Friday, January 13, 2017

Old and Original Languages (from Quora)

How did people first figure out what words in foreign languages mean?
I wonder how people first learned the meaning of words in a different language, especially for those with abstract or complicated meanings.

Own answer:
In history, most regions have been in contact for so long that one way of learning a foreign language is most often available, which is asking a previous bilingual.

Now, you are asking about situations in which language acquisition needs to start all over.

This is not quite just a historical question, it is also about situations which occur today. A missionary or an ethnologist finds a new people in Amazonas or New Guinea. They have to start all over.

Now, the thing is missionaries and ethnologists are usually good linguists, so they know how to arrange for systematic study.

Presumably the first time it happened was just after Babel, and they weren’t very good linguists back then.

So, presumably they did it like ethnologists or missionaries do - Jan Miś gave an example for concrete words - and sometimes fail.

I recall trying that method when starting to learn English.

I already knew that “blomma” was “flower”. I wanted to know how to say stem or stalk and pointed to one, and the boys I was with thought I pointed to the flower and told me “flower”.

Who was the earliest human whose name we know?
Asking this just out of curiosity.

xkcd Airplane Message says that Iry Hor was the earliest human whose name we know. But Wiki entry for Iry-Hor says that he is the earliest ruler of Egypt known by name. Is there any other person from maybe outside Egypt or non-ruler that we know to be the earliest person whose name we know?

Own answer:
If Adam was the earliest man of all, and we know his name, it was Adam.

If not, how can any early man’s name in any other ancient culture than the Hebrew be guaranteed to be not “mythical”?

How did the earliest humans communicate without a language system?

Own answer:
As far as the Bible tells us, there never ever was any such situation.

Adam was created with full linguistic not just potential but also competence in the Adamic language which arguably was Hebrew.

As far as evolutionism goes, there would be different guesses.

I don’t think any of them is convincing.

[other answer]
Michael DeBusk
Armchair linguist, and not an expensive fancy armchair either
Written Nov 22
No one knows, but we can assume by watching our fellow apes. They vocalize, use gestures and postures, and have very expressive faces, just as we do.

Ape Communication

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That guess is one of the major issues which seriously alienated me from Evolutionism.

The problem is : how do you develop anything like a human language from such a situation?

How were languages made by humans?

Own answer:
Do you mean "language" or "languageS"?

If you mean language as such, Bible says humans didn't invent it, God gave it. Evolutionists keep guessing otherwise, but can't get together a concrete how.

If you mean languageS, one very common process is being sloppy about details in the language you learned from your parents. Or even doing a variation on purpose because it sounds cool. Some of these changes catch on so well they become only option for future generations. When many of these have piled up, you have a new language. At least in speech. When it comes to writing, the diversity of spoken language can continue to be bridged by a common written one, until for some reason there is a break.

A less common one is to be confronted with having very many different languages, and trying to bridge. I personally think the earliest attempt at Indo-European would have been an attempt at a bridging language. Perhaps it only got as far as vocabulary items and case endings and personal endings on verbs (shared with Fenno-Ugric, mostly) catching on, while they otherwise kept their languages as previously. One late example which hasn't caught on is of course Esperanto.

If you mean languages invented just for fun, take a look at how Tolkien did it. Fauskanger on his site has gathered some of the info available from various hints of that author. And Tolkien need not have been the first conlanger.

What were the earliest human languages like, and how do we know?

Own answer:
There are two views on this one.

The Catholic view is that the first human language was probably Hebrew and certainly a language with full range of expression, given by God to Adam, except that Adam got to name the animals.

How we know? From the Bible.

The Evolutionist view is the first human languages were more limited in expression, intermediate in range between the human languages we know and the voice signals made by animals.

How they know?

From the comic book Rahan showing a situation in which personal pronouns were avoided? From the Jungle language in Tarzan being shared both between "great apes" and "men of Opar"? No, these are fiction.

