wrong but leave me tell you one thing
Jesus is the only one that can give you the paradise and if you believe in
Satan as the salvation, man, you are dying.
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, MANINBLACK wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Eliyehowah wrote:
>
> > Satan is released in two ways.
> > First in the manner of man's sin . . .
>
> Well who released you? You turkey!
>
> Hail The Citizens of the Infernal Empire!
>
> Hail Satan!
>
>
Subject: Re: An EVEN MORE IMPORTANT FOSSIL...
From: sandee@think.com.nospam (Daan Sandee)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 15:15:42 GMT
In article , susansf@netcom.com (Susan S. Chin) writes:
|> Thanks for the reference. The version of the NY Times article I downloaded
|> actually contained a horribly glaring error... I'm curious if it appeared
|> in the paper version as well? Towards the end of the article, the author,
|> John Wilkes Noble, mentions that anatomically modern Homo sapiens
|> appeared 200 million to 100 million years ago. Now if that isn't a typo,
|> I'm not sure what is!
The error was in the paper version (p. C-5). Wednesday the NYT, always trying
to be punctilious in the matters, published a correction : 200,000 to 100,000
years.
Daan Sandee
Burlington, MA Use this email address: sandee (at) cmns . think . com
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 13:30:58 GMT
In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <56oh14$i2g@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>>Let's allow that some of the evidence (writing) is limited to
>>historically-attested languages. Loren is fond of claiming that
>>linguistic reconstructions of language are also evidence of the
>>existence of language, so to limit the language that he allows
>>has evolved to historically attested languages strongly implies
>>that he thinks whatever was spoken prior to the written evidence
>>of its having evolved, was created in the same perfectly proficient
>>form which Ben claims.
>
> I never claimed ANY SUCH THING!!!
You never claimed that linguistic reconstructions are also
evidence of language? Well, good, I'm glad we cleared that up.
>
> Just because groups of existing languages had some common
>ancestor does not preclude that ancestor having ancestors of its own.
>Thus, the Germanic languages clearly have a well-defined common ancestor,
>but this ancestor is clearly descended from the ancestor of the IE langs.
And the evidence for the ancestor of this this "well defined common
ancestor"? Surely not something like a linguistic reconstruction?
My point is simply that if language evolves and changes, models
based on historical forms which are simply extended back in time
in a linear fashion, can easily miss changes due to non isostatic
conditions. Similarly the set of data points is limited and the
rate of change changes.
>
>>If there is "no need for evolution in phonology, grammar,
>>basic vocabulary, etc." what is there need for evolution in?
>
> Words for new things.
And would a measure of this new lexicon be in any sense related
to a measure of vocabulary? Whats the difference between the old
vocabulary and the new vocabulary with its "words for new things"?
Could this perhaps be described as an ongoing and continuous
evolutionary process?
>
>>If it evolved from one souce and diffused around the world, does
>>it reflect people coming from one source and bringing language
>>with them, or did it come to people where they had settled
>>previously either without language, or with an older language
>>that the new language from the common source replaced?
>
>Most likely, our species has had language as long as humanity has
>existed. Even people in distant parts of the world with Paleolithic-level
>technology have had language.
That does not address the question I asked, unless of course, you
want to claim that this language which our species has had as long
as humanity has existed is something which always existed in one
form unchanging and absolute, ie; the same perfectly proficient
form which Ben claims.
As Alderson has pointed out in sci.lang, present theories of man's
evolution have homo erectus dispersing around the globe and then
homo sapiens evolving independently in many different places such
as China, Africa, and Java.
Language may well be something independently invented in more than
one place. It is very likely that whatever original language
people spoke, they adopted common languages throughout wider
and wider groups as they built their social structures.
Common languages may also deteriorate into dialects. Both the
separate and distinct different languages and the dialects may
interact to form hybrid pidgeons and creoles.
In the period of some 200,000 years that language was developing
around the world and individual vocabularies were probably on the
order of less than 1000 words, how many words had to be borrowed
or replaced to change the nature of a language from one group to
another?
Suppose a nomadic group moves from India up the Persian Gulf to
dwell in Syro-Anatolia c 1700 BC. How many words do they carry
with them in their language? How many new words do they pick up
in their new home? How is their unwritten, untaught, grammatical
structure affected by living among a group of people who speak
according to a different pattern?
