Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Osgood and the Dating of Abraham? And I am Wrong on Fibonacci Table

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Osgood and the Dating of Abraham? And I am Wrong on Fibonacci Table · 2) Creation vs. Evolution : Recalibrating the Fibonacci Table, acc. to Abraham in Chalcolithic En Gedi · 3) If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...

Osgood argues that Abraham was contemporaneous with Ghassulian (specifically Ghassulian IV) and with Jemdet Nasr.

CMI : The Times of Abraham
By Dr A.J.M. Osgood

c. 3800–c. 3350 BC Ghassulian refers to a culture and an archaeological stage dating to the Middle Chalcolithic Period in the Southern Levant (c. 3800–c. 3350 BC)
The dates for Ghassulian are dependent upon 14C (radiocarbon) determinations, which suggest that the typical later Ghassulian began sometime around the mid-5th millennium and ended ca. 3800 BC. The transition from Late Ghassulian to EB I seems to have been ca. 3800-3500 BC.

Osgood's argument for Ghassulian is related to En-Geddi.

3100–2900 BC - Jemdet Nasr
Although in older literature 3200–3000 BC can be found as the beginning and end dates of the Jemdet Nasr period, it is nowadays dated to 3100–2900 BC based on radiocarbon dating.

Osgood's argument for Jemdet Nasr is related to Chedorlaomer.

Ein Gedi

At Mikveh Cave archaeologists found Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) flint tools and an arrowhead.[citation needed] Chalcolithic

A Chalcolithic temple (ca. mid-fourth millennium BCE) belonging to the Ghassulian culture was excavated on the slope between two springs, Ein Shulamit and Ein Gedi. More Chalcolithic finds were made at the Moringa and Mikveh Caves.

This leaves either PPNA or c. 3500 BC as the periods relevant for Ein Gedi. If Osgood is wrong, it is PPNA.

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) denotes the first stage in early Levantine and Anatolian Neolithic culture, dating around 11,500 to 10,000 BP.

If Abraham was in Ein Gedi during PPNA, he was contemporary with Göbekli Tepe. Any recalibration I or any other creationist makes, since in raw data, as interpreted by conventional (and erroneous) carbon date calibration.

2957 BC
3,90625 % + 26 800 years, 29 757 BC (or less carbon and earlier? 20 000 – 50 000)
2778 BC
40,23593 % + 7550 years, 10 328 BC
2599 BC
62,75068 % + 3850 years, 6449 BC
2420 BC
76,66562 % + 2200 years, 4620 BC
2241 BC
86,26541 % + 1200 years, 3441 BC
2062 BC
91,58056 % + 730 years, 2792 BC
1883 BC
94,86521 % + 440 years, 2323 BC
1704 BC
96,89571 % + 260 years, 1964 BC
1525 BC
98,14985 % + 150 years, 1675 BC
1346 BC
98,92632 % + 90 years, 1436 BC
1167 BC
99,40408 % + 50 years, 1217 BC
988 BC
99,70269 % + 30 years, 1018 BC
809 BC
99,88185 % + 10 years, 819 BC
630 BC
100,00129 % 0 years ±, 630 BC

2241 86,26541 %
2420 76,66562 %
4661 9,59979 : 1.618 =
2330 05.9331211372064277 %
2017 76,66562 %
4347 82,5987411372064277 % * 59.105 %
= 48.819985949145859092085 % = 5950

2062 91,58056 %
2241 86,26541 %
4303 05,31515 : 1.618 =
2151 03.2850123609394314 %
2017 86,26541 %
4168 89.5504223609394314 % * 60.399 %
= 54.087559601783807171286 % = 5100

1883 94,86521 %
2062 91,58056 %
3945 03.28465 : 1.618 =
1972 02.0300679851668727 %
2017 91,58056 %
3989 93.6106279851668727 % * 61.721 %
= 57.777415698724845499167 % = 4550

2420 BC
76.66562 % + 2200 years, 4620 BC
82.5987411372064277 % + 1600 years, 3933 BC
2241 BC
86,26541 % + 1200 years, 3441 BC
89.5504223609394314 % + 910 years, 3083 BC
2062 BC
91,58056 % + 730 years, 2792 BC
1972 BC
93.6106279851668727 % + 550 years, 2533 BC
1883 BC
94.86521 % + 440 years, 2323 BC

What was, again, Osgoods argument for Jemdet Nasr?


