Eradicating Antisemitism from the American Public System [Archive]

mastralvarado

January 23rd 2009, 02:54 PM

The English language itself is to blame for the lack of education in public school systems in order to acquire better non-discriminating Jobs. Hitler used German to persuade the masses against the Jews of Europe and the World. English is a Germanic based language system with a few add-ons from Mediterranean languages. Germanic language is very technical, frank. Yet, the Nazis lost World War II. It seems that siding with anything Nazi is a sure gamble. Therefore, English people should side with Semitic peoples instead of Nazis or anyone with nazism in their past. English has had much influence from religious, fanatical Germans in the past. If English is discriminating in the language per se, the American people (i.e. North Americans living in U.S.), having separation of church and state, should consider if the English language is biased towards religious proliferation.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. .A. Einstein

Background

Old English, old French, old Slavic and other languages were not written down since Chinese had the paper monopoly. Few people could write and only semitic languages, Sanskrit and Chinese and Greek characters were written in papyri parchments or skins.

English is too loaded with auspicious words that are bathed with precocious double entendrés, euphemisms and acronyms in order to entertain, insult, or speculate: urban dictionaries are examples of this. For example, in 2009, in England calling a woman a 'daft bint' is not insulting and yet in America it is.

The only solution in my opinion is to teach young people Arabic in schools in order to make them distinguish between the auspicious and non-auspicious. Auspicious words come from the Sanskrit. Chinese, though with far less influence especially in romance languages, has had much influence recently. One example is the Spanish word "Si" (Chinese equivalent: 轼 /shī/) which means 'yes' in English. But Chinese has recently had no sufficient influence in auspicious words to make it relevant; (except in numerology) the grammatical influence has not only been recently (or may be just coincidental which is doubtful).

Arabic is not derived from Sanskrit nor Chinese, and has been impervious to any auspicious influence to it by rest of the world; it has no auspicious words in it (Arabic dictionaries omit 'yasara' which means "he played at dice"). Children cannot be taught two languages at a time.

English can be used to insult in the euphemism and dysphemism treadmills of which public schools definitely teach via lack of ethical controls on language mode distinctions (e.g. telling the kids the difference between insulting and joking; harassing and hazards, truths and half-truths).

Most children go to public schools

This can be a test using several school districts as sample. If English should be taught as a secondary language (as it should) it would in no way turn a child less American than one who has English as EFL (English as a first language). Arabic is harder to learn as a person grows older. Therefore, it is only in the name of Antisemitism that this approach is being proposed.

Maltese, which is an Arabic dialect that has no Arabic characters, is a language that has an Arabic-like speech but Latin characters. Hence it would be of no use since it easily destroys meanings [1] from lack of Arabic grammar and borrowing from English and German languages.

Therefore, Arabic is the appropriate language to teach since it has no auspicious characters and the American society, by using it in pre-elementary schools, eradicates Antisemitism. The question now is whether to teach them classical or modern Arabic.
___________

[1] http://www.macmillandictionary.com/MED-magazine/February2005/27-LI-Maltese.htm

Notes:
(ESL) means English as a Second Language
(EFL) means English as a First Language
(AFL) means Arabic as First Language

mastralvarado

January 23rd 2009, 06:09 PM

For people who answered "separation of church and state has nothing to do with the language that the majority in a country speaks"

Please consider these premises before you post.

As a theology, every major religion seeks to convert the rest of the world that it is the religion to follow.

If every person in the world had the same religion there would be no need of national/state recognition.

National/state recognition is done by speech and writing,

Therefore language has everything to do with religion.

How did people/cultures with different languages come about?

How would you recognize the difference between church and State?

What factors limit the spread of a religion in the rest of nations/states?

shunyadragon

February 4th 2009, 10:15 AM

Binkster

February 4th 2009, 10:26 AM

didn't mean to vote...don't count mine haha :outtie:

mastralvarado

February 5th 2009, 07:44 PM

Greetings shunyadragon, thanks for your reply:

First, anti-Semitism (anti-Jewish?) is only one of the many ethic and religious conflict problems of the world, which even by the name anti-Semitism is misleading, because Arabs themselves are mostly Semite.

This is true. There are many variations of the term: Antisemitism, antisemitism, anti-semitic, Anti-Semitic, and the rest. Make no mistake, anti-semitism should be used with referral to Semitic speakers/peoples (Arabs, Arameans, Hebrews, Berbers).

It's also very important to understand that anti-Semitic can be an adjective and a noun. For example, one could say:

"Hitler is an anti-Semitic bigot" which translates as "racist fanatic". This in itself is fine. Contrary to this, you could say, "you are being accused of anti-Semitism" which translates to actually using anti-Semitic speech/writings.

I found it difficult to respond to the poll as worded, language does not by itself cause or lead to prejudice or religious conflict.

Yes this is also true. The usage of language without understanding some of its abstract terms such as "separation" could lead ignorance which is what a language's enemy is as well as the enemy of freedom-loving people. If a language has many words which are arch typical of authoritarian regimes and these words are used for war mongering, they will cause the ignorant persons to fall to the rhetoric. The downfall of any nation is conformance to eloquent speech that has no scientific nor logical background in its inception (lying, half-truths, slang). The opposite usage of speech may not be as eloquent but it is well founded upon mathematical principles and geometries should make sense and also be well founded upon eternal principles (morality, veracity, justice, phronesis). This is what speech should (pragmatically) look like all of the time it should show both sides of itself so that no mistake can be made in decision-making.

The associations you cited above for English are erroneous and misleading.

English can be used to insult in the euphemism and dysphemism treadmills of which public schools definitely teach via lack of ethical controls on language mode distinctions (e.g. telling the kids the difference between insulting and joking; harassing and hazards, truths and half-truths).

Let me explain the reason why English is not a God sanctioned language:

Mt. 5:22

But I say unto you That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment and whosoever __ shall say to his brother Raca shall be in danger of the council but whosoever __ shall say Thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire

Children in most American public schools are taught to sin (by refusing to teach biblical passages such as Mt. 5:22 or lack of general ethics). Mix wrongful usage of words and every sin imaginable and you get depression. This is why it's wrong to use English in public schools especially in the the only superpower after the cold war.

Since the country is now in a recession and if this does not change, the next event in an economic cycle is a depression. Therefore, since language is intrinsically tied to economy via the abstract term of separation of Church and State and this cannot be changed, the logical conclusion is to change the language. Speculation is somewhat related to rhetoric and freedom loving people are to scared to appaulled :hehe: to convert from a democratic republic to a theocratic parliamentary such as Iran because of all the influence the Catholic church has on the majority of the population. Therefore, it can only be natural being the only nation that claims to be fair and balanced to create several school districts whose parents will have their kids be taught a Semitic language from the start while they learn the same language on their own. This language can be any semitic language. But I would not recommend Hebrew as a First Language (HFL) because of all the influence the Jews have using think tanks to send Americans to war in Iraq and possibly Iran (the latter for the sole protection of Israel)

In the ancient world that most religion. like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, language was strongly associated with religion.

I bet Mel Gibson would like Aramaic as a First Language to be taught in these school districts in order for more kids to go watch his movie ("the passion").:wink:

Judaism and Islam remain strongly associated with their language of origin, because of the doctrinal requirement that their scripture must be learned and used in their religion.
Aramaic as a first language would have no such ties to religion. What religion did Jesus (AS) practice? In effect, several school districts could practice Aramaic and others Arabic. As I mentioned before, Hebrew would not be a recommended choice until the political situation where Jews have worked their ways to the top of many industries which control/lead publicity, media and foreign policy changes.

These media/policy/commerce cultures have helped bring about this recession. The impact of such a recession should concern many people including those not living in the U.S.

This creates a bias and seperation based on language that is difficult to overcome. Neither Hebrew nor Arabic can divorce themselves from this strong association.
The modern arabic language is one, there there are two modes of scripture (Classical and Quranic). You're right again, both of these scripts cannot divorce themselves from the religious association. I'm curious, do you think that Church be separated from State neither? The U.S., Britain, Spain and France as well as other "freedom loving" nations certainly claims to have done so. But I don't believe that this is the case. People are required to enroll in the military in the U.S. after they turn a certain age. This is in no way democratic.

Today most educated people of the world are bilingual at least, and the Holy Books of the major religions occur in many languages.

I see no problem with being bilingual (except in the case of being a troll):wink:.
See. There's no reason why English should not remain a frank language, I'm just saying that there must be a reason for the recession and consequential depression that looms in the future. This can either be that the English language is to blame or that these Israeli-backed think tanks are the culprits. I choose to think its the first. That way, if more people understand semitic tongues and become pro-semitic adherents no religious basis implied into this and the language that should be God-sanctioned should be original in both speech and writing unlike Maltese. Only one language should be chosen to promote this idea since it is a bad idea to promote confusion which is what frank languages serve to extinguish.

English is at present is the international language of choice and it is an okay language for this purpose in part because it is an evolving language drawing words from many languages.

This is where you and me part ways. The addition of new words in languages only makes it harder for children to learn even if these new words are derived from several languages. In the long run it's not ok given the level of globalization which technology has helped bring about. But in the short haul it is ok.

Associating it with the negative attributes you describe creates an air of conflict and discord, which is an attribute of clinging to ancient world views like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is the ancient world view itself that breeds the discord and conflict and not language.

Yes, its true I deem the English language to blame for many things that are immoral and that go on in the English speaking world but this cannot be only tied to the profane language itself but to differing DNA patterns in skin, thought and behavior: these things do have no bearing in separation of Religion and State contrary to ordinary speech which is the method with which nations and individuals get their recognition.

The Romans had a reason for naming the Germanic speaking peoples vulgar: its because they assimilated and borrowed many words from those languages they could somewhat understand to their own perversion.

If nations have separated Religion from State this is owed due partly to the discovery of new lands which the Old world did was not acquainted with. For the most part it has been due to the success of commerce of good and services but this has now provoked the exaggerated accumulation of a better part of wealth in the hands of a few whilst the rest of humanity is in a pyramid-like descent of High class, middle class and low class castes of which are remiders of what the People of the Book (the Jews) suffered while at the hand of Pharaoh. The deserts of the pyramids of Egypt show the world what happens when history repeats itself.

Adopting English as a First language may sound fine at first, but it has a certain nationality to it, England. If there is a separation of religion and state there should be no ambiguity in language. Americans are not pawns of English people and should choose to remain so by promoting the usage of a semitic frank First language within in order to promote an appropriate fairness to compensate the loss of life in lands of Semitic descent.

This compensation could well turn out to be an experiment to see using scientific instruments and specialists to see if young children adapt better to a globalized world if a Semitic language is used using volunteer parents with or without knowledge of the chosen Semitic language.

In a globalized world a frank language that seeks to dominate the economy does not compute well for global welfare. Consider unrelated factors such as global warming and population growth. No one wants a person that promotes Malthusian methods for the advancement of freedom.

rogue06

February 5th 2009, 07:49 PM

It is consider impolite in many circles to not offer to share whatever you are smoking. :yes:

shunyadragon

February 6th 2009, 02:10 AM

Yes this is also true. The usage of language without understanding some of its abstract terms such as "separation" could lead ignorance which is what a language's enemy is as well as the enemy of freedom-loving people. If a language has many words which are arch typical of authoritarian regimes and these words are used for war mongering, they will cause the ignorant persons to fall to the rhetoric. The downfall of any nation is conformance to eloquent speech that has no scientific nor logical background in its inception (lying, half-truths, slang). The opposite usage of speech may not be as eloquent but it is well founded upon mathematical principles and geometries should make sense and also be well founded upon eternal principles (morality, veracity, justice, phronesis). This is what speech should (pragmatically) look like all of the time it should show both sides of itself so that no mistake can be made in decision-making.

This could be true of most languages, including Arabic. I am not sure where your leading to with this.

Let me explain the reason why English is not a God sanctioned language:

Mt. 5:22

But I say unto you That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment and whosoever __ shall say to his brother Raca shall be in danger of the council but whosoever __ shall say Thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire

Children in most American public schools are taught to sin (by refusing to teach biblical passages such as Mt. 5:22 or lack of general ethics). Mix wrongful usage of words and every sin imaginable and you get depression. This is why it's wrong to use English in public schools especially in the the only superpower after the cold war.

Since the country is now in a recession and if this does not change, the next event in an economic cycle is a depression. Therefore, since language is intrinsically tied to economy via the abstract term of separation of Church and State and this cannot be changed, the logical conclusion is to change the language. Speculation is somewhat related to rhetoric and freedom loving people are to scared to appaulled :hehe: to convert from a democratic republic to a theocratic parliamentary such as Iran because of all the influence the Catholic church has on the majority of the population. Therefore, it can only be natural being the only nation that claims to be fair and balanced to create several school districts whose parents will have their kids be taught a Semitic language from the start while they learn the same language on their own. This language can be any semitic language. But I would not recommend Hebrew as a First Language (HFL) because of all the influence the Jews have using think tanks to send Americans to war in Iraq and possibly Iran (the latter for the sole protection of Israel).

Temporal politics and economics do not have basis in judging a language. Your comment about what is a God sanctioned language creates an immediate bias from an ancient perspective that has little value in a world of more universal and diverse needs than an ancient world view that claims their language is a God sanctioned language. In fact to day it claims to be the only God anctioned language, which would directly link Islam to learning Arabic in this view.

English is accepted as the current world second language for scientific, economic, technological and academic needs and reasons, which
pther languages cannot meet.

I bet Mel Gibson would like Aramaic as a First Language to be taught in these school districts in order for more kids to go watch his movie ("the passion").:wink:

Aramaic as a first language would have no such ties to religion. What religion did Jesus (AS) practice? In effect, several school districts could practice Aramaic and others Arabic. As I mentioned before, Hebrew would not be a recommended choice until the political situation where Jews have worked their ways to the top of many industries which control/lead publicity, media and foreign policy changes.

