The Great Flood

[sophie]

Haven't read this thread, but it's worth noting that the time-age limit of a language is ~12-15,000 years. After that point literally no word (or possibly even evidence of a word) exists from the original language. This is why outside a couple of academics nobody talks seriously about language beyond Proto-Indo-European (or other proto-languages of a similar time-depth). By that point you're reaching a time depth where it's quite simply impossible to comment on what words might have existed before. So if you're talking about an oral tradition (where a teacher forces a student to learn a story in a very specific way and with all the phrasing/words/sounds preserved) that tracks back 60,000 years, you're also talking about someone preserving a language which doesn't only have no relationship to the student (or teacher)'s native language, but doesn't have any relationship to any other language on the planet, and hadn't had one for over 45,000 years, and outside this one story, has no existence, documentation, or meaning to anybody.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Any links about this language age limit? How was that worked out, and by whom, and when?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Name one time in history where humans in control of other humans ever got it right.

What is the relevance of this? It's a pretty poor excuse for people deliberately ruining the environment for the sake of money, just because their preferred holy book said it's okay.

 

[timtofly]

What is the relevance of this? It's a pretty poor excuse for people deliberately ruining the environment for the sake of money, just because their preferred holy book said it's okay.

Because any one can quote a past human experience and apply it wrong.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Because any one can quote a past human experience and apply it wrong.

To what does this refer, specifically?

 

[timtofly]

To what does this refer, specifically?

I am not sure if you are trying to discredit current issues you have or something current you are blaming on ancient writings. Cause if you are trying to discredit the past with what is happening in the present, it is sorta pointless. You cannot change the past, nor blame it for causing current issues. We do not even live under the same conditions.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I am not sure if you are trying to discredit current issues you have or something current you are blaming on ancient writings. Cause if you are trying to discredit the past with what is happening in the present, it is sorta pointless. You cannot change the past, nor blame it for causing current issues. We do not even live under the same conditions.

I asked you how this post is relevant to my post that you quoted.

So far you haven't provided an answer that makes sense. Instead, you've gone off on other tangents that are unrelated to my post.

As for blaming the past for the present, it's hardly pointless, considering the present is based on the past.

 

[timtofly]

I agree with you that people basing their ideas on the past is a poor excuse. I pointed out that humans in control normally are not there for the well being of humanity, but preserving their own interest. Perhaps not directly, but normally every form of governance is corrupt in some form or other. If it is wrong to excuse oneself, by quoting the past, why do it? Then why do you base your own ideas on the past by pointing out others ruin the present by using the past as an excuse?

The present being based on the past is good of we learn from mistakes. It is hardly good if we keep doing it wrong over and over again. But the blame lies squarely on each person making bad choices, not what has already happened. Otherwise you are proving the point humans cannot think for themselves, but insanely repeat mistakes over and over again, cause it is someone else's fault.

I have never based any of my points on the fact the Bible is supposed to be a holy book to follow either the good or bad as a reason to prove what it says actually happened. It seems pointless to me, pointing out people are wrong when they use it in that manner. And even more pointless as a point to discredit the past, cause we cannot get it right in the present.

 

[sophie]

Any links about this language age limit? How was that worked out, and by whom, and when?

I don't really feel like going down to the library to give you full summaries of each of these articles, but:

D. Ringe, "'Nostratic' and the Factor of Chance" (1995)
L. Campbell, Language Classification: History and Method (2008)
E.F. Koerner (ed.), Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence (1995)

It's also generally worth reviewing the history of the Nostratic theory. We're dealing with a proposed proto-language existing some time between 15-12,000 BCE, and even such a language rests on a handful of cognates, of which only an even smaller handful have documented cognate exempla across all proposed language families. Even then, this proposed proto-language is highly contentious and, by and large, is not acknowledged widely by the historical linguistic community. Proposed language families older than Nostratic (viz. Eurasiatic, Borean, and a larger Proto-Human) are even more controversial, and built on even more spurious and erroneous information. All of these are dealing with time depth that is under 20,000 years (aside from Proto-Human). These are the most outlandish proposed proto-proto-languages which any remotely respectable historical linguist is willing to plausibly and seriously propose, and these are still 1/3 the age of this implied proto-Human-esque language which would originate the flood-myth.