>>How long would it take for such a process, (whatever process
>>you decide to choose) to distribute common bits of language
>>around the world. Would it make a difference in the amount
>>of time the process took, how sophisticated and urbane mankind
>>had become at the point when this occured? Would language
>>diffuse faster at a time when there were mechanisms for the
>>rapid transmission of new ideas such as boats and horses?
>
>So what if more-advanced technology helps language spread faster?
Then the rate of change in language might change at an increasing
rate, disrupting linear models which don't take that into account.
A language could be transferred any time after the 3rd millenium BC
thousands of miles in a single generation.
>
>Mr. Whittet, if you spend 1/10 the time studying historical
>linguistics that you spend on archeology, you might actually
>*learn* something about this subject.
You are right to chide me Loren, but where am I to find
historic evidence of pre-historic linguistics? Other than
either looking at archaeological evidence or engaging in the
sort of speculative reconstructions which you now deny claiming
are evidence of the existence of language, can you point me to
a place where I can go read something in a PIE language for myself?
>
>>Suppose that language were independently invented over and
>>over again all over the world. When would this first occur?
>>When was the last time you think it occured?
>
>There is good reason to suppose that that has happened only once.
Ok, I think this is a point of disagreement between us. I think
language was both independently invented many times and also
subject to both diffusion and assimilation.
>Why aren't there any language-less stragglers?
Because language tends to diffuse on contact.
>
>>>To label it anything *but* controversial is either to indulge in
>>>wishful thinking or to be uninformed. The last time I looked, the
>>>controversy hadn't been resolved.
>>What controversy do you refer to?
>
>Mr. Whittet, don't be an idiot. Ape-language claims have provoked
>some strongly skeptical responses and some failed attempts at repetition;
>the most that's been claimed is "sentences" of 2 or 3 words.
That wasn't the case even when the studies first came out in June of 66.
If you are not familiar enough with the studies to know what the claims
were, review the information on them I posted separately.
>
> [a lot of (metaphorical) squid-style squirted ink deleted...]
>--
>Loren Petrich
steve
Subject: Re: Why Satan is released
From: "Adam D. Willson"
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:48:21 -0500
On 20 Nov 1996, M. Hensler wrote:
> Satan was Lucifer, the firstborn child of the Light (aka Yahweh, aka
Satan has never been the same as Lucifer. Satan comes from the Sanskrit
words SAT the one immutable darkness/reality & TAN infused into all
things. Lucifer comes from Latin lux fere "light bearer". Obviously not a
Prince of Darkness is he, if his name means light bearer. The Dark Force
in Nature (entropy) gives birth to all of the Light Forces (i.e. photons,
phonons, quarks, whatever)
> Yaldabaoth, hereafter 'God') created to watch over the Earth. God
Ah you got part of it right. Who or what is Satan? The COSMOCRATOR, ruler
of the COSMOS.
Best regards,
Adam D. Willson
gs08adw@panther.gsu.edu
Subject: Re: lesbianism is not a disease! (was: Re: Satire: Sorting Out Arc)
From: frankzappy@aol.com
Date: 20 Nov 1996 16:13:03 GMT
In article <56sbr8$t0g@xochi.tezcat.com>, holzman@tezcat.com (Daniel B.
Holzman) writes:
>Subject: Re: lesbianism is not a disease! (was: Re: Satire: Sorting
Out Arc)
>From: holzman@tezcat.com (Daniel B. Holzman)
>Date: 19 Nov 1996 07:14:16 -0600
>
>>Meri (Laughing Out Loud!)
>>However of course IMHO it is true I have never met
>>a laugher who admits to lesbianism, nor a lesbian who laughs.
>
>I've known many lesbians who laugh.
>
>Perhaps you're just not funny.
>--
>Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts
of
>love
>and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. --
They
>took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. -- The
>word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.
>
Was the "Twelth Commandment" something about, "Thou shall not covet thy
neighbors Livestock?"
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 15:42:40 GMT
In article <329310BC.F34@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
Saida wrote:
>Daniel von Brighoff wrote:
>>
>> Saida:
>> >So what? You are completely misunderstanding the jist of what I said,
>> >which is that the English is NOT a literal translation. What is the
>> >matter with you people?
>>
>> I don't know, but I have much the same "misunderstanding" as
>> Holoholona. In your original post (quoted above), you seem to be saying
>> that the *styles* do not match: That the Hebrew Bible is written in
>> simple prose, while the KJV is written in fancy and stilted prose. (Have
>> I followed so far?) Later, you say that the KJV is not a "literal
>> translation" of the Hebrew Bible, and call this the "jist" of your
>> argument.
