Why is Ancient Language Different?

[jaylemurph]

19 minutes ago, cladking said:

Ancient Language began dying ~3200 BC when dumb people couldn't use it.  It accelerated and by 2500 BC only about 5% of the population could use it.  By 2000 BC there weren't enough speakers to operate the state(s) so the official language was changed to the various pidgin languages.  By ~1400 BC the last AL speakers died out.   

While all Ancient Language was mutually intelligible there were various dialects.   

I restrict my commentary to /real/ languages, which do have words for thoughts and beliefs.

You’re free to make up whatever you feel is appropriate for your wholly fictional fantasy language, with no comment from me. It’s your authorial right: no one could correct Tolkien about Quenya.

—Jaylemurph 

 

[cormac mac airt]

4 hours ago, cladking said:

What separated it was that a mutation arose 40,000 years ago that tied the speech center to higher brain functions. 

What is your evidence for this claim?

cormac

[cladking]

46 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

"Thought" and like terms thereof In Ancient Egyptian, per Gardiner: 

mHi

HAty

Dar

xmt

sxr Xt

imyw Xt - "thoughts"  (plural)

kAt

cormac

 

These words post date the great pyramid building age.  

I'm well aware such terms appear in the "book of the dead".  

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, cladking said:

These words post date the great pyramid building age.  

I'm well aware such terms appear in the "book of the dead".  

Since there are few extant written texts from the OK then you are in no position to claim that no such words existed at the time, particularly since what DOES exist couldn't remotely be considered as anything near the entirety of the AE language. 

Still waiting on your definition of "human" I enquired about as well as your claim concerning "a mutation arose 40,000 years ago that tied the speech center to higher brain functions". Dodging the questions perhaps?

cormac

[cladking]

21 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

What is your evidence for this claim?

cormac

I've been over this numerous times and most of the evidence is just laughed off because everyone already has all the answers.  The fact is that most of this is based on logic anyway.  

The question here is why did people start acting "human" only 40,000 years ago.  Anatomically modern humans have been around far longer but neglected to act human.  

Much of the reason people can't see the logic and evidence is that we have some strange beliefs generated by modern language.  We see our knowledge as an indication of "intelligence" but there is no referent for this.  "Intelligence" to the degree it actually exists is an event rather than a condition.  Also language hides its properties to us.  We can't see from inside our thoughts that language is the basis of human progress and it manifests as ideas held and originated  ONLY by individuals.  Humans simply aren't intelligent and would not be intelligent even if "humans" existed at all.  Rather there are 7,000,000,000 million individuals each with their own beliefs which they use to understand their different worlds.  

So logically if humans/ civilizations are a product of language then something must have occurred about 40,000 years ago to create humans and this something was language.   It's impossible that we suddenly got intelligent so we mustta suddenly got language.  All the signs point to the sudden ability to use complex language and BECAUSE no complex language existed it's impossible it simply evolved.  This means it was probably a mutation though a population bottleneck can't be ruled out.  The fact that we now must grow a brocas area (a second speech center) in order to acquire language strongly suggests that there was a speciation event around 2000 BC.  Only language can invent agriculture and cities and only language can learn enough about reality to to these things and build pyramids.  Without abstractions they simply used different sort of complex language.  Our complex language is largely useless in learning about our world except it was used to invent science which does provide many insights about the logic we call reality.  

If I'm wrong then God missed a trick because this theory explains everything from history not starting until a thousand years after writing to how the pyramids were built and how modern man survived since 2000 BC with nothing but beliefs and superstition.   It explains virtually all of history and provides extensive insight into the nature of consciousness, animal communication, evolution etc etc.   It even explains why Egyptologists missed the lack of abstraction and the breaking of Zipf's Law.   It explains how Egyptologists didn't notice the triangles at the base of G1.  It explains how we all see what we believe instead of reality while ancient man saw only reality itself within the limitations of his knowledge.   It explains why Egyptologists never noticed there was a literal meaning to Ancient Language.  

[cladking]

14 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Since there are few extant written texts from the OK then you are in no position to claim that no such words existed at the time, particularly since what DOES exist couldn't remotely be considered as anything near the entirety of the AE language. 

