Did I Really Understand What My Conversion was Supposed to Imply? Yes.

Gavin Ortlund on Cameron Bertuzzi's Conversion to Catholicism
The Counsel of Trent | 5 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_06gl7gtcz8

3:06 A bit like my friend and benefactor Stephan Borgehammar.

He's the son of a now deceased Lutheran "priest" (they kept the title and some rituals of ordination, but without intending to convey the power to offer the sacrifice of the mass, no priesthood is conveyed).
He's the sole man in his family who is Catholic.

He's author of How the Holy Cross was Found - from event to Medieval legend.
He's now working on a book on the Cathedral of Lund, which was Catholic before the Reformation, then Lutheran.

10:19 You have geysirs on Iceland. Perhaps smaller than Yellowstone, but still.

Geysir is actually an Icelandic word. I think it is related to yeast and the imagery involved in calling hot springs that is boiling water looks like beer brewing or sth.

Wrong, I was, it seems the verb "geysa" means "gush" ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geysir

11:15 At my first conversion to Catholicism, 1988 (starting Christmas 1984 and even earlier), I actually missed getting all that Catholicism has to offer, so as to be attracted later (2006 to 2009, notably) to Eastern Orthodoxy that also has Real Presence. When I really came to realise the duty to obey the pope is when I went Sedevacantist and a few months later Pope Michael.

Sure, SSPX has a point one need not obey an evil order even from a superior, but when said superior continues and continues to show he really means it, decades on row, the options narrow down to "am I wrong, or is he a heretic and hence not Pope" ... (= not a superior).

11:52 I do know Laurentii-Stiftelsen in Lund does practise Eucharistic adoration.

Their problem is, they think that they could get real bishops and priests even through lines that denied the Mass is a sacrifice.

Even Laurentii-Stiftelsen will not state that the Mass is a sacrifice that is:

• offered for atonement of sins
• to reunite us with God and all graces necessary
• and also of praise
• and thanksgiving.

They would state it is only a sacrifice of

• of praise
• and thanksgiving

and hence not properly speaking a sacrifice.

What FSSPX have tended to accuse the Novus Ordo of is, "it destroys the sacrificial character of the Mass" ...

15:42 However, Lutherans and Anglicans believe Confession is a Sacrament, and that it is not strictly necessary, but advisible for those who would otherwise not be confident enough in their sins already being forgiven due to the Cross.

In Catholicism, confession is mandatory, if accessible. One can make peace with God and say "I'll confess later, when I can" but not if one says "I'll skip confession" ... as in definitely.

In the Lutherans parish where I was, before converting, we were not vividly encouraged (or at all encouraged) to confess. Impossible in a Catholic (or Orthodox) setting.

The other question is of course, what pastoral will I get when I confess ....

17:08 It has in fact become more common within High and Mid Church Anglicans and Lutherans.

I'm not sure whether Hans Fiene hears confession, but I am sure C. S. Lewis went to confession. Not very probable outside Recusants prior to Pusey.

Then, they are not priests (CSL anyway, but I'm comparing the man who heard his confession with Hans Fiene), and their absolutions are invalid.

17:44 As far as I know Luther, he actually did propose that the hearing confession would among other things be for restoring the (subjective) assurance of one's sins being covered by Christ's sacrifice.

So, Luther is not exactly OSAS, but he thinks the one thing you can do to lose your salvation is not believe that you're forgiven for the sake of Christ's sacrifice.

The different definitions of faith between Catholics and Luther are:

• we believe faith means believing every dogma and is itself not sufficient to save without hope and charity (both of which are expressed in works, btw)
• Luther restricts the one thing we have to do is believing we are saved or that Christ died for us (each individually "for me").

Note, some on Laurentii-stiftelsen would here disagree with Luther and have a more Catholic view.

19:12 However, I do have the freedom to believe whatever is not:

• contrary to dogma
  or
• contrary to the settled and judicially imposed position of a man who is actually pope.

So, if Pope Michael is the last Pope we had, I am obliged to believe Geoncentrism and YEC and free to believe in Angelic movers.

If "Pope Francis" is the Pope we have now, I am at once:

• prohibited to be geocentric and YEC (because he is favouring relative Heliocentrism for each solar system, and Old Earth)
  and
• obliged to be geocentric and YEC (because Trent Session IV implies it, add Romans 1 for Geocentrism and Trent Session V for YEC).