 

[Hygro]

I wonder if the rate of change changed at any point.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I agree with you that people basing their ideas on the past is a poor excuse.

That is not what I said.

I said:

What is the relevance of this? It's a pretty poor excuse for people deliberately ruining the environment for the sake of money, just because their preferred holy book said it's okay.

I pointed out that humans in control normally are not there for the well being of humanity, but preserving their own interest. Perhaps not directly, but normally every form of governance is corrupt in some form or other. If it is wrong to excuse oneself, by quoting the past, why do it? Then why do you base your own ideas on the past by pointing out others ruin the present by using the past as an excuse?

They're excusing themselves by quoting Genesis.

 

[Berzerker]

I paraphrased it.

From where? So you hit the quote button on something I said, then deleted what I said and replaced it with your paraphrased version and used it to ?

You're using mythology as your source, and are mocking the astronomers and planetary scientists who are using observation and analysis, rather than mythology.

Since you know much more than they do, you should make sure to tell them how wrong they are. I'm sure they would be grateful to have the answers handed to them so they can move on to other projects.

I'm not mocking astronomers, I'm showing why your assertion ancient peoples have nothing to teach researchers is debatable, on the contrary. So what was your answer to the question:

These ancient myths say the world was covered by water before continents and life appeared. What do your experts say?

The experts thought differently not too long ago, they named the Earth's early history the Hadean because they thought the surface was too hot. They were wrong... The people you're mocking were right.

Haven't read this thread, but it's worth noting that the time-age limit of a language is ~12-15,000 years. After that point literally no word (or possibly even evidence of a word) exists from the original language. This is why outside a couple of academics nobody talks seriously about language beyond Proto-Indo-European (or other proto-languages of a similar time-depth). By that point you're reaching a time depth where it's quite simply impossible to comment on what words might have existed before. So if you're talking about an oral tradition (where a teacher forces a student to learn a story in a very specific way and with all the phrasing/words/sounds preserved) that tracks back 60,000 years, you're also talking about someone preserving a language which doesn't only have no relationship to the student (or teacher)'s native language, but doesn't have any relationship to any other language on the planet, and hadn't had one for over 45,000 years, and outside this one story, has no existence, documentation, or meaning to anybody.

I don't really feel like going down to the library to give you full summaries of each of these articles, but:

D. Ringe, "'Nostratic' and the Factor of Chance" (1995)
L. Campbell, Language Classification: History and Method (2008)
E.F. Koerner (ed.), Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence (1995)

It's also generally worth reviewing the history of the Nostratic theory. We're dealing with a proposed proto-language existing some time between 15-12,000 BCE, and even such a language rests on a handful of cognates, of which only an even small handful have documented cognate exempla across all proposed language families. Even then, this proposed proto-language is highly contentious and, by and large, is not acknowledged widely by the historical linguistic community. Proposed language families older than Nostratic (e.g. Eurasiatic, Borean, and a larger Proto-Human) are even more controversial, and built on even more spurious and erroneous information. All of these are dealing with time depth that is under 20,000 years (aside from Proto-Human). These are the most outlandish proposed proto-proto-languages which any remotely respectable historical linguist is willing to plausibly and seriously propose, and these are still 1/3 the age of this proposed proto-Human-esque language which would originate the flood-myth.

Thats interesting, if the Flood happened at the start of the Younger Dryas ~13,000 kya and the Tower of Babel followed with the dispersal and confusing of tongues then we might see traces of the language spoken at the Tower. I'm inclined to believe we shared the same culture and language whenever it was we appeared in Africa 200-300 kya and the people who migrated away saw the fastest changes. As language evolves stories are translated. I read somewhere the click languages of Africa might be our oldest surviving language, but is it possible earlier peoples like Neanderthals and Denisovans contributed words?

 

[timtofly]

That is not what I said.

They're excusing themselves by quoting Genesis.

