It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What was the first language?

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Arabs didn't exist much before 1200 years ago
neither did the koran
neither did Allah
before then they were called semites
the father of all Arabs is considered to be Ishmael son of Abraham
he lived (if he isnt completely fictional) around 1800bce




posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Ive read and heared that you can look how old a language is by looking at the different kind of way you can change verbs. Iirc english has 20. Turkish for example has 1000 iirc. If this is true then turkish might be a really old language.

Oh and tehre is something really wrong with language trees. Why? Because some language groupes have had very large impact on others. For example Turkishlike languages have invaded the balkans since the hunns at least. Ive read that the etruscians from italy where speaking altaic or turkish. I have even read that the Sumerian is altaic or turkish.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
ok getting tired of the speculation now
shall we keep it simple from now on


we have a winner
proto indo european
(of course this isn't correct but its a hell of a lot closer than most of the other claims)
like turkish for instance which didn't exist a thousand years ago



[edit on 8-1-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Does anyone speak proto indo european language? Get real! What language is that? Get me the dictionary!

Allah created the 1st man Adam, Allah spoke Arabic to Adam.
Could it be Allah spoke Germanic with Adam? Impossible.

So Arab is the 1st language because it is the language of Allah.

Read Qooran, it is the truth and only truth! It is said Qooran was written in Allah's language and it is Arab!





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reduced immense emptiness

[edit on 8/1/07 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
yeah right
Proto indo european is a root language which is older than the creation of Allah and older than the life if Ishmael (you do know who Ishmael is don't you ?)
if you want to check that try reading something more valid than a holy book
if on the other hand you want to sound like an arab fundementalist then carry on
I'm sure it won't be long before theres a knock at the door



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Not sure if it's been answered yet, but we discussed this in one of my world history classes. Currently, all known spoken languages today constitute roughly only 3% of all languages ever known in the world. The oldest languages are long forgotten. I found an image almost similar to what we viewed, except ours went even earlier than 8000 BC:





posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CinLung
Allah created the 1st man Adam, Allah spoke Arabic to Adam.


I'm not sure if this was a failed attempt at humor, or if you're serious. Either way, it's not correct. The Quran does not say that Allah spoke Arabic to Adam. Infact, Arabic is a Semitic language, just like Aramaic and Judaism, all stemming from the same language.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk

like turkish for instance which didn't exist a thousand years ago



[edit on 8-1-2007 by Marduk]


Turkish is older than that. The first time it was written down was in the 8th century and im not talking about turkish but the turkish languages. I have never seen any place predictions of its age other than the 1000 ways you can change a verb way of determing the age of a language. Which is ofcourse far from accurate.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   


and im not talking about turkish but the turkish languages

well you didn't say that
in future you should apply the noun Turkic where formerly you were using turkish
lol
and even then
Turkic is an indo european language group along the Hellenic branch



[edit on 9-1-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Cellular i would think. Everything else is just compounded upon cellular communication, perhaps.

I seem to remember a story about a king who took newboarn babies and kept them seperate from all other people, save the mid-wives who fed and kept them clean, in the hopes to answer this very question. The story tells how the king was wanting to find out the language of the gods, and/or the first language. He ordered that NO ONE was to speak to the infants. According to the story all the infants died due to lack of love and interaction, supposedly.

Curious if perhaps the gods of old (who gave us language) are not doing the same thing with earth, permitting humans to translate that which we do not even hear, and are not aware of.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   


Curious if perhaps the gods of old (who gave us language)

please try to keep the term Gods out of this
its nonsensical
we're talking about the oldest language
it has nothing to do with a concept that was invented a long time after this happened



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
www.sciencenetlinks.com...


Communication is so important that even the amoeba (an organism made up of a single cell) communicates with other amoebas by chemical discharge. By doing this, one amoeba attracts others to it for reproduction.

so unless anyone can come up with a creature that is older than an amoeba then theirs is the first language
chemical messaging





[edit on 9-1-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
please try to keep the term Gods out of this
its nonsensical


Not according to the earliest histories of the cultures that had language.