From assessing the brain capacity and concluding from there that such and such a hominid could not yet have spoken a fully human language? No, since it is not clear that Australopithecus Africanus ever spoke any language, nor that Homo Erectus could not have spoken languages as we know, from studying their brains - or rather skull cavities where the brains once were. And from the genome of Neanderthals which has been sequenced, we know they were genetically as capable as we of having a normal language.

So, only from assuming that early humans evolved from non-human ancestors, that is how.

No human population alive today speaks a language which could reasonably by a linguist be characterised as belonging to subhuman and pre-human hominids. Unlike what certain colonials and non-linguists thought that the linguists would find.

[other answer]
Baggio Wong,
studied at West Island School
Written 7h ago
Tim Doner gives an interesting talk about language origins, and if memory serves, talks about reconstructing (potentially) how old languages sound. It’s worth a listen if you have time.

Tim Doner - Family Matters: A Look at the Indo-European Languages
Polyglot Conference

Essentially, again, this is from memory, there’s no way of knowing how old languages sound.

But we can guess.

By comparing similar words in related languages, it’s possible to deduce how certain syllables are constructed and pronounced.

But I’m by no means knowledgeable - the video presents the topic in a really interesting way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have a problem.

If the Bible is true, Proto-Indo-European can’t have been spoken in 4000 BC (a modern Creationist would consider that finds dated to 4000 BC are misdated due to a lower carbon 14 content back then). Unless PIE were the language given by God to Adam, but theologically, Hebrew is lots likelier.

If on the other hand Evolution is true, you haven’t answered the question, as there is no chance Proto-Indo-European can have been spoken by the earliest humans about 100 000 years or 200 000 years earlier than Proto-Indo-European in 4000 BC.

Baggio Wong
Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah, that seems like very specialized knowledge on the topic. I didn’t know. Thanks for the addendum. And, no, I don’t have an answer the the question, I don’t really know myself, so I can’t definitively answer per se, I’m just pointing to a video I watched a long time that might be interesting. :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thank you very much, if it is the video I think it is, I liked it too.

It is just that it is about a language group which started out much more recently than the earliest humans.

I am just watching another one, on a related topic.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

J'aime le chloka

Ce matin, je suis allé chez des gens qui ont un cyber, et la musique n'était pas celle d'ordinaire d'en Inde, c'était beaucoup plus rhythmé, sérieux et ... harmonieux, quoique belliqueux.

J'ai demandé, et on vient de me confirmer que c'était du Mahabharata.

Disons, le chloka est un bon moyen d'éviter l'oubli des mots par méprise. Une fois qu'on apprend un poème avec son mètre, il est un peu plus ancré que si c'était de la prose, car il est ancré par le sens et par le son.

Donc, les erreurs qui se trouvent dans le Mahabharata ne sont pas question d'ineptitude de transmission une fois fait le poème. Plutôt la transmission entre idolâtres avant le poème, peut-être aussi des ajouts ou délésions décidées délibérément, mais dscrètement. Mais pas le simple oubli.

D'ailleurs, je viens de faire un petit effort en latin, et de contenu chrétien, en chloka:

Qui vult et amat animo
Pervenerit in omne quod
Proposuit sibi faci
Mali vel boni et intime :

Effectus autem in alios
Aliasque et iam intra res
Aliquando prohibitur
A rebus quae ad extra sunt.

On utilise les élisions comme dans la versification antique "boni et intime" a cinq syllabes, pas six, "iam intra res" en a trois (bogne ète ine-ti-mé ... yine-tra réce).

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Paul le Premier Hermite
10.I.2017 Peut-être pas très bien, à la fois en latin, en chloka et en théologie morale, mais c'est aussi un premier pour le chloka.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

I analysed the phonetics of seven phrases

Seul artiste à avoir affiché complet pendant deux ans, plus d'un mois à l'avance, au Point Virgule, Fary revient dans les huit salles qui ont marqué sa fulgurante ascension.

I have just mentioned a distinction between the industrial revolution and the scientific revolution. The distinction is not clear-edged, but a useful one, and I ought to try to define it now.

