The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

When did the Written Language Originate? Options
TMe
Posted: Saturday, July 08, 2017 11:56:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/12/2017
Posts: 493
Neurons: 3,129
There is plethora of theories about origin of language capable of expression in black and white.
But nothing is authentic.

Can anybody tell me who wrote The Bible, The Geeta and The Vedas in present time dialects?

With malice towards none.


6 Early Theories About the Origin of Language
BY Arika Okrent
July 7, 2017

Original image
ThinkStock

"How did language begin? Words don’t leave artifacts behind—writing began long after language did—so theories of language origins have generally been based on hunches. For centuries there had been so much fruitless speculation over the question of how language began that when the Paris Linguistic Society was founded in 1866, its bylaws included a ban on any discussions of it. The early theories are now referred to by the nicknames given to them by language scholars fed up with unsupportable just-so stories.

1. The bow-wow theory

The idea that speech arose from people imitating the sounds that things make: Bow-wow, moo, baa, etc. Not likely, since very few things we talk about have characteristic sounds associated with them, and very few of our words sound anything at all like what they mean.

2. The pooh-pooh theory

The idea that speech comes from the automatic vocal responses to pain, fear, surprise, or other emotions: a laugh, a shriek, a gasp. But plenty of animals make these kinds of sounds too, and they didn't end up with language.

3. The ding-dong theory

The idea that speech reflects some mystical resonance or harmony connected with things in the world. Unclear how one would investigate this.

4. The yo-he-ho theory

The idea that speech started with the rhythmic chants and grunts people used to coordinate their physical actions when they worked together. There's a pretty big difference between this kind of thing and what we do most of the time with language.

5. The ta-ta theory

The idea that speech came from the use of tongue and mouth gestures to mimic manual gestures. For example, saying ta-ta is like waving goodbye with your tongue. But most of the things we talk about do not have characteristic gestures associated with them, much less gestures you can imitate with the tongue and mouth.

6. The la-la theory

The idea that speech emerged from the sounds of inspired playfulness, love, poetic sensibility, and song. This one is lovely, and no more or less likely than any of the others.
These Days

About a century after banishment of the language origin question, scientists started to consider it again, but this time using evidence from paleontology about the likely brain and vocal tract features of early humans and hominids. Rather than speculate about which kinds of vocalizations gave rise to speech sounds, they consider which physical, cognitive, and social factors must first be in place in order for there to be language.

This doesn't make the question of how language started any easier to answer, but it does make you appreciate that whatever those necessary factors are, we got all of 'em. Phew! La la la la. Ta ta!"


I am a layman.


I am a layman.
Romany
Posted: Sunday, July 09, 2017 5:59:20 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,358
Neurons: 40,721
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

TMe,

No-one is sure when human beings began to use language - it was so very long ago. We know that the difference between us and Neanderthals is that THEY didn't have developed vocal chords and so could not speak. Over time Homo Sapiens (who did have vocal chords) overtook Neanderthals (it used to be thought they were killed off, but now we know they were integrated through sexual mixing of the two groups. Its often wondered whether the ability to use speech is what led to the rise and spread of Homo Sapiens and the dying out of Neanderthals.

Early writing was merely a collection of signs for simple concepts - these signs are still known about to-day! Wanderers and travellers still leave signs made with twigs or scratched into mud, so even when not speaking the same language, all 'read' the same signs.

As to who wrote the Veedas and the Geeta, I'm afraid I have no knowledge above that of the second-hand variety.

However, the Bible was first printed in English by Tyndale in the early 16thC. It caused war and revolution and religious & societal uproar and persecution!! People had been working on translating particular books of the Bible into English, so some he collected and some he translated himself.

Then in the 17C the King James Bible was written. It was written in beautiful English: - the beautiful language being seen as a tribute to their god. For centuries no student of English Literature was unfamiliar with the Bible Language and it stood as one of the supreme achievements of the English Language.

I think it was around the 1960's that some American churches 'translated' the English of the St. James Bible into modern speech - much to the horror of the established Church!