Knowledge of Elamite history remains largely fragmentary, reconstruction being based on mainly Mesopotamian (Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian) sources. The history of Elam is conventionally divided into three periods, spanning more than two millennia. The period before the first Elamite period is known as the proto-Elamite period:

Proto-Elamite: c. 3200 – c. 2700 BC (Proto-Elamite script in Susa)
Old Elamite period: c. 2700 – c. 1600 BC (earliest documents until the Eparti dynasty)
Middle Elamite period: c. 1500 – c. 1100 BC (Anzanite dynasty until the Babylonian invasion of Susa)
Neo-Elamite period: c. 1100 – 540 BC (characterized Assyrian and Median influence. 539 BC marks the beginning of the Achaemenid period.)

Ein Gedi "3500 BC" = proto-Elamite "3200 BC"?

If any part of Abraham's life* is to be dated "3500 BC" conventional, then my table is off by (c. 2241-1972*=) c. 269 real years for 3441 BC conventional dating.

If any part of Abraham's life is to be dated "3200 BC" conventional, then my table is off by c. 179 real years for 3083 BC conventional dating. The unit of time spans for my table.

If Osgood is right about Ein Gedi, it is probably the former, and he is probably wrong about Jemdet Nasr, it was an earlier part of Proto-Elamite.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John Bosco

* Abraham was 43 in 1972 BC.

Friday, January 27, 2017

Where my dating of music differs from Habermehl's

Here is a table from Habermehl's essay or paper :

Standard Date
(presumed as C14)
 Biblical Date
(according to A. Habermehl)
Divje Babe bone flute (Turk & Dimkaroski 2011)
50,000 BP 2500 BC
Hohle Fels bone flute (Conard et al. 2009)
35,000 BP ≈2400 BC
Chinese flute set (Zhang et al. 1999)
7,000–5,000 BC 2300–2100 BC
Antaras of Peru (Bishop 2014)
≈4200 BC ≈2100 BC
Harp rock etching from Megiddo (Braun 2002)
≈3300–3000 BC 2000 BC
Lithophone of Vietnam (Lithophone 2008)
3000 BC 1900 BC
Sumerian musicians bas relief (Wilson 2012)
3000 BC 1900 BC
Boat lyre of Ur (de Schauensee 2002)
2500 BC 1600 BC
Megiddo ivory plaque lyre (Bromiley 1986)
1150 BC 650 BC
Harps bas relief from Nimrud (British Museum)
870 BC 625 BC
Hittite musicians sculpture (Ceram 1973)
750 BC 600 BC
Table: A. Habermehl 2015, transscr. HGL 2017
Dating Prehistoric Musical Instruments: The Two Timelines
Anne Habermehl

So, I know from the paper also that she goes about using all of evolutionist dating - C14 or otherwise - as one timeline, to be compressed according to the Biblical one, so she places Flood at "beginning of Huronian Ice Age" because all the ice ages were only one (doesn't mean their timeline has to be compressed into one) and "it" = "all of them" = "the first of them" began at the Flood.

While ice age may well have begun at the Flood, the dating of Huronian ice age has nothing to do with carbon dating and should not be involved in compressing the time line of carbon dates. Now, archaeology has mostly only carbon dating and dendrochronology, sometimes comparisons of style with artefacts that elsewhere have been carbon dated. So, all the time line of the musical instruments is very apt for a compression of a purely carbon date related timeline, like the compression I did here:

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte

2957 BC
or, year of the Flood
acc. to Roman Martyrology
3.90625 % + 26 800 years
29 757 BC (20 000 ?? – 50 000 ?)
2778 BC
40.23593 % + 7550 years
10 328 BC
2599 BC
62.75068 % + 3850 years
6449 BC
2420 BC
76.66562 % + 2200 years
4620 BC
2241 BC
86.26541 % + 1200 years
3441 BC
2062 BC
91.58056 % + 730 years
2792 BC
1883 BC
94.86521 % + 440 years
2323 BC
1704 BC
96.89571 % + 260 years
1964 BC
1525 BC
98.14985 % + 150 years
1675 BC
1346 BC
98.92632 % + 90 years
1436 BC
1167 BC
99.40408 % + 50 years
1217 BC
988 BC
99.70269 % + 30 years
1018 BC
809 BC
99.88185 % + 10 years
819 BC
630 BC
100.00129 % 0 years ±.
630 BC

Since a few days ago, I consider that dates from 20,000 BC are clearly post-Flood. 22000 BP = 6.986 % remaining.

6.986 % remaining, divided by the 54.788 % of decay mean the original, if from that year, would have been 12.75 %, which is a high contrast to a mean of 3.9 % and minima reaching below. Even if post-Flood levels soon rose from 3.9 % past these 12.75 %, to 40 % in only 179 years.

Standard Date (presumed as C14) Biblical Date (Fibonacci table for C-14 conversion)
Divje Babe bone flute
50,000 BP pre-Flood or close to Flood 2957 BC
Hohle Fels bone flute
35,000 BP pre-Flood or close to Flood 2957 BC
For above, pre-Flood values are possible, and for Divjo Babe bone flute at least rather probable.
Chinese flute set
7,000–5,000 BC (C14?)  2778 - 2599 - 2420 BC
Antaras of Peru (Bishop 2014)
≈4200 BC 2420 - 2241 BC
Harp rock etching from Megiddo
≈3300–3000 BC 2241 - 2062 BC
Lithophone of Vietnam
3000 BC 2241 - 2062 BC
Sumerian musicians bas relief
3000 BC 2241 - 2062 BC
Boat lyre of Ur
2500 BC 2062 - 1883 BC
Megiddo ivory plaque lyre
1150 BC 1167 - 988 BC
Harps bas relief from Nimrud
870 BC 988 - 809 BC
Hittite musicians sculpture
750 BC 809 - 630 BC
Table: H. G. Lundahl 2017

I have here not dared to be more precise than giving a Biblical date between two years.

How would I go about 7000 - 5000 BC for a more precise date?

2778 40.23593 %
2599 62.75068 %
5377 C2.98661 %
2688 51.4933 %
51.4933 % * 56.6 % = 29.1452078 %
29.1452078 % = 10200 BP = 8200 BC

2688 051.4933 %
2599 062.75068 %
5287 114.24398 %
2643 057.12199 %
57.12199 % * 56.909 % = 32.5075532891 %
32.5075532891 % = 9300 BP = 7300 BC

2643 057.12199 %
2599 062.75068 %
5242 119.87267 %
2621 059.93633 %
59.93633 % * 57.061 % = 34.2002692613 %
34.2002692613 % = 8850 BP = 6833 BC

2643 057.12199 %
2621 059.93633 %
5264 117.05832 %
2632 058.02916 % * 56.985 %
= 33.067916826 % = 9150 BP = 7133 BC

Close enough to 7000 BC.

And for the other date, 5000 BC?

2599 062.75068 %
2420 076.66562 %
5019 139.4163 %
2509 069.70815 % * 57.839 %
= 40.3184968785 % = 7500 BP = 5500 BC

2509 069.70815 %
2420 076.66562 %
4929 146.37377 %
2464 073.186885 % * 58.155 %
= 42.56183297175 % = 7050 BP = 5013 BC

Close enough too.

A caveat, I skipped the part in which 2017-1950 = 67 years are deduced from the resulting dates to get a conventional BP, and instead deduced the 2017 (or at worst 2000) from the BP date instead of deducing 1950, to get the BC date.

Another caveat. The table I came up with should, on a graph, be a curve. This way of calculating flattens the stretch between the already fixed points.