Back in 1988, Pope Michael had not yet been elected, and "JP-II" with Ratzinger had not yet attempted a crack-down on Fundamentalism.

It can be added, Sedevacantists proper, people who think we still have no true Pope, tend to think of Pius XII as the last Pope we had and to take his support for Big Bang as obliging at least in doctrinal prudence if not actual dogma.

Orthopapists who claim we have had Popes since and who are not the ones of "Vatican II" and successors, on the other hand usually have Popes (real of not) who support YEC, and in the case of Pope Michael, also Geocentrism.

Britton Cain

Are you trying to imply that Pope Francis is not the true Pope?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Britton Cain Indeed.

For John XXIII over John Paul I, I think it probable they were not true Popes, and accept when Pope Michael defines they weren't, for John Paul II through Francis, I could have figured it out myself, due to their stalwart support for the Evolutionist Belief system and explicit targetting of Fundamentalism.

Britton Cain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So how exactly was Pope Michael ordained as a valid Pope in your eyes?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Britton Cain One is not "ordained as a valid Pope."

One is elected as a valid Pope and ordained or rather consecrated a valid bishop.

The first happened by emergency conclave 1990, the second when he found bishops of the Duarte Costa line submitting to him and ordaining him a priest on a Saturday and consecrating him bishop on Gaudete Sunday (civil year 2011, Church year 2012).

Britton Cain

@Hans-Georg Lundahl And now that Pope Michael has passed, who is his successor?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Britton Cain Papacy is not inherited, I think the conclave is upcoming for 2023.

Carolyn Kimberly

Sorry. You are at least in schism. "Pope Michael"? Please.

Markus Hill

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You really buy this "Pope Michael" nonsense? You're kidding. You're schismatic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Markus Hill Since 1990, those accepting "Popes" called "John Paul II", "Benedict XVI" and now "Francis" are schismatic, not just wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carolyn Kimberly The one in schism is you.

The TyRant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl An "emergency conclave" held by 6 laymen including the candidate himself and his parents? In a thrift store? At what point does this sound 'validly' elect? If this is the case, then can anyone hold an 'emergency conclave?' He wasn't even "consecrated" until 2011 either apparently. So for 21 years, you had a Pope that couldn't even celebrate a Mass? Carlos Duarte Costa was also excommunicated by Pope Pius XII. So that line is dubious at its best.

We're getting into Joseph Smith's levels of nonsense. It's honestly asinine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The TyRant It would not sound the least validly elected if there had been any substantial chance of "John Paul II" being Pope.

Synagogue visit and Assisi 1986, Sant'Egidio 1993, and his very outspoken distance from Fundamentalist exegesis, voiced by then "Cardinal" Ratzinger and shared by Bergoglio, explicitly in the 2014 "magic wand" speech.

"Carlos Duarte Costa was also excommunicated by Pope Pius XII. So that line is dubious at its best."

When Orthodox priests or bishops convert, they aren't reordained. As you may know, Humbert (a real Cardinal) on behalf of St. Leo IX, excommunicated Michael Caerularius. Excommunication makes episcopal succession illicit (they were reconciled top Pope Michael before ordaining him), not invalid.

Congratulations to showing off your ignorance of sacramental theology, which is in this context at least getting rampant in the Vatican II Sect!

The TyRant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "It would not sound the least validly elected if there had been any substantial chance of "John Paul II" being Pope."

This is question-begging and doesn't answer my question. I'm not arguing the validity of Pope's post-V2, that's an entirely different argument. I am asking what makes this conclave valid? I have a Catholic study group of 7-8 people. Apparently, if we held a conclave and if they all vote for me, I would actually have a more valid claim to the Papacy than Michael did at the time.

"When Orthodox priests or bishops convert, they aren't reordained. As you may know, Humbert (a real Cardinal) on behalf of St. Leo IX, excommunicated Michael Caerularius. Excommunication makes episcopal succession illicit (they were reconciled to Pope Michael before ordaining him), not invalid."

I never said anything about his Orders being invalid. Only dubious for his line of succession. Canon 1041.2 would state that anyone in heresy or schism would be irregular and have to be dispensed from that canonical requirement. Now can an illicit Bishop actually do that? Unsure. Canon 1047.2.1 would say that this dispensation would have to come from Rome. The Orthodox Church, SSPX, PNC, Assyrian Church of the East, have all been recognized and dispensed by Rome. Canon law also says that any of the impediments on that list "prevent" one from receiving orders which includes married men (Which Duarte Costa was a proponent of), murderers, anyone who is ordained illicitly, etc. But this just blurs the line on the liceity vs validity issue. This is all just presuming though that Biarnesens was even validly ordained by his line.