Still waiting on your definition of "human" I enquired about as well as your claim concerning "a mutation arose 40,000 years ago that tied the speech center to higher brain functions". Dodging the questions perhaps?

cormac

OK.  This is easy.  Adam's daddy and mommy were "proto-humans and spoke "Proto-Human".  

For the next 40,000 years his descendents were human and spoke Human.  ie-they were Homo Sapien and spoke Homo Sapien.

Since the "tower of babel" humans have spoken many different languages each riddled with (abstractions).  (see what I did there.)  ie- we are Homo Omnisciencis and speak Homo Omnisciencisese.  "Humans"  now have a language for every individual with about 10,000 mutually unintelligible dialects.  

 

There is only one single significant source of writing but it is an enormous corpus.  

We use several abstractions per sentence.  Despite the massiveness of the corpus there are no abstractions in it.  Logically it is safe to say that a sample of this size is indicative of the entire language especially in light of the fact there are a few other words recorded and they are congruent with the corpus.   Even if this could somehow be false the FACT remains there is no other known language to contradict what IS ACTUALLY SEEN.  This is apparently a language that was meant literally.  

[cladking]

1 minute ago, cladking said:

"Humans"  now have a language for every individual with about 10,000 mutually unintelligible dialects.  

 

 

See what I did there.

There are seven billion languages and 10,000 dialects. Nobody is communicating.  

[aztek]

the future language will be even more different, or not..

[cormac mac airt]

5 minutes ago, cladking said:

I've been over this numerous times and most of the evidence is just laughed off because everyone already has all the answers.  The fact is that most of this is based on logic anyway.  

The question here is why did people start acting "human" only 40,000 years ago.  Anatomically modern humans have been around far longer but neglected to act human.  

Much of the reason people can't see the logic and evidence is that we have some strange beliefs generated by modern language.  We see our knowledge as an indication of "intelligence" but there is no referent for this.  "Intelligence" to the degree it actually exists is an event rather than a condition.  Also language hides its properties to us.  We can't see from inside our thoughts that language is the basis of human progress and it manifests as ideas held and originated  ONLY by individuals.  Humans simply aren't intelligent and would not be intelligent even if "humans" existed at all.  Rather there are 7,000,000,000 million individuals each with their own beliefs which they use to understand their different worlds.  

So logically if humans/ civilizations are a product of language then something must have occurred about 40,000 years ago to create humans and this something was language.   It's impossible that we suddenly got intelligent so we mustta suddenly got language.  All the signs point to the sudden ability to use complex language and BECAUSE no complex language existed it's impossible it simply evolved.  This means it was probably a mutation though a population bottleneck can't be ruled out.  The fact that we now must grow a brocas area (a second speech center) in order to acquire language strongly suggests that there was a speciation event around 2000 BC.  Only language can invent agriculture and cities and only language can learn enough about reality to to these things and build pyramids.  Without abstractions they simply used different sort of complex language.  Our complex language is largely useless in learning about our world except it was used to invent science which does provide many insights about the logic we call reality.  

If I'm wrong then God missed a trick because this theory explains everything from history not starting until a thousand years after writing to how the pyramids were built and how modern man survived since 2000 BC with nothing but beliefs and superstition.   It explains virtually all of history and provides extensive insight into the nature of consciousness, animal communication, evolution etc etc.   It even explains why Egyptologists missed the lack of abstraction and the breaking of Zipf's Law.   It explains how Egyptologists didn't notice the triangles at the base of G1.  It explains how we all see what we believe instead of reality while ancient man saw only reality itself within the limitations of his knowledge.   It explains why Egyptologists never noticed there was a literal meaning to Ancient Language.  

So far you haven't shown you'd know what the evidence shows even if an anthropomorphized version walked up to you and introduced itself. You've shown no logic. 

They haven't. People have been acting human, meaning different, from the proto-humans for the last 2.8 million years. The earliest use of controlled fire itself dates to circa 1,000,000 BP. YOU'VE certainly neglected to act human by putting down the accomplishments of our ancestors. Humans as a genus are 2.8 million years old, our species is circa 300,000 years old, cranio-morphological and behavioral modernity is some 100,000 years at the earliest. The morphology of the hyoid bone, necessary for language, is dated to circa 530,000 with the correspondingly necessary FOXP2 gene dating to circa 300,000 BP. All of which GROSSLY PREDATES your 40,000 - 50,000 BP dating by a significant margin. Nice try, but you're still incompetent. 

cormac

[Piney]

45 minutes ago, cladking said:

OK.  This is easy.  Adam's daddy and mommy were "proto-humans and spoke "Proto-Human".  

