(December 21, 2017 at 10:08 pm)Haipule Wrote: A part of language is etymology. I read an interesting book written by the linguist John McWhorter, frequent guest on fox news, titled, "The POWER of BABLE". In it he states:
"In Old English, the word that became silly meant “blessed.” Just as wanting to do something implies that one will do it, blessedness implies innocence. That kind of implication led people to gradually incorporate innocence into their conception of the word, and through time innocence ended up becoming the main connotation rather than the “definition 2” one, just as one sound gradually becomes another one through shades of the new sound gradually encroaching on the original one. Thus, by the Middle Ages silly meant “innocent”: about 1400, we find sentences such as Cely art thou, hooli virgyne marie. If one is innocent, one is deserving of compassion, and this was the next meaning of the word (a 1470 statement: Sely Scotland, that of helpe has gret neide), but because the deserving of compassion has a way of implying weakness, before long the meaning of silly was “weak” (1633: Thou onely art The mightie God, but I a sillie worm). From here it was a short step to “simple” or “ignorant,” and finally silly came to mean “foolish”- having begun meaning “sanctified by God”!"-- The POWER of BABLE, by John McWhorter, page 32
(December 20, 2017 at 10:09 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Yes, I agree. How humans acquired language, is a valid question. There are scientists in several applicable fields studying the subject.
I probably also agree that humanity did not 'invent' intellect or the ability to use language. They were acquired through natural evolutionary mechanisms.
What is not valid, however, is your claim that we must have been given language. Unless you can support it with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument, that we were indeed 'given language'.
Who is the language giver? What is your evidence?
Thank you! I think it was a valid question and so wrote it as a question.
You still don't get it. Your question was valid, yes.
BUT your premises weren't valid or sound, therefore, they do not lead to your conclusion.
Again, this is basic logic 101. You really should read a book on basic logic and forming valid and sound syllogisms.
Quote:The statement that man cannot think beyond his vocabulary is also valid.
Not without supporting it with demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, it isn't. As it is, it is nothing more than an unsupported assertion.
Quote:But, since we are on the Christian thread, biblically, God formed Adam and gave him a breath. Adam's job was to name the animals which would require a genius intellect from the start.
Another unsupported assertion.
Not to mention, that ALL of the scientific evidence available (fossil, DNA, comparative anatomy, etc), pretty much disproves that there was ever a 'first man, first woman' as depicted in the Biblical myth.
Quote:Then we have the tower of Babel where the language became languages. It says God did this or nothing would be impossible for man. Yet, now we have the internet and nothing is impossible for us now! Ha Ha Ha!
Another unsupported assertion.
No wonder you believe in ancient myths.
Quote:I can give you no scientific evidence for a Giver and you can give me no evidence of "natural evolutionary mechanisms". To say, "I am here, I can think, I can speak" does not prove an evolutionary process of human life nor the ability to even say it proves it was a process of evolution just because you said it. Evolution, when it comes to mankind and man things, drives me ape! Beyond that, go for'em Cuz!
There is tons of compelling natural evidence for explanations for language. Ignore it all you want, but it exists.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