I'm sure if a canon lawyer was involved, it can make short work of this question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The TyRant "I am asking what makes this conclave valid?"

The case of necessity. As said, an apparent pope, who is not a real one, and cardinals and bishops accepting him, and therefore not making the move that St. Robert Bellarmine had put on them delegates the duty to provide the Church with a Pope downward.

This makes the question of whether "John Paul II" was Pope paramount.

"I have a Catholic study group of 7-8 people. Apparently, if we held a conclave and if they all vote for me, I would actually have a more valid claim to the Papacy than Michael did at the time."

Not any more since Pope Michael was already out. If you discount him due to smallness and laymen-only-ness of conclave, you obviously are not in a position to repeat the same thing. But, if you had held a conclave a few months before David Bawden held his, unaware of his initiative, and he found out you had been elected even just 1 day before he was, he would have (at least that's how he's presented himself) stepped back.

Now, if you are remotely interested, how about finding out about the conclave that's upcoming and join that one, if this second one can involve laymen?

"Only dubious for his line of succession."

Ah, no. I'll tell you why in a moment.

" Canon 1041.2 would state that anyone in heresy or schism would be irregular and have to be dispensed from that canonical requirement. Now can an illicit Bishop actually do that? Unsure."

Not the least. The canonical requirement here is simply about licitness, not about validity.

AND, what's more, Pope Michael was already bishop elect of Rome, already had jurisdiction, so could already lift any and every irregularity.

"The Orthodox Church, SSPX, PNC, Assyrian Church of the East, have all been recognized and dispensed by Rome."

Not back in the day, OK. Not back in the day. An illicit consecration of a bishop is still valid, because in modern ecumenical times it would be too late to restore validity to Michael Caerularius' consecrations after being excommunicated. The consecrations needed to be valid, even if totally illicit. This means, the pope had valid succession, but needed to give a dispensation (and gave it in time) to also have licit succession. Duarte Costa line is therefore not unsure.

You are trying to smuggle in a false theologumenon popular with some Orthodox, that a schismatic bishop cannot ordain or consecrate. Or a heretic one.

This is false, the only case when heresy takes away succession is when the heresy changes the intention, as with such Protestants who claim "apostolic succession" (Porvoo communion).

22:03 Thanks for the guy who said Evangelicals are not Protestant.

They are at least far closer to Catholicism than Lutherans or Calvinists are. For instance, when I read the Baptist Edgar Andrews' From Nothing to Nature (unlike its component parts, it appeared in Swedish before English), the last part compares a man with grace or without grace to a wet or a dry sponge. Grace actually is something added to his own will and nature and permeating him. I was a Lutheran and rejected it in favour of "forensic grace" - grace being not what God does in us, but decides about us, like when a death penalty is wavered.

As a Catholic, I understand Edgar Andrews was simply right. Grace is something inside us, it is God Himself living in our soul.

YAJUN YUAN

I think you are confusing Grace and the Holy Spirit in your last sentence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YAJUN YUAN Sanctifying grace IS the Holy Spirit indwelling.

@YAJUN YUAN To see that sanctifying Grace and the Holy Spirit are the same, both are called "gift" here two passages:

Jesus answered, and said to her: If thou didst know the gift of God, and who he is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou perhaps wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
[John 4:10]

But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[Acts of Apostles 2:38]

22:24 The non-denominational Church hopper (or home-aloner) is free to be far more Catholic in his exegesis than any Protestant denomination is.

From a Catholic perspective, he can be classed as Protestant for what he lacks - a clergy with valid orders that presents God with the sacrifice of the Mass and after his baptism offers him valid Confession (at least in the hour of death, like faculties are not needed then, of the priest is a real priest he can, even if he's excommunicated).

23:18 I think Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio did precisely that in relation to Trent Session IV.

The Bible is to be read as the Church hath held and holds (not as "it/She" happens to hold now in contrast to before) and no contradictions to the consensus of Church Fathers are allowed.

This pretty much defines most of what Evangelicals mean by Fundamentalism as at least indirectly through the Bible and the Church Fathers dogma.

24:01 Let's confer Classic Protestantism as it was when Catholicism condemned it.