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolant Belgae, alteram Aquitani, tertiam qui eorum lingua Celti nostra autem Galli vocantur.

Et ëarello utúlien ... Ambarmetta.

[Sorry, JRRT-fans, it is more than ten years since I finished the trilogy last time, and I no longer know the oath of Elendil by heart!]

Va piensero, sull'ali dorate ...

[And yes, my grasp on the text of this most known choral from Nabucco is similarily deficient!]

De' va' en lørda'saften, jeg sad o' vente' deg.

[De bogstæver der ikke har tilsvarende lyd i min udtale er blevne erstattete med apostrof.]

En un pequeño pueblo de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no deseo recordarme ...

[Los hispanizantes tienen que perdonarme, si el texto es erroneo aquí, es una retraducción del sueco.]

And here are the results, counting Nasals and Liquids as one group and unifying clusives, fricatives and affricates as "Obstruents" (also some wavering whether yod is to count as a vowel in Spanish or as a Liquid in Danish).

 Vowels Obstruents Liquids & Nasals Records
English 44% 36.3% 19.8%
French 45% 36% 18.9% Low for L/N
Latin 48.2% 29.4% 22.3%
Quenya 50% 19.2% 30.8% H for V, L/N, L for O
Italian 47.6% 28.5% 23.8%
Danish 43.3% 36.6% 20% L for V, H for O
Spanish 48.1% 24% 27.7%

Now, French being lowest on Liquids and Nasals might surprise, but Nasals here means Nasal Consonsonants. Remembre that French eliminates so many Nasal Consonants and turns previous Vowel into a Nasal Vowel instead. And Nasal Vowels (for French and for endings in Latin, as per restored pronunciation) count as vowels.

So here are the lists, from lowest to highest:

Danish, English, French, Italian, Latin, Quenya

Quenya, Spanish, Italian, Latin, French, English, Danish

Liquids and Nasals
French, English, Danish, Latin, Italian, Spanish, Quenya

Quenya is outstanding, but remember, I have not done any Greek or Finnish here, so overall Quenya is probably not that outstanding. Probably Hawaian has fewer obstruents and more liquids and nasals and vowels than even Quenya./HGL

PS, the phrase in Middle High German here has some properties which are noteworthy:

Uns ist in alten mæren/wunders vil geseit/von heleden lobebæren/von grôzer arebeit...

It had 39.39% vowels (record low), but also obstruents equal to nasals and liquids, 30.3% each. Highest liquid/nasal contant second to only Quenya./HGL

Monday, December 26, 2016

Quesnel - non merci!

Même certains protestants auraient leurs difficultés avec lui.

Dom Guéranger a beau être un liturgiste, il n'est pas si bon historien des protestantismes (au pluriel!) que Bossuet.

Le Protestantisme dont la théorie de grâce et de prédestination correspond le plus à Jansenius et Quesnel (et encore Michel de Bai, un proto-janséniste de Melun - certains pages de l'édition léonine de la Somme donne en notes en bas de page les références aux erreurs condamnées qu'avaient embrassées Bai, Jaanssen et Quesnel), ça correspond au courant du protestantisme autour de Luther et Calvin. Ils furent heureusement contredits par Arminius. Comparer Calvin et Arminius est comme de comparer Quesnel au jésuite Molina. Bien que l'arminianisme fut minoritaire dans son siècle parmi les Protestants, il convient de savoir que les Baptistes, en majorité, sont Arminiens et non Calvinistes. On se trompe donc beaucoup sur les Évangélistes si on les compare à ce genre là de Protestantisme que représentent Luther et Calvin. On se trouve également en erreur de fait si on croit qu'un Catholique ayant qqc en commun avec eux - par exemple le créationnisme qui est plus commun parmi les Évangélistes américains que parmi les Calvinistes français - aurait forcément une quelleconque connivance avec les "errores Baii Jansenii et Quesnelli" que l'édition léonine cite si souvent en bas de page. Surtout sur le chapitre de la grâce et prédestination.

