Talk:Adamic language/Archive 1

Since it makes no sense (at least to me):

(No serious linguist today believes this.)

However, some groups maintain this belief, especially some in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other early leaders of the Church made statements about the Adamic language.

The place "Adam-ondi-Ahman" in Daviess County, Missouri, U.S., is supposedly in the Adamic language.

See [1]

No serious linguist believes what? That the Adamic language is Hebrew? That there is an Adamic language? Since it rests on the Bible anyway, linguists are in the normal science/faith dilemma, and are going to have to pick a side.

No they don't. It's only a dilemma if you insist on maintaining a literalist Christian POV. Besides, the 'Adamic language' isn't mentioned in the Bible anyway.

And then again, the Mormons believe what? The biblical passage about confounding the languages at the tower? So what?

If you read the article I provided links to, you'll find that Mormons (or at least some Mormons) have unique beliefs that most Christians don't on this issue. Such as that the Adamic language will be widely spoken come the end of the world (i.e. what Ezra Taft Benson had to say), or that words of it was revealed to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others, or that it isn't Hebrew, contrary to the beliefs of most other Christians (or at least Christians who believed in an Adamic language, most of which have been dead for centuries now...) -- SJK.

Good clarification. Good article link, too, although I don't know how useful it is to link to pages containing copyrighted material in Google's cache (caches, by nature, being volatile) from domains which no longer exist...

Moved to a different site -- just found a really good article from the LDS point of view, explaining their beliefs about the Adamic language. --Dmerrill

How do you pronounce "Pay Lay Ale"? Like the English Words "Pay", "Lay" and "Ale"? It isn't really that clear (I've probably been looking at languages other than English too much...). -- SJK

Yes, just as the English words are pronounced.

I think if you look at 17th or 18th century linguistics you may find some non-Mormon references to an Adamic language, maybe not using that term though. Early linguists believed that Hebrew was the language spoken by Adam, and that at the Tower of Babel God produced the other languages of the world (or their ancestors) out of Hebrew. Even if they didn't call it by the Mormon name (I don't know if they did or didn't), their idea was pretty similar. (The main difference was their belief that the Adamic language was Hebrew, a belief Mormon's don't share.) -- SJK

I've certainly read about it in non-Mormon contexts. Wasn't it Frederick II who is reputed to have tried to discover the Adamic language experimentally by having two children raised without speech so that they would 'come out' speaking the Adamic language? it's an anecdote whose source escapes me.--MichaelTinkler

Michael: I've heard a story like that, but I thought it was someone in ancient times, like some ancient Greek king or Egyptian pharaoh or something. The tale I recalled was that two children were raised by shepherds who were not allowed to talk to them. They came out saying "pa pa pa", which was the word in some language X for bread. So the ruler concluded X was the first language. More likely "pa pa pa" was the sound of the sheep. -- SJK

Yep, Herodotus reports it of Psammetichus of Egypt, but there are lots of late medieval and early modern kings who are reputed to have done it, too, including one of the Scottish kings. The later reports are (a) exactly the kind of thing that people who'd read Herodotus might report of later kings reputed to be intellectuals and (b) exactly the kind of thing a king who thought himself an intellectual (like Frederick II) would do. I have no idea what the state of 'evidence' is for it, but it'll get a page of its own, I suppose! 'Human experimentation'?--MichaelTinkler

I believe Herodotus reported the first word to be bedos, which was Hittite for bread, rather than papapa. Some Medieval king tried the experiment, but the baby died before it started talking. Which is to me an eminently plausible story, for the Middle Ages.

Psammetichus I, bekos, and Phrygian and Frederick II of Prussia (18th century). It's all on Wikipedia, you know. Baad 13:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adamic language was spoken since Creation at beginning of the 4th millennium BC in the Holy Land and then worldwide until confusion of tongues, according to Anne Catherine Emmerich's private revelations mentioned in archived talk linked above.83.19.52.107 07:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are Anne Catherine Emmerich's revelations any more reliable than, say, David Frawley's "revelations" that proto-World was spoken in India in 10,000 BC? You confuse mysticism with scholarship. dab (𒁳) 07:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wery simply. Anne Catherine Emmerich's revelations and associated visions came directly from God, and David Frawley tries to guess without certainity, having no direct revelations from God. God always knows better, because He is omniscient. Anne Catherine Emmerich's revelations served as basis for Mel Gibson's movie Passion of Jesus Christ.83.19.52.107 13:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't take it upon myself to rule out the possibility, I am afraid we do not consider God a reliable source on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 13:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very unfortunate. If God was able to create our souls and bodies, He is of course infinitely reliable.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.19.52.107 (talk • contribs) .