A Lutheran would say you could in principle lose your salvation by being Catholic or Calvinist. Not necessarily. Not if you were unaware of how these positions (really for Calvinism or supposedly for Catholicism) contradict the Bible. This has watered down by interdenominational Ecumenism inside Protestantism, which sometimes is inclusive and sometimes exclusive of Catholicism. This is a failure of each of the original Protestant denominations.

27:04 Valid succession is not tied to all doctrinal truth, only to those that define orders and what the Holy Mass is, for the sake of which orders exists.

If Novus Ordo consecrations of bishops, if Novus Ordo ordinations of priests, deacons and subdeacons are valid, then the German bishops are as validly bishops as Pope Francis.

If on the other hand Novus Ordo orders are invalid, Antipope Bergoglio is as much a layman as Cardinal Marx.

If it were a question of right doctrine and lack of schism, the Orthodox, the Copts, the Armenians and the Assyrians would not have valid orders, but according to Catholic doctrine they actually do have that.

27:33 It was true when the non-Catholics were Gnostics. Or Ebionites.

They had no true bishops. (Certain for Gnostics, at least reputed for Ebionites). By now, lots of non-Catholics do have true bishops.

27:58 No, it can not happen to the Church as a whole.

It could at worst happen to large swathes of the Church, but never to the Church as a whole.

There would still be a visible standard of holiness in the contemporary Church.

28:25 Sure, you had a lot of priests who were not formed properly and in every century and decade, you also had lots of priests who were. Meaning before the council of Trent. And arguably, in any decade, most places, the latter outnumbered the former (least so in Rome - Alexander VI tried to make his son bishop of Carpentras).

28:33 People with comcubines were arguably far more a concern in the days of 1545 - 63 than illiterate priests.

But some who were considered as illiterate were simply sticking to Medieval Latin rather than New Latin (which was far more Classical).

30:18 I am sorry, but if you were to say that executing heretics for heresy in certain cases (notably relapse, but also pertinacity) is per se against the faith, you are supporting Luther against Pope Leo X. Proposition 33 of Exsurge Domine, and Michael Lofton simply did a bad job of arguing otherwise.

One reason why Vatican II is not a valid Council (if Leo X was a valid Pope).

It is a different matter whether executing heretics now would do any good, I think it would do more harm than good. I already said so in 2013. But burning heretics is not generally and in and of itself against the Will of the Holy Spirit. Burning Tyndale after he had butchered the exegesis of Romans 3 was not a crime (unless the refutation by James Latomus maligned his position).

Carolyn Kimberly

V2 was valid in that it was called by a Pope and included the bishops.

takmaps

You can't say with right mind that The Holy Spirit's will is in line with burning heretics at the stake. Are we talking about the same God who wants people to repent?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@takmaps God wanted Ted Bundy to repent. Does that mean God was against him frying?

Tyndale had plenty of time to repent of misrepresenting Romans 3. He refused.

It would however not do much good now to start it all over again, for pretty obvious geopolitical reasons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carolyn Kimberly If Dignitatis Humanae was valid, that means Leo X (a Pope) was in error. If Exsurge Domine condamnations of theses are infallible, that means Dignitatis Humanae is not, and arguably V-II no valid council.

Pope Michael considers Roncalli and Montini as having been antipopes, making all documents of V-II invalid. At least he did so last time he expressed himself publically before dying.

30:47 One could add that all the Classic versions of Protestantism were violent against Catholics. John Calvin may in Geneva have been content with banishing Catholics and sexual harrassment, but his disciple in Scotland, John Knox, started wars against Catholics that still plagues Northern Ireland in mitigated ways or did when I was small and Bernadette Devlin was dragged by police for protesting inhumanity of the ... apartheid.

Lutherans and even more Anglicans executed Catholics as "traitors" against the Kings "good pleasure" ...

My first long term reaction to learning the violence of the Reformation was "I'll convert when the Swedish Church, or a larger portion of it, does" - and this changed when I learned by Umberto Eco what the Albigensians were. In the OT they would have been stoned for blasphemy, if not outright for sodomy.

31:23 I had to check.

While Miguel Serveto was a Spaniard, he actually was in Vienne when he started to flee to Geneva.

He escaped the Inquisitors (not very efficient or brutal jailors, were they?) and ...

"Meaning to flee to Italy, Servetus inexplicably stopped in Geneva, where Calvin and his Reformers had denounced him. On 13 August, he attended a sermon by Calvin at Geneva. He was arrested after the service[29] and again imprisoned, and all his property was confiscated."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus#Imprisonment_