For the next 40,000 years his descendents were human and spoke Human.  ie-they were Homo Sapien and spoke Homo Sapien.

Since the "tower of babel" humans have spoken many different languages each riddled with (abstractions).  (see what I did there.)  ie- we are Homo Omnisciencis and speak Homo Omnisciencisese.  "Humans"  now have a language for every individual with about 10,000 mutually unintelligible dialects.  

Oh my.........

 

56 minutes ago, cladking said:

The question here is why did people start acting "human" only 40,000 years ago.  Anatomically modern humans have been around far longer but neglected to act human.  

........what????.........

57 minutes ago, cladking said:

I've been over this numerous times and most of the evidence is just laughed off because everyone already has all the answers.  The fact is that most of this is based on logic anyway.  

You haven't provided any evidence........

[Hanslune]

4 hours ago, cladking said:

Japanese and English are different.

Wow how'd do you determine that brilliant deduction?

[Hanslune]

3 hours ago, cladking said:

I know there are lots of little bugs and bumps in my theory. 

Other than having been shown how and why its been falsified - which you have seen multiple times - but have elected to ignore. It has no basis in reality.

 

 

Quote

Truth to tell someone asked me 30 years ago how old I thought the human race was and just off the hip said 40,000.  When I started studying the question I learned it's probably a little older but I kept the number for continuity anyway.  It's probably more like 50,000 and it could be as much as 80,000.  By the same token some experts say as little as 30,000.  Normally I go with the hard sciences but in this case since evidence is so sketchy I go a little more with anthropology.  I don't know.  

Nothing like making stuff up huh?

[Hanslune]

3 hours ago, Piney said:

What ancient language? 

...ah the one he made up silly!

[Hanslune]

3 hours ago, DingoLingo said:

good grief.. I can see biology and genetics is not his strong point either

His strong points are making stuff up, a rigid determination to ignore everything that points to his ideas being complete BS, relentless dedication to repeating his claims 10's of thousands of times and ignoring all aspects of common sense, scientific fact and reality.

[Hanslune]

3 hours ago, cladking said:

Almost anything written before 2500 BC.  

all of which he cannot read.....

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

Deleted a bunch of nonsense

Paraphrased: There was no 'Ancient Language and Cladking has no idea what he is talking about - but that won't stop him for talking about it for the next 2,000 pages.

 

Quote

I've been over this numerous times

...and most rational & sane people would have written it up and just linked to it but - you type it out individually each time......odd eh?

Edited January 31, 2020 by Hanslune

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

There is only one single significant source of writing but it is an enormous corpus.

There is? Good tell us how many individual words are in it? What you have no idea what  that number is? Can you tell us the total number of words in this 'enormous corpus'? What you cannot do that either? Okay can you tell us how man words are in the AE language? Nope cannot do that either...............................

 

What a bunch of HS

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

So far you haven't shown you'd know what the evidence shows even if an anthropomorphized version walked up to you and introduced itself. You've shown no logic. 

They haven't. People have been acting human, meaning different, from the proto-humans for the last 2.8 million years. The earliest use of controlled fire itself dates to circa 1,000,000 BP. YOU'VE certainly neglected to act human by putting down the accomplishments of our ancestors. Humans as a genus are 2.8 million years old, our species is circa 300,000 years old, cranio-morphological and behavioral modernity is some 100,000 years at the earliest. The morphology of the hyoid bone, necessary for language, is dated to circa 530,000 with the correspondingly necessary FOXP2 gene dating to circa 300,000 BP. All of which GROSSLY PREDATES your 40,000 - 50,000 BP dating by a significant margin. Nice try, but you're still incompetent. 

cormac

Very well said Cormac, congrats however I'm sad to tell you that you are doing the equivalent of speaking French to a Panina.

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

Oh my.........

 

........what????.........

You haven't provided any evidence........

One of Cladking's endearing traits is that he firmly holds that his opinions are facts.