But if you feel their is more truth to be had by ignoring those who spoke and wrote those languages, perhaps you know far more about sense verses nonsensical than i do, or even those who supposedly invented language.

You must know more about the languages origins than those who used those languages, or else why choose to disregard their accounts concerning said languages?


edited for typo

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
so unless anyone can come up with a creature that is older than an amoeba then theirs is the first language
chemical messaging


So what happened internally prior to the external medium of chemical encoding?

Was there some internal abstract thought that served as a catalyst for needing to communicate, even if there was but 1 single celled lifeform?

Or is language, aka communication, only applicable to external mediums?

*i use the word "medium" to describe the way in which the message travels from sender to reciever.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   


Not according to the earliest histories of the cultures that had language.

we're not talking about humans if we're discussing languages
Whales and other cetaceans have languages
so do a lot of other higher lifeforms which have been around millions of years longer than us
to date there is no evidence that any of them have gods
hehehe
so the rest of your post was in error because of your misinterpretation of the point i was making

Self Pity

I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.
(DH Lawrence 1929)

"Well, Sergeant, specifically of course we can know nothing - unqualified - but like the rest of us, I've fenced my life with a scaffolding of more or less speculative hypotheses."
T.E. Lawrence 1927




posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
Esoteric Teacher, I have seen literally dozens and dozens of your posts, in which you anagram and jumble words, mirror image them, too.


Which is consistant with what the earliest scribes said to do, since they also did it. I offer as testimony one of those dozens and dozens of threads you mentioned, which show the justification for having done so.



I too could do that, and show a different outcome as well.


Which, from the point of the observers, would offer relevant truth concerning the base example.



As you have shown, it is subject to much interpretation.


Which makes it less true, why?



Usually to suit your needs.


Negative.



And I think that most of your anagrams or whatever you would call them are just that, a bit of a reach.


I'm not seeking validation from you, i have already recieved proof that i was justified for doing so, and that there is an immeasurable amount of truth in it. Thanks for your opinion just the same though. But, i doubt you have the credentials to disprove those who have shown me proof i was was not wrong.



I still don't understand what you are trying to prove by doing this. It truly proves nothing, other than being a quaint little word exercise.


It proves everything. everything.



English was not the first language, of this I am certain.


i'm sure you are certain of alot of things.

thanks for sharing,
john

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



Not according to the earliest histories of the cultures that had language.

....
to date there is no evidence that any of them have gods
hehehe
so the rest of your post was in error because of your misinterpretation of the point i was making.


Oh, perhaps you did not know i was not talking about the animal kingdom, i was refering to our ancestors. So please don't take my quote out of context in order to avoid that in your opinion your opinion is more valued in this discussion than the oral and written traditions of those who spoke and wrote the earliest languages, thank you very much.



Self Pity


If you feel the need to, then by all means.



"Well, Sergeant, specifically of course we can know nothing - unqualified - but like the rest of us, I've fenced my life with a scaffolding of more or less speculative hypotheses."
T.E. Lawrence 1927



ironically relevent.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
you may have been talking about human languages but the topic of this thread is actually "What was the first language?"
so you're off topic and being overspecific

I have no need for self pity ET I'm one of the wild things referenced by DH Lawrence



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
you may have been talking about human languages but the topic of this thread is actually "What was the first language?"
so you're off topic and being overspecific


No. Not ignoring the meanings of the first languages is not off topic.



I have no need for self pity ET I'm one of the wild things referenced by DH Lawrence


And i interjected this thread with self pity where there Mr fair wild thing?

*Yawn. Good night Marduck. don't get too cold on the branch.

Peace,
john



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   


Not ignoring the meanings of the first languages is not off topic.

for the last time ET
just for you
how is what you're attempting to discuss the first languages
Homo sapiens sapiens has been around for 100,000 years
Homo sapiens archaic for 250,000 years
species of whale by comparison which have a true language have been around for in excess of 20 million years
so you are off topic as you are not discussing the first languages at all or anything like them
thats like saying the man who comes 500th in a marathon was the first across the line




new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join