Bible en français ... bon, il y avait eu 14 éditions en Haut-Allemand et 4 en Bas-Allemand avant l'édition hérétique par Luther. Il y avait eu une édition castillane de la Bible par un des cardinaux Cisneros ou Ximenes, si ma mémoire ne me trompe pas. Belloc affirme que ce qu'on prend pour l'édition condamnée de Wycliff est en réalité une autre édition catholique de la Bible en anglais.

Une traduction de la Bible en langue vernaculaire peut être une occasion magnifique pour les hérétiques de répendre leurs erreurs avec des mots traduits à travers (par exemple traduire "assemblée, surveillant, ancien, serviteur" au lieu de transcriber "église, évêque, prêtre, diâcre", ou affaiblir la salutation angélique, ou ajouter un "solus" ou un "sola" dans un endroit où St Paul ne l'a pas mis sous prétexte de sauvegarder le génie nationale de la langue allemande - les deux exemples là sont à propos l'édition erronnée de Luther et sur des points où il a défendu sa traduction erronnée dans une lettre ouverte encore préservée appelée "Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen", dont la lecture m'a avisé de sa malhonnêteté), mais ça peut également être l'occasion et parfois une occasion nécessaire de mettre de l'orthodoxie catholique dans les mains des fidèles. Tel est par exemple le cas des Bibles Douay-Rheims (notez la vieille orthographe des deux villes françaises) et son commentaire rédigé par Haydock (dont un prôche avait été martyrisé sous Élisabeth), qui souvent fait appel à des commentateurs de catholicité irréprochable. Pour le Nouveau Testament je cite volontier Worthington et Witham, deux évêques in partibus qui depuis le collège de Douai ont organisé la mission catholique en Angleterre, Écosse et Irlande pour les âmes demeurées ou redevenues fidèles.

Notez que le commentaire Haydock auquel je fais souvent référence est tout aussi "bibliciste", c'est à dire tout aussi inerrantiste à propos la Sainte Bible que les Young Earth Creationists dans le camp protestant. J'ai trouvé Kent Hovind en accord avec Duhamel à propos les guerroyers et les chars des Syriens ("dix guerroyers par char", ce que Hovind explique par le fait qu'ils prenaient des relèves).

Mais avoir une Bible en vernaculaire n'implique pas qu'on doive l'écouter en verniculaire dans la Sainte Messe. Et encore moins les mots qui sont l'Ordo plutôt que Temporale et Sanctorale.

Inversement, vouloir la Messe Tridentine n'a normalement pas comme corrollaire de vouloir manquer à l'inerrantisme quand à la Sainte Écriture. Surtout pas de nos jours quand celle-ci est tellement attaquée à causes des prétendues erreurs. On a le droit de ne pas avoir lu dans la Bible ce qui s'oppose à la théorie de l'Évolution, mais une fois qu'on l'a lu - et les évolutionnistes eux-mêmes s'empressent à mettre les passages à la disposition des élèves, ne fût-ce que pour mieux faire éclater le génie de Darwin, on est obligé de croire ces passages. On n'a pas le droit de leur préférer la théorie de l'évolution, et si on aurait théoriquement le droit de chercher une harmonisation, on ne doit pas le pousser à l'absurde, et encore moins prétendre que les Catholiques qui s'y opposent soient des Protestants.

Quesnel a un autre côté. Il pose, non seulement le Concile au-dessus du Pape mais aussi le synode diocésain au-dessus de l'évêque. Un Orthodoxe pourrait être en accord avec l'un*, mais il ne pourrait jamais être en accord avec le démocratisme de vouloir mettre une synode diocésaine au-dessus de l'évêque. Vous savez, un autre "Défenseur de l'Orthodoxie", Grégoire Palamas, non seulement était d'accord avec les Catholiques en ce qui concerne le Péché Originel et l'Immaculée Conception, comme aiment rappeler les Uniates, il était aussi convaincu des privilèges de St Pierre autant que le Pape Innocent III à la nuance près que pour lui chaque évêque ordinaire est successeur St Pierre. Ce qui permet assez directement de défendre la Tradition même au cas qu'on trouve la Papauté contemporaine apostate. Ce que font certains Catholiques Traditionnels. Sans de mettre les autres évêques de la même diocèse, les chorévêques ou évêques auxiliaires, successeurs des 12 apôtres, ni les simples curés, successeurs des 72 apôtres, sur le même pied que leur évêque. Donc, un Orthodoxe qui essayerait de condamner la Mouvance des Catholiques Traditionnels serait en désaccord avec Grégoire Palamas là-dessus.