Apart from that, a carbon date 7000 - 5000 BC = roughly a Biblically revised carbon date of 2632 - 2464 BC. Two millennia reduced to less than two hundred years. And I suppose that the set of flutes has not been dated in the flutes themselves, but that the place they were found in has been dated by similarity to a culture elsewhere carbon dated at 7000 - 5000 BC. Supposing the flutes were dated themselves, that would mean that a double flute either had been 2000 years between the one which is original and the one which is repair or less than 200 years, much more realistic. But I hope Zhang et al. back in 1999 didn't miss such a thing. So, I hope for their sake, the dating of the flute set is not carbon dating on the flutes themselves.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. John Chrysostom*

* I could also have taken St Angela Merici, but since this is music, and since the patron Saint of Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgang Gottlieb Mozart, better known as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is St John Chrysostom ...

Monday, January 23, 2017

I have cited Carmignac here before. This time, it will be in a better light.

Here is a reference to his uncharitable reference to "fundamentalist", in French:

Pour répondre à l'Abbé Carmignac (post humum)

He was of course totally wrong to presume Catholic and Funamentalist contradict each other as terms go. Or perhaps it has since back in 1982 become lots commoner for inerrantist (which means orthodox) Catholics to be described as Fundamentalists and for the Protestant Fundamentalists or sometimes even Jewish ones to a more relaxed attitude to Catholicism, at least those of us who are inerrantists.

He had a better side, as I learned today.

Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early

The copying of following extract involved some edits, since letters showed a grammatically correct way but were exchanged when copied. I have left edits which make overkill. The figure 3 was coded by capital B and I left 3s for original and correct b's too. Same with 8 coded as D and left when replacing original d's which were correct too. I should have clicked "respecter la case" and so only B and not b, only D and not d would have been affected.

Carmignac, a 8ea8 Sea Scrolls translator an8 an expert in the He3rew in use at the time of Christ, reache8 conclusions similar to Ro3inson's, 3ut he came at the pro3lem from a 8ifferent angle.

He translate8 the synoptic Gospels "3ackwar8s," from Greek into He3rew, an8 he was astonishe8 at what he foun8.

"I wante8 to 3egin with the Gospel of Mark. In or8er to facilitate the comparison 3etween our Greek Gospels an8 the He3rew text of Qumran, I trie8, for my own personal use, to see what Mark woul8 yiel8 when translate8 3ack into the He3rew of Qumran.

"I ha8 imagine8 that this translation woul8 3e 8ifficult 3ecause of consi8era3le 8ifferences 3etween Semitic thought an8 Greek thought, 3ut I was a3solutely 8um3foun8e8 to 8iscover that this translation was, on the contrary, extremely easy.

"Aroun8 the mi88le of April 1963, after only one 8ay of work, I was convince8 that the Greek text of Mark coul8 not have 3een re8acte8 8irectly in Greek an8 that it was in reality only the Greek translation of an original He3rew."

Carmignac, who 8ie8 recently, ha8 planne8 for enormous 8ifficulties, 3ut they 8i8n't arise. He 8iscovere8 the Greek translator of Mark ha8 slavishly kept to the He3rew wor8 or8er an8 grammar.


Consi8er just one example. (Carmignac gives many, 3ut his short 3ook isn't weighe8 8own with them.) The 3ene8ictus, the song of Zachary, is given in Luke 1:68-79. In Greek, as in English, the 3ene8ictus, as poetry, seems unexceptional. There is no evi8ence of clever composition. But, when it is translate8 into He3rew, a little marvel appears.

In the phrase "to show mercy to our fathers," the expression "to show mercy" is the He3rew ver3 hanan, which is the root of the name Yohanan (John).

In "he remem3ers his holy covenant," "he remem3ers" is the ver3 zakar, which is the root of the name Zakaryah (Zachary).

In "the oath which he swore to our father A3raham" is foun8, for "to take an oath," the ver3 shaba, which is the root of the name Elishaba (Eliza3eth).

"Is it 3y chance," asks Carmignac, "that the secon8 strophe of this poem 3egins 3y a triple allusion to the names of the three protagonists: John, Zachary, Eliza3eth? But this allusion only exists in He3rew; the Greek or English translation 8oes not preserve it."

