Terracotta

Cowboy X, can you link to or tell me where to find more information about these comparative linguistics findings, please? Languages fascinate me, but I never studied stuff like this at my fundy university. I want to learn more. Thank you.

Pantera

I'm told that <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/026216180X/qid%3Dthesecularweb/002-1029650-5184865" target="_blank">Tower of Babel</a> by Robert T. Pennock is a good book on this area, though I haven't read it myself.

Celsus

That's an excellent book, but the section on linguistic evolution wasn't long enough, IMO. I don't have the book with me at the moment (lent it to my fundy, medical surgeon dad), but I think there was only a chapter on it. I guess linguistic evolution just doesn't get the attention it deserves.

Also, the reviews by IDers at Amazon certainly seem to indicate that the book is worth buying.

Edited to add:
This thread has gone way off topic. Sorry for my part in it.

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]</p>

Toto

A previous thread (which didn't get very far):

<a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000968" target="_blank">Nostratic and Migration Rates</a>

If you put "linguistic" and "evolution" into Google, you will find about 118,000 sites. The evolution of languages is a major part of the study of linguistics.

Heleilu

The essential problem with using linguistic evolution as a debunking of the Tower of Babel story is twofold. Just the notion of linguistic evolution isn't enough to prove the story wrong; Answers in Genesis claims that language families' proto-languages were created at the Tower of Babel, not every language individually. Assuming the reality of the Tower of Babel episode, the argument is solid.

First I looked at using proto-languages, such as Proto-Indo-European, as evidence against the Tower of Babel. Decent dates for the Tower of Babel relative to the rest of history are near impossible to pin down, but a general consensus seems to be somewhere around the 24th century BCE. Although Proto-Indo-European is usually dated to around 4000 BCE, I don't know of any indisputable linguistic evidence proving that date to be true. The first recorded example of an Indo-European language is Hittite, I believe, which doesn't go back before 1900 BCE. Five hundred years for language separation seems pretty sketchy, but I'm no expert and I wouldn't care to defend a claim of impossibility.

In my opinion, a much better defense can be made using the Semitic languages. Even disregarding their connection to the rest of Afroasiatic, something that I think a creationist would discard, they form a quite homogenous group of languages whose first recorded representative, Akkadian, appears in Sumerian texts of 2800 BCE or so. Complete Akkadian texts are attested from around 2500 BCE. This date is close enough to the 24th century date for the Tower of Babel to be fudged, but that's not the end of it. Akkadian has changed considerably in pronunciation from other Semitic languages, losing `ayin, ghayn, he, het, thaa, dhal, Dhaa (the letter that looks like Taa with a dot), Daad, and one kind of shin, and developing the vowels e and ee. Most of these features can be seen in their purity in Classical Arabic, and those that aren't can be seen in ancient South Arabian languages. Akkadian must have been first written almost directly after the Tower of Babel if the dates aren't to be completely ignored; it should be closer to Proto-Semitic than seventh-century CE Classical Arabic, not farther.

Sumerian records, instead of being explicable by a sudden suspension of the laws of language change, are simply inexplicable. Written Sumerian goes back before 2800 BCE, well before the Tower of Babel. In fact, the Tower of Babel only antedates the Flood by 150 years or so, so Sumerian is attested from pre-Flood days! So Sumerian couldn't have been one of the languages created at the Tower of Babel. Then could it be the original language? I don't think so. Sumerian continued in use as a literary language until the second century BCE or so. The numbers just don't work out.

Of course, this has completely ommitted the issue of American Indian and African languages...but I'm late for dinner as is.

Heleilu

I've looked at Tower of Babel. It explains the basics of the concept, but it just doesn't go into any detail. The rest of the book is a polemic against creationists and especially IDists. (Not to be confused with Idists, a much more benign schismatic group.) I learned about the principles of historical linguistics from a much more unorthodox source, <a href="http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/" target="_blank">Ardalambion</a>. If you want some practice applying the principles with nice, clear-cut cases and few irritating irregular developments, study the article on Primitive Elvish and engage in vinyacaarie.

Edited to fix link.

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Heleilu ]</p>