>>
>> Speaking as a freelance translator, I hope you understand that
>> these two statements are not equivalent. There is a great deal of
>> difference between a "literal" translation and a "faithful" one. The
>> former tend to sound quite stilted because they make use of words and
>> expressions that are infrequent in the target language, if they appear
>> in it at all.
>>
>> No one has claimed that the KJV is a literal translation of the
>> Hebrew. However, Mr. Dunsmuir and Holoholona have both said that is a
>> *faithful* one within the context of the time it was written.
>> Saida:
>> >May be now you're beginning to understand what I meant--a literal
>> >translation is virtually impossible then and now. The languages are too > >different.
>
>Thou shallt not kill Lo tirtza'ach (Not will you kill)
>Thou shallt not commit adultery Lo tinaf (Not will you commit
>adultery)
>Thou shallt not steal Lo tignov (Not will you steal)
>
>Actually, the "lo" simply means "no" and the verbs are in the form of
>the second person singular, future tense. That is the nature of the
>Semitic languages--economy of words but a complicated grammar to learn
>and remember.
You completely ignored my reply and went on to post a couple of
examples which don't really do much but illustrate the distinction I
accused you of confounding in your previous replies. I'm not sure what to
make of that.
In any case, let me try to restate my point using these examples.
You have given us a transliteration of the Hebrew accompanied by a literal
translation to the right and a faithful (albeit archaic) one to the left.
Which sounds more stilted? The literal translation, of course, as it uses
structures which have never been a part of natural English syntax.
True, the archaic faithful translation sounds more stilted than a
modernised faithful translation (e.g. "You will not kill" or "Do not
kill") would. But this is not because the prose is not "simple" or
because the words are "fancy". Indeed, how could a Jacobean writer state
"Thou shalt not kill" any more plainly?
All I believe we (if I may speak for Mr. Dunsmuir and Holoholona
for a moment) are saying here is that the KJV was a very faithful,
accessible translation *for its time*, which was centuries ago. Given the
entirely different histories of English and Hebrew [the world's only
truely successful revived language--and I hope all you Kernewek
enthusiasts will forgive me for saying that], it's not suprising that a
Hebrew version composed over three milennia ago sounds more fresh to
your modern ears than a comparatively recent English translation
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 16:15:00 GMT
In article <56t4sd$bjr@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>> So what? Attempts to estimate such rates of change have been
>>fraught with controversy. Mr. Whittet, why don't you actually *study*
>>historical linguistics for just once in your life???
>The reason they are fraught with contraversy is because the models
>assume a linear development. That is the part that doesn't work.
>When you look at it properly in terms of a rate of growth which
>increases at an increasing rate and connect that to the increased
>use of boats for transportation in the 3rd millenium, what once were
>barriers now become connections, the model works just fine.
You are dragging in a whole lot of irrelevant stuff, obfuscating
like an ink-squirting squid. The changes that I have in mind are changes
in phonology, grammar, and basic vocabulary, where it is not quite clear
that one language necessarily improves on another. For example, Old
English had u-umlaut and the fricative "kh" sound, which Modern English
lacks. OE niht was pronounced more like German nicht than modern English
"night". Also, Old English had 4 noun cases, agreement of adjectives with
nouns in gender, number, and case, and the common Germanic distinction
between "strong" and "weak" adjective conjugations -- and only 2 verb
tenses, which can be interpreted as imperfect (incomplete) and perfect
(complete) (futurity, for example, was indicated by appropriate adverbs
["later", etc .]); though with a greater number of personal endings.
Modern English has serious grammatical changes; gender is now
natural rather than grammatical, only two adjectives agree with nouns, and
that only in number ("this/these", "that/those"), the only remnants of a
case system are a personal-pronoun nominative/oblique distinction ("I/me",
"he/him", "she/her", "we/us", "they/them" -- "it/it" follows the
Indo-European Neuter Law) and the possessive suffix 's, the two tenses of
Old English are preserved, though supplemented with a large number of
compound tenses, and most of the personal endings are gone (present 3d.
pers. sing. -s is the main remaining one; only "to be" and "to have" are
more irregular than that).
I also note that most, but not all, of English's basic
vocabulary, especially such important items as pronouns, are inherited
from Old English; there are such borrowings of semi-basic words such as
"mountain". Even so, Old English looks like a foreign language to a
modern-English speaker -- because of the phonological and grammatical
changes. And those latter two are what Mr. Whittet has chosen to ignore.
[a lot of confusion of a language with its vocabulary...]
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