No Mel Gigson would not, your sarcasm is noted. Armeic is an ancient language that lacks basic vocabulary to communicate in today's world.

These media/policy/commerce cultures have helped bring about this recession. The impact of such a recession should concern many people including those not living in the U.S.

Again tempral econmics has nothing to do with what is an appropiate language.

The modern arabic language is one, there there are two modes of scripture (Classical and Quranic). You're right again, both of these scripts cannot divorce themselves from the religious association. I'm curious, do you think that Church be separated from State neither? The U.S., Britain, Spain and France as well as other "freedom loving" nations certainly claims to have done so. But I don't believe that this is the case. People are required to enroll in the military in the U.S. after they turn a certain age. This is in no way democratic.

The ability to seperate church and state is another issue. Though, the United States and Britian are far more successful than most Islamic countries.

At present men nor women are required to enroll in the military in the US. Again this not an issue on the appropriateness of a language.

I see no problem with being bilingual (except in the case of being a troll):wink:.
See. There's no reason why English should not remain a frank language, I'm just saying that there must be a reason for the recession and consequential depression that looms in the future. This can either be that the English language is to blame or that these Israeli-backed think tanks are the culprits. I choose to think its the first. That way, if more people understand semitic tongues and become pro-semitic adherents no religious basis implied into this and the language that should be God-sanctioned should be original in both speech and writing unlike Maltese. Only one language should be chosen to promote this idea since it is a bad idea to promote confusion which is what frank languages serve to extinguish.

Again your bias toward some sort of God sanctioned language creates many problems for the expectaion that Buddhists, Hindus or followers of other religions and beliefs would be willing to follow this. I personally would prefer a language that was not claimed to be God sanctioned by one religion or another. Again your religious and political bias influences your argument here, and that is not good when considering a language to be used by people from many cultures and beliefs.

This is where you and me part ways. The addition of new words in languages only makes it harder for children to learn even if these new words are derived from several languages. In the long run it's not ok given the level of globalization which technology has helped bring about. But in the short haul it is ok.

In the long haul a language like Fenglish best serves the purpose. The new words have never been a barrier to people learning language at the basic and intermediate levels. The use of the words are rarely complex unless they meet specialized needs of science, accademics and technology. This where languages like Arabic, Hebrew and Chinese fall short, and Armeic could not possibly ever meet this need. It would be wholely impractical to change frank second tongue languages at different levels.

Yes, its true I deem the English language to blame for many things that are immoral and that go on in the English speaking world but this cannot be only tied to the profane language itself but to differing DNA patterns in skin, thought and behavior: these things do have no bearing in separation of Religion and State contrary to ordinary speech which is the method with which nations and individuals get their recognition.

This again would make your proposals difficult to accept. This negative view of language and DA would hardly be acceptable on the international level.

The Romans had a reason for naming the Germanic speaking peoples vulgar: its because they assimilated and borrowed many words from those languages they could somewhat understand to their own perversion.

Again your tone of heavy bias is what makes your proposals unacceptable on an international. Even your rone of bias approaches violence, and this a problem I have with what is taking place in the Islamic world concerning other religions and cultures.

If nations have separated Religion from State this is owed due partly to the discovery of new lands which the Old world did was not acquainted with. For the most part it has been due to the success of commerce of good and services but this has now provoked the exaggerated accumulation of a better part of wealth in the hands of a few whilst the rest of humanity is in a pyramid-like descent of High class, middle class and low class castes of which are remiders of what the People of the Book (the Jews) suffered while at the hand of Pharaoh. The deserts of the pyramids of Egypt show the world what happens when history repeats itself.

This happening in the oil rich Islamic countries also. It is a very human problem and universal.

Adopting English as a First language may sound fine at first, but it has a certain nationality to it, England. If there is a separation of religion and state there should be no ambiguity in language. Americans are not pawns of English people and should choose to remain so by promoting the usage of a semitic frank First language within in order to promote an appropriate fairness to compensate the loss of life in lands of Semitic descent.

This a view of a past age and not relavent today. In the US frank languages are more a matter of practicality and this is the case that should be taken worldwide. Spanish is joining English as the second language of the US for practical reasons, as is Engish being the best choice for the international language of choice.

This compensation could well turn out to be an experiment to see using scientific instruments and specialists to see if young children adapt better to a globalized world if a Semitic language is used using volunteer parents with or without knowledge of the chosen Semitic language.

In a globalized world a frank language that seeks to dominate the economy does not compute well for global welfare. Consider unrelated factors such as global warming and population growth. No one wants a person that promotes Malthusian methods for the advancement of freedom.

Again you are equating language with temperal economic and political situations, as well as a strong religious and political bias, which would be unacceptable to most people.

mastralvarado

February 6th 2009, 08:06 PM

It is consider impolite in many circles to not offer to share whatever you are smoking. :yes:

Wanna know what I've been smoking? Read and reread my signature to find out.

technomage

February 6th 2009, 08:23 PM

If every person in the world had the same religion there would be no need of national/state recognition.

False. Please examine Medieval and Renaissance Europe, and the modern Middle East, to understand that religion is not the sole factor in the development of nationality.

National/state recognition is done by speech and writing,

False, else England, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand would all be recognized as one country.

The errors that you make are so systemic it is difficult to pick just a few for analysis and rebuttal, but this should suffice for a mere beginning.

mastralvarado

February 6th 2009, 09:42 PM

Greetings shunyadragon and thanks again for your reply,

This could be true of most languages, including Arabic. I am not sure where your leading to with this.

Yes all languages can be easily perverted. Let me change the point of view now. Good listeners can tell the difference between when a person changes personality. English changes one's personality when one speaks it. If you don't believe this it is only appropriate that you can't because english is the your first language. But people with english as a second language do tend to notice the difference of speech tone which dramatically changes personality no so much grammatically.
I guarantee that most people who learn english as a second language will notice how precocious one's accent (suprasegmentality is mostly lost in english): notice how most languages use suprasegmental marks for its grammar so that the speaker has guidance in regards to tone of voice to use for nominal speech and grammar/reading. In English one can end up reinterpreting many phrases and words in another language which may not be the best or nominal for learning, but when an english speaker reads and misinterprets the original accent and tone of voice that the writer intended, he or she may altogether misconstrue the meaning from a positive connotation to a negative one (or vice versa)

Temporal politics and economics do not have basis in judging a language. Your comment about what is a God sanctioned language creates an immediate bias from an ancient perspective that has little value in a world of more universal and diverse needs than an ancient world view that claims their language is a God sanctioned language. In fact to day it claims to be the only God anctioned language, which would directly link Islam to learning Arabic in this view. [/quote]
So you don't like my bias, he? There fore one can pretend to not believe in a God and should omit all reference to a god and could easily see the original argument which was historical. Recent history, which regardless of its quantitative accuracy, is fairly reliable with respect to the winners and losers to the last conflict of disastrous proportions. Non-semitic people who fought and spoke germanic languages lost and people who spoke the english language apparently won. This brief period of 50 years of prosperity since the last World War was too brief ever since the recent recession. The real winners and losers of the last WW were Semitic peoples including Jews. Jews have not lost prosperity until recently because of the Madoff scandal but that was just one incident which can neither blame all Jews as analogous to one Catholic priest committing pedophilia can be used to blame all the Catholic Church. Ergo, the real winners and losers of the last conflict of major proportions are the Semitic peoples (Jews).

Should an educated person who knows of recent history decide to side with some persons who have a history of survival, what would one pick: a Semitic person or a non-semitic person? I pick the first.

English is accepted as the current world second language for scientific, economic, technological and academic needs and reasons, which pther languages cannot meet.

Sure, English is accepted as the language par excellence for many different fields. Everyone who ventures into globalization wants to appear smart including me.

No Mel Gigson would not, your sarcasm is noted. Armeic is an ancient language that lacks basic vocabulary to communicate in today's world.
Why? That doesn't mean that aramaic can be used for an international language. Notice Esperanto, its a new language but there can be no reason why Aramaic should be used as a first language. Young people need much vocabulary to in the "global village" at first. Later, they could be taught English cause that's what Americans speak pardon my bilingualism

Again tempral econmics has nothing to do with what is an appropriate language.
Why not? Why can't the current recession be blamed on English-speaking speculators? You have provided no reason why this should not be the case using historical tendencies or a Kondratieff cycle. Russians have nothing to do with what speculators decide to do using speech. Maybe speculators who have English as a first language should not be allowed to work in stock exchange markets.

The ability to seperate church and state is another issue. Though, the United States and Britian are far more successful than most Islamic countries.

That's a good point. Separation of State and Church, define it. I'm waiting for a rebuttal full of eloquent rhetoric.

At present men nor women are required to enroll in the military in the US.
That's good news. Didn't know that at all but maybe more of them should in order to bring more Arab teachers to the U.S. in order to create more Semitic people.

Again this not an issue on the appropriateness of a language.
English is not inappropriate. It just is not a natural language for ESL speakers. Conversely, for EFL speakers many other languages are not natural; they take many years to speak fluently and rarely do an EFL speaker render the speech as fluently as they did their first love. People tend to think in their first language not the second although no evidence can demonstrate this for a fact. There are many theories that categorize personalities into 8, 9 or 16 classes and they are all undemonstrative in my opinion since there are too many people in the world to test. Language certainly changes a person personality. English speakers either EFL or ESL who practice English tend want to engage in more sexually explicit phenomena: I have no basis for mentioning this but its logical in normal females and males who socialize.

Again your bias toward some sort of God sanctioned language creates many problems for the expectaion that Buddhists, Hindus or followers of other religions and beliefs would be willing to follow this.
Forget about English being a God-sanctioned language for now. Imagine the world hangs in the balance for peace or conflict. To the left is the conspiracy theory loons who want to wage war on invisible entities such as terrorists and illuminati. To the right are people who value freedom and family values to choose what their children will be taught in schools. Noticing the tendency in that which recent history has caused which is a duality of true winners and true losers in WWII which were Semitic peoples' all fake winners and fake losers were germans and Americans because they were immediately pitted into another war the Cold War and even 11 years after that they were forced into war such as the "war on terror": a parallel conspiracy theory of not enough evidence can be provided for (notice all the WTC rubble sold off to China).

I personally would prefer a language that was not claimed to be God sanctioned by one religion or another.

That's good. Notice that just because a person says I worship "God" it may or may not be the same God of Abraham that the Christians Jews and Muslims worship. Again, ignore all the G-d sanctioned propaganda which I previously posted in my last response to you. Work things out in your mind.

Again your religious and political bias influences your argument here, and that is not good when considering a language to be used by people from many cultures and beliefs.

I take the godless position just for your convenience since you choose to see my bias instead of the historical tendency in light of modern times.

In the long haul a language like Fenglish best serves the purpose. The new words have never been a barrier to people learning language at the basic and intermediate levels. The use of the words are rarely complex unless they meet specialized needs of science, accademics and technology. This where languages like Arabic, Hebrew and Chinese fall short, and Armeic could not possibly ever meet this need. It would be wholely impractical to change frank second tongue languages at different levels.

What do you mean impractical? Can't in a democracy the impossible become possible. I find it sad that persons are wholly incapable of taking action for the benefit of their little ones and the eradication of antisemitism. Where there are such tremendous differences in wealth in power among nations there will never be peace for the hatred of the snob will always remain people's hearts. Think about this:

Why was Esperanto being promoted as an exchange language for current international language *english*? Someone certainly thought it was possible, not withstanding Esperanto's simplicity, for some obscure reason wanted it it so. You already mentioned it was impractical to change the frank language.

This again would make your proposals difficult to accept. This negative view of language and DA would hardly be acceptable on the international level.

I have a negative view of American English and even more so for British English because it is derived from monarchical speech. It is simply a precocious language which EFL speakers have no idea of. Arabic is more suited as an international language since it has substantially more complexity but is second only to Chinese in its learning curve. The ability to separate a first language to a second language in a individual's mind most certainly slows down an economy plunging it into an even faster recession especially when English is not even close to being all that difficult to learn. The accumulation of individuals who are tied to their ignominy which is what the englust language promotes certainly has no future in a globalized society with Chinese climbing steadily to the top.

Again your tone of heavy bias is what makes your proposals unacceptable on an international. Even your rone of bias approaches violence, and this a problem I have with what is taking place in the Islamic world concerning other religions and cultures.
Notice the common origins of german and english. English speakers classify into two American English and British English which is more orthodox than the first. The latter's nominal pronunciation is the same English that the Queen of England uses. Americans need to separate themselves from this orthodoxy since they are trying to separate themselves from their mother Nation: the reason the Americans separated religion from State (the Church of England had much influence in foreign policy before America's independence). The only way this separation from their "mother" is possible now is with their tongue since it is clear that the same people who run the U.S. run England or vice versa: there is no conspiracy theory on this just an observation from all current and recent past events.

Again, notice the that zero bias towards religion on my behalf on all the previous paragraph.

It would be in my interest as a religious person who adheres to monotheism and belief in the same God of Abraham that a family value, freedom loving people should believe in God.

This happening in the oil rich Islamic countries also. It is a very human problem and universal.
Yes, it may be that Islamic countries are being too hateful toward non Islamic countries who just happened to be invaded by the British and the western Superpower who happen to be lead by the top Israeli think tanks to their own destruction. Anyone who hates the Jews happens to get their as*es whooped in recent times. It may be that God does not favor Islamic countries recently.

This a view of a past age and not relavent today. In the US frank languages are more a matter of practicality and this is the case that should be taken worldwide. Spanish is joining English as the second language of the US for practical reasons, as is Engish being the best choice for the international language of choice.
Yes this all true. But how long can this stand if the Chinese decide to start selling their dollars in the markets and there is no one to speak and convince them otherwise?