Je ne connais pas exactement l'endroit où un défenseur de l'infallibilité papale prétend qu'une lacune entre papes pourrait se produire jusqu'à vingt ou trente ans avant l'élection valide d'un nouveau, je sais qu'un texte comme ça existe, mais je ne suis pas sûr de l'auteur, si c'était Cardinal Pie ou Merry del Val ou un autre, ni sur la date de sa rédaction, avant ou après les définitions sur entre autres choses "perpetuos successores".

Et ensuite, je retrouve ce texte après tellement de temps, que j'ai oublié contre quoi c'est que j'argumentais.** Par contre, je clos ici.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Étienne Proto-Martyr

* Ma mémoire doit être erronée, ou encore le récit que j'ai lu l'était. Pape St Zacharie, c'était avant - même une siècle avant. D'où le fait que j'ai mis la parenthèse entre signes de citation et que je la redonne ici: ("quoique Photius lui-même, qu'ils vénèrent comme Défenseur de l'Orthodoxie, posait le Pape Zacharie au-dessus du Concile de Constantinople en 869") ** En partie probablement contre une reproche que mon attirance pour certains baptistes en tant que crétionnistes le serait pour une théologie à la Quesnel - ce qui n'est pas le cas.

Friday, December 16, 2016

What does Newgrange Suggest to me? Was Lugos a Celtic Pharao?

Here is first a link to Barry Cunliffe's St Patrick Day lecture on Celts

Barry Cunliffe: Who Were the Celts?
BYU Department of Anthropology

And then one to my comments on it:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Barry Cunliffe's St Patrick Day's Lecture on Celts

Where I state the following:

The great megalithic tombs ...

4500 BC
3500 BC

According to my Fibonacci modelling of C14 rise, this looks like this:

2420 av. J.-Chr. 76,66562 % + 2200 ans, 4620 av. J.-Chr.
2241 av. J.-Chr. 86,26541 % + 1200 ans, 3441 av. J.-Chr.

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte

So, 2420 BC to 2241 BC is the period you are talking about, and I wonder, does that affect your model significantly? 

You mentioned 6000 BC.

Here is my recalibration for c. 6500:

2599 av. J.-Chr. 62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr.

(same link)

Here is the thing. 2599, 2420, 2241 BC are not long after Babel.

On the other hand, a 2241 misdated as 3500 BC is still shortly before Early Dynastic Egypt as usually dated. Limit is 3100 BC.

And since 3100 BC is between 3441 BC and 2792 BC, this would, if 3100 BC was carbon dated, be like this:

"2241 av. J.-Chr."
"86,26541 % + 1200 ans, 3441 av. J.-Chr."

Mid point 2151 BC
related to mid point 3116 BC

"2062 av. J.-Chr."
"91,58056 % + 730 ans, 2792 av. J.-Chr."

So, 3500 BC to 3100 BC is a lapse of 400 years.

But 2241 BC to 2151 BC is a lapse of only 100 years. Could the Pharaonic dynasties of Egypt have started with sth Celtic or pre-Celtic related to Newgrange?

A hint is here : Egyptian paganism and Celtic paganism alike are sunworshippers. And where Newgrange is, is Ireland, where Ireland is, you have Lugh Lamh Fáda as a sungod and one of the Túatha* Dé Danann, the people of the goddess Dana.

