Dialect and Language in Neurolinguistic Perspective

Q

Could someone tell if brain-wise/mind-wise/neurologically a language differs from a dialect?
https://www.quora.com/Could-someone-tell-if-brain-wise-mind-wise-neurologically-a-language-differs-from-a-dialect/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

ARq

Answer requested by Chrysovalantis Anastasiades

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.

Answered Wed

Absolutely not.

OK, one, the language involves a written version, which the dialect does not always do.

A dialect is a version of a language. Some languages have only one version, some have several, and in some cases you can wonder whether they belong to only one or to more than one.

Culturally it is settled by the fact that some dialects when written down for a long time are called languages - especially if you have several authors in them.

Now, the scenario in which a dialect is not written is of course the one in which a dialect is too far from a “written language” to be felt simply as one way to pronounce the writing. This is not so with all dialects, and with these, there is no difference between language and dialect. X’ Stockholm dialect and his Swedish are identical, Y’s Lund dialect and Y’s Swedish are identic, precisely as with Z’s Athens or Crete dialect and his written Dhimotiki.

Unwritten dialects are like Pontic Dhimotiki in relation to written Katharévousa, like Jamtska or Dalbymål in relation to Swedish : if you are native in those, you know your dialect and your written language are NOT the same.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

Neurologically a non-written dialect you are not imagining as written is without the acquired synaesthesia between sounds and letters.

Genesis and Creationism Related on Quora

Q I

Creationism: Can we compromise so that young earth creationists and scientists can agree, by saying that god created the earth 6,000 years ago out of some very old parts?
https://www.quora.com/Creationism-Can-we-compromise-so-that-young-earth-creationists-and-scientists-can-agree-by-saying-that-god-created-the-earth-6-000-years-ago-out-of-some-very-old-parts/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered Oct 16

If God created Heaven and Earth 6000 or 7200 or 7500 years ago, it does not make much sense to compromise by saying some parts were very old.

I saw this has been answered so long by so many, it has an answer wiki. I’ll answer the answer wiki.

Part 1: No, because even human civilization existed far before 6000 years ago. Anything denying this fact is not science.

This relies on human civilisation being correctly dated.

Part 2: Science is factual. Individuals can interpret their faiths to match the facts, but facts cannot be altered to match any one faith.

This relies on science usually so called always being science.

I contest both : a Sumerian civilisation “6000 years ago” was really much younger.

Q II

Based on the dependency of Adam and Eve and Gilgamesh and Noah to Sumerian text, is it possible that the first five books were cobbled together by the captured and enslaved Jews in Sumer?
https://www.quora.com/Based-on-the-dependency-of-Adam-and-Eve-and-Gilgamesh-and-Noah-to-Sumerian-text-is-it-possible-that-the-first-five-books-were-cobbled-together-by-the-captured-and-enslaved-Jews-in-Sumer/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered Oct 16

The “dependency” you name is in fact neglecting that both stories, or all three (Gilgamesh is not Genesis!) could simply depend on facts which came down both ways.

Q III

How long before the Caucasian man disappears like the Neanderthal man?
https://www.quora.com/How-long-before-the-Caucasian-man-disappears-like-the-Neanderthal-man/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

See http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com

Answered Oct 19

If Neanderthal man disappeared in the Flood of Noah, except some ancestress of some Caucasians (like a daughter in law of Noah being half Neanderthal), Caucasian man will not disappear like that, because there will not be a global Flood again.

Jeremy Schoenhaar

Oct 19

This wasn’t a religious question, it’s scientific. Since Noah has never been scientifically proven to have existed, nor has the global flood you mention, your answer is obviously religiously biased.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

My dear, proof for past events are mainly historic, not scientific.

Q IV

How likely is it that some ancient people discovered "carbon dating" along with a related forgery method and they are somewhere (metaphysically) making fun on us?
https://www.quora.com/How-likely-is-it-that-some-ancient-people-discovered-carbon-dating-along-with-a-related-forgery-method-and-they-are-somewhere-metaphysically-making-fun-on-us/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

ARq

Answer requested by Chrysovalantis Anastasiades

Hans-Georg Lundahl

History buff since childhood. CSL & Eco added to Medieval lore. + Classics.