Again you are equating language with temperal economic and political situations, as well as a strong religious and political bias, which would be unacceptable to most people.
Language has everything to do with political and economic situations as well as lack thereof of its usage. This is the problem I have detected in most of today's American society and even my own. There is a form of anger which is caused by the unpredictable economical and political roller coaster that the capitalist/socialist U.S. economy has turned out to be for the globalized world. This anger can be either taken to the grave or little children can be imbued with a new song which is Arabic, Aramaic or, what the heck, even Hebrew. The world's balance hangs by a thread.

Aramaic can be modernized as was Arabic, you think? English is a dual-edged sword worse than greek and italian for insulting since it carries more words borrowed from other languages 'cause it has been a frank language for a long time.
The curse of many nations can be placed in one phrase accidentally. I'm not going to delve into the details.

mastralvarado

February 6th 2009, 11:04 PM

False. Please examine Medieval and Renaissance Europe, and the modern Middle East, to understand that religion is not the sole factor in the development of nationality.
:twitch:

Both religion and statehood are factors for the development of nationality although religion as it is known today was formerly misticism and not religion as a form of discipline until the Trinitarian church came along. Factors as well as economy and commerce have had heavy influence but the main two have been religion and statehood though disparagingly between pagan and monotheist cultures. As far as I'm concerned the historical medieval Europe has never been the owned by any one single Religion except in the pre-rennaisance Carolingian period and during the subsequent and a priori inquisition which may or may not have lasted for the period of time that the History books construe for a fact.

False, else England, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand would all be recognized as one country.

Do you realize that these countries failed to separate themselves from their mother nation England? The U.S. did it for religious reasons (during the American revolution possibly) while the other two (Australia & New Zealand) are commonwealths of Britain which were turned into nations by Britain's leave and not to mention many other commonwealths which were remnants of British open imperialism. The power or entity that has allowed these "nations" to appear as such is surely the same entity that wanted to change English from being the frank language to Esperanto which is a completely artificial script. Hence, New Zealand and Australia as well as the United States are all the 'babies' of a new era of private imperialism where Corporations are entire nations in and of themselves. Canada is simply an extension of the U.S. though the non-Federal Government of the U.S. has no jurisdiction there as strongly as in the U.S.A. The federal government has tried to sue Federal Express as well as the Federal Reserve for using the term "Federal" for its operation as a private organization within the U.S. Territory to no avail.

If you think realistically, Nations are what they are because another or more nations recognize their legitimacy there is no denying this Therefore language (both written and oral), once it becomes popular, it is a tool that the powerful use to their advantage.

The errors that you make are so systemic it is difficult to pick just a few for analysis and rebuttal, but this should suffice for a mere beginning.

Oh please just vote on the poll. What use would rebuttin' lil' old me do for anyone except yer ego.

The more American people vote for the fourth choice from the top means that the more the American adults deserve the leaders whom they elected. That's unless they repent and become a theocracy before its too late (which they won't). Ergo, the other possible solution: SFL (Semitic First Language) in order to eradicate Antisemitism towards Jews, Arabs and Semitic language speakers.

technomage

February 7th 2009, 12:45 PM

Both religion and statehood are factors for the development of nationality

But they are far from the only factors. Economics, culture, ethnicity, political power, even geographical location--all of these factors have played a roll in the development of nationality, and (more importantly) in the development of the concept of nationality.

although religion as it is known today was formerly misticism and not religion as a form of discipline until the Trinitarian church came along.

The existence of ecclesiastical discipline and hierarchy in Judaism, and in Roman pre-Christian beliefs, proves this statement to be incorrect.

As far as I'm concerned the historical medieval Europe has never been the owned by any one single Religion except in the pre-rennaisance Carolingian period and during the subsequent and a priori inquisition which may or may not have lasted for the period of time that the History books construe for a fact.

Minor note: The word you are looking for is not a priori, and your phrasing makes it sound as though the Inquisition was concurrent with the Carolignian period. I am certain that this is not what you mean, and I am not fussing at you, but a lack of clarity in writing can lead to confusion.

More to the point, Europe was religiously unified up until the Reformation, but it is the reformation itself that demonstrates that religion took second place to nationalism. The German "Protestant Princes" were not at all concerned with religion--their primary interest in Lutheranism was that it gave a unifying rallying cry against the political power of Rome and her allies.

One of the primary influences you are either discounting or calling by the name of "statehood" is nationalism--while this is primarily seen as a modern ideology, it did have parallels in the Medieval and Renaissance era, not so much in the idea of the "sovereignty of the people," but in the idea of "L'etat, c'est moi" as expressed by Louis XIV, but recognized long before his birth.

Do you realize that these countries failed to separate themselves from their mother nation England?

False. The only way you can defend such a concept is to distort the meaning of the word "separate" to the point that it no longer means anything. Words are not plasticine: they cannot be stretched and molded to mean what you want them to mean.

If you think realistically, Nations are what they are because another or more nations recognize their legitimacy there is no denying this Therefore language (both written and oral), once it becomes popular, it is a tool that the powerful use to their advantage.

Language means next to nothing politically. If the United States were to convert to Arabic, Esperanto, or KwaZulu tomorrow, we would still be the same culture. Language does not drive the culture, and changing to a different language (while it would be resisted on nationalistic grounds) would not change the underlying cultural dynamics.

Ergo, the other possible solution: SFL (Semitic First Language) in order to eradicate Antisemitism towards Jews, Arabs and Semitic language speakers.

Our converting to a Semitic language would not change the evil of those who choose to hate, mastralvarado. But you must remember that not all Americans are anti-semitic. I have Jewish and Muslim friends, and I hold no animosity towards anyone because of their language, national origin, or place of residence.

mastralvarado

February 7th 2009, 04:16 PM

But they are far from the only factors. Economics, culture, ethnicity, political power, even geographical location--all of these factors have played a roll in the development of nationality, and (more importantly) in the development of the concept of nationality.
The original concept of the U.S.A. was separation from its mother Nation England because of taxation, need for independence and religious reasons. Hence, State -separation-religion. Little do Americans know that their language is religiously biased toward Latin which was the language the Roman empire reinvented with the help of the institution of a Universal Church and French persons. This lack of knowledge would have no bearing on the concept of nationality but as opposed to the situation in a globalized world where if an nation is fragmented into commonwealths such as Iraq, Alaska, Israel (which are being forced to learn English or stay out of the global game) are constanly pitted into global policy that threatens global peace. The effort that is needed to educate Semitic peoples in order for them to accept ESL by no means is an easy task since in these cultures, language is as important as economics, culture, and political power where as ethnicity is of next to nil of precedence. Therefore, the acceptance of EFL in these countries will never occur since language is tied to religion and to a lesser degree the concept of national identity.

Does the queen expect no terrorist fanatics that damage not innocent civilians? The lack of fairness and balance in media tells volumes of what the media moguls are planning in order to consolidate the U.S. into a 1,000 year Empire of diversity.

The existence of ecclesiastical discipline and hierarchy in Judaism, and in Roman pre-Christian beliefs, proves this statement to be incorrect.

So? The mode of language which respects religion came after the Carolingian renaissance. The term "Religion" is not the same as "religion" in writing although it should be in speech. Therefore my statement stands.

Ask any religious Christian: Why is St. Paul called the apostle of Jesus (S)
while at the same time an the Original Twelve are called Apostles of Jesus (S)? So therefore it does make a difference to type Religion as opposed to religion not in the first word of a sentence in Latin based scripts such as English.

Minor note: The word you are looking for is not a priori, and your phrasing makes it sound as though the Inquisition was concurrent with the Carolignian period. I am certain that this is not what you mean, and I am not fussing at you, but a lack of clarity in writing can lead to confusion.

This is just a theory but I believe that the origins of the Maltese language arose from the sudden appearance of Islam after the Universal Church had been established. This theory uses other theories which are not at all conspiracies that establish that the calendarization of the current Gregorian Calendar have inserted in it 200-300 years of false events. The appearance of Maltese which is an Arabic derived tongue with Latin script can be traced closed to the same time of the rise of Islam. Therefore, the historical Carolingian period might have been made up and even Muslim historians fell for it (Abasids). To my knowledge, the Hijra A.H. was synchronized using not astronomical data but the reference Roman Calendar in use at that time and after the rise of Maltese since that conflict with Islam and the Church resulted in the creation for the archaic forms of all modern Romance and Germanic language since they were not in standard written form because of the warring, vulgar and pagan lifestyle of non Roman tribes (similar to that of Mongols.)

All this means that the inquisition did not stop until about "1200" contrary to what history books teach. The Crusades started again throughout the middle ages with Spaniards being advisers to Caliphs thanks to Turkish influence.

More to the point, Europe was religiously unified up until the Reformation, but it is the reformation itself that demonstrates that religion took second place to nationalism.
The moment Maltese was created it became the epitome of religious unification between heretics and the Church which unilaterally proclaimed the Trinity as the only way to salvation. This is the first Religion that is known to man since capitalization came around that time unbeknown before: a mix between Greek script and Roman script.

The German "Protestant Princes" were not at all concerned with religion--their primary interest in Lutheranism was that it gave a unifying rallying cry against the political power of Rome and her allies.
This corroborates my hypothesis that there was never any great schism between oriental and occidental churches: Those churches that used Greek and those that used Latin for teaching and mass. The reformers knew that the Trinity was the real heretic teaching.

One of the primary influences you are either discounting or calling by the name of "statehood" is nationalism--while this is primarily seen as a modern ideology, it did have parallels in the Medieval and Renaissance era, not so much in the idea of the "sovereignty of the people," but in the idea of "L'etat, c'est moi" as expressed by Louis XIV, but recognized long before his birth.

Nationalism is just a fancy way of calling statehood something proactive. The trinity is a proactive concept that is imbued into the Latin. Similar to the Gregorian Calendar nations did not use capitalization at some point in history they all adopted it gradually but not over a period spanning more than 100 years because it was in their best interests to be in good faith with the Church. Lutherans recognized the falsity of this Verity and therefore separated thinking that their language had not be changed. Even the French are to be blamed for this influence of Maltese into Germanic languages thanks to the -eour suffix which did not exist prior to the formalization of their language into textbook lexicon.

French is so difficult to learn because it was the primary vehicle which was used to conceive of much of the Proper names changed in order to avoid persecution by the Islamic Caliphate during their period of absolute independence. Ever since the Arabs lost in the invasion to Italy most of Europe has been at war with Islam. The Middle Age's Rennaissance flourished after "1200" because of this war for domination of the known world.

False. The only way you can defend such a concept is to distort the meaning of the word "separate" to the point that it no longer means anything. Words are not plasticine: they cannot be stretched and molded to mean what you want them to mean.
Words don't mean anything if one does not do/act about what one preaches.

There is no full separation of church and state in the U.S. because after the American Revolution England gained controlled of the U.S. economy via several banks in New York. These were/are Jew controlled banks regardless of their name change. When the U.S. separated from England it made war using all persons and no person was made to wage war save to gain their freedom (such as slaves).

The reasons for the separation between England and the U.S. were religious and economical. The U.S. colonies had control over their economy when separation of church and state was drafted. Now, the U.S. is not in control of their economy but the Federal Reserve (a private corporation of English and International bankers) does. As well as public health services; these are in control and financed by the English bankers who create money out of "thin air" in order to promote the prison system of the U.S. Most Americans don't know they are living in a prison.

The European Union's Euro is also a currency that is backed by nothing but "faith".

The U.S. did not fully separate State from Church. An individual that speaks English as a first language therefore cannot be guaranteed that his speech has separated itself from religion based on the theory that the french and the Romans, influenced by borrowed words from the Arabic derived Maltese that weigh heavily upon organized internationalists, have been included in common speech. These words which I know for a fact that are religiously biased are "danger", "persecuteur/persecutor", "prevent", "fix", "peligro", "periclitar", "god/gott/got", "I have", and "harass", "hazard", "school", "hospital", "police" and possibly others.

I hope that any other speaker of germanic and romance languages can please verify and elaborate these collections of words that come from the Maltese "peryclu" and "fixkel" greek. Others of lesser importance for me are 'skola', and 'pulizija' and possibly the Arabic - Parsi conflation "ghandi" as well as other well known Germanic pagan words such as "gott".

Therefore the recurrence of pseudo-Greek elements in Maltese shows the partial injecting of these terms into the vocabulary of the major languages especially with regards to the welfare services such as schools, governments, police and hospitals. The essential services that run in modern economies.

Notice the Knights of Malta are called "Hospitaleurs", a word which might be derived from French. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts use these symbols (fleur-de-Lys)in their insignia. Do it might appear as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy these symbols were extensively used throughout history. By Middle Ages, European alchemists such as Paracelsus using engravings in order to tell the future world something [2 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pro/pop/pop07.htm)]. I don't know what it is but I'm guessing it has to do with separation of God and human affairs. Something similar to religion and state separateness. So despite what historians say about the Carolingian Rennaisance and the Trinity there was a British Open conspiracy which distinguished between Mayuscule and Minuscule letters. Hindu Historians corroborate this fact.

Paracelsus, a renowned scholar who is known for his chemical and alchemical writings, may have meant this not only as a set of predictions about the path of the Reformation, but as an allegory of the evolution of the soul. This would not be surprising, as other authors of the period cloaked arcane messages in almost impenetrable layers of symbolism to escape eccelsiastical scrutiny
source (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pro/pop/index.htm)

This symbol (Fleur-de-Lys) permeates many flags in the past and of the present (notice Scouts). The reason for this graven image is somehow tied to Malta because this symbol was in its flag before Malta became part of the European Union. The Knights of Cincinnati, which are a powerful organization in the U.S. also use this symbol.

