Is They Is - Or Is They Isn't?

Post Reply New Topic

Side by side with the question of when did hominids start talking to one another - which has been fought over from time to time - is the question of when did hominids start talking to a higher power.

The language question, of course, is NOT going to get answered any time soon. UNLESS I get me that sonic-capable temporal scanner. All we can do is lame things like pumping sound through reconstructed oral tracts.

But for the religion question, we at least have some concrete evidence of - what?

We got it the is they is or is they isn't Neanderthal burials:

[http://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/neanderthal-burials/]

We got it the is they spiritual or is they porn Venus figurines:

[http://donsmaps.com/venus.html]

So neither of these is at the level of a teocalli. What do you expect from the Paleolithic?

But what is the betting? A paleolithic terminus ante quem for religion, or nay?

The essential problem, of course, is not when hominids started talking to a higher power but when will the higher power answer in a way that cannot be assumed to be a con by lower powers?

It is very obvious that some of the lower powers think everybody is so much a con like themselves.

are you sure that shouldn't be "Is they is or is they aint?"

Yo soy card carrying philologer. Mi no tied down by common convention..

Well, then, What did He have to confide in you?

Takataka.

Except for some private messages all I hear is links to previously published material.

The Baptism was a particularly intriguing one, involving as it did examination of texts in Middle Low German.

Just as I suspected. Some insurance salesman in a toga is trying to get the best of you. Some people never learn.

Modern hunter-gathers ( like the Kung bushmen, and the shoshoni indians) use rituals to influence nature ( in hunting or gathering) by appealing to inature spirits.

So our Paleolithic hunter-gatherer ancestors probably did much the same.

With the invention of the plow and the rise of civilization they developed more anthropormorphic gods- families of devine humans who lived on mount olympus whom you could speak to and make sacrifices to.

And the rest is history. Polythieism got paired down to monotheism. Gods became linked ot moral judgment and in other ways took interest in the lives of humans and nations.

In medeaval europe the tradtional gesture used when addressing your feudal lord ( head down and hands clasped together wth paired fingers pointed toward the higher ranking person you're addressing) became the way to address your unseen "lord"- thus modern christian prayer was invented.

So the exact style of prayer as we know it only goes back less than a thousand years it had its roots in the ritual magic used by hunter gathrers for atleasd 50 thousand years.
The era in which anatomically modern stoneage people began to leave lots of signs of ingenuity such as art and musical instruments and evidence of ritual behavior.

But ( as with neanderthal burials) there is evidence of belief in an afterlife that goes back earlier, perhaps to Hiedelberg Man ( the likely common ancestor of both us and the neanderthals).

So "talking to god" as we know it may be only a few thousand years old, but belief in unseen forces that could be influenced through ritual is tens of thousands of years old- if not older, and probably predates spoken language (as we know it).

A. Wee Coryl claimed to appreciate dry humor. You are so wet in so many senses

B. You do need to learn to read. It is like talking to the weight and fortune machine.

C. Except at the Latin Club dinner I have never met anyone wearing a toga.

D. I have not dealt with an insurance salesman since high school - one of my friends was a trainee. I bought nothing.

E. God has not tried to sell me anything. He has given me some things and otherwise has been a courteous and consistent source of data., Kind of person I like to deal with.

F. You would seem less foolish if you spoke of what you know. Except for knowing everybody but you is an idiot, and that the world is full of bad people although morality does not exist.

It is not permitted on this site to indulge in name calling for lack of control or not being particularly articulate but it probably is allowable to admit one's own lacks. I am completely unable to perceive the slightest indication of either intellect or skill in any direction in your responses to my comments.

The question, "Is they is, or is they isn't?" makes me want to hide behind a giant copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage.

Absolutely. Nothing could be fouler than that

Fowler is to the literate of my generation very much what Dr. Spock was to the parents of my generation. I got the full impact of Spock which is why I type with my right hand but mouse with my left - my younger brother was luckier.

On the issue of usage, Linguistics has much to say.

Fowler was better than many another of that genre. But ultimately, those are Miss Manners - descriptively useful, sought after by the Socialized as justification, useful to those who want or need to "fit in" to a particular group. The AUTHORITY was and is and remains the individual speaker.

Have you tried reading Pogo? My father introduced Pogo to the family, but reading Pogo or Li'l Abner he had to translate to Academy English.

To propose that the average piece of writing should be done in the language emitted by characters in Pogo or Lil* Abner is an interesting clue to your tendencies for obfuscation.

You have said that you are not up to speed in Finnish. Here you again COMPLETELY miss the point of a passage of English in clear - in which I made no such proposal. Why would I?

The question is - is there a language you CAN read?