So far Carmignac. An achievement which I think some Fundamentalists will appreciate./HGL

One Isaiah, Not Two, Not Three

Was the Book of Isaiah (Bible) written by one person?

Own answer
There are two answers.

Hebrew (both Jewish and Christian, but not Samaritan) tradition says, yes, all of Isaiah was written by the prophet known by that name.

The other answer is, "no, differences of content and style indicate there were really two authors".

Exit common sense and enter a discussion on what parts of Isaiah are Isaiah and what parts are Deutero-Isaiah.

Robert Edward Lewis,
Relatively knowledgable about theology and Church history
Written Fri · Upvoted by Will Fox
Even the usually conservative/traditional Roman Catholic church has agreed with modern scholarship that there are several different persons responsible for the content of the book of Isaiah.


“The complete Book of Isaiah is an anthology of poems composed chiefly by the great prophet, but also by disciples, some of whom came many years after Isaiah. In 1–39 most of the oracles come from Isaiah and reflect the situation in eighth-century Judah. Sections such as the Apocalypse of Isaiah (24–27), the oracles against Babylon (13–14), and probably the poems of 34–35 were written by followers deeply influenced by the prophet, in some cases reusing earlier Isaianic material; cf., e.g., 27:2–8 with 5:1–7.

Chapters 40–55 (Second Isaiah, or Deutero-Isaiah) are generally attributed to an anonymous poet who prophesied toward the end of the Babylonian exile. From this section come the great oracles known as the Servant Songs, which are reflected in the New Testament understanding of the passion and glorification of Christ. Chapters 56–66 (Third Isaiah, or Trito-Isaiah) contain oracles from the postexilic period and were composed by writers imbued with the spirit of Isaiah who continued his work.”

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are linking to a page by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

They are NOT conservative.

Will Fox
Do you think it's at all possible that his disciples changed some of his writings minorly?

Robert Edward Lewis
The person believed to be 1 Isaiah lived about 400 years before his work was merged with other writings into what is currently known as the Book of Isaiah. Tradition and sayings and writing were handed down over centuries. Probably some things were changed. But the stuff commonly attributed to 2nd and 3rd Isaiah is very different from the first part.

It is like attributing to Abraham Lincoln an essay on why America should send a man to the moon. Is it possible that Abraham would have been interested in the moon? Yes. Would he have written about space exploration, years before the airplane was invented and a century before space flight became a real possibility? No.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"But the stuff commonly attributed to 2nd and 3rd Isaiah is very different from the first part."

Very possible.

"It is like attributing to Abraham Lincoln an essay on why America should send a man to the moon."

Not really.

"Is it possible that Abraham would have been interested in the moon? Yes."

Not a real parallel, since ....

"Would he have written about space exploration, years before the airplane was invented and a century before space flight became a real possibility? No."

The difference is, Isaiah was a prophet, Abraham Lincoln was not.

Can St John, on Patmos, have written about air planes or helicopters near two millennia before they were invented (for the former perhaps reinvented)? Well, it seems locusts with faces like men are a fairly visual description of choppers.

Can he have written about ASCII binary numeric values of letters, near two millennia before computers were invented? Well, ASCII fits Domitian very much better than either Greek or (as far as I knonw) Hebrew gematria.

DOMITIANE = 68+79+77 ...

Since Isaiah was a prophet, all of your argument boils down to prophecy not being a realistic option, to all prophecies being ex eventu.

Robert Edward Lewis
you totally misunderstand the role of a prophet in historic Judah/Israel. They are not future tellers, they are people who dream possibilities. No one knows the details of the future, not even God. But people with gifts and intuition can point to such things. Martin Luther King was a prophet. But did he talk abut iPhones and Tesla cars???… no. Neither did Isaiah 1 talk about the destruction of the Temple and its restoration, of exile and deliverance. That prophet talked about things that were happening in his world and the consequences of injustice.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"They are not future tellers, they are people who dream possibilities."

For exactly one scenario, you are nearly right : if God foretells a conditional punishment and the prophet gives the culprits a chance of repentance. Even so, should they clearly not repent and should they not be punished in foretold way either, we would be dealing with a false prophet.