Just because you make something doesn't mean you're especially reliable. Besides, even if there were an infinitely reliable God, how would we know Anne Catherine Emmerich was right in attributing her revelations to him? garik 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right - just being creative doesn't make you reliable. These artsy types tend to be moody and eccentric, and God especially has been known to smash things and change his mind on a whim. A problem user with an unhealthy attitude, I'd call Him, if he chose to sign up as a Wikipedian :) dab (𒁳) 22:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he never cites his sources. All original research. garik 23:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God changes His balance of saving by explanation and saving by destruction, because He adapts in realtime His pushing sinners to conversion, according to changing deepness of sinner's sinful state. Additionally Pope John Paul II nominated Anne Catherine Emmerich blessed. Her revelations served as source for archeologists in Palestine for locating potential excavation places.83.19.52.107 07:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I can still ping wikipedia.org, I will work from the assumption that God has not objected to the project and its policies strongly enough to have "saved it by destruction". You may want to have a look at http://www.conservapedia.com/ which unlike Wikipedia explicitly "favors Christianity and America". thankyou :) dab (𒁳) 10:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recovered from Talk:Adamic language archive:

Catherine Emmerich's hint for Adamic language (minimal possible Catholic point of view)

As Catherine Emmerich wrote:

"Upon Heber who, as we have said, took no part in the work, God cast His eyes; and amid the general disorder and corruption, He set him and his posterity apart as a holy nation. God gave him also a new and holy language possessed by no other nation, that thereby his race should be cut off from communication with all others. This language was the pure Hebrew, or Chaldaic."

Hebrew cannot be Adamic Language, and because to that, Catherine Emmerich explains below true nature of Adamic language:

"The first tongue, the mother tongue, spoken by Adam, Sem, and Noe, was different, and it is now extant only in isolated dialects. Its first pure offshoots are the Zend, the sacred tongue of India, and the language of the Bactrians. In those languages, words may be found exactly similar to the Low German of my native place. The book that I see in modern Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, is written in that language."

Source: [2]

Indo-Iranian (Bactrian, Zend=Persian, Indian=Sanskrit) = clean offshoots

non Indo-Iranian = dirty offshoots

Latest possible Proto-Indo-* joint between at least clean Indo-Iranian offshoots that are most similar to Adamic language in minimal variant, can be only Proto-Indo-Iranian language, that would be minimal Adamic Language. Earliest Proto-Indo-* languages could be only internal reverse-converting nodes between minimal Adamic and each other non Indo-Iranian language, that were used by God while confusing languages.

-8500 Proto-Indo-Uralic
-6500 Proto-Indo-Tyrrhenian
-5000 Proto-Indo-Hittite
-4100 Proto-Indo-European
-3700 Proto-Indo-Hellenic
-3300 Proto-Indo-Slavic
-2800 Proto-Indo-Iranian
-2000 Proto-Indo-Aryan (without Zend=Persian and Bactrian, thus it is rather
                        ancestor of sacred tongue of India only than common
                        ancestor of Bactrian, Zend=Persian and Indian=Sanskrit)

Source of above names: [3]

Final solution of Catherine Emmerich's hint for Adamic language (maximal possible Catholic point of view)

Thus finally I proposed now for Proto-Indo-European special and maximal Adamic Language position, because Catholic visionary Catherine Emmerich, which was now fully endorsed and declared blessed by Pope John-Paul II, got this conclusional revelation among other revelations, (further solved below by me) from God Itself. It is not occult, because occult things are originated only from the devils. It is rather mystical, because it came from God. Proto-Indo-European is best candidate for maximal Adamic, because it is reconstructed without influences from more-confused languages, using nearly non-confused languages only, which entry point is knowed from abovementioned Catherine Emmerich's revelation. Earlier Proto-Indo-* languages are reconstructed with influences from languages confused in higher degree. I used revelation-derived terminology above for better explaining correspondences between Catherine Emmerich's terminology and linguist's terminology. I made such above conclusion only to be in full accord with God's infallible revelation. Proof for this I explain below:

Now I can get over my apparent assumption that Indo-Iranian has in any way a special position in the history of Indo-European, or even in the history of earliest Indo-* languages, but to do it reliably I need procedures as explained below:

As Proto-Indo-Iranian retains -s ending in masculine nominative, [4] I can eventually consider typing for maximal Adamic language earliest Proto-Indo-* language that will still retain -s ending in nominative from languages listed below:

Proto-Indo-Uralic     [-si]
Proto-Indo-Tyrrhenian [-se]
Proto-Indo-Hittite    [-so] (because Hittite has -s but not -so ending: [5], theories earlier than PIE are false)
Proto-Indo-European   [-s ]
Proto-Indo-Hellenic   [-s ]
Proto-Indo-Slavic     [-s ]
Proto-Indo-Iranian    [-s ]
Proto-Indo-Aryan      [-s ]

This earlier Proto-Indo-* language that will match this condition will be Proto-Indo-European, because this is earlier Proto-Indo-* language, in which masculine nominative singular ending is exactly the same as in Proto-Indo-Iranian. Additionally, nominative -s ending makes Adamic protolanguage, identified now in maximal variant as Proto-Indo-European, an earliest possible language that still is recognizable by Christians as earliest possible ever Classical/Christian-Greek-looking protolanguage. I made chronological order below by medianizing Indo-* hypothesies into consistent hybrid of them all, acknowledging in this way, which earlier protolanguage clearly still has -s ending, as is in Proto-Indo-Iranian. Thus earliest reliable theory which still retains -s ending left intact, can be according to that only Proto-Indo-European theory, and in this way earlier theories, as according to -s ending criterium would be pure speculations only, eventually usable as reverse-converting nodes between this maximal Adamic and each other non Indo-European language, that can be used as cognate reverse-converters.

Proofs from http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean/indo-european.htm

Proto-Indo-Iranian minimal example (-s nominative ending exists):

Avis ak’vasas-ka. Avis, jasmin varnā na āst, dadark’a ak’vans, tam, garum vāgham vaghantam, tam, magham bhāram, tam manum āku bharantam. Avis ak’vabhjas avavakat; k’ard aghnutai mai vidanti manum ak’vans ag’antam. Ak’vāsas avavakant: k’rudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāns karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjas-ka varnā na asti. Tat k’uk’ruvants avis ag’ram abhugat.

Proto-Indo-European maximal example (-s nominative ending exists ):

Ówis ékwōs-kwe. Ówis, kwésio wl̥̄nā ne est, ékwoms spekét, óinom (ghe) krum wóghom wéghontm, óinom-kwe mégām bhórom, óinom-kwe dhghmónm ṓku bhérontm. Ówis nu ékwobh(i)os wewkwét: krd ághnutoi moí, ékwoms ágontm wrom wídntei. Ékwōs tu wewkwónt: Klúdhi, ówi! krd ághnutoi nsméi wídntbh(i)os: anér, pótis, ówjom-r wĺnām sébhi khermóm wéstrom kwrnéuti. Ówjom-kwe wl̥̄nā ne ésti. Tod kékluwos ówis ágrom bhugét.

Terminology equivalents:

Steppe (-si) = Proto-Indo-Uralic (-si)

Proto-Indo-Etruscan (-se) = Proto-Indo-Tyrrhenian (-se)

Broad/Early/Pre/Proper Proto-Indo-European (before Anatolian) (-so) = Proto-Indo-Hittite (-so)

Archaic/Comparative/Middle/Narrow/North Proto-Indo-European (before Tocharian) (-s) = Proto-Indo-European (-s)

Sources:

Language tree equivalents: [6]

Indo-Uralic and Indo-Tyrrhenian hypothesies: [7]

Pre-Proto-Indo-European hypothesis: [8]

Kurgan and Anatolian hypothesies: [9]

Sources of the best grammars and dictionaries of Proto-Indo-European language:

Whole PIE grammar (see Fonologia and Morfologia subarticles)

Whole PIE vocabulary

PIE Dictionary with PIE Grammar in Foreword (contains most ever complete PIE treatise, but written in German)

Hints:

Hebrew and Arabic can be converted to Proto-Indo-European by using this book entitled "Hebrew is Greek", described here: [10]