Now, however, more and more people 'translate' the Bible - and it gets further and further away from it's original meanings - many congregations use Bibles that have been specialy 'adapted' so that they echo the beliefs of that particular congregation. It also means The Bible is no longer a single source...now there's different bibles which differ from each other depending on where they are and who is using them.

If you go on to Google and ask "When were the Vedas written?" "When were the Vedas first written in modern language?" you'll get all the correct information about them.
hedy mmm
Posted: Sunday, July 09, 2017 9:31:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/29/2014
Posts: 924
Neurons: 429,658
Location: Borough of Bronx, New York, United States
TMe wrote:
Can anybody tell me who wrote The Bible?


Yes, it was written by men inspired by God, from Genesis to Revelation. Moses was the first, he wrote about creation — he was the first stenographer. The Torah (God's Instruction) follows in the first 5 books, followed by the Books of the prophets (The Tanakh), men of God, with songs, history, etc. The Sadducees and Pharisees comprised the ruling class of Israel, however, they didn't want to accept Jesus' teaching.

Jesus told them, "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." John 5:39-40. Sadly, it's still like that .

"The Bible is the only book where the author is always present when read."
hedy



"God graced us with today....don't waste it." hedy
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, July 10, 2017 12:52:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 27,307
Neurons: 151,426
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
TMe wrote:
Can anybody tell me who wrote The Bible. . . in present time dialects?

Hedy has (as far as I know) told about the originals - written over many years by many different prophets (the New Testament as we have it now was written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John between about 60 CE and 100 CE, I believe - I may be a bit out on the years, but it's approximately right).

I believe that many of the earliest books of the old Testament - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, etc - were written about 1400 BCE.
The Book of Job was older than those - but was mainly known verbally so no-one really has any idea when it came into existence.

However, in present-time dialects - as Romany says, the first English version was a compilation and translation from the Hebrew and Greek versions in the early sixteenth century by William Tyndale. The dialect he used is hardly recognisable now.

*********
Vedas.

It seems that the Rig Veda was the first, and it is believed to have been composed (verbally) somewhere about 1500 BCE.

However, the first written version is believed to be about 950 CE.
The earliest copy still in existence was written out in 1040 CE (it is somewhere in Nepal, I think).

********
Bhagavad Gita

It is believed to have been composed in about 400 BCE, probably by a sage called Vedavyasa.
Again, the first written version is quite a long time after that.

**************
I'm not a biblical scholar, but I believe that, if you look at the earliest known versions of the Vedas and the Bible (before any editing/'corrections'/translations etc) there are very strong parallels - they say similar things in their philosophies.
Of course, the Hebrew books contain many stories from the history of the Hebrew tribes, which would not appear in the Indian writings.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Romany
Posted: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:52:27 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,358
Neurons: 40,721
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Drago -

I studied the formation of the Bible at Uni for 4 years and one thing that I'm afraid is indisputable, is that whoever it was who wrote the gospels, it was certainly none of the apostles - who were all dead by the time these texts started to appear.
thar
Posted: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:43:27 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 16,042
Neurons: 64,224
Looking at this as a geologist, not a historian, the answer that first comes to mind is 'we'll never know'. The evidence is not available.

We used to think life originated a few hundred million years ago, then a billion years. Two, three and a half?
Why not sure?
What is evidence of life -chemical signatures, possible microbes, clear fossils?
And why can't we find it? The older rock has been reworked and eroded, destroyed. Wiped away.

(Forgive the ropey analogy, but it is my post! I get to pick the metaphor Whistle )

So was the first writing rock art? Are neolithic cup-marks a language? If it means something to the viewer, is it writing, just as much as a graffiti tag on a wall?
And what was there but hasn't lasted? Scratches in the sand, on bark, on wood, on skin?