The Torah does say that prophets are foretelling things, since it gives an inerrant fulfilment of what the prophet foretells as one criterium for telling a true prophet from a false one.

"No one knows the details of the future, not even God."

False. God is not in time, therefore God knows the "future" (what is such or once was such to us) as we know the present which is before us here and now.

"Martin Luther King was a prophet. But did he talk abut iPhones and Tesla cars???… no."

Martin Luther King was not a prophet.

He was an intellectual, he famously had a dream, but he was not a prophet.

"Neither did Isaiah 1 talk about the destruction of the Temple and its restoration, of exile and deliverance."

There was one Isaiah. Your reason for posing a II and a III possibly too, is denial of what prophecy means.

"That prophet talked about things that were happening in his world and the consequences of injustice."

He also talked about things that were GOING to happen, like Cyrus, and of future consequences of prolonged injustice.

Part of Catholic Response
The story of this controversy centres almost wholly round the pontificate of Pius X, in which its acute phases occurred, but its origins stretch far back into the nineteenth century. The rapid progress made by the natural sciences in that epoch,- together with a more critical study of ancient documents, had set in train many new speculations. There were those who proclaimed that the freshly acquired knowledge, both historical and scientific, had undermined the foundations of Christianity, if not of all religion ; others affirmed that the new knowledge was either not knowledge at all, or, if it was real knowledge, was reconcilable with orthodox religion. A third party asserted that, while the essentials of Christianity were untouched, modifications of Christian dogma had become imperative. This was a relatively easy position for a Protestant to take up, since the Protestant denominations disclaimed doctrinal infallibility. No Catholic could seriously maintain it. For a man who held that one Catholic dogma was untenable was as much outside the Church as another who said that all must be rejected.

Meeting the Higher Criticism By HUMPHREY J. T. JOHNSON
The Tablet of 29th May 1954, Page 11

[While Johnson accurately tells us why Catholics rejected Modernism, he doesn't quite stick to it.]

Citing Pontifical Bible Commission 1908 with Explanations
Regarding prophecy, it is one hallmark of modernist biblical interpretation that no prophecy is acknowledged to be truly supernatural in character: if Daniel predicts something that did in fact happen in the future, the only "rational" explanation is that Daniel must have been written after the fact to give the appearance of prophecy. This anti-supernaturalism is usually taken for granted and not explicitly stated. In Reply I, the PBC condemns the following proposition:

"That the predicitions read in the Book of Isaiah-and throughout the Scriptures-are not predictions properly so called, but either narrations put together after the event, or, if anything has to be acknowledged as foretold before the event, that the prophet foretold it not in accordance with a supernatural revelation of God who foreknows future events, but by conjectures formed...and shrewdly by natural sharpness of mind..."

Reply II upholds the eschatological and Messianic interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies against an over-exuberant preterism (the belief that prophecies were fulfilled not long after they were made and were always for the prophet's own time only and have no future fufilment). The following proposition in condemned:

"Isaiah and the other prophets did not put forth predicitions except about events that were to happen in the immediate future or after no long space of time..."

The remaining three replies all deal with the argument that Isaiah had multiple authors. This is a very common assumption nowadays, one even made by otherwise conservative and orthodox persons (although some still cast doubt on the multiple-authorship theory, as does Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., in his book Inside the Bible, where the multiple-authorship theory is mentioned but not endorsed). The main argument for the multiple authorship of Isaiah comes from the fact that chapters 40-66 seem to speak to post-Exilic Jews. Taking the presupposition that Isaiah could not have known or written about events two centuries in the future, it is presumed that another author wrote chapters 40-66. As evidence for this, modernists will point out that had Isaiah actually prophesied about these events so far in advance, his contemporaries would not have known what he was talking about!

Reply III condemns the idea that a prophet must be understood by his contemporaries. Reply IV condemns the idea that a philological or textual critique of Isaiah turns up any evidence of mutliple authorship. Reply V deals with the possibility that many of these arguments taken altogether could cast doubt on the single-authorship and lead us to believe that the book was attributed "not to Isaiah alone, but to two or even several authors." Like the previous assertions, this one is condemned as well. While the idea of multiple authorship itself is not condemned, the Replies condemnt the notion that there is any textual evidence of multiple-authorship. Thus, the PBC is saying, "If you believe in mutiple-authorship, know that there is no good reason to do so."