During the siege of Malta between Arabs and the the Normans in "1090" the Arabs lost and there was an agreement between all parties that everything possible to reduce the Semitic peoples should be set in place using a collection of institutions dedicated to the welfare of civilians and soldiers of a war as well as a collection of other preventive measures with justification from false prophecy (Septuagint, Book of Daniel's Greek term "obstruct") in order for the Trinitarian Church to remain the dominant player in hierarchic political Religion. Before this church religion was not political were as there was no a alliance between a Ruler of an Empire and religious leaders. The Lutheran movement was an attempt to separate from this politically biased Church but has only resulted in further fragmentation of the Christian movement which Islam seeks not to extinguish but to put in its place apolitically.

Atheists, being staunch supporters of separation of religion and state, instead of trying to eliminate "god" from the Schools should try to eliminate many of these words from the vocabulary since they were pidginized into current vocabularies to embed pagan and religious beliefs into speech. I write this because it is clear that ignominy and atheist minorities are concerned about religious and national separation and not because I think that Atheists are evil: it's just that their brains do not process things like people who do believe in the supernatural.

Language means next to nothing politically. If the United States were to convert to Arabic, Esperanto, or KwaZulu tomorrow, we would still be the same culture. Language does not drive the culture, and changing to a different language (while it would be resisted on nationalistic grounds) would not change the underlying cultural dynamics.
Are you an atheist? You should be concerned if your children are made o mention God in the national anthem. What was it that you mentioned again?

Our converting to a Semitic language would not change the evil of those who choose to hate, mastralvarado. But you must remember that not all Americans are anti-semitic. I have Jewish and Muslim friends, and I hold no animosity towards anyone because of their language, national origin, or place of residence.

Oh this is so true, but we should all try to retrace our current evolution of language in order to better understand our history better so that we don't make the same mistakes again, using all the possible sciences and reliable sources available at the time.

Let's do something that no other entity in history has done and let's start planting a vineyard of different seed in order to prevent another Major Depression and possible future war that may loom in the not-so-distant future. Ethnicity of Semitic people's should be of no concern in eradicating anti-semitism nor for the founding of a nation such as the U.S.A.. Look at the example of Paracelsus, part of the reform movement.

[2] Prophecies of Paracelsus extracted from "http://sacred-texts.com/pro/pop/pop07htm" (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pro/pop/pop07.htm)

Little Shepherd

February 7th 2009, 04:25 PM

Little do Americans know that their language is religiously biased toward Latin which was the language the Roman empire reinvented with the help of the institution of a Universal Church.
Um, no. That's quite possibly the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. English has only an indirect connection to Latin through its heavy French influence (due to France at one point conquering England for a time, and French becoming the language of the upper class of England). This connection is not for religious reasons.

mastralvarado

February 7th 2009, 04:40 PM

Little Shepherd

February 7th 2009, 04:50 PM

Reread my post. I changed it not after you informed me of this Scout's honor.
I read the whole post again. Whatever you changed doesn't make your post any less of a load of crap. Reading through it is like watching a linguistic train wreck. It's so horribly mangled, but I can't look away. I'm going to go ahead and nominate you for a screwball award now, though you've probably been nominated a few times for this thread already.

mastralvarado

February 7th 2009, 04:57 PM

Um, no. That's quite possibly the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. English has only an indirect connection to Latin through its heavy French influence (due to France at one point conquering England for a time, and French becoming the language of the upper class of England). This connection is not for religious reasons.

Yes it is for religious reasons which I am about to demonstrate:

Notice the word "Persecutor":

tr.v., -cut·ed, -cut·ing, -cutes.

1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.

[Middle English, from Old French persecuter, back-formation from persecuteur, persecutor, from Late Latin persecūtor, from persecūtus, past participle of persequī, to persecute, from Latin, to pursue : per-, per- + sequī, to follow.]

And now notice the word "peryklu" which is Maltese and a corruption of the Greek word "peryclutos" has been manipulated by Latin scholars and conformed to another term with a similar definition: danger.

perilous (look up perilous at Dictionary.com)
c.1290, from O.Fr. perillous (Fr. périlleux) "dangerous, hazardous," from L. periculosus, from periculum "dangerous"

If you are interested in knowing more see this thread in order to find out how the religious motivation to prevent Islam from spreading at all costs is what the caused the new forms of Romance, and Germanic languages.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2556925&postcount=90
(http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2556925&postcount=90)

Religion is not the topic of the thread therefore no religious comments should be made or, at least, one should try to abstain from them.

But the connection between religion and the "Upper Class" which you mentioned is definitely based on the permanent separation of the lower and UPPER classes.

Noticed you mentioned the French conquest of England. This happened in "1066" therefore it is within the period that the 'made up' historical events fit in using Hungarian Calendar phantom time hypothesis. That is not the topic of the thread either. One has to read about this and make up one's mind if it's true and then come back to this thread. Else you're just going to think I'm some loon.

Little Shepherd

February 7th 2009, 05:04 PM

Yes it is for religious reasons which I am about to demonstrate:

Notice the word "Persecutor":

tr.v., -cut·ed, -cut·ing, -cutes.

1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.

[Middle English, from Old French persecuter, back-formation from persecuteur, persecutor, from Late Latin persecūtor, from persecūtus, past participle of persequī, to persecute, from Latin, to pursue : per-, per- + sequī, to follow.]

And now notice the word "peryklu" which is Maltese and a corruption of the Greek word "peryclutos" has been manipulated by Latin scholars and conformed to another term with a similar definition: danger.

perilous (look up perilous at Dictionary.com)
c.1290, from O.Fr. perillous (Fr. périlleux) "dangerous, hazardous," from L. periculosus, from periculum "dangerous"

If you are interested in knowing more see this thread in order to find out how the religious motivation to prevent Islam from spreading at all costs is what the caused the new forms of Romance, and Germanic languages.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2556925&postcount=90
(http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2556925&postcount=90)

Religion is not the topic of the thread therefore no religious comments should be made or, at least, one should try to abstain from them.

But the connection between religion and the "Upper Class" which you mentioned is definitely based on the permanent separation of the lower and UPPER classes.
Even if everything you say is true, it's completely irrelevant, and you're still a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

mastralvarado

February 7th 2009, 05:12 PM

Even if everything you say is true, it's completely irrelevant, and you're still a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

No. I'm using Trinitarian theology with linguistic anthropology and you are just trolling. Write something better and not just one-liners and while you're at it make it something valuable instead of ad hominem ghosts.

Little Shepherd

February 7th 2009, 05:16 PM

No. I'm using Trinitarian theology with linguistic anthropology and you are just trolling.
What Trinitarian theology have you used? I know you've mentioned Trinitarian theology, but what does it have to do with anything you're saying? Also, many of your basic linguistic "facts" are just plain wrong. If you can't get the very basics right, then I have every right to see your conclusions as speculation, conjecture, or . . . crackpot conspiracy theories.

mastralvarado

February 7th 2009, 05:26 PM

What Trinitarian theology have you used? I know you've mentioned Trinitarian theology, but what does it have to do with anything you're saying? Also, many of your basic linguistic "facts" are just plain wrong. If you can't get the very basics right, then I have every right to see your conclusions as speculation, conjecture, or . . . crackpot conspiracy theories.

I'm using three theories to support my own theory about Maltese's origins to support a hypothesis that English is a racist precocious language in EFL speakers. One is the Italian British connection using backup support from third party historians. The second is the Spanish - English connection with the French and the third is the H.C. [3] Time Hypothesis of Zoltan Hunivari.

Notice in the link to that other thread I posted previously that Maltese has influenced English via a French connection and Spanish without ever being a frank / international language. So attack me all you want not going to change the fact that you're just trolling now.

Please point out what linguistic facts I have wrong instead of just telling me I'm wrong.

[3] H.C. P.T. Hypothesis (http://hungariancalendar.com/fin_count.pdf)

mastralvarado

February 7th 2009, 05:49 PM

Britain's Prince Harry apologized over the weekend after a newspaper released video footage of him calling an army colleague a "Paki" and telling another he looked like a "raghead."

Source (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479164,00.html)

technomage

February 7th 2009, 06:31 PM

The original concept of the U.S.A. was separation from its mother Nation England because of taxation, need for independence and religious reasons.

No. But you seemingly have your thoughts so concentrated on your pet theories that you cannot concentrate on anything else--including little details like facts, or reality, or truth. I'll leave you to your delusions, and bid you a happy twilight zone.

mastralvarado

February 7th 2009, 06:48 PM

THE Queen was "concerned" about Princess Diana's relationship with Dodi Fayed, it emerged yesterday.
Paul Burrell, a former royal butler, told the inquest into her death that he met the Queen weeks after Diana died in a car accident in August 1997.

He said she had been concerned the princess was "over-excited" about her relationship with Dodi when the couple first got together.

source (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Queen---concerned-.3681449.jp)

Little Shepherd

February 8th 2009, 12:09 AM

I'm using three theories to support my own theory about Maltese's origins to support a hypothesis that English is a racist precocious language in EFL speakers. One is the Italian British connection using backup support from third party historians. The second is the Spanish - English connection with the French and the third is the H.C. [3] Time Hypothesis of Zoltan Hunivari.
Um, ok. Using 3 theories has nothing at all to do with Trinitarian theology. I'm not sure you know at this point what trinitarian theology even means.

Notice in the link to that other thread I posted previously that Maltese has influenced English via a French connection and Spanish without ever being a frank / international language. So attack me all you want not going to change the fact that you're just trolling now.
Even if Maltese influenced English in some way, so what?

Please point out what linguistic facts I have wrong instead of just telling me I'm wrong.
I already pointed out some, but you seem to have ignored them. Your theory pretty much relies on French, Latin, Italian, and "Maltese" being intrinsically racist languages. Of course, containing racist words isn't the same as being intrinsically racist. If that was the case, Arabic(you know -- the language of your precious Quran) would have most languages beat. And every single language known to man has plenty of words and phrases that would be considered racist, so it's a charge that can be levied at any language ever devised by man.

mastralvarado

February 9th 2009, 02:30 PM

Um, ok. Using 3 theories has nothing at all to do with Trinitarian theology. I'm not sure you know at this point what trinitarian theology even means.

You wan't to discuss trinities? See this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=124526

Even if Maltese influenced English in some way, so what?

I already pointed out some, but you seem to have ignored them. Your theory pretty much relies on French, Latin, Italian, and "Maltese" being intrinsically racist languages.
Not racist but discriminating and vulgar, specially for ESL listeners of EFL speakers.

Of course, containing racist words isn't the same as being intrinsically racist. If that was the case, Arabic(you know -- the language of your precious Quran) would have most languages beat. And every single language known to man has plenty of words and phrases that would be considered racist, so it's a charge that can be levied at any language ever devised by man.

Arabic does not, I repeat, does not have any auspicious words. The word racist is an American neologism which possibly came from the slavehood era as also was the despectful term "chapín" which came from the colonial era.

And by the way did you read what I suggested before you posted? The time it took the nations to adopt the Gregorian calendar was certainly over 100 years contrary to my previous assertion. You obviously overlooked this, therefore you don't want to discuss things scientifically.

mastralvarado

February 10th 2009, 07:25 PM

Hebrew is not recommended in order to teach semitic languages to EFL speakers because of the following.

Exhibit: "A"

The word "charam" whose denotation is mostly negative can have its verbal interchanged for usage as adjective, but sadly, to the surprise of readers, it can also be used as a noun.

Exhibit: "B"

The word "chalag" which is bulgarian has also been used to refer to the vulgar and profane word for excrement of excrement whose origin is also of hebrew speakers.

Exhibit: "C"

The word "meeseem" which is plural for taxes can also be "balah" the singular form of tax which is confusing to say the least.
The hebrew word for taxes is Mekhes also.

Exhibit: "D"

The word La'showne Harah means "bad mouth" which is precisely something Jesus (AS) would find evil to say.

Exhibit: "E"

Chapín is a derogatory, despectful hebrew originary neologism that is used mostly by foreigners for addressing Guatemalans, a nation who voted for the creation of the State of Israel, whose vote was decisive in such a "brave and bold endeavor" (pardon the particles for my Muslim readers).

Exhibit: "F"
The Chapín, Chopine and Espolón are interrelated. Espolón sounds like español but it really is not the same word. Chapín and Chopine are not the same words but they sound the same using the international phonetic alphabet. Therefore, they are not fully the same until one puts Espolón in the middle.

Since espolón is a medical term for a foot disease and chopine's are women' shoes, then necessarily so must espolón be chapín since chopines are foot related participles.

Exhibit: "G"

The Hebrew language drops the "C" from Cha in its written form in order to not sound so derogatory when used with another lexeme to form a two word compound.

Therefore, Hebrew is not the appropriate language for usage in Schools being the case that this project is attempted with any Semitic language.

Jesus' (AS) words: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free!"

Little Shepherd

February 10th 2009, 09:45 PM

Newsflash: Hebrew is bad because it contains derogatory words . . . just like every other language in existence! Story at 5.

mastralvarado

February 11th 2009, 12:28 PM

Newsflash: Hebrew is bad because it contains derogatory words . . . just like every other language in existence! Story at 5.

You missed the point. Hebrew contains derogatory words is nothing new. That these words have been used to coin new words to fallaciously generalize in a bad light a whole people is something that is still going on and I suspect that that right now its not Jews but people who know Hebrew.

Take for example the word Gruzini which is aimed at Georgians and the word Chalag which is aimed at Bulgarians and Chapín aimed at Guatemalans. The newest, that I'm aware of, is Espolón which is not Hebrew but hadn't Jewish medical doctors first coined it and some Hebrew speakers misapplied in Yahoo's! Babel fish Ram translation from English to Spanish?

These are all nasty words the last of which could easily be an inflammatory discrimination against all Spanish speaking people.