Even more funny, the Tuatha Dé Danann are said to be connected to Newgrange:

"During the medieval period, Newgrange and the wider Brú na Bóinne Neolithic complex gained various attributes in local folklore, which was often connected to figures from wider Irish mythology. The monuments of the Brú were thought of by some as being the abode of the supernatural Tuatha De Danann, whilst others considered them to be the burial mounds of the ancient kings of Tara."

What if the folklore was right on both accounts?

Since it happens that men are "made into gods", but also that more powerful rules peter out into less powerful either dynasties or power centres, it is possible that some powerful ruler of a sungod-relative (roughly Inka or Pharao type) settled here soon after Babel, and then was deified, while the kingship of Tara and the traditions about gods continued independently, both related to Newgrange.

And since Egypt started being dynastic and pharaonic only after this time, it is possible that this is where David Rohl's Falcon Tribe was rehearsing the take over they later did in Egypt.

So, suppose kings like Dagda and Lugos were in their time or soon after worshipped as gods, but also left a power centre in Tara, and then left for Egypt.

One implication to solidify it would be linguistic influence.

It seems Irish is a VSO language like Coptic and sometimes Hebrew - but are there words also linkable? I don't know.

Another implication might be genetic similarities - and some have dated a certain Y-chromosome phylum from Tutankhamon and included lots of Irish in it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Ember Friday of Advent
and Sts Ananias, Azarias and Misael

* It is funny that there are three language groups which have the tuath gloss : Celtic or at least the Irish branch, as witness the word, Germanic with Norse þioð, and Baltic, with Lithuanian Tautas.

Friday, December 9, 2016

Do you Recall How John Ronald Felt About Christopher Flying a War Plane?

I recall one of the letters said:

It would not be easy for me to express to you the measure of my loathing for the Third Service {The Royal Air Force which both Michael and Christopher Tolkien had joined}- which can be nonetheless, and is for me, combined with admiration, gratitude, and above all pity for the young men caught in it.But is is the aeroplane of war that is the real villain. And nothing can really amend my grief that you, my best beloved,{Christopher Tolkien} have any connexion with it.{Letter # 100}

Later, in the same letter, he refers to areoplanes as 'Nazgul-birds'.

"halfir" 11/Sep/2009 at 10:09 PM on this forum:
The "Infernal Combustion Engine' and Planes

So, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien felt his son was riding a "Nazgûl steed" or "Nazgûl bird".

Is there a connection between Pterosaurs and Air Planes? Arguably, yes.

Fossil studies suggest that it pointed toward the body, and that the forewing was relatively narrow. Other studies suggest it was directed forward during flight, resulting in a much broader forewing.

"It is not possible to resolve the debate about pteroid function using fossil evidence alone," the researchers write.

They tackled the problem a different way. Using wind tunnel tests of scale models of pterosaurs, the researchers compared the performances of each position of the pteroid bone.

"We discovered that lift is greatly increased if the pteroid bone pointed forwards in flight, not inwards as had been previously believed. This had the effect of expanding the skin-like forewing in front of the arm," says Wilkinson.

Just like plane flaps

The high lift would have been vital in allowing the largest pterosaurs to take off and land, in a similar way that flaps work on aircraft wings.

Large pterosaurs would have been able to take off simply by spreading their wings while facing a breeze. The leading edge flap would also have slowed landings, acting as an airbrake.

From : News in Science : Pterosaurs flew like jumbo jets
Rossella Lorenzi | Monday, 17 October 2005

OK, so Christopher Tolkien, like any Royal Air Force pilot or for that matter Luftwaffe pilot was basically flying a mechanical version of a Pterosaur?

Ah, yes.

Now, if Pterosaurs were plentiful in the world before the Flood ... - CMI's article from today cites:

Unwin notes that 5,000 to 6,000 pterosaur individuals have been collected so far (p. 51). Nor are there only a handful of places on Earth where pterosaurs have been found. His tabulation of pterosaur-bearing locations (his figure 3.9, pp. 52–53) is telling. There are 38 such locations, and that on every continent except Antarctica. Moreover, 21 of these 38 locations have yielded at least 10 pterosaur specimens, and seven of these locations have yielded at least 100 pterosaur fossils.