Unam Sanctam Catholicam : Revisiting the Pontifical Biblical Commission (part 1)

[Blog owner is known as Boniface X, a Papal claimant, though not the one I support. As per 23.I.2017]

Friday, January 13, 2017

Old and Original Languages (from Quora)

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : 1) Old and Original Languages (from Quora) · Creation vs. Evolution : 2) Origin of Language (from Quora, Debating with Barry Hampe)

How did people first figure out what words in foreign languages mean?
I wonder how people first learned the meaning of words in a different language, especially for those with abstract or complicated meanings.

Own answer:
In history, most regions have been in contact for so long that one way of learning a foreign language is most often available, which is asking a previous bilingual.

Now, you are asking about situations in which language acquisition needs to start all over.

This is not quite just a historical question, it is also about situations which occur today. A missionary or an ethnologist finds a new people in Amazonas or New Guinea. They have to start all over.

Now, the thing is missionaries and ethnologists are usually good linguists, so they know how to arrange for systematic study.

Presumably the first time it happened was just after Babel, and they weren’t very good linguists back then.

So, presumably they did it like ethnologists or missionaries do - Jan Miś gave an example for concrete words - and sometimes fail.

I recall trying that method when starting to learn English.

I already knew that “blomma” was “flower”. I wanted to know how to say stem or stalk and pointed to one, and the boys I was with thought I pointed to the flower and told me “flower”.

Who was the earliest human whose name we know?
Asking this just out of curiosity.

xkcd Airplane Message says that Iry Hor was the earliest human whose name we know. But Wiki entry for Iry-Hor says that he is the earliest ruler of Egypt known by name. Is there any other person from maybe outside Egypt or non-ruler that we know to be the earliest person whose name we know?

Own answer:
If Adam was the earliest man of all, and we know his name, it was Adam.

If not, how can any early man’s name in any other ancient culture than the Hebrew be guaranteed to be not “mythical”?

How did the earliest humans communicate without a language system?

Own answer:
As far as the Bible tells us, there never ever was any such situation.

Adam was created with full linguistic not just potential but also competence in the Adamic language which arguably was Hebrew.

As far as evolutionism goes, there would be different guesses.

I don’t think any of them is convincing.

[other answer]
Michael DeBusk
Armchair linguist, and not an expensive fancy armchair either
Written Nov 22
No one knows, but we can assume by watching our fellow apes. They vocalize, use gestures and postures, and have very expressive faces, just as we do.

Ape Communication

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That guess is one of the major issues which seriously alienated me from Evolutionism.

The problem is : how do you develop anything like a human language from such a situation?

How were languages made by humans?

Own answer:
Do you mean "language" or "languageS"?

If you mean language as such, Bible says humans didn't invent it, God gave it. Evolutionists keep guessing otherwise, but can't get together a concrete how.

If you mean languageS, one very common process is being sloppy about details in the language you learned from your parents. Or even doing a variation on purpose because it sounds cool. Some of these changes catch on so well they become only option for future generations. When many of these have piled up, you have a new language. At least in speech. When it comes to writing, the diversity of spoken language can continue to be bridged by a common written one, until for some reason there is a break.

A less common one is to be confronted with having very many different languages, and trying to bridge. I personally think the earliest attempt at Indo-European would have been an attempt at a bridging language. Perhaps it only got as far as vocabulary items and case endings and personal endings on verbs (shared with Fenno-Ugric, mostly) catching on, while they otherwise kept their languages as previously. One late example which hasn't caught on is of course Esperanto.

If you mean languages invented just for fun, take a look at how Tolkien did it. Fauskanger on his site has gathered some of the info available from various hints of that author. And Tolkien need not have been the first conlanger.

What were the earliest human languages like, and how do we know?

Own answer:
There are two views on this one.

The Catholic view is that the first human language was probably Hebrew and certainly a language with full range of expression, given by God to Adam, except that Adam got to name the animals.