When people talk about 'the first writing's they seem to be talking about fully formed systems - cuneiform is commonly quoted. But that is like looking at a Cambrian trilobite and saying it is this first life. Which is clearly ridiculous - they didn't spring up fully formed with eyes and legs and tails - something came before that, which we don't see much of. The same with writing.
We call cuneiform writing because it looks like modern writing, the same as early geologists called trilobites early life because they look like woodlice. Then people discovered weird and wonderful things that showed there was so much more going on. Just by cosmic chance. One thing layer of old mud just happens to be exposed on the top of a mountain in Canada and it changed our entire view of what 'early' life was.
I don't think there will be an equivalent moment in writing. I think it is lost. But it was there. For hundreds of years? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

But how about an applied question?
Did writing signal, or cause, the modern societal malaise of war, inequality and stress?
After all, writing was designed to formalise land ownership, property ownership and taxation.
And he place where it 'originated' is currently the arsehole of human values, with people raising their flags proudly covered in writing!
And the cultures that had no need for it - egalitarian hunter-gatherers, with no concept of ownership? Tribes and peoples where storytelling, connecting with others, respecting elders, is taken as the norm?

The written language of one region of Inuit peoples is beautiful, artistic - but based on Pitman Shorthand, written down by a missionary. So now they can read and write, as can the native 'Indian' tribes of Canada. And would a single person say the tribal people are better off than four hundred years ago? (Not picking on Canada in particular - it applies everywhere, and not just European colonialism). Paradise Lost?

So, - my hypothesis - writing enables the codification of ownership, leading to jealousy and war, and the codification of knowledge, leading to social breakdown and inequality.

Really, that stuff should be banned! Whistle

I know this has nothing to do with the Bible. I just wanted an excuse to put off doing a few things I don't feel like doing now. Filling in some forms, sending some scanned certificates. I think subconsciously I would prefer a world without any written language right now.Whistle
popcorn1001
Posted: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:03:34 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 9/25/2016
Posts: 26
Neurons: 77
hedy mmm wrote:

Yes, it was written by men inspired by God, from Genesis to Revelation. Moses was the first, he wrote about creation — he was the first stenographer. The Torah (God's Instruction) follows in the first 5 books, followed by the Books of the prophets (The Tanakh), men of God, with songs, history, etc. The Sadducees and Pharisees comprised the ruling class of Israel, however, they didn't want to accept Jesus' teaching.

Jesus told them, "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." John 5:39-40. Sadly, it's still like that .

"The Bible is the only book where the author is always present when read."
hedy


Hedy, you seem to explain everything by religion.

I used to think that americans have leapfrogged that area. It turns out that they are still sniffing the opium.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, July 10, 2017 11:54:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 27,307
Neurons: 151,426
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Romany wrote:
Drago -

I studied the formation of the Bible at Uni for 4 years and one thing that I'm afraid is indisputable, is that whoever it was who wrote the gospels, it was certainly none of the apostles - who were all dead by the time these texts started to appear.

You mean Sister Francis Xavier (my teacher) was wrong?

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Romany
Posted: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:05:25 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,358
Neurons: 40,721
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Thar - ok. I'll pick up the cat you just threw.

Writing as the pre-emptive move in the wars of the world?

Well, as I explained above, the first marks, signs, runes or what-have-you; i.e. the very first way that humans used marks to represent information or thought, was in what's called in Australia "swaggies signs" (a 'swaggie' being an itinerant worker) and in UK there's a Romany word for them which I've long forgotten but my mother used to use.

These first attempts at communication with people who are not present acted to unite: "Watch out", "Wild boar here", "Avoid the next settlement". These were ways of helping total strangers and bonding with them, surely?

And surely, if people bring up Cunieform as a written language, that would be because it's the very proof we have of written language used as a tool? The Code of Hammurabi, long pre-dating the 10 rules centuries later which a wandering Jewish sect adopted, is the primary text which proves how civilisation grew: it arranges everything from weights and measures, to dress-codes to taxes. These styli have been found in all the further reaches of Mesapotamia - and it was these that brought humanity together and enabled human society to live peacefully and amicably with each other.

Then, throughout history, writing has brought us the highest thoughts, ideas, schemas, ideals, sharing of technology, as well as shared humour. Great writing has civilised humanity, enhanced and encouraged our highest striving, educated us, brought us culture, and uplifted humanity.