This is from the review of David M. Unwin's book Pterosaurs From Deep Time, Pi Press, 2006.

Supposing, as we YEC do, that the 5000 to 6000 pterosaur individuals all were buried in the Flood of Noah, and so all lived just before it, pre-Flood man would have to have been fairly familiar with pterosaurs.

And, either able to tame them (supposing diapsids can be tamed) - or, even better, to make mechanical imitations of them. Perhaps for use in war. Which fits in very well with my theory that the atom bomb and nuclear contamination like references in Mahabharata accurately do reflect a pre-Flood memory. This means, what happened over Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have happened in the pre-Flood world too.

And obviously, after the Flood, pterosaurs would not be completely exterminated, but "gently" pushed away from lands were people were eager to forget some of the worst inhuman technologies of the pre-Flood world.

Hence Americas are likelier than Europe to preserve Thunderbirds into what is now living memory.

Also, I am predisposed to think the pre-Columbian thing which looks like a toy plane actually depicts a plane and actually is pre-Columbian.

The Quimbaya artifacts are several dozen golden objects, found in Colombia, made by the Quimbaya civilization culture, dated around 1000 CE, a few of which (the so-called Quimbaya airplanes) are supposed by ancient astronauts theorists to represent modern airplanes, and therefore to be out-of-place artifacts. The whole of the figurines, measuring 2 to 3 inches (5 to 7.5 cm) each, are described in mainstream archaeology as depicting birds, lizards, amphibians and insects common in that region and period, some of them highly stylized, as in the Gold Museum, Bogotá.

In 1994, Germans Peter Belting and Conrad Lubbers created simplified radio-controlled scale models of these objects and showed that their models, which lack some convoluted features present in the real figurines, could fly.

Footnoted : Thomas, Robert Steven (2011). Intelligent Intervention. USA: Dog Ear Publishing. pp. 74–77. ISBN 978-1-4575-0778-6.

This does not mean I believe in Ancient Alien Astronauts visiting us. I only believe Nimrod was an Ancient Aspiring Astronaut who failed to build the rocket - and deserved to so fail, if, as I think, he had planned to fuel it with Uranium. But some will lump me with von Däniken or Zechariah Sitchen, just because I take the reverse take ... on same, interesting, type of questions.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Restitute of Carthage

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

However, He (WS) Got Two Particles Severely Wrong

I could subscribe to all of this post, except two particles in the first sentence:

Pen and Pension : A Pair of Famous Quacks
Posted on November 30, 2016

Here is the first sentence as written (minus the red font and the small caps replacing minuscules):

Despite The Enlightenment, the eighteenth century was still an age of credulity and superstition.

And here it is once again, underlining the two particles (a preposition and a temporal adverb) which he got wrong:

Despite The Enlightenment, the eighteenth century was still an age of credulity and superstition.

It is truer to say, as I think a German cardinal said just after WW-II, that when people cease to believe in God, they don't become incredulous, they become credulous about everything and anything.

Or perhaps it was Chesterton, in a Father Brown story.

Because of the Enlightenment, the 18th Century was increasingly an age of superstition.

Paradoxical? A bit. The Englightenment set out to weed out superstitions, didn't it? Yes, but in doing so, it set out looking for it in the wrong places.

In the name of religious and scientific freedom, more leeway was created which quacks could exploit. And while it was stamped as superstitious credulity to suggest that fasting as per the Catholic Church rules or praying the Rosary could be good for your health, people were swallowing the stuff, sorry snuff, of men no better than Cagliostro and Katterfelto.

And outside medicine, a curiosity about men like these was encouraged, like scientific curiosity.

I suggest William Savage gets a bit real about his historic credentials (mine are outside the strict subject and pre-graduate and aside the Academia studies).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Mairie du III
St Andrew Apostle