Answered Oct 16

The “forgery” is there in the carbon build up.

While carbon was building up that fast, or even if it had been a very slow and gradual build up, like previously imagined by Creationists, one could not have got a consistent half life to fit to calibratable objects, known from history.

This means that the carbon dating method could not have been invented previously, precisely because only as recently as perhaps 500 BC, perhaps rather a little earlier, did we reach present carbon level.

What is the carbon build up I am talking about? Well, if in Flood of Noah you had only 1/69 of present carbon level, the slow carbon build up, with new carbon made only as slowly as now, would have landed us by now on c. 45 % of the real present level - and rising.

But this would, with the known half life have given us Ghettysburgh dates for El Alamein. So, the calibration would need to be made according to objects, no calculating of half life purely from labs - and when I tried that, I went back to maybe 2200 years or so - being careful to use known dates for when objects would be from. Now, I got different halflives depending on what time I calibrated for - never ever the same one.

So, the carbon build up must have been faster. I e, at times real faster.

And if someone back then had been inventing carbon 14, he would have stumbled on a faster rising carbon rise even more than I on a normal one.

This means, no, carbon dating cannot have been recently invented by men.

However, angels and demons were aware in advance, or could ask God if He had not told it, where the level would land on and things, so Satan could very well have known when end of Young Dryas and beginning of Göbekli Tepe would be carbon dated to, and his influence on liars in Egypt would have meant that the fake date for Atlantis was adapted to predictable false carbon date.

Q V

Why do many religious people (creationist) believe that the simulation theory supports creationism? does it support creationism? If not, why isn’t it supporting creationism?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-religious-people-creationist-believe-that-the-simulation-theory-supports-creationism-does-it-support-creationism-If-not-why-isn%E2%80%99t-it-supporting-creationism/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered Mon

Answering: "Why do many religious people (creationist) believe that the simulation theory supports creationism? does it support creationism? If not, why isn’t it supporting creationism?"

I would say it is partly supporting and partly not supporting at all Creationism.

It is supporting insofar as it involves belief in intelligent design.

It is unsupporting insofar as it involves the belief the intelligent designer must in his turn at least be a product of evolution in an unknown, more unguided-evolution friendly, universe than the one we observe.

In other words, we have to reject it, but while doing so, see the acceptance others give it as a half hearted rejection of their older purely evolutionist belief, at least as applied to our observable reality.

Q VI

If, according to the Bible, Earth was created before the Sun and the Moon, what kept it in its orbit and what was it orbiting around?
https://www.quora.com/If-according-to-the-Bible-Earth-was-created-before-the-Sun-and-the-Moon-what-kept-it-in-its-orbit-and-what-was-it-orbiting-around/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

Answered Tue

Earth was not orbitting then and is not orbitting now.

Geocentrism is an excellent answer to this problem.

Before I was a geocentric, I used to think, however, Earth began to orbit around the Sun after it was created, and was therefore not moving, or only moving by daily rotation, until day 4. Does such a transition make very much sense? No. This is one more reason for a Young Earth Creationist to be a Geocentric.

Q VII

Can the evolutionists sue the creationists for spreading false information and propaganda?
https://www.quora.com/Can-the-evolutionists-sue-the-creationists-for-spreading-false-information-and-propaganda

[one answer:]

Jean Dieudonné

Bible believing young earth creationist

Answered Oct 20

So you want back the inquisition of the catholic church? Well I am not surprised. Truth hurts, doesnt it.

Cheers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oct 20

Just to be somewhat clear on historic matters, Inquisitors were generally Young Earth Creationist and also Geocentric.

The latter up to 1820, when an Inquisitor Anfossi was overruled for wanting to censor a Heliocentric book by Settele, and the former even up to 1905, 1909.

So, the kind of future inquisition of evolutionists you describe would not be an inquisition of the Catholic Church, not the true one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

Case in point for YEC : they sued Isaac Pereyre for promoting pre-Adamites.

He retracted, fortunately.