I said it is pointless for them to use that as an excuse even if it is a good one. However I agreed it is a poor excuse. Things were a lot different in context of the text than they are right now. It is pointless to say Genesis is just as wrong. Since you are basing that assumption on today and nothing relevant to the time period it was used in.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

From where? So you hit the quote button on something I said, then deleted what I said and replaced it with your paraphrased version and used it to ?

Click on the arrow. It links to the post.

It was just a rerun of the same stuff you've posted multiple times in multiple threads, and I didn't feel it was worth addressing in specific terms. As the saying goes, "Been there, done that." I don't particularly want the t-shirt.

I'm not mocking astronomers, I'm showing why your assertion ancient peoples have nothing to teach researchers is debatable, on the contrary. So what was your answer to the question:

These ancient myths say the world was covered by water before continents and life appeared. What do your experts say?

This is irrelevant, since the subject of the thread is a flood that mythology says happened during the Bronze Age.

Ancient peoples lacked the tools and technology to discover what the world was like billions of years ago, if they could even conceive of the concept of "billions of years" at all - which is doubtful. So you're basically mocking the astronomers by insisting that the myths these people made up are more accurate than modern observations, measurements, and analysis.

The experts thought differently not too long ago, they named the Earth's early history the Hadean because they thought the surface was too hot. They were wrong... The people you're mocking were right.

The beauty of the scientific method is that when new information is found that disproves previous hypotheses or theories, the new information is added and the incorrect information is discarded.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I said it is pointless for them to use that as an excuse even if it is a good one. However I agreed it is a poor excuse. Things were a lot different in context of the text than they are right now. It is pointless to say Genesis is just as wrong. Since you are basing that assumption on today and nothing relevant to the time period it was used in.

It isn't a good one.

 

[sophie]

I wonder if the rate of change changed at any point.

It's a question that's been discussed at length. Pagel et al. have done some research on language change using Markov chains and Monte Carlo simulations. They found that words that are used frequently tend to be more resistant to change - quite considerably resistant at that. Again though, these sorts of deep-time proto-languages are to a degree on the fringes of Historical Linguistics so you have to take their findings with a pinch of salt.

Thats interesting, if the Flood happened at the start of the Younger Dryas ~13,000 kya and the Tower of Babel followed with the dispersal and confusing of tongues then we might see traces of the language spoken at the Tower. I'm inclined to believe we shared the same culture and language whenever it was we appeared in Africa 200-300 kya and the people who migrated away saw the fastest changes. As language evolves stories are translated. I read somewhere the click languages of Africa might be our oldest surviving language, but is it possible earlier peoples like Neanderthals and Denisovans contributed words?

Yeah, this was not what I was saying at all in the above quoted portion. It's the exact opposite, in fact.

As to the latter part - if you were arguing that these stories were retained via oral tradition, and now are arguing that the stories are translated - you're no longer arguing in favor of oral tradition. The whole reason why stories like the Sanskrit Vedas can be reliably looked at as such strong indicators of original Sanskrit language and culture is because they were transmitted very literally; it's not about simply retelling the story, it's about memorizing every minute detail about the story down to its rhythm, verbiage, and structure.

While we're on the topic of inherited myths and legends, this is something that has been actually studied within the context of historical linguistics and the Indo-European family in particular. By comparing the myths and etymologies of various Indo-European traditions (important to note here: mythology that can be genuinely attested to an IE origin, not as a result of alternative sub/superstrates like Aphrodite, Persian mythology told through the lens of Zoroaster, etc.). In this regard, the most useful texts are, for example, not the Roman myths (by and large inherited from the Greeks), but rather from their histories (e.g. Romulus and Remus).

The below is all taken from J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World, chapter 25 "Comparative Mythology". Consult that for a far more thorough overview on the topic.