[Hanslune]

4 hours ago, cladking said:

OK,let's back up a little then.  

Why is there no word that means "belief" or "thought" in Ancient Language?  

 

Just show him the words God, Gods, Goddesses, spirits and beautiful in the PT. Then ask him were the words for 'Ancient language, science, logic and maths are.

[Hanslune]

3 hours ago, cladking said:

These words post date the great pyramid building age.  

I'm well aware such terms appear in the "book of the dead".  

So prove they didn't exist in the OK age? There are hundreds of things that existed in AE that aren't in the PT - because its only a small part of the language - so why do you continue with this childish and silly pretense? Aint no ducks in the PT yet they were common in Egypt.

What a joke your ideas are....

[cladking]

10 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

So far you haven't shown you'd know what the evidence shows even if an anthropomorphized version walked up to you and introduced itself. You've shown no logic. 

They haven't. People have been acting human, meaning different, from the proto-humans for the last 2.8 million years. The earliest use of controlled fire itself dates to circa 1,000,000 BP. YOU'VE certainly neglected to act human by putting down the accomplishments of our ancestors. Humans as a genus are 2.8 million years old, our species is circa 300,000 years old, cranio-morphological and behavioral modernity is some 100,000 years at the earliest. The morphology of the hyoid bone, necessary for language, is dated to circa 530,000 with the correspondingly necessary FOXP2 gene dating to circa 300,000 BP. All of which GROSSLY PREDATES your 40,000 - 50,000 BP dating by a significant margin. Nice try, but you're still incompetent. 

 

You might want to check wiki on these dates since they agree with me perfectly (it's just coincidence or we use the same sources).  

The hyoid bone is irrelevant.  We may need one to speak but its presence can't reveal whether it was used to make grunts or complex speech.  

Complex language didn't arise from the ability to speak or we could teach birds to do algebra and sharks to compose poetry.  

[cladking]

10 hours ago, Piney said:

 

You haven't provided any evidence........

It's your considered opinion that the late start to history (which not coincidentally eliminates any chance for ancient proof), nature of ancient language, nature of the brain, physical evidence left by early humans, and all known modern science and experiment are wrong and can't constitute "evidence""! 

The problem here is not evidential it is interpretation.  

I say people started acting human 40,000 years ago and one person says no it was 2 million and another says there's no evidence for it.  

Would you agree that we started acting human at any point in the past or do you believe we are eternal?  

Homo Omnisciencis has seven billion languages and they are all lousy with belief and abstraction but we can't see it because it interferes with our beliefs which are the very means we use to think and see. 

If ancient man without our omniscience had dared to have superstition they would have become extinct and we wouldn't be here and this is PROVEN by the lack of the word of "belief" and abstraction.  

Edited January 31, 2020 by cladking

[Piney]

1 minute ago, cladking said:

The problem here is not evidential it is interpretation.  

First. We have art that is way over 40,000 years old. Some not even produced by H. Sapien. I'd say that was "abstract". 

3 minutes ago, cladking said:

Homo Omnisciencis

Is not a term used by any scientist

Let me repeat my initial question.

DO-YOU-SPEAK/READ/WRITE-ANY-OTHER-LANGUAGE-THAT-IS-NOT-ENGLISH-?

DO-YOU-READ/SPEAK/WRITE-ANY-LANGUAGE-THAT-IS-NOT-INDO-EUROPEAN-?

 

[cladking]

35 minutes ago, Piney said:

First. We have art that is way over 40,000 years old. Some not even produced by H. Sapien. I'd say that was "abstract". 

If you don't like the concept of people acting human beginning at a specific point then take it up with anthropology.  I'm sure I don't know enough about it to argue it.  

More importantly is that "art" is an abstraction in English and most of the other seven billion language which recognize the concept.  Getting a mouthful of red ochre and spitting it at your hand is not necessarily any sort of abstraction.  Drawing stick figures and the like is not necessarily abstraction either.  These people weren't stupid and might have all sorts of reasons to represent things on walls or other surfaces.  

 

I would obviously tend to agree that any sort of "art" is acting human but we have taught elephants to paint self portraits so I wouldn't put too much faith in it.  

Edited January 31, 2020 by cladking
had to rewrite this since I missed a point.