I know you weren't being deadly serious, so this is off the top of my head: but it's a rebuttal from one pigeon at least.
almo 1
Posted: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:42:15 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/16/2016
Posts: 1,026
Neurons: 4,633
Location: Fussa, Tokyo, Japan




quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language



The origin of language in the human species has been the topic of scholarly discussions for several centuries. There is no consensus on the origin or age of human language. The topic is difficult to study because of the lack of direct evidence. Consequently, scholars wishing to study the origins of language must draw inferences from other kinds of evidence such as the fossil record, archaeological evidence, contemporary language diversity, studies of language acquisition, and comparisons between human language and systems of communication existing among other animals (particularly other primates). Many argue that the origins of language probably relate closely to the origins of modern human behavior, but there is little agreement about the implications and directionality of this connection.

This shortage of empirical evidence has led many scholars to regard the entire topic as unsuitable for serious study. In 1866, the Linguistic Society of Paris banned any existing or future debates on the subject, a prohibition which remained influential across much of the western world until late in the twentieth century.[1] Today, there are various hypotheses about how, why, when, and where language might have emerged.[2] Despite this, there is scarcely more agreement today than a hundred years ago, when Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provoked a rash of armchair speculation on the topic.[3] Since the early 1990s, however, a number of linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others have attempted to address with new methods what some consider one of the hardest problems in science.[4]

almo 1
Posted: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:43:27 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/16/2016
Posts: 1,026
Neurons: 4,633
Location: Fussa, Tokyo, Japan


quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk



In addition to being one of the first cities, Uruk was the main force of urbanization and state formation during the Uruk period, or 'Uruk expansion' (4000–3200 BC). This period of 800 years saw a shift from small, agricultural villages to a larger urban center with a full-time bureaucracy, military, and stratified society.

The Eanna district is historically significant as both writing and monumental public architecture emerge here during Uruk periods VI-IV. The combination of these two developments places Eanna as arguably the first true city and civilization in human history. Eanna during period IVa contains the earliest examples of cuneiform writing and possibly the earliest writing in history.


You know who I am
Posted: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:50:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/13/2017
Posts: 599
Neurons: 4,712
Location: Olinda, Pernambuco, Brazil
TMe wrote:


Can anybody tell me who wrote The Bible, The Geeta and The Vedas in present time dialects?



I don't understand what "The Geeta" and "The Vedas" mean, but I do know who wrote the Bible:

2 Peter 1:21

For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


Romany wrote:


I studied the formation of the Bible at Uni for 4 years and one thing that I'm afraid is indisputable, is that whoever it was who wrote the gospels, it was certainly none of the apostles - who were all dead by the time these texts started to appear.


So, if it was not the apostles, who did it? I think if it wasn't the apostles guided by the Holy Spirit, then it could only have been a predicter, for the bible not only tells us past facts, but also future facts that have been happening and will still happen.

Nations vs Nations/ Famines / Storms / Earthquakes

Matthew 24:7

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.




Anti-Christ:

Matthew 24 4-6:

Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.

Matthew 24: 8-14:

All these are the beginning of birth pains. 9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.



As far as I know, all the other books from the New Testament were written in the same century, so if you claim that the books from the apostles are fake or written by someone else, so you probably mean that Matthew which testifies about Jesus is also fake?


Colossians 2: 10:

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.


Be blessed and the peace of God be over you!

Revelation 22:17

The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.

John 6:37

All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.


I am the way, and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me. - John 14:6
You know who I am
Posted: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 10:35:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/13/2017
Posts: 599
Neurons: 4,712
Location: Olinda, Pernambuco, Brazil
Predictor* not Predicter.

Sorry!

I am the way, and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me. - John 14:6
TMe
Posted: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 12:18:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/12/2017
Posts: 493
Neurons: 3,129

Romany wrote:


I studied the formation of the Bible at Uni for 4 years and one thing that I'm afraid is indisputable, is that whoever it was who wrote the gospels, it was certainly none of the apostles - who were all dead by the time these texts started to appear.


So, if it was not the apostles, who did it? I think if it wasn't the apostles guided by the Holy Spirit, then it could only have been a predicter, for the bible not only tells us past facts, but also future facts that have been happening and will still happen.


So true. Nothing else.Applause Applause Applause

I am a layman.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.