So the things interpreted in this approach would be:

The Mahabharata and the Vedas
The works of Homer
The Roman "Histories" and traditional Rituals
Norse Eddas
Heroic literature of Ireland and Wales
some very scant and carefully extracted attestations of Lithuanian and Russian sources filtered through secondhand Christian accounts
Some Armenian epic literature

So from those, these are the mythological tropes which have been identified:

Deities:

A Sky God - pretty much one of only two gods with specific lexical/semantic cognates (Skt dyáus pita; Grk Zeus pater; Lat Iupater; Illyrian Dei-patrous; Hit attas Isanus; Latv Divs, Debess tevs; [spurious] Russian Stribogu)
Sky Daughter identified with the dawn (Skt duhita divah; Grk thugater Dios; Lith dievo dukte); and also Dawn goddess: (Skt Usas; Grk Eos; Lat Aurora; Lith Ausrine)
Divine Twins: Greek: Kastor and Polydeukes; Anglo-Saxon Hengist and Horsa; Welsh Manywydan. In some cases they share a sister (Grk Helenes; Welsh Branwen)
A Chief God Who fulfils a Juridical Function (1st function): (Skt Mitra; Lat: Numa Pompilius or Mucius Scaevola; ON Tyr; OIr Nuadu). Roman and Germanic traditions have this figure losing his left arm to maintain the sanctity of oaths. The Irish equivalent (Núadu) loses his left arm in battle.
A God who is in charge of the relationship between humans and the sacred order: Skt Varuna/Pandu; Lat. Romulus; Horatio Cocles; ON Oðinn; OIr Esus; Lith Velinas. Also of note: both Horatio Cocles and Oðinn are one-eyed.
A war god (2nd function): Skt. Indra/Arjuna; Lat Mars/Tullus; ON Þorr; Gaul Taranis; OIr Ogma.
A thunder god: ON Fjorgyn (mother of Þorr); Lith Perkunas; ORus Perunu
A third-function god (i.e. a god representing the third function, namely fertility): Lat Quirinus; ON Freyr; Gaul Teutates; OIr Bres
a goddess embodying the three functions (law, war, and fertility): Athena is given the epithets polias, nike, hugiea (protectress, victory, well-being); Iuno is described as Seispes Mater Regina (safe, mother, queen). Also of note the Judgment of Paris, where three goddesses offer Paris each one of the three functions (Hera: rulership, Athena: victory in battle, Aphrodite: the love of the most beautiful woman in the world)
a medical god: Apollo and Rudra (Skt) inflict disease with their bows. Also both are associated with rats.
A river goddess: Welsh Don, Irish Danu, (same root of names for some Rivers: Danube, Don, Dnieper, Dniester)
A sea God (spurious, draws on similarity between OIr: triath ["sea"] and Grk Triton)

Mythic tropes:

Universe created from a Giant where the flesh becomes earth, hair grass, bone stone, blood water, eyes the celestial bodies, brain clouds, breath wind, and head heavens. (e.g.: Purusa or Ymir) Also a crossover with the twin trope where the giant is one twin, and the other twin, representing man, has to kill the giant to create the world. (e.g. Ymir, Remus, Twisto, and Yama). This may (per Bruce Lincoln) be the origin of the animal sacrifice of e.g. the Roman, Norse, and Greek traditions.

Foundational War in which the 3rd function (viz. fertility) is brought into the world by force: Æsir vs Vanir (Freyr, Frya, and Njörðr agree to live with the Æsir); Rape of the Sabine women in Roman tradition. Possibly also the Trojan War. Indra tricked into letting the Asvins into the world.

Hero and Serpent: Archetypal hero slays a serpent (often three-headed): Herakles defeats Kerberos; Horatio Cocles slays three enemies.

Horse Sacrifice

King and Virgin: King's life is imperiled, but eventually saved by a virginal daughter producing heirs. e.g. Numitor's daughter Silvia Rhea birthing Romulus and Remus

Individual transgressing against the three functions of society (i.e. law, warfare, fertility): Germanic hero Starkaðr slays a king, flees in battle, and kills for money. Mallory and Adams also cite Herakles, I assume slaying his wife/child represents the 3rd, while slaying King Eurytus is the 1st

Also the Three Fold Death: Each of the three functions is represented by a different form of death, with the 1st being hanging, the 2nd burning, and the 3rd drowning or dying near water

Death represented as a journey over a river, ferried by an old man, possibly guarded by dog(s). In some variants the river causes some attachment to the mortal life (sins/memories) to be washed away. Sometimes the ruler of the dead is the sacrificed twin.