How we know? From the Bible.

The Evolutionist view is the first human languages were more limited in expression, intermediate in range between the human languages we know and the voice signals made by animals.

How they know?

From the comic book Rahan showing a situation in which personal pronouns were avoided? From the Jungle language in Tarzan being shared both between "great apes" and "men of Opar"? No, these are fiction.

From assessing the brain capacity and concluding from there that such and such a hominid could not yet have spoken a fully human language? No, since it is not clear that Australopithecus Africanus ever spoke any language, nor that Homo Erectus could not have spoken languages as we know, from studying their brains - or rather skull cavities where the brains once were. And from the genome of Neanderthals which has been sequenced, we know they were genetically as capable as we of having a normal language.

So, only from assuming that early humans evolved from non-human ancestors, that is how.

No human population alive today speaks a language which could reasonably by a linguist be characterised as belonging to subhuman and pre-human hominids. Unlike what certain colonials and non-linguists thought that the linguists would find.

[other answer]
Baggio Wong,
studied at West Island School
Written 7h ago
Tim Doner gives an interesting talk about language origins, and if memory serves, talks about reconstructing (potentially) how old languages sound. It’s worth a listen if you have time.

Tim Doner - Family Matters: A Look at the Indo-European Languages
Polyglot Conference

Essentially, again, this is from memory, there’s no way of knowing how old languages sound.

But we can guess.

By comparing similar words in related languages, it’s possible to deduce how certain syllables are constructed and pronounced.

But I’m by no means knowledgeable - the video presents the topic in a really interesting way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have a problem.

If the Bible is true, Proto-Indo-European can’t have been spoken in 4000 BC (a modern Creationist would consider that finds dated to 4000 BC are misdated due to a lower carbon 14 content back then). Unless PIE were the language given by God to Adam, but theologically, Hebrew is lots likelier.

If on the other hand Evolution is true, you haven’t answered the question, as there is no chance Proto-Indo-European can have been spoken by the earliest humans about 100 000 years or 200 000 years earlier than Proto-Indo-European in 4000 BC.

Baggio Wong
Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah, that seems like very specialized knowledge on the topic. I didn’t know. Thanks for the addendum. And, no, I don’t have an answer the the question, I don’t really know myself, so I can’t definitively answer per se, I’m just pointing to a video I watched a long time that might be interesting. :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thank you very much, if it is the video I think it is, I liked it too.

It is just that it is about a language group which started out much more recently than the earliest humans.

I am just watching another one, on a related topic.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

J'aime le chloka

Ce matin, je suis allé chez des gens qui ont un cyber, et la musique n'était pas celle d'ordinaire d'en Inde, c'était beaucoup plus rhythmé, sérieux et ... harmonieux, quoique belliqueux.

J'ai demandé, et on vient de me confirmer que c'était du Mahabharata.

Disons, le chloka est un bon moyen d'éviter l'oubli des mots par méprise. Une fois qu'on apprend un poème avec son mètre, il est un peu plus ancré que si c'était de la prose, car il est ancré par le sens et par le son.

Donc, les erreurs qui se trouvent dans le Mahabharata ne sont pas question d'ineptitude de transmission une fois fait le poème. Plutôt la transmission entre idolâtres avant le poème, peut-être aussi des ajouts ou délésions décidées délibérément, mais dscrètement. Mais pas le simple oubli.

D'ailleurs, je viens de faire un petit effort en latin, et de contenu chrétien, en chloka:

Qui vult et amat animo
Pervenerit in omne quod
Proposuit sibi faci
Mali vel boni et intime :

Effectus autem in alios
Aliasque et iam intra res
Aliquando prohibitur
A rebus quae ad extra sunt.

On utilise les élisions comme dans la versification antique "boni et intime" a cinq syllabes, pas six, "iam intra res" en a trois (bogne ète ine-ti-mé ... yine-tra réce).

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Paul le Premier Hermite
10.I.2017 Peut-être pas très bien, à la fois en latin, en chloka et en théologie morale, mais c'est aussi un premier pour le chloka.