All these facts I have already reported this to the Israeli Defense Forces since there might be Guatemalans who serve with them and Guatemalan's voted for the creation of the State of Israel in the U.N. while it was still unbiased toward any state: a vote that made all the difference according to news sources.

mastralvarado

February 11th 2009, 02:27 PM

Inflation altered our conception of wealth and how it is made, and in the process altered our behaviour, I would say for the worse. It has made us more shifty than thrifty. Of course, bubbles have occurred before, one has only to read Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, published in 1843 by Charles Mackay, to know that. But never has the need for speculation become quite as deeply entrenched in the popular psyche, including mine, as it is now, and inflation is at the origin of this. Never before has personal financial stability or survival depended so much, as it does now, upon speculation. That is why past inflation is at the root of the Wall Street debacle.

Of course, there are no final causes in human affairs. What caused the inflation in the first place? That is another question entirely.

source (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=0CF5E130-67F9-4A4F-8979-068CB7D56CCB)

This person Theodore Dalrymple who is a physician concludes his article with a question as to what caused the inflation of WallStreets recent debacle. So the root of inflation is unknown to the majority of people. I propose that the origin of inflation is the lack of separation of church and state in the English language. The influence of this lack of abstraction comes from a diminute racist, discriminating element in the language itself AND and the English speaking society that is harbored by a Hebrew speaking society that hates Spanish, Semitic languages except Hebrew and maybe some others, and also hates/discriminates against the Arabic derived Maltese Language.

These elements use Hebrew, Italian, French, the English - Spanish antitheses in order to communicate using Web translators and a code language.

These people are extremely smug and intelligent, do not approach. The only solution to win against their game is to adopt Arabic or Aramaic as a first language (AFL) in the school system. Their game is to run rivers red with blood and other malthusian methods of population control via manipulation of the media using their unsuspecting/fearing Jewish marionettes and masonic organizations.

May Allah grant you success in protecting future generations against the forces of unrighteousness.

Edit: Besides, persons who are of American origin no longer have to have a binding legal obligation to defend the State of Israel that the politicians have made on behalf of them for all future generations because their first language written and spoken of the new generation is not the same language that the oath had taken place in.

Little Shepherd

February 11th 2009, 04:53 PM

You missed the point. Hebrew contains derogatory words is nothing new. That these words have been used to coin new words to fallaciously generalize in a bad light a whole people is something that is still going on and I suspect that that right now its not Jews but people who know Hebrew.
Let's see where you go with this.

Take for example the word Gruzini which is aimed at Georgians and the word Chalag which is aimed at Bulgarians and Chapín aimed at Guatemalans.
What about them?

The newest, that I'm aware of, is Espolón which is not Hebrew but hadn't Jewish medical doctors first coined it and some Hebrew speakers misapplied in Yahoo's! Babel fish Ram translation from English to Spanish?
Are you really that stupid, or do you just pretend to get attention on the internet?

I looked it up, and Espolón is definitely a Spanish word, and it does translate from "ram," though it's somewhat obscure. I couldn't find a clear English definition, but did find a Spanish definition that I translated word-for-word. Not the clearest definition, but the "ram" being spoken of is part of an iron-clad ship. I could understand that much. The only thing weird is that Babelfish would have translated "ram" into this rather obscure word rather than a more common word like ovejo (male sheep), golpear (to hit), or even "la memoria de acceso aleatorio" (random access memory).

In other words, it's completely 100% unrelated to Hebrew. And no, Jewish medical doctors did not first coin it. I don't know where you get your information.

mastralvarado

February 11th 2009, 08:50 PM

Let's see where you go with this.

What about them?

I looked it up, and Espolón is definitely a Spanish word, and it does translate from "ram," though it's somewhat obscure. I couldn't find a clear English definition, but did find a Spanish definition that I translated word-for-word. Not the clearest definition, but the "ram" being spoken of is part of an iron-clad ship. I could understand that much. The only thing weird is that Babelfish would have translated "ram" into this rather obscure word rather than a more common word like ovejo (male sheep), golpear (to hit), or even "la memoria de acceso aleatorio" (random access memory).

I was going to give you an amen, but since you don't understand the implications, here they go again. If you place a hyphen (-) or not beside each of these lexemes: Ram & Cha which is a Hebrew word if written charam [sic!] you get a word without the hyphen from Babelfish. If I were to do the same for virtually all other lexemes or words one would get the word plus the hyphen. This clearly means that these are code words being/have been used in the ex-Alta Vista Yahoo! translator. So I don't know how many of these code words exist in this translator but these two clearly make the case for me.

Are you really that stupid, or do you just pretend to get attention on the internet?

You should not call me stupid until you can prove otherwise. Get yourself a hebrew scholar and find out how many words there are that fit this pattern of algorithm. If there aren't any more then the these lexemes are the author's signature to a terrible translator unlike Google's.

In other words, it's completely 100% unrelated to Hebrew. And no, Jewish medical doctors did not first coin it. I don't know where you get your information.

How do you know who coined it for a woman's foot disease?

I can't guarantee that a Jewish doctor coined it but whomever did for the "ram" lexeme of the yahoo translator surely put it real close to the "cha" lexeme. You should not be concerned who actually did it except that he or she knew Hebrew. Find me another word from the Hebrew lexicon that fits this obscure algorithm to strengthen my hypothesis that it's a code word system. Else it might just be a signature algorithm not placed there accidentally.

mastralvarado

February 12th 2009, 12:58 PM

Still talking about languages, as both mainly of British stock my wife and I are not happy these days with English-speaking being the desired language for global communication, believing it could be one of the things causing hatred towards us not not only from the Islamics but also other third world peoples. Maybe like the birds are telling us, it's about time us over-arrogant Anglophiles got the message.

source (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=106#18173)

mastralvarado

February 12th 2009, 04:47 PM

Despite the current opinion that language has nothing to do with separation of religion and state, what I am about to do is demonstrate some of the opposing views regarding this issue.

View 1:
Separation of church (i.e. religion) and state has nothing to do with language because the concept is about the degree of Authority that a particular religious organization has over other non-religious organizations.

What gives Ceasar power/authority over people? Speech. And speech is part of language What did Jesus (AS) allegedly say to Pilate, "You only have power over me because my father in heaven has given it to you".

View 2:
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with language because our founding fathers created a constitution that excluded christian beliefs.

Well, what guarantees that your fathers did not follow a religion themselves and what warrants that they actually existed. Therefore you believe they existed already you have a belief that language has nothing to do with SCS because of something you believe is not biased to a belief system: the constitution.

View 3:
Separation of religion and state has nothing to do with language because in religious one keeps a belief to himself and in the other (state) belief has no bearing on actions; what is done is done with or without questions being asked.

You clearly don't know that your belief is actually an activity of religious nature.

View 4:
Separation of church and state is not something that will ever occur because at any point in time beliefs are religious in nature. However, whenever there are many belief systems and one has dominance of another it is not through speech but through survival of the fittest to govern or to show an example of moral behavior.

What is moral to you then? If something is right or wrong what sort of criterion defines your sense of right and wrong. What is a criterion? a simple manner with which to detect right from wrong. What is right, wrong, moral and criterion? Are they not all vocabulary terms? Are not vocabulary terms part of language.

My view:
What determines if a language is a dialect or a language?

It is an army or a navy that backs up the language that makes it a language.

What makes separation of religion and state possible?

An army or a navy that communicate in the same dialect.

Example: The war between Britain and Spain where there were two opposing navies each with an uneven number of ships (Spain had more ships while Britain had lesser). But who won the war ? It was Britain? Can anyone speculate why? Using realist terms it could be because of either fate or language since it is the English language that is faster to speak and the Spanish Language takes longer to speak.

I respect to these two languages, I call them anti-theses to each other because one takes longer to speak and the other takes a shorter amount of time to pronunciate.

Was this an accident of evolution? I don't think so it was manipulated so that the English language favored light-skinned Anglo Saxons. The Spanish were descendants of the Visigoths and the English from the Viking diversities. No other two romance-germanic languages have been pressed to so many wars be they together as workers on the same team or anti-theses with the same motivations as per the example above. Both English and Spanish had the same motivations and clearly both had the same skill but the speed of communication disfavored the Spanish due to the speed which the English sailors communicated with each other.

Allah knows best.

Nicholas

February 12th 2009, 06:27 PM

What determines if a language is a dialect or a language?

It is an army or a navy that backs up the language that makes it a language.

]What makes separation of religion and state possible?

An army or a navy that communicate in the same dialect.

This may be the case depending on whether or not a language is recognized by others, it is not quite that simple. Using your example below the status of English or Spanish as a language is not altered by the power of their army and navy because the two are still mutually unintelligible and therefore different languages, not simply dialects

Example: The war between Britain and Spain where there were two opposing navies each with an uneven number of ships (Spain had more ships while Britain had lesser). But who won the war ? It was Britain? Can anyone speculate why? Using realist terms it could be because of either fate or language since it is the English language that is faster to speak and the Spanish Language takes longer to speak.

You really have to be more specific with your example because there were a number of wars involving Britain and Spain.

Also, please cite a reliable source supporting your claim about Spanish taking longer to speak compared to English. Once you have done that would you please explain why this supposed difference was more influential on the outcome of a war than things like tactics, resources, technology, morale, or any number of other factors.

I respect to these two languages, I call them anti-theses to each other because one takes longer to speak and the other takes a shorter amount of time to pronunciate.

Was this an accident of evolution? I don't think so it was manipulated so that the English language favored light-skinned Anglo Saxons. The Spanish were descendants of the Visigoths and the English from the Viking diversities. No other two romance-germanic languages have been pressed to so many wars be they together as workers on the same team or anti-theses with the same motivations as per the example above. Both English and Spanish had the same motivations and clearly both had the same skill but the speed of communication disfavored the Spanish due to the speed which the English sailors communicated with each other.

Allah knows best.

What's this about it being manipulated to favor light-skinned Anglo Saxons? Who are you claiming did this manipulation, why did they do this, and what evidence do you have to support it?

mastralvarado

February 12th 2009, 09:49 PM

This may be the case depending on whether or not a language is recognized by others, it is not quite that simple. Using your example below the status of English or Spanish as a language is not altered by the power of their army and navy because the two are still mutually unintelligible and therefore different languages, not simply dialects

Hi Nicholas :wswrwb:,
Of course these two languages (Spanish and English) are not different dialects because English has been more influenced by the French and, as I was saying to Geek Eclectic, I believe that they were two diametrically opposed dialects whose origin came from the Maltese, Greek and Latin tergiversation of peryclu, thanks to persons well versed in grammar and speech whose interest was to maintain the UPPER "Bourgeois" class separated from the lower class all through Europe sometime before and after the middle ages, and also the rest of Germanic-Romance languages were written down some point during a the Carolingian renaissance. These unknown persons only leave traces of their manipulation of languages and speech using any means available including embedding and abetting neologisms, portmanteaus and other lingual artifacts in translation engines and other linguistic tools.

See this page of the Suicide Killer's Father thread for more info on how I discovered their manipulation of the new forms of French, English, Spanish and possibly others:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=119065&page=6

And it might help more to look at this thread also: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=123070

You really have to be more specific with your example because there were a number of wars involving Britain and Spain.

There were many wars that were fought between Spain and Britain. The example I gave was from the top of my head though I do not even trust some historical facts, I will research a bit more about this if there is some free time in my hands.

Some wars were fought for religious causes and others for naval supremacy. Most of these wars that came from search of naval supremacy happened after Napoleon. I have no idea which war it was which I just mentioned but then again if one were to rely on a timeline take your pick [4]:

August 8, 1588 - The Spanish Armada of 132 ships is defeated by the English fleet of 34 ships and 163 armed merchant vessels under Lord Howard of Effingham, Sir Francis Drake, and Sir John Hawkins
source (http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-war.htm)

or maybe:

The war originated with British attempts to smuggle goods into the Spanish American colonies. Robert Jenkins, captain of a British smuggling vessel, was seized by a Spanish coast guard ship and had one of his ears cut off. Parliament forced its leader, Sir Robert Walpole, to declare war against his wishes.
Contrary to expectations, the war proved neither easy nor profitable for Britain. Neither side gained any important victories.

source (http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/war-of-jenkins-ear.htm)

There are many more wars between many nations against Britain. It was not thanks to evolution but to the faster English language that the Anglo Saxons were successful in battles where the odds were against them and even where many nations such as Spain, France and Prussia were against them.

Where's smaneck when you need her now?

Also, please cite a reliable source supporting your claim about Spanish taking longer to speak compared to English. Once you have done that would you please explain why this supposed difference was more influential on the outcome of a war than things like tactics, resources, technology, morale, or any number of other factors.

There would be no way of verifying my claim that the english are faster at speech than spanish except by simply analyzing the longitude of the majority of words of each language comparatively knowing that accents and other symbols that are not common to both languages do slow down the one that has such suprasegmental characters:

Therefore, a believable cross-language comparison would need a lot of subjects, and you'd have to be certain that you were comparing comparable samples from comparable populations of subjects in comparable settings doing comparable things. Second, because languages have different sound inventories, different word and syllable structures, and different densities of information per word or syllable or whatever, it's not entirely clear how to denominate speaking rate in units that can fairly be compared across languages.

source (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003460.html)

In a war, the climax of brain operation under pressure to survive it would be impractical to test which language speaks faster in a sample population of soldiers without cumbersome measuring instruments for the soldiers on Both sides. Maybe it would be kind of these hidden persons to perform such an experiment for the scientific community. :ahem:

See, it is a known fact that the chemistry of the brain changes when a soldier is exposed to warfare since he or she is no longer her usual self. This would prove difficult using simulators such as VR helmets, or stereoscopic googles coupled with bipedal / general purpose simulators.

