tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
Yeah I agree with that. Lets leave the God equation out for now.really adding god to the equation is muddying the waters , why not stick to the historical facts as a basis for age
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yeah I agree with that. Lets leave the God equation out for now.really adding god to the equation is muddying the waters , why not stick to the historical facts as a basis for age
Okay. What if he felt like it would be better for our spiritual development to try to remember his word and fail than to write it down and rely on that? I don't know if the Qur'an has anything in it to suggest that he wanted that, but the New Testament has it talks about how God wants his people to write his law not on tablets of stone but on the fleshy tablets of their hearts. Maybe we'd be better followers of God if we imperfectly memorize his whole word than if we have it in a book that we know we can read whenever we want so we don't bother learning it as well as we otherwise might.But, again, why would God do it that way? He couldn't possibly expect it to be passed down completely orally. He would know that there was no way for humans to remember it perfectly.
Okay. Yeah. That makes good sense. Especially in light of what Riverwolf said:It still wouldn't make sense for him to create this perfect language for us, but not give us a writing system for it.
Divine MO certainly seems to include revealing writing systems. (Though remember that the Futhark isn't just for Scandinavians, but for all Germanics!)After all, the same god gave the Hebrews their writing style and another god, Odin, gave the Futhark(Runes) to the Scandinavians. (if you believe those legends anyway... which I don't, BTW) Therefore it would be out of character to impart a language without a writing system to use it with.
Oops. Sorry. We cross posted there, and I missed the memo!Yeah I agree with that. Lets leave the God equation out for now.
Yeah I agree with that. Lets leave the God equation out for now.
(Though remember that the Futhark isn't just for Scandinavians, but for all Germanics!)
(William Jones (philologist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)).Sanskrit language, whatever its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; bearing both to Latin and Greek a strong affinity both in the root of verbs and in the forms of grammar, that no philologer could examine them all three without believing them to have sprung from some common source that perhaps no longer exists
We'll see how leaving God out of the equation hinders the progress of my debate.
Now as I tried to establish the very fact that philology focuses on scriptures rather than focus is a matter of convenience but not the correct approach. Arabic scriptures' coming into being years after other languages can in no way suggest it being a language of the latter days especially given the lack of literacy prevalent in the Arab world for a long time. So I ask all you scholars in these forums to consider that before displaying figures and graphs showing Arabic not to be the first language.
Sir William Jones considered to be the first great European Scholar of Sanskrit in an address said:
(William Jones (philologist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)).
The last part is the key point I beg to differ with. If using the methods of root comparison it can be shown that Arabic is that language that unites all the other languages then ... well that's it then, isn't it?
Even if you could show that Arabic is the source for Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, it wouldn't show that Arabic is the source for all languages. What about Navajo? Quechua? Basque? Fijian? Warlpiri?The last part is the key point I beg to differ with. If using the methods of root comparison it can be shown that Arabic is that language that unites all the other languages then ... well that's it then, isn't it?
This is a rather minority opinion among scholars. Why do you believe this?every language came from the same original source
Of course, a single lexical item isn't enough to definitively show anything one way or another, but that's not what I want to focus on. I think it's important to point out that he'll have to do more than show a resemblance between the various languages of the world on the one hand and Arabic on the other. To make a convincing argument, he'll have to show the regular systematic changes that occurred in the development of each daughter that derived that daughter from the parent. And those changes, being regular and systematic, will have to apply for hundreds of lexical items and (more importantly, since the lexicon is the part of the language most susceptible to borrowing) phonological and morphosyntactic categories.Our word is God. Japanese is Kami. Sanskrit has(from Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit, bold words used to describe God himself) Deva, Devata, Isvara, Bhagavat, Paramasvera, Amara, Divaukas, Vibhuda, and Sura. (Sanskrit speakers, correct me if I'm wrong) Do ANY of those words resemble the word Allah even remotely? (maybe with a stretch of imagination...)
He is going to have a very tough time. He recommends you just read the book he pointed to in the first place. But he is going to do it the long way too. He sighs because he really did bite what will take some time to chew.Of course, a single lexical item isn't enough to definitively show anything one way or another, but that's not what I want to focus on. I think it's important to point out that he'll have to do more than show a resemblance between the various languages of the world on the one hand and Arabic on the other. To make a convincing argument, he'll have to show the regular systematic changes that occurred in the development of each daughter that derived that daughter from the parent. And those changes, being regular and systematic, will have to apply for hundreds of lexical items and (more importantly, since the lexicon is the part of the language most susceptible to borrowing) phonological and morphosyntactic categories.
That's the standard we're going to have to hold him to. It takes a lot more than pointing out resemblances to make someone a comparative linguist.
This is a rather minority opinion among scholars. Why do you believe this?
Well now that I'm quoting you, I'll talk straight to you!He is going to have a very tough time. He recommends you just read the book he pointed to in the first place. But he is going to do it the long way too. He sighs because he really did bite what will take some time to chew.
Ah. I misunderstood you before. Thanks for the clarification.I'm not saying there was one language that begat all other languages. I'm just saying that all modern languages came from other languages. Modern English came from Middle English, that type of thing. Of course it is highly likely that by the time language came to be (as opposed to communication through other more rudimentary means), humans were dispersed widely enough that several languages popped up separately.
Ah! A Chomskyian!Of course, you could also look at it as all language did come from the same source, the human mind.
Ah! A Chomskyian!
Of course, you're not necessarily saying that you believe in Universal Grammar or anything like that. You simply allowed me the opportunity to see things that way!
Man! I'm just really good at misunderstanding you today! Maybe four and a half fours really wasn't enough sleep last night!Yeah, that doesn't necessarily point to a universal grammar. Basically, it was more the difference between language made up by humans and language given to humans from God.
I think there's only a universal grammar because of societies.
I'm not saying there was one language that begat all other languages. I'm just saying that all modern languages came from other languages. Modern English came from Middle English...
Man! I'm just really good at misunderstanding you today! Maybe four and a half fours really wasn't enough sleep last night!
ME is not a combination between OE and OF. It is overwhelmingly the product of natural internal developments within OE. It might be possible to make a case for ME being a combination (or creole) between OE and Old Norse, but even that's pretty shaky when you consider the development of the other Germanic languages, which all kind of tended to follow the same sorts of paths as OE > ME.
The primary French influence on ME was the spelling reform introduced by the Normans. That's what makes early ME look so different from late OE. But that shift happened (as one would expect of a spelling reform in a largely illiterate society) essentially overnight, as can be seen in the Petersborough Chronicle, which shifts from lOE to eME from one year to the next.
Early ME is late OE spelled according to the rules of writing French.