Freethought & Rationalism Archive

demoninho · 08-11-2003, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Scientific Babelism By Tim Gorski M.D.

Quote:

But the truth about historical linguistics is that it is nothing but a theory. If it were true, there would be all sorts of examples of words and sentences turning into each other when nothing of the sort has ever been observed. No one has ever seen, for example, "sobaka" [Russian] turn into "dog." No one has ever seen "sayonara" [Japanese} turning into "goodbye." And how could such words even be supposed to gradually turn into each other? What meaning would "sobaog" or "sayobye" have?
And these are just simple words. The historical linguists claim that whole languages can turn into each other. This is like saying that a child growing up in an Eskimo village could suddenly begin speaking fluent Armenian! It is asking us to believe that there could be transitional languages in which all the nouns were English, all the verbs Spanish, and all the adjectives and adverbs Vietnamese!

Quote:

Even the laws of physics prove the fact that the historical linguists' claims are sheer fantasy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, for example, states that things can never go from simple to complex but are always tending towards more and more disorganization. This is undoubtedly why so many people are having more and more difficulty understanding God's Holy Word as it is written in the Bible. And the historical linguists are accelerating the corruption of our God-given English language with their Satanic plot!

It's gotta be a satire, right? NO:banghead:

demoninho · 08-11-2003, 08:56 AM

Maybe it's a bit off topic, but I have always wondered why the oldest languages seem to be far more complex gramatically compered to their modern variants.

RufusAtticus · 08-11-2003, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by demoninho
Maybe it's a bit off topic, but I have always wondered why the oldest languages seem to be far more complex gramatically compered to their modern variants.

It's because you're thinking of Indo-European languages. Gramatical complexity (defined by inflections) actually cycles. Languages simplify until they become too simple and then new affixes are developed that bring new clarity, these in turn eventually becom simplified to oblivion. We've just been caught on the "reducing" phase of indo-european. However, we know that Prot-Indoeuropean is more regular (less exceptions) than say Sanskrit.

There are examples of other languages that have added inflections in the past 1000 years.

08-11-2003, 09:11 AM

demoninho: it is a satire -- a lovely one.

Roland98 · 08-11-2003, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by demoninho
It's gotta be a satire, right? NO:banghead:

Yikes, are you sure about that?

If not, I love the use of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to apply to linguistics. If so, please tell me where this M.D. practices so I can stay the hell away from there!!

demoninho · 08-11-2003, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
demoninho: it is a satire -- a lovely one.

You're right looked around the rest of the site, but I've seen so many real sites like this it's hard to tell'm apart.

emotional · 08-11-2003, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by demoninho
Maybe it's a bit off topic, but I have always wondered why the oldest languages seem to be far more complex gramatically compered to their modern variants.

Modern languages aren't less complicated than old ones, overall. Certainly they may lose complexity in one area, but for this they gain complexity in another. English is a case in point: the complexity of the old inflections is more than compensated by the complexity of modern syntax and tenses. "I have been doing" is a complex structure that Old English did not have (hint: Old English had present and past only - just two tenses). Word order in English has also become rigid instead of free: micel ge�eaht hafde se cyning, with object-verb-subject, means the king had a great council - the free order O-V-S is no longer allowed.

wandererfromtx · 08-11-2003, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland98
Yikes, are you sure about that?

If not, I love the use of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to apply to linguistics. If so, please tell me where this M.D. practices so I can stay the hell away from there!!

This was satire; Dr. Gorski delivered both of my boys. He is a great Doctor and nice guy, along with being a staunch non-believer.

Timothy N. Gorski, M.D., F.A.C.O.G. -- Pastoral Director, responsible for designing and producing large portions of our monthly Sunday Service, and for leading the ministering and outreach activities for our Members.

http://church.freethought.org/intro.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2003, 08:56 AM	#12
demoninho Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 927	Maybe it's a bit off topic, but I have always wondered why the oldest languages seem to be far more complex gramatically compered to their modern variants.

08-11-2003, 09:11 AM	#14
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	demoninho: it is a satire -- a lovely one.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.