Eschatological final battle

 

[Berzerker]

Click on the arrow. It links to the post.

It was just a rerun of the same stuff you've posted multiple times in multiple threads, and I didn't feel it was worth addressing in specific terms. As the saying goes, "Been there, done that." I don't particularly want the t-shirt.

Okay I clicked on the arrow... Now what did you paraphrase from my post?

This is irrelevant, since the subject of the thread is a flood that mythology says happened during the Bronze Age.

The OP is about the Younger Dryas and its possible connection to flood myths, but it aint irrelevant to your assertion the experts are right and myths are wrong.

Ancient peoples lacked the tools and technology to discover what the world was like billions of years ago, if they could even conceive of the concept of "billions of years" at all - which is doubtful. So you're basically mocking the astronomers by insisting that the myths these people made up are more accurate than modern observations, measurements, and analysis.

Their myth about the world before continents and life was more accurate... Pointing that out isn't mocking astronomers.

The beauty of the scientific method is that when new information is found that disproves previous hypotheses or theories, the new information is added and the incorrect information is discarded.

Yes... and your experts were wrong and ancient peoples were right. How does that square with your insistence we trust the experts and ignore myths?

 

[Berzerker]

Yeah, this was not what I was saying at all in the above quoted portion. It's the exact opposite, in fact.

I wasn't trying to repeat what you said. I was pointing out if a language has a shelf life of 12-15 ky then the language of the people at the Tower of Babel might still exist if the flood happened ~13 kya.

As to the latter part - if you were arguing that these stories were retained via oral tradition, and now are arguing that the stories are translated - you're no longer arguing in favor of oral tradition. The whole reason why stories like the Sanskrit Vedas can be reliably looked at as such strong indicators of original Sanskrit language and culture is because they were transmitted very literally; it's not about simply retelling the story, it's about memorizing every minute detail about the story down to its rhythm, verbiage, and structure.

The Vedas were written down, but why cant an oral tradition undergo translations? If people lived together in Africa 200 kya and shared the same culture and language, their stories would be translated as their languages evolved. We cant find the original language but some myths show a commonality.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Okay I clicked on the arrow... Now what did you paraphrase from my post?

I'm sure you can tell what didn't make it into the quoted text. I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming you know how to read your own posts.

The OP is about the Younger Dryas and its possible connection to flood myths, but it aint irrelevant to your assertion the experts are right and myths are wrong.

You have brought a lot of irrelevant material into this, most of which we've seen dozens of times before.

Their myth about the world before continents and life was more accurate... Pointing that out isn't mocking astronomers.

I'd point out some outrageous things you keep insisting on, but I'm not willing to have that conversation again.

Yes... and your experts were wrong and ancient peoples were right. How does that square with your insistence we trust the experts and ignore myths?

Where's your source that definitively states that this mythology is more accurate than trained astronomers?

 

[Berzerker]

I'm sure you can tell what didn't make it into the quoted text. I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming you know how to read your own posts.

I dont know what that means, what in my post did you paraphrase? I didn't even respond to you in that post.

You have brought a lot of irrelevant material into this, most of which we've seen dozens of times before.

Why is it irrelevant? The thread has wandered around the subject of how long oral traditions can last but thats hardly an irrelevant inquiry by skeptics. I dont even know why you read my responses to other people, you keep getting mad and jumping in to complain about a discussion you're not even part of.

I'd point out some outrageous things you keep insisting on, but I'm not willing to have that conversation again.

How does that prove I'm mocking astronomers?

Where's your source that definitively states that this mythology is more accurate than trained astronomers?

I'd think geologists would be the experts on what the world was like before life appeared. I already explained that, the myths say the world was covered by water before land and life. The experts said the world was molten a long time and too hot for water, even too hot for rocks to survive. Now if we followed your advice - dont 'mock' the experts by disagreeing with them - we'd believe the people who were wrong and 'mocked' the ancient peoples who were right.

How do trained astronomers explain the solar system's tilt? The Lord is thy shepherd...