[Or do you believe English is "thousands" (that's a plural), of years old?]
Of course I do. Multiple languages were established by God at the tower of Babel. You reference a book, well I call reference to this article: http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp By the way, my tinfoil is fine. It reflects meaningless trivals off very effectively.
37 comments
"Freepers: fountains of stupidity."
I'm a libertarian/conservative who used to post there; alas, I can't disagree with you at all. When the owner of the site called evolution Marxist and all science political, the true nature of the problem there became apparent. It's sick from the head down.
This guy taxesareforever also thinks slavery isn't in the least a moral issue (it's just fine with him) and that the moon landings were faked. This delusion that languages don't evolve, despite the clear documentary evidence that they do, is just one of many delsuions he has.
Free Republic has become a crank website.
That Babel effect must still be active; I have no idea what a "trival" is.
Seriously, this guy needs to wake up and smell reality. Have him read some Shakespeare, perhaps followed by some Chaucer and a portion of Beowulf , if he thinks languages don't undergo change and development; there's a lot more going on there than superficial shifts in spelling and slang.
~David D.G.
Oh, yes, English has never changed: I mean, Wrætlic is þes wealstan, wyrde gebræcon; burgstede burston, brosnað enta geweorc. Hrofas sind gehrorene, hreorge torras, hrungeat berofen, hrim on lime, as I'm sure you'll agree.
Chaucer was only a little over 600 years ago, and already hard to understand without some practice (and most English-speaking people would find it almost impossible to understand spoken). Go back another 600 years and it was like Tiny Bulcher's example - a foreign language.
Taxes "trueorigin" link says nothing about English, anyway.
Yes, it is as Marnanel says, the opening lines of the Old English poem 'The Ruin', which shows clearly how much the language has evolved in the last 1200 years or so. (The poem is notable for giving JRR Tolkien the word 'ent', fact fans). Literal translation for the benefit of D Laurier: 'Wroughtlike is this well-worked stone, by weird broken, castle-stead burst, ent's work ruined; roofs are fallen, ruinous towers, gate smashed, frost (rime) on the lime (cement)'.
He has already been shown samples of both Middle English and Old English, and he says they are *still English!*.
It's the same argument creationists use when a clear case of speciation is offered: "But it's still a (fill in the blank)!!"
He's a perfect example of the kind of *thinkers* that are welcome and even encouraged at the self appointed *premiere conservative website*.
Okay, so if he thinks ME and OE are "still English", presumably this is analogical to the creationist assertion that species may develop over time but don't split into separate species. So I would like someone to show him examples of vernacular Latin and various stages in its transition to the several Romance languages.
Or do you believe that Shakespeare really wrote in a comprehensible English?
Shakespeare wrote perfectly comprehensible English.
I fucking love Old English. It's gorgeous.
My senior English teacher had Caedmon's Hymn, a piece of the profile to the Canturbury Tales, a passage from The Merchant of Venice, and a quote from The Lord of the Rings all hanging on her wall, to illustrate how the language evolved. She could recite Caedmon's Hymn with perfect pronunciation and often did, and I thought it was absolutely beautiful.
I love languages. Asian languages especially (I have far too much Japanese rock on my computer XD).
As for this guy, why don't we just bury the rest of him in the sand as well? Makes things easier.
Clearly, y'all are missing the Big Picture here.
This is the same case as with the "evilution" of antibiotic resistance in certain strains of disease-causing bacteria. As any good Creationist will tell you, this doesn't prove that Evilution [TM] is true at all. The bacterium obviously had the genes for antibiotic resistance hidden somewhere in its genome, beyond the pruview of mere mortal scientists. When exposed to enough antibiotics, the gene merely came flowering into fruition. The bacterium didn't "gain" any "new" abiilities, it merely activated secret powers that God had already given its species since the Day of Creation.
Similarly, English didn't "Evolve" from OE through ME through Elizabethan to the modern language we see and use. No no no no. Old English, Medieval English, Elizabethan English, and Modern English were all Created [TM] in the great Tower of Babel incident. It's just that we didn't see Elizabethan English get "expressed" until the 15th or 16th century.
And where are the transitional forms? Huh? And if modern English descended from Elizabethan English, why are Shakespeare's works still in Elizabethan English? Everybody know that Lanugage "Evilution" is supposed to be a ladder of progress, and since it isn't, this clearly proves literary Evilutionism to be wrong, and as we all know if Evilution is wrong then Creationism MUST BE RIGHT!!
What's a "trival"?
And I think this person is deluded, if he thinks English is thousands of years old.
Olde English is barely decipherable as related to modern English, and that came from bastardized Latin-based languages.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.