Sociological Linguistics

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Tom and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Wier <artabanos at mail.utexas.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 3:39 AM

>> "Patrick C. Ryan" wrote:

>>> unless, of course, you believe that God bestowed fully developed
>>> language on Adam, which belief would disqualify you from any rational
>>> discussion of the topic.

Nik Taylor wrote:

> Why should that disqualify a person from "any rational discussion"?
> Admittedly, it would make discussion a moot point, unless it were a
> theological discussion on what kind of language God would've created.

> More to the point:  seeing as how Mr. Ryan, convinced though he
> might be about the nature of early speech, has not yet provided any
> constructive evidence about what this might be, it seems that he
> is advocating something at least as rational as believing that God gave
> Adam human language fully developed, since there is no positive
> evidence for either*.  Unless you can come up with some good hard
> soundlaws and provable cognates to show what Proto-World would
> be like, then it seems a little silly even to continue discussion of the
> matter.

> *(Interestingly, the Bible might actually disagree with the idea
> of language existing at the beginning fully formed, considering
> Gen 2:19, where God brings all the animals before Adam to see what
> he'd name them)

Pat responds:

I get an average of 10 visits a day to my website, at which I attempt to
provide soundlaws and cognates. If you have not visited it, why do you not?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803

Pat continued:

>>> I have asserted that early language, for any non-believer, would have had
>>> to have gone through a stage that was less expressive (more ambiguous) than
>>> languages of which we currently have documented information.

So did Nick:

> But, this is a moot point.  We cannot possibly reconstruct that far back.
> Even Nostratic, if it is legitimate, would've been long past that point.

> Mr. Ryan's belief, whether or not it is correct, essentially, in its logical
> underpinnings, bears no qualitative difference from Aristotle's assertion
> that heavier things fall faster than lighter things.  Aristotle's error was
> in not testing his proposition, in not having any empirical evidence to back
> up what his hypothesis claimed.  Until Mr. Ryan can provide scientific
> evidence as to what the nature of Proto-World was like, his assertion will
> have as much scientific validity.  (Again, this does not mean it's wrong;
> just that it's pointless to discuss the matter without further investigation)

Pat responds:

I do not go into the theory of the Proto-Language in detail because 1) I
have already done it at my website; 2) much of the material is not
appropriate for the Indo-European list, and some, not even for the Nostratic
list; and 3) I do not believe the moderator would permit it.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)