Intelligent Philology (IP)

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."

IP has many strong arguments in its favor:

1. Irreducible complexity : as can be easily seen in dictionaries, every word is defined by other words. It is simply illogical that one could "come into being" without the other words already existing.

2. The airplane argument 😲f course, as we already saw, words cannot form if there is not an already existing language to support them. The probability of a whole language coming into to being in "one go" by mere chance is comparable to that of a 767 plane being formed from a hurricane hitting a storage facility filled with metal and plastic.

3. The diversity vs. time problem: while it is true that languages can change in minor ways ("Micro-Changes"😉 the vast diversity in modern languages cannot be explained by them wile keeping in mind that the entire human population spoke the same language ~5700 years ago.

That's nonsense.

God invented all languages 6000 years ago.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
That's nonsense.

God invented all languages 6000 years ago.

Under the law you can't teach students that God did that.
You must call him the "Intelligent Philologist".

Then you can claim it is science!

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
That's nonsense.

God invented all languages 6000 years ago.

Actually no. It was when people start building that tower of babylon. God didn't like that so he gave the labourers new languages so they couldn't understand eachother and therefore couldn't collaborate.

Funny, we can today build higher buildings than ever, and new languages isn't pushed upon their builders. Perhaps god is nicer now than in the old biblical times...

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 as for # 2, it sure will make a lot of nests.

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.

Nemesio

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.

Someone has just brought it to my attention that this post was almost certainly parodical.

I am so embarrassed.

Nemesio

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.

Sounds like you had fun putting this one together! I got a kick out of it!
It was practically intelligently designed!
I'd like to ask a question, and I'm being serious:
If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Originally posted by Nemesio
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 la ...[text shortened]... ; it's fraught with poor assumptions
and bad linguistics.

Nemesio

Don't worry: it can be hard to tell the difference nowadays!

Originally posted by Retrovirus
Under the law you can't teach students that God did that.
You must call him the "Intelligent Philologist".

Then you can claim it is science!

Either way, "In the beginning was the Word..."

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Either way, "In the beginning was the Word..."

I think Adobes WordPerfect was before... Microsoft came later.

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
Sounds like you had fun putting this one together! I got a kick out of it!
It was practically intelligently designed!
I'd like to ask a question, and I'm being serious:
If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Depending on the definition of sound.

From merriam-webster dictionary

Main Entry: 3sound
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soun, from Anglo-French son, sun, from Latin sonus, from sonare to sound; akin to Old English swinn melody, Sanskrit svanati it sounds
Date: 13th century
1 a: a particular auditory impression : tone b: the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing c: mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing
2 a: a speech sound b: value in terms of speech sounds
3archaic : rumor, fame
4 a: meaningless noise bobsolete : meaning c: the impression conveyed : import
5: hearing distance : earshot
6: recorded auditory material
7: a particular musical style characteristic of an individual, a group, or an area


Now, only the definitions written in 1 are relevant. Let's look at them again :

1
a: a particular auditory impression

No one to hear it, no auditory impression. So no for that definition.

b: the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing

Again, no one to perceive the sensation, thus, no.

c: mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing

For that definition? Yes. Just like a candle emits light even when nobody sees its light.

I hope my answer is satisfactory.

Originally posted by Retrovirus
Depending on the definition of sound.

From merriam-webster dictionary
[b]
Main Entry: 3sound
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soun, from Anglo-French son, sun, from Latin sonus, from sonare to sound; akin to Old English swinn melody, Sanskrit svanati it sounds
Date: 13th century
1 a: a particular auditory impression : tone b: ...[text shortened]... like a candle emits light even when nobody sees its light.

I hope my answer is satisfactory.

I used to think I was thorough! Whew!! Umm, yes, that is sufficient. LOL 😀 Thx. And I have to apologize. The argument that I am trying to set up is not appropriate for this thread - oops! LOL again.
😵

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Actually no. It was when people start building that tower of babylon. God didn't like that so he gave the labourers new languages so they couldn't understand eachother and therefore couldn't collaborate.

Funny, we can today build higher buildings than ever, and new languages isn't pushed upon their builders. Perhaps god is nicer now than in the old biblical times...

The Tower of Babel event was indeed about 6K years ago