Talk:Adamic language/Archive 1

Dilemma

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?

Mormon beliefs

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

Pay Lay Ale

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.

Non-Mormon Adamic language

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]

Origin of Adamic language

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]

I stated above, that PIE=Adamic began in Paradise near Jerusalem since creation of Adam and Eve, which had much more children of both gender than these three sons mentioned in Bible. I can only agree that directly after Deluge PIE=Adamic began again worldwide spreading from Ararat that was place of Noah Ark final landing, to which fact most closely matches Anatolian hypothesis and Armenian hypothesis. All these facts are derived from Anne Catherine Emmerich private revelations. Wikinger (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomothete

I agree that it's probably not the term for Adam—it should really be used of Moses, if anyone (nomos: law), or indeed God. garik 11:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it was a mistake. To think that I have no end of hassle with some of my scholarly and well sourced edits, and a blunder like this is left standing for months :( dab (𒁳) 12:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Endowment

Juden seems to be having a bit of an edit war. Please explain what the words of the LDS Endowment have to do with the topic of this article before continued warring? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A war with one side? You seem to have missed naming names. As you well know, the citations were added because you, presumably not disingenously, doubted that "Pay Lay Ale" was accurate and insisted that citations could not be found. I found them and added them; and even after, you voice concerns about the spelling of the words. - Juden 22:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit the connection isn't clear to me either. mentioning the "Pay Lay Ale" is enough, link to another article for details of the ceremony. dab (𒁳) 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if all will concede that the words are accurate, I would be very happy to add the citations to other articles. - Juden 22:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category dispute

Please go to Category talk:Religious language for a discussion on whether this article belongs in Category:Religious language. –SESmith 11:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted phrase

I removed the following phrase today:

Joseph Smith taught this and called the language "the tongue of angels".^{[citation needed]}

First, I find no place where Joseph Smith used this statement. Also, "the tongue of angels" is best illustrated in 2 Nephi 31:13:

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

Unless there is a reference that Joseph Smith used it as such, it should not be in the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

I am not sure what is going on here. Slrubenstein keeps blanking content (without comment), and Wikinger keeps restoring it. Can there please be some debate on the talkpage so we can at least be clear on what exactly is under dispute? dab (𒁳) 16:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Slrubenstein blanks referenced Catholic private revelation from God about Adamic language, while keeping unreferenced Jewish theories about Adamic language I think that he simply denies Catholic revelation from God about Adamic language, while preferring Jewish theories. Because Slrubenstein is massively involved in edits of Judaism-related articles, I think that he simply wants to display in article only Jewish version, while he wants Catholic version to be omitted, due to his Jewish fictional imaginations. Wikinger (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should assume good faith I suppose. The Midrash bit is arguably referenced (Genesis Rabba). But then some of the removed content was also referenced. But I really don't see the problem. The section should be tended to and expandend, not bulldozed. dab (𒁳) 18:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Adamic language solutions should be displayed, to give readers chance of acknowledging them. Slrubenstein's vandalisms prevented this. Wikinger (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic content

"It is, however, unclear how much from the Biblical perspective this language was preserved by Adam's descendants until the confusion of tongues (Genesis 11:1-9), or whether it began to evolve naturally (Genesis 10:5)."

According to whom? The editor who wrote this? that would violate NOR. Presumably this sentence represents a view, and a notable view. Please provide a reliable and verifiable source.

"There is no ancient claim that the Adamic language was identical to Biblical Hebrew, for "the Torah was written in the vernacular" of the Israelites (Talmud Sanhedrin 21b)."

The above does not belong in the article. The lack of a source means nothing. We should add to the article only claims for which there are sources. If there is no source for a claim, let us simply not put the claim in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least you finished blanking sourced statements. Because both Bible and Emmerich's revelations were both religious works that has status of holy books, that are believed by Catholics as created under God's inspiration, they are on equal footing as sources. Wikinger (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your appeal to divine inspiration fails Wikipedia´s criteria for verifiability. Stick to Wikipedia´s policies on verifiable and reliable sources. At most you could claim that Emmerich made these above two claims. Please provide citations and page numbers anc we can rewrite this as "According the Emmerich ..." and perhaps then reinsert it into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is citation available here: http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/origin_sorcery.htm (Chapter 7 - The Tower of Babel)

"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."

I already placed link to this citation into article, but you didn't even checked this citation. It directly reveals Proto-Indo-European as Adamic, because it states that first pure offshoots of Adamic are Bactrian, Zend, and Indian, that are of course Indo-European. Wikinger (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are disobeying our NPOV policy and our Verifiability policy. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. No source can possibly "reveal" that PIE is Adamic. A source can reveal only that some notable view holds that it is Adamic. You need to make it clear that this is view, not the truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statements criticised by Slrubenstein just gesture at the general content of the debate. I don't see how they are controversial. They are informed by Eco's book, and by all means they should be expanded into greater detail. Eco is a good place to start, and has lots of literature to pursue further. Of course this article needs a lot of work. You should invest your energies in building it, not in haggling about stubby content that acts as a placeholder until somebody can be bothered and add a proper discussion. Wikinger, your apparently confused assertions are not helping. This is a serious subject, and needs serious philological discussion, not rhetorics. dab (𒁳) 20:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not about the content but that the content is being presented as truth, when this is forbidden at Wikipedia. It must be presented as a verifiable and clearly identifiable view. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted only to prevent vandalism. I considered Slrubenstein's edits vandalisms, because he blanked sourced sections, falsely describing his edits as deletion of unsourced sections. Wikinger (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I again removed the above mentioned material, which violates NPOV as it is presented as a fact rather than as an identifiable point of view, and also because it has no bearing on the question of divine language. Wikinger accuses me of "vandalism" because I have removed content that is unencyclopedic and violates our policies. I have here provided an explanation for my edits with constructive suggestions for what kind of work might produce acceptable edits. I urge Wikinger to and Dbachmann to read the "Comments" below for more discussion on the problematic nature of the removed text. My edits are by no means arbitrary and definitely not vandalism. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of NOR

I removed this: "Dante in the Divina commedia implies that the language of Paradise was different from later Hebrew by saying that Adam addressed God as I rather than El." Unless you actually have a quote in which Dante states that Hebrew is not the Divine Language, this violates NOR because it is you who are drawing the inference. Wikipedia does not publish editors´own interpretations of primary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Slrubenstein, but you are not being reasonable here. dab (𒁳) 10:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]