Originally posted by Retrovirus
I would like to talk about one of the most radical concepts of modern linguistics - Intelligent Philology.
Intelligent Philology is the assertion that "certain features of the linguistical structure and of living and dead (Extinct, if you will) are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as linguistical drift, ect."
I ...[text shortened]... eeping in mind that the entire human population spoke the same language ~5700 years ago.
Well, if this is all IP has to offer, then its content belies its title (as 'intelligent'
If you've studied any linguistics whatsoever, then you'll know that languages evolve very, very
rapidly. In fact, studies done in the late 19th century upon indigenous people were already unusable
by the second quarter of the 20th century because non-literate languages are so fluid. Even literate
languages evolve pretty quickly until literacy becomes a widespread cultural practice. Just look
at the difference between Old and Middle English. One has almost nothing to do with the other.
Look at Norse and German. Look at Sandskrit and Hebrew. And that's just in the past few
thousand years. The written evidence already debunks #3, even if we pretend everyone spoke
the same language 5700 years ago (which, of course, is absolute nonsense).
As for #2, an airplane has no interests. It doesn't benefit or lose anything by coming into being
or being rent asunder, because it doesn't have any interests, desires, motivations or whatever.
Humans, however, do have interests, and the ability to communicate makes realizing those
significantly easier. So, as per natural pressures, those humans who communicated did better
than those who didn't, thus passing on more of their 'communicating' genes.
As for #1, it's just foolishness. A tree exists whether or not we have a word for it. One day,
someone just said 'tree' and forced his companions to acknowledge a universal noun for it.
Similarly, walking existed before there was a word for it. One day, someone gave the word
for 'walk' and it became the universal noun. They didn't use any other words to describe it
because other words didn't exist. The words 'came into being' because the concepts for those
words preëxisted them. You can see this in children, for example. When my son was just shy
of two, he would watch me (and 'help' me) cook scrambled eggs. He liked them kind of dry
(I prefer them soggy) and if I tried to serve them when they were too runny, he would say
'I don't like them lunchy
.' He invented this word as a descriptor of a particular experience,
just like proto-humans did, without any linguistic predicate.
It's no wonder that IP isn't a widely-regarded branch of linguistics; it's fraught with poor assumptions
and bad linguistics.