What's this about it being manipulated to favor light-skinned Anglo Saxons? Who are you claiming did this manipulation, why did they do this, and what evidence do you have to support it?
It does not matter who did this in order to prosecute them because in the end, as speculation is our fault, they do not get all of the blame for everyday problems whose elicitation was theirs only. If one decides to prosecute them one can only fear being prosecuted. Whoever kills by the sword dies by the sword. Whoever goes into exile to exile he must go. There are only two possible outcomes:

Theocracy
Semitic First Language toward a semitic lingua franca or not

Else there will never be any outcome save war, famine, social inequality of astronomical proportions for ages and ages without end.

But once SFL system is in place, these people will try to get the small children on these programs or their parents to sign contracts so that they can own them via legislation (such as the actual 14th amendment to the Constitution) or other methods such those that are already being placed: by using a private entity to control and monitor birth rates, names, personal data, social security numbers and similar essential items which they have appropriated themselves of with the differentiation of minuscule and mayuscule letters in contracts, driver's licenses, and birth certificates. The truth is that the nobody in the U.S. owns themselves except them. All Persons born in the U.S. who are filed are automatically owned by the Social Security Administration which is likewise owned by the Federal Reserve.

If a Semitic first tongue using Semitic characters is used all of the above is no problem though there might be some contingencies I haven't thought off.

And ladies and gentlemen, at the same time the Jewish propaganda sector could no longer tag the semitic-language speaking population with anti-Semitic labels.

Else, antisemitism will always be used as a tool for war against foreign countries. I think that the best time to implement such a system in Public schools could be right now! If any more time is wasted, other George Bushes may gain control of the government. Who knows what sort of mediums these people may resort to in order to see the future though some scientists [6] claim that they can't see up to 2012 and what is after that year..

Every American has the right to decide which language their children should learn in. It might even be feasible to use a new system without the possibility capitalization / being capitalized but I hardly think there's enough time.

To my knowledge a Semitic lingua franca other than Hebrew has never existed before.

[4] n.a., n.d. "The Elizabethan War", published by http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-war.htm

[5] "War of Jenkins Ear." 27 February 2008. HowStuffWorks.com.

[6] 2012 enigma by David Wilcock extracted on 12-2-2009 from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4951448613711060908

Secondary References:

[i] http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=299820

Nicholas

February 12th 2009, 11:43 PM

Hi Nicholas :wswrwb:,
Of course these two languages (Spanish and English) are not different dialects because English has been more influenced by the French and, as I was saying to Geek Eclectic, I believe that they were two diametrically opposed dialects whose origin came from the Maltese, Greek and Latin tergiversation of peryclu, thanks to persons well versed in grammar and speech whose interest was to maintain the UPPER "Bourgeois" class separated from the lower class all through Europe sometime before and after the middle ages, and also the rest of Germanic-Romance languages were written down some point during a the Carolingian renaissance. These unknown persons only leave traces of their manipulation of languages and speech using any means available including embedding and abetting neologisms, portmanteaus and other lingual artifacts in translation engines and other linguistic tools.

See this page of the Suicide Killer's Father thread for more info on how I discovered their manipulation of the new forms of French, English, Spanish and possibly others:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=119065&page=6

And it might help more to look at this thread also: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=123070

The evolution of language groups isn't really an area I have much knowledge in so I can't really comment on this aspect.

There were many wars that were fought between Spain and Britain. The example I gave was from the top of my head though I do not even trust some historical facts, I will research a bit more about this if there is some free time in my hands.

Some wars were fought for religious causes and others for naval supremacy. Most of these wars that came from search of naval supremacy happened after Napoleon. I have no idea which war it was which I just mentioned but then again if one were to rely on a timeline take your pick [4]:

August 8, 1588 - The Spanish Armada of 132 ships is defeated by the English fleet of 34 ships and 163 armed merchant vessels under Lord Howard of Effingham, Sir Francis Drake, and Sir John Hawkins
source (http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-war.htm)

or maybe:

The war originated with British attempts to smuggle goods into the Spanish American colonies. Robert Jenkins, captain of a British smuggling vessel, was seized by a Spanish coast guard ship and had one of his ears cut off. Parliament forced its leader, Sir Robert Walpole, to declare war against his wishes.
Contrary to expectations, the war proved neither easy nor profitable for Britain. Neither side gained any important victories.

source (http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/war-of-jenkins-ear.htm)

There are many more wars between many nations against Britain. It was not thanks to evolution but to the faster English language that the Anglo Saxons were successful in battles where the odds were against them and even where many nations such as Spain, France and Prussia were against them.

Where's smaneck when you need her now?

There would be no way of verifying my claim that the english are faster at speech than spanish except by simply analyzing the longitude of the majority of words of each language comparatively knowing that accents and other symbols that are not common to both languages do slow down the one that has such suprasegmental characters:

Therefore, a believable cross-language comparison would need a lot of subjects, and you'd have to be certain that you were comparing comparable samples from comparable populations of subjects in comparable settings doing comparable things. Second, because languages have different sound inventories, different word and syllable structures, and different densities of information per word or syllable or whatever, it's not entirely clear how to denominate speaking rate in units that can fairly be compared across languages.

source (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003460.html)

In a war, the climax of brain operation under pressure to survive it would be impractical to test which language speaks faster in a sample population of soldiers without cumbersome measuring instruments for the soldiers on Both sides. Maybe it would be kind of these hidden persons to perform such an experiment for the scientific community. :ahem:

See, it is a known fact that the chemistry of the brain changes when a soldier is exposed to warfare since he or she is no longer her usual self. This would prove difficult using simulators such as VR helmets, or stereoscopic googles coupled with bipedal / general purpose simulators.

May I ask why I should accept your assertions about the Spanish and English Languages as true if you cannot verify them? I would think that it would far more simple to ascribe their success to other factors, such as that they were on an island separated by the English Channel from the rest of Europe, rather than the unverifiable claim that one language was able to spoken faster than the other. If you cannot verify the claim that one language is faster than another you can't do much more than speculate. Geography, tactics and resources, among many others, are the types of things that I would examine.

It does not matter who did this in order to prosecute them because in the end, as speculation is our fault, they do not get all of the blame for everyday problems whose elicitation was theirs only. If one decides to prosecute them one can only fear being prosecuted. Whoever kills by the sword dies by the sword. Whoever goes into exile to exile he must go. There are only two possible outcomes:

Theocracy
Semitic First Language toward a semitic lingua franca or not

Else there will never be any outcome save war, famine, social inequality of astronomical proportions for ages and ages without end.

But once SFL system is in place, these people will try to get the small children on these programs or their parents to sign contracts so that they can own them via legislation (such as the actual 14th amendment to the Constitution) or other methods such those that are already being placed: by using a private entity to control and monitor birth rates, names, personal data, social security numbers and similar essential items which they have appropriated themselves of with the differentiation of minuscule and mayuscule letters in contracts, driver's licenses, and birth certificates. The truth is that the nobody in the U.S. owns themselves except them. All Persons born in the U.S. who are filed are automatically owned by the Social Security Administration which is likewise owned by the Federal Reserve.

If a Semitic first tongue using Semitic characters is used all of the above is no problem though there might be some contingencies I haven't thought off.

And ladies and gentlemen, at the same time the Jewish propaganda sector could no longer tag the semitic-language speaking population with anti-Semitic labels.

Else, antisemitism will always be used as a tool for war against foreign countries. I think that the best time to implement such a system in Public schools could be right now! If any more time is wasted, other George Bushes may gain control of the government. Who knows what sort of mediums these people may resort to in order to see the future though some scientists [6] claim that they can't see up to 2012 and what is after that year..

Every American has the right to decide which language their children should learn in. It might even be feasible to use a new system without the possibility capitalization / being capitalized but I hardly think there's enough time.

To my knowledge a Semitic lingua franca other than Hebrew has never existed before.

[4] n.a., n.d. "The Elizabethan War", published by http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-war.htm

[5] "War of Jenkins Ear." 27 February 2008. HowStuffWorks.com.

[6] 2012 enigma by David Wilcock extracted on 12-2-2009 from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4951448613711060908

Secondary References:

[i] http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=299820

The problem with this is that language is first and foremost a tool, and like any other tool it can be used and misused. The intention behind their use is what makes words racist, not the words themselves. You will not eliminate racism by changing the language that people use, you will only cause them to choose new words to express their bigotry.

Your claim about theocracy also seems to be rather unsupported as well. Arabic is a semitic language and nations like Saudi Arabia (among others) are extremely rigid theocracies. This very fact would seem to at a minimum cast a great deal of doubt onto your claim that a certain language family inherently leads to theocracy while another does not.

mastralvarado

February 13th 2009, 03:31 PM

The evolution of language groups isn't really an area I have much knowledge in so I can't really comment on this aspect.

May I ask why I should accept your assertions about the Spanish and English Languages as true if you cannot verify them? I would think that it would far more simple to ascribe their success to other factors, such as that they were on an island separated by the English Channel from the rest of Europe, rather than the unverifiable claim that one language was able to spoken faster than the other. If you cannot verify the claim that one language is faster than another you can't do much more than speculate. Geography, tactics and resources, among many others, are the types of things that I would examine.

Much like the Maltese in their Malta habitat. Therefore why should my assertion that "the Maltese language was not in the interest of the Arabs yet it is Arabic derived" of the other thread which I posted a link to be questioned?

You would be right to question my the assertion that the English won wars because of their language but you would not be right to question the "interest the Arabs did not have in creating the Maltese language".

The problem with this is that language is first and foremost a tool, and like any other tool it can be used and misused. The intention behind their use is what makes words racist, not the words themselves. You will not eliminate racism by changing the language that people use, you will only cause them to choose new words to express their bigotry.

The Arabic language is restricted to neologisms though some people may bring about new word combinations, I don't think portmanteaus are possible which is what I really have been intending to say from the beginning this issue arose. Hebrew is like that also but the way sounds are dropped is somewhat of an innovation. Take for example CH some say chalaka and others halaka but the writing is the same.

Your claim about theocracy also seems to be rather unsupported as well. Arabic is a semitic language and nations like Saudi Arabia (among others) are extremely rigid theocracies. This very fact would seem to at a minimum cast a great deal of doubt onto your claim that a certain language family inherently leads to theocracy while another does not.

The intention of adopting a Semitic language is not theocracy but the forcible adoption of the Arabic language for these very little known persons who have adopted the Hebrew religion. Most persons who know both Arabic and Hebrew do not see Muslims as enemies and the same thing happens to people who know both Spanish and English. I don't see English speakers as enemies just competitors.

Theocracy is something totally a different direction to what is being proposed here. Adopting Arabic does not necessarily force one to adopt the Islamic religion. The previous link I posted to shows how in schools where multi-faith persons receive classes the users who stay last in class receive additional reinforcement of the Quranic Arabic optionally.

There might be some books that are very useful for the learning of Arabic which I would recommend (for English speakers).

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Abu Shaqra, Faruq.
Arabic : an essential grammar / by Faruk Abu-Chacra.
p. cm.
1. Arabic language – Textbooks for foreign speakers – English.
I. Title.
PJ6307.A384 2007
492.782421—dc22

A good place to download eBooks is www.islamictorrents.net.

Maybe this book is best for young learners:

Saba and Tasneem Ghazi & Amal M. El-Najjar
Illustrated by Saba and Tasneem Ghazi & Amal M. El-Najjar
A colorful book for preschoolers and children in kindergarten that teaches kids how to write Arabic letters.[7]

May one think that it is impractical to make Arabic or Aramaic (modern?) into the franca lingua world over, that would not be difficult once the American Public has implemented it in the U.S. using transparency in order to show that it is not a religiously motivated action: rather an anti-religious action to show the world what America stands for (plurality and separation of church and state).

America is hated world over thanks to the globalization of English as the international tongue. This anti-Semitic hatred should be extinguished using not hatred but education.

A person is not only what he or she eats but also what he or she learns. If in schools and on T.V. as well as in the streets, people learn abusive words he or she will express his or herself in abusive terms. Therefore, your argument that people will find new words to express their hatred only applies to the non-Semitic English, Maltese, Spanish, and all babel originated tongues. Arabic being the one with the most vocabulary and not necessarily the best language though I admit that it should be one without capitalization nor space for neologisms.

Regards,

Khaled

[7] Saba and Tasneem Ghazi & Amal M. El-Najjar (n.d.) "Sail through with Arabic Letters", (ISBN 1-56316-000-5) extracted on February 13, 2009 from "http://www.soundvision.com/shop/pview.asp?Item=425-016"

Nicholas

February 13th 2009, 05:50 PM

Much like the Maltese in their Malta habitat. Therefore why should my assertion that "the Maltese language was not in the interest of the Arabs yet it is Arabic derived" of the other thread which I posted a link to be questioned?

You would be right to question my the assertion that the English won wars because of their language but you would not be right to question the "interest the Arabs did not have in creating the Maltese language".

As I said before, I'm not an expert in the area of language evolution, so I can't really give an opinion either way on what language influenced another.

The Arabic language is restricted to neologisms though some people may bring about new word combinations, I don't think portmanteaus are possible which is what I really have been intending to say from the beginning this issue arose. Hebrew is like that also but the way sounds are dropped is somewhat of an innovation. Take for example CH some say chalaka and others halaka but the writing is the same.

You don't need to change the word itself to change the meaning of the word, so I'm not sure what your point is.

The intention of adopting a Semitic language is not theocracy but the forcible adoption of the Arabic language for these very little known persons who have adopted the Hebrew religion. Most persons who know both Arabic and Hebrew do not see Muslims as enemies and the same thing happens to people who know both Spanish and English. I don't see English speakers as enemies just competitors.

You miss my point. My point was that you were proposing a false dichotomy. Earlier in the thread you had stated that there were only two possible options:

There are only two possible outcomes:

1. Theocracy
2. Semitic First Language toward a semitic lingua franca or not

Now, the problem with this is that you seem to be claiming that unless a semitic language is chosen as a lingua franca we are headed for theocracy. This further implies that non-semitic languages are more likely to lead toward theocracy than semitic languages. Now, as I pointed out the problem with this claim is that both semitic and non-semitic languages have produced theocracies (along with any number of other forms of government) so there doesn't appear to be any evidence to support that assertion.

I would also like to point out that you do not need to speak a given language to not see a people as being enemies. The only language aside from English that I can comprehend the basics of is German, and yet even before learning some of the German language I never saw them as the enemy. In fact, despite not understanding their languages I do not see other people's as being my enemy. It certainly helps to know a different language to understand a different culture but it is certainly not required.

Theocracy is something totally a different direction to what is being proposed here. Adopting Arabic does not necessarily force one to adopt the Islamic religion. The previous link I posted to shows how in schools where multi-faith persons receive classes the users who stay last in class receive additional reinforcement of the Quranic Arabic optionally.

I never claimed that adopting Arabic would lead to theocracy, I merely stated that speaking a given language does not make the adoption of a theocratic government (or any other form of government) more or less likely to happen.

There might be some books that are very useful for the learning of Arabic which I would recommend (for English speakers).

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Abu Shaqra, Faruq.
Arabic : an essential grammar / by Faruk Abu-Chacra.
p. cm.
1. Arabic language – Textbooks for foreign speakers – English.
I. Title.
PJ6307.A384 2007
492.782421—dc22

A good place to download eBooks is www.islamictorrents.net.

Maybe this book is best for young learners:

Saba and Tasneem Ghazi & Amal M. El-Najjar
Illustrated by Saba and Tasneem Ghazi & Amal M. El-Najjar
A colorful book for preschoolers and children in kindergarten that teaches kids how to write Arabic letters.[7]

May one think that it is impractical to make Arabic or Aramaic (modern?) into the franca lingua world over, that would not be difficult once the American Public has implemented it in the U.S. using transparency in order to show that it is not a religiously motivated action: rather an anti-religious action to show the world what America stands for (plurality and separation of church and state).

America is hated world over thanks to the globalization of English as the international tongue. This anti-Semitic hatred should be extinguished using not hatred but education.

A person is not only what he or she eats but also what he or she learns. If in schools and on T.V. as well as in the streets, people learn abusive words he or she will express his or herself in abusive terms. Therefore, your argument that people will find new words to express their hatred only applies to the non-Semitic English, Maltese, Spanish, and all babel originated tongues. Arabic being the one with the most vocabulary and not necessarily the best language though I admit that it should be one without capitalization nor space for neologisms.

Regards,

Khaled

[7] Saba and Tasneem Ghazi & Amal M. El-Najjar (n.d.) "Sail through with Arabic Letters", (ISBN 1-56316-000-5) extracted on February 13, 2009 from "http://www.soundvision.com/shop/pview.asp?Item=425-016"

The fact that English is so widely spoken is not the reason that America is hated. If it was merely the language then every Anglophone nation in the world would be just as hated as the United States.

As to your last argument, I am going to have to strongly disagree with you. You can express hatred just as easily with any other language as you can with English. Words are merely tools. I am sure that there are any number of words in any language that can be used in an abusive manner. The words themselves do not matter, it is the intent behind them that determines their meaning. The meaning of a word can change depending on how it is used.

mastralvarado

February 13th 2009, 10:22 PM

As I said before, I'm not an expert in the area of language evolution, so I can't really give an opinion either way on what language influenced another.

So why are you in a linguistic anthropology thread?

You don't need to change the word itself to change the meaning of the word, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Adding suprasegmental dieresis, accents, and diacritics surely changes the meaning of a word in many languages.

You miss my point. My point was that you were proposing a false dichotomy. Earlier in the thread you had stated that there were only two possible options:

Congratulations! you can count to two but surely, if you read my OP I specifically stated that Americans will not accede to a theocracy so the two possible options were really:

A Semitic first language and lingua franca
A Semitic first language

You chose to accept that the three options. So you are really just an american.

Now, the problem with this is that you seem to be claiming that unless a semitic language is chosen as a lingua franca we are headed for theocracy. This further implies that non-semitic languages are more likely to lead toward theocracy than semitic languages. Now, as I pointed out the problem with this claim is that both semitic and non-semitic languages have produced theocracies (along with any number of other forms of government) so there doesn't appear to be any evidence to support that assertion.

I gave two choices and you chose to see number one and number two as a dichotomy when only number 2 is the dichotomy and 1 is not an option for Americans since it is capitalized. Only americans would see both 2 and 1 one dichotomy and therefore false. I hadn't capitalized any theocratic word until that one in this thread.

If a semitic language for america is chosen there will never be a Theocracy because they don't believe in Theos (i.e. God/Allah). While if a Semitic language is chosen by americans, Americans will necessarily head to becoming Theocratic or not depending on the decision of the rest of the world to accept a Semitic language as an international language. All major Semitic languages have become theocratic while few non-Semitic languages have. I never wrote non-Semitic languages have become Theocratic. So even a third possibilty is possible since you clearly stated first that there have been non-Semitic languages that have become theocratic.

Whilst you may think I wrote Theocracy of one God in the so-called false dichotomy because it's only proper grammar to write capitalized the first word of a new line or sentence also, I leave you to choose whether my intention was to follow a grammar rule or that I stated my position of belief in the one God. The whole context is key to understanding such a proposition.

So if you read the 11th post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2573592&postcount=11)at the first page of the thread where I explicitly stated to Silent Running that Americans can either become theocratic or not, then if not, they can accept the proposition for a Semitic First Tongue which may lead to a Theocracy or not. Geek Eclectic also believed this same apparent fallacy because I clearly wrote "Trinitarian theology" and not "Triniarian Theology" which he or she thought I wrote thus accusing me of falsehood.

I would also like to point out that you do not need to speak a given language to not see a people as being enemies. The only language aside from English that I can comprehend the basics of is German, and yet even before learning some of the German language I never saw them as the enemy. In fact, despite not understanding their languages I do not see other people's as being my enemy. It certainly helps to know a different language to understand a different culture but it is certainly not required.

You will never see Germans as enemy unless their language is being imposed on you whereby the loss of your national identity may be at risk depending on your ability to think in either German or English as a first language. Please take the position of those whom are being imposed forcibly bigot English lingua franca in all Muslim countries.

I never claimed that adopting Arabic would lead to theocracy, I merely stated that speaking a given language does not make the adoption of a theocratic government (or any other form of government) more or less likely to happen.

But adopting a lingua franca of Semitic descent which is something that only Hebrew has had the privilege of, has never happened but it certainly lead to a theocracy which is the tower of babel. Forgive my capitalization of that term from now on since I don't believe that God is the author of confusion.

The fact that English is so widely spoken is not the reason that America is hated. If it was merely the language then every Anglophone nation in the world would be just as hated as the United States.

Every anglophone nation cannot be hated and neither can a nation be hated. This is just a counter strawman argument that you just placed.

As to your last argument, I am going to have to strongly disagree with you. You can express hatred just as easily with any other language as you can with English. Words are merely tools. I am sure that there are any number of words in any language that can be used in an abusive manner. The words themselves do not matter, it is the intent behind them that determines their meaning. The meaning of a word can change depending on how it is used.
Words as tools of technology can only express hatred using the reader's imagination/creativity. As for language whose primary or secondary use is non-verbal communication hatred may be transmitted easily but clearly that has nothing to do with the language itself as a set of grammatical rules, characters and symbols. No person can fall to illness by only being exposed to grammar for communication.

But if you wanted to express that in any language a hatred may be transmitted using context than it may be so yet that would not be characteristic of Semitic languages unless the drop, add or take away from their vocabulary to abstain from such contingencies. In Arabic, to my knowledge the only word that has been taken away from its vocabulary is yasara which means 'throw the dice'. In Hebrew, as has already been explained, it is ch (kh) but there may be others. We are clearly talking about the written aspect of languages since there would be no way of expressing the spoken aspect implicitly.

The same principle applies to separation of church and state. One cannot speak about 'church <-and-> state' without being a little more explicit "_".

Allah knows best.

Nicholas

February 14th 2009, 12:04 AM

So why are you in a linguistic anthropology thread?

Because I'm an anthropology minor.

Adding suprasegmental dieresis, accents, and diacritics surely changes the meaning of a word in many languages.

And I can change the meaning of a word by merely using it in a different context.

Congratulations! you can count to two but surely, if you read my OP I specifically stated that Americans will not accede to a theocracy so the two possible options were really:

A Semitic first language and lingua franca
A Semitic first language

If you're going to start patronizing me I'm going to end this discussion.

You chose to accept that the three options. So you are really just an american.

I gave two choices and you chose to see number one and number two as a dichotomy when only number 2 is the dichotomy and 1 is not an option for Americans since it is capitalized. Only americans would see both 2 and 1 one dichotomy and therefore false. I hadn't capitalized any theocratic word until that one in this thread.

It is a false dichotomy because you said that there are only two possible outcomes. By stating that there are only two possible outcomes you are claiming that we can only choose between having one or the other occurring.

If a semitic language for america is chosen there will never be a Theocracy because they don't believe in Theos (i.e. God/Allah). While if a Semitic language is chosen by americans, Americans will necessarily head to becoming Theocratic or not depending on the decision of the rest of the world to accept a Semitic language as an international language. All major Semitic languages have become theocratic while few non-Semitic languages have. I never wrote non-Semitic languages have become Theocratic. So even a third possibilty is possible since you clearly stated first that there have been non-Semitic languages that have become theocratic.

Whilst you may think I wrote Theocracy of one God in the so-called false dichotomy because it's only proper grammar to write capitalized the first word of a new line or sentence also, I leave you to choose whether my intention was to follow a grammar rule or that I stated my position of belief in the one God. The whole context is key to understanding such a proposition.

So if you read the 11th post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2573592&postcount=11)at the first page of the thread where I explicitly stated to Silent Running that Americans can either become theocratic or not, then if not, they can accept the proposition for a Semitic First Tongue which may lead to a Theocracy or not. Geek Eclectic also believed this same apparent fallacy because I clearly wrote "Trinitarian theology" and not "Triniarian Theology" which he or she thought I wrote thus accusing me of falsehood.

If you weren't positing a dichotomy you should not have said that there are only two possible outcomes.

You will never see Germans as enemy unless their language is being imposed on you whereby the loss of your national identity may be at risk depending on your ability to think in either German or English as a first language. Please take the position of those whom are being imposed forcibly bigot English lingua franca in all Muslim countries.

But adopting a lingua franca of Semitic descent which is something that only Hebrew has had the privilege of, has never happened but it certainly lead to a theocracy which is the tower of babel. Forgive my capitalization of that term from now on since I don't believe that God is the author of confusion.

And you don't think that other nations won't get just as upset at having Arabic adopted as a lingua franca rather than some other language? Why not adopt Chinese as the lingua franca, for instance? It's not as if it's only Muslim countries that are using English as a type of international language.

Every anglophone nation cannot be hated and neither can a nation be hated. This is just a counter strawman argument that you just placed.

]Words as tools of technology can only express hatred using the reader's imagination/creativity. As for language whose primary or secondary use is non-verbal communication hatred may be transmitted easily but clearly that has nothing to do with the language itself as a set of grammatical rules, characters and symbols. No person can fall to illness by only being exposed to grammar for communication.

But if you wanted to express that in any language a hatred may be transmitted using context than it may be so yet that would not be characteristic of Semitic languages unless the drop, add or take away from their vocabulary to abstain from such contingencies. In Arabic, to my knowledge the only word that has been taken away from its vocabulary is yasara which means 'throw the dice'. In Hebrew, as has already been explained, it is ch (kh) but there may be others. We are clearly talking about the written aspect of languages since there would be no way of expressing the spoken aspect implicitly.

The same principle applies to separation of church and state. One cannot speak about 'church <-and-> state' without being a little more explicit "_".

Allah knows best.

Are you saying that there is no word in semitic languages that do not have different meanings depending on the context?

mastralvarado

February 14th 2009, 10:27 AM

Because I'm an anthropology minor.

??

And I can change the meaning of a word by merely using it in a different context.

Uh, please show me an example.

If you're going to start patronizing me I'm going to end this discussion.

Please forgive me I don't know what I do.

It is a false dichotomy because you said that there are only two possible outcomes. [QUOTE=Nicholas;2582226]By stating that there are only two possible outcomes you are claiming that we can only choose between having one or the other occurring.

Enlighten me, so you say that a non-semitic theocracy is also an outcome? This means that there are not three outcomes but four. A theocracy or Theocracy makes no difference to me now that you see that there was no dichotomy numerically but grammatically. Theology is just a game of confusion. Just because some thing is, it does not mean it equals something else.

If you weren't positing a dichotomy you should not have said that there are only two possible outcomes.
So? you decided to count how many outcomes there were but you already knew there were even more possibilities so therefore attacking me of positing a false dichotomy instead of laying out further contingencies as if didn't already knew them.

And you don't think that other nations won't get just as upset at having Arabic adopted as a lingua franca rather than some other language?

Not if Aramaic is used and most nations already know that Jesus (AS) spoke Aramaic. Once Aramaic becomes a lingua franca then, as it was done away with all the confusion and people become less anti-semitic, Arabic could be next but people would be more welcoming of Arabic.

Why not adopt Chinese as the lingua franca, for instance?

It's not as if it's only Muslim countries that are using English as a type of international language.
?? Am not going to go through all the countries that are using English as an intl. language that do not hate English being used as second language. I can't know whether a non-EFL country sees English as a hateful language. But it may be of use to know how many non-English as a first language listening person's see English speakers as precocious in tone.

Are you saying that there is no word in Semitic languages that do not have different meanings depending on the context?

Of course not, some Arabic words such as infinitives depend on the inmediate syntactic-semantic context. I was talking about a much greater context.

Allah knows best.

Nicholas

February 14th 2009, 08:20 PM

??

I am minoring in Anthropology.

Uh, please show me an example.

I am not sure if decorum allows me to say this word, but there is a five letter word starting with b that can be used to either insult women or simply refer to a female dog.

Please forgive me I don't know what I do.

:ahem:

Enlighten me, so you say that a non-semitic theocracy is also an outcome? This means that there are not three outcomes but four. A theocracy or Theocracy makes no difference to me now that you see that there was no dichotomy numerically but grammatically. Theology is just a game of confusion. Just because some thing is, it does not mean it equals something else.

So? you decided to count how many outcomes there were but you already knew there were even more possibilities so therefore attacking me of positing a false dichotomy instead of laying out further contingencies as if didn't already knew them.

You listed in that post two possible outcomes and you obviously meant those to be two possible outcomes because you said there were only two possible outcomes. It's really quite simple.

Not if Aramaic is used and most nations already know that Jesus (AS) spoke Aramaic. Once Aramaic becomes a lingua franca then, as it was done away with all the confusion and people become less anti-semitic, Arabic could be next but people would be more welcoming of Arabic.

Changing the language won't stop anti-semitism anymore than it would stop any other type of hatred.

?? Am not going to go through all the countries that are using English as an intl. language that do not hate English being used as second language. I can't know whether a non-EFL country sees English as a hateful language. But it may be of use to know how many non-English as a first language listening person's see English speakers as precocious in tone.

How can you be sure that a specific people hate the United States because of the English Language rather than something else such as their views of American foreign policy?

Of course not, some Arabic words such as infinitives depend on the inmediate syntactic-semantic context. I was talking about a much greater context.

Allah knows best.

When I say context I'm referring to who uses the word, what or who they are talking about, and how they use it.

mastralvarado

February 16th 2009, 12:50 PM

<snip>
You listed in that post two possible outcomes and you obviously meant those to be two possible outcomes because you said there were only two possible outcomes. It's really quite simple.
<snip>

I listed two items one of which was a duality and the other a monotheist's position.
Just because I wrote two things in a list that does not mean that both were the possibilities. Only two was the possibility. What I meant can only be grasped if you read the thread in context of its own unraveling.

Nicholas

February 16th 2009, 03:03 PM

I listed two items one of which was a duality and the other a monotheist's position.
Just because I wrote two things in a list that does not mean that both were the possibilities. Only two was the possibility. What I meant can only be grasped if you read the thread in context of its own unraveling.

But you specifically stated that they were both possible outcomes, meaning that there were two possibilities. If you list two things and say that they are both possible outcomes you are implying that they are both possibilities.

Lili

February 16th 2009, 10:38 PM

Lili

February 16th 2009, 10:40 PM

Ugh, it's kind of annoying that you keep making claim after claim after claim that gets refuted. It's obvious that you need to actually research before making such grand claims about history, linguistics, medieval Christianity, etc.

mastralvarado

February 17th 2009, 08:50 PM

But you specifically stated that they were both possible outcomes, meaning that there were two possibilities. If you list two things and say that they are both possible outcomes you are implying that they are both possibilities.

I was wrong one and two are possibilities. Two is a duality therefore I was both right and not right not at the same time.

mastralvarado

February 17th 2009, 08:55 PM

Now I want to post an entry from my blog in order to show the readers what evolution of language/speech is.

What's all this talk about evolution being taught in schools and not even evolution of linguistics is mentioned? Students must simply accept the grammar and langue's rules without any question asked with regards to its origin and if any is given it's on a very vague and even misleading manner. In previous studies, it has been shown that the history that is generally accepted is not regarded at all mistaken by most historians. That is not to say that one can know that the majority of historians do consider the "history" in pristine layout, but since it is still being transmitted in classes, there cannot be any argument against the statement above. Historians are not boycotting their classes as movie writers have been doing in recent years.

This may come as a shock to some, but history is not an accurate science considering many auxiliary facts of astronomy, geography, dendrochronology, and even tools such as the calendar which is being used today, have produced highly reasonable theories such as Hungarian Calendar Phantom Time Hypothesis, H.I. Phantom Time Hypothesis, my Tongue of the Sea of Egypt Hypothesis, Carolingian Hoax Hypothesis, David Wilcock's Convergence 2012, Hypotheses and Historical Conspiracy Hypotheses from India and Arabia all which were conducted by independent investigators whose findings and their auxiliary facts have concluded that their is a world wide conspiracy among the higher education elites to bring about monotony (i.e. peace through the falsehood of the usual). Most people certainly consider the calendar that is in use to be the correct calendar; Hungarian Calendar Hypothesis shows a 200 year discrepancy using astronomical calculations and some old Roman historian' writings whilst Herbert Illig's Phantom Time Hypothesis shows an even higher number using the dendrochronological record. The Carolingian Hoax Hypothesis is embedded in both of these hypotheses whilst my own Maltese's Origins Theory regarding the cause of the Carolingian "renaissance" bears some light into the issue. Some may say, "this guy has some nerve to question the calendar's accuracy given atomic clocks and satellites that synchronize GMT as well some of these crazy New Age Theories" To them I propose, don't consider this a fantasy that belongs in a movie writer's desk nor as an attempt by New Age, New World Order persons to speculate. Consider the fact that students are not being taught how to program a calendar in programming classes and instead are shown to make images using programming. Does not the Bible, Hadith,Torah prohibit graven images? That is not to mean one should burst out in violence against engravers and their works. Does image engraving advance the survival of a species? That isn't to mean that one cannot create graven images as an atheist, pantheist. Consider that students are not being told that evolution is a religious cult as long as it is laid out as the only possible evolution (false-monotony): As it has already been shown the study of evolution is not exclusive to Darwinism. There is another evolution that runs parallel to general evolution and evolution of bio organisms and it's the Evolution of speech. General evolution embarks on all types of evolutionary ramifications of the genetic, lingual, grammatical, industrial, bio organic and chemical evolution (i.e. fossil record). Knowledge of science relies on facts. What matters in science is what is and was and not what can be although one may stipulate a hypothesis but it's mere speculation as long is it remains unproven.

One thing is for certain, evolution does not require that a population of ignorant people that agrees with it or not. Therefore, using any speculation is not about creating panic or questioning religious beliefs of others. Few people with questionable scruples have done this and it is not something that should be for the advancement of science but for personal entertainment. Take for example the common cough. Each year new forms of the common cold are being created and found in humans. Animals do not die of all the variants of common diseases that the human throat produces. Notwithstanding, some persons may believe that this sort of disease is one which animals are immune, as a human being and speaking for human beings, one should not argue contrarily to such an obvious observation since the survival of the species is at risk. This sort of evolutionary difference between humans and non humans is blatant considering that animals do not speak. Therefore, the evolution of speech is a necessary field in which generative anthropology may be akin and medicine may not benefit from since curing the common cold makes a doctor out of work.

Consider now, the field of medicine. It is a multi-billion dollar industry that has benefited immensely from evolution in the sense of persons who lack the mental capacity to disbelieve in miracles, such as supernatural beings, are prone to being perturbed to such a mental state that demands hospitalization. Such persons are a source of income for medical doctors and nurses as well as HMO's. So there's likely no interest in these organizations for the study of evolution of speech to continue in order to continue to make profits.

That is not to say that persons have not benefited from the medical and pharmaceutical sectors. The real culprit of diseases is either the kinds of things where people associate and speak/inhale because of the diversity of chemicals in the air or it is because there is a supernatural entity that wants persons' common cold to constantly evolutionize because of what they say. That is, analyzing throat/nasal area diseases from different countries, in Iran there is less calcification of the throat area than in the United States and the rest of the world [see pineal gland calcification studies]. Could it be because Iran is an independent nation with theocratic principles?

I could see such a contingency. I don't know about evolution freaks whom any thought of Godliness is implicit to making their babble for "evolution" as something prodigal. I know that it is very likely that evolution in the sense of abiogenesis may be true but until it is proven one should not make any negative statements concerning the existence of supernatural or even supranatural beings.

Uh, and Allah knows best.

mastralvarado

February 17th 2009, 10:03 PM

The following link might prove to be of use for persons who want to learn Arabic.

Why and How to Learn Arabic for Comprehension of the Quran - Nouman Ali Khan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfflgF_H0kY)

mastralvarado

March 2nd 2009, 06:41 PM

I've come across with another peculiarity.

The roman letter 'ae' which stands for "ash tree" happens to also omit the hyphen as does GA which so happens to be related to 'chapín's' cousin word ('wachupín') in its original form 'gachupín'. 'Gachupin' may be related to GA the acronym for Georgia as does 'gruzinim' stand for nickname Georgians/Georgia but not to be confused with the State of Georgia.

In the 1890's, calling someone a 'wachupín' in Mexico was heavily fined. It is a word that is no longer used except in its 'chapín' variant which is the case of Guatemalans.

Coincidently, 'wachapín' has almost exactly the same denotation as 'charam' which is a Hebrew word. Hence, whoever coined chapín/-chupín knew Hebrew well and also what it is that he or she was doing. If Hebrew is the original language of mankind, then any negative connotation would be perceived even if the person did not understand Hebrew. It would be therefore intentional to introduce such a neologism in order to cause lack of motivation in a person.

Under the disguise of the term Guatemalan, ergo, Wachapín was introduced during the colonial period around the "1700's" but without the wa nor ga.

And Allah knows best.

mastralvarado

June 29th 2009, 06:34 PM

In conclusion, taking the current trend in teaching/learning for young students in America and the high rate of addiction in the United States as a sign of an increasing tendency of malthusian misinformation wars, per se, I was thinking since it is a contradictory position to promote memoristic learning using the English and Spanish languages. Andres Mejia (Mejia, 2007) explains, “memoristic learning versus non-transcendental understanding are foes” in critical thinking. Quoting Mejia page 1 [1], “In the literature about pedagogy, “traditional education” has become the name for the beast that good sensible educators of all persuasions must fight against, and banish from their classrooms; the straw man whose burning will take away our pedagogical malaises. One of the main characteristics of this evil of traditional education has been referred to with expressions like “memoristic learning”, “memorisation”, “mechanical transfer of information”, and others.”

Considering now, English with over a million words and as the standard frank language for the rest of time, the longer we wait to implement a frank language that promotes understanding and true significant learning, as it has already been implemented by Mayan people in places such as Guatemala the more difficult it will be to implement peace. English among other non-semitic tongues considerably accelerate the non-proliferation of Semitic tongues since to an already knowledgeable person of Hebrew, Arabic, Mam, Queqchi, Tzu Tujil, Quiche, Aramaic, and so on and so forth, it is much easier to learn other languages as opposed to the other way around: a person who relies on memoristic learning does not catch on to these sorts of languages as easily.

Though irrelevant, the Chinese language speakers as do Japanese, do tend to use memoristic learning methods however visually, despite to say that the learning process goes on throughout their lifetime. The process of learning in any language which keeps growing is never complete; the speed and completeness of learning depends on what stage of one´s life one is in and the cognoscitive learning capacity; hence the precedence of significant learning at an early age.

If the gap in misunderstanding between Semitic and non-Semitic languages is never bridged the understatement that God is the most High will never be understood as the mistransliteration Allah as an example.

I’ve spoken to some teachers in Central America who all agree that Mayan students learn faster than non Mayan students on how to speak Spanish than students of the Mayan dialects. The case for Native Americans is unbeknownst to me yet I can see how these being tied to Semitic origins may also possess a similar capacity for learning these tongues.

So if anyone is in a contradiction, it is the secular teacher who wants to accelerate critical understanding through an evidently memoristic tongue. If anyone disagrees with someone other than himself on who´s the most high it is that person who is suspect of being an addicted consumer (of the language misnomer).
But don’t take my word for it and neither the UNESCO’s recent claim of 2,600 languages in extinction [citation needed]. Consider the fact that technology has improved the retention of the Mayan dialects in their speaker’s minds by bringing digital typology closer. If technology is being taken to new places where there are people who are still speaking ancient tongues, it should not be the cause for their extinction, unless the technology is not benefiting anyone but those who can afford it.
Ever since I published this article/thread there seems to have been an effort to mitigate its findings.

I just hope history does not repeat itself. The Spanish and English languages are built from the laicization of Muhammad (PBUH) and greek-latin tongues as well as the convolution of many other lexicons perversely introduced into their vocabularies[3].

I will rest assured that this is true considering the definition of laicization from the Catholic Encyclopedia [4].

The term laity signifies the aggregation of those Christians who do not form part of the clergy. Consequently the word lay does not strictly connote any idea of hostility towards the clergy or the Church much less towards religion. Laicization, therefore, considered etymologically, simply means the reducing of persons or things having an ecclesiastical character to a lay condition. But in recent times, especially in France, the word lay has assumed a decidedly anti-clerical and even anti-religious meaning, which has extended also to the derivatives laicize and laicization. This change seems to have originated in the struggles and controversies, at once religious and political, that have arisen in that country in connection with the educational question; teachers belonging to religious congregations (congréganistes) have been driven from the public schools; all religious instruction has been forbidden therein, and this new lay character (laïcité) of the public school has been declared to be essential and inviolable.

And Allah knows best.

[1] Mejia, Andres 2007. Understanding is necessary for critical thinking —but also for its declared foe of uncritical dogmatic thinking. Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia extracted on june 29 2009 from http://wwwprof.uniandes.edu.co/~jmejia/PDF/understanding_and_critical_thinking.pdf
[2] Nicholas, et. al., [citation needed (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=124897)]
[3] Ross, Kelly (2001), GWF Hegel. G.W.F. Hegel, Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences, Vol.? .Extracted on june 29 2009 from http://www.friesian.com/hegel.htm

[4] Bridge, J. (1911). Persecution. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved June 29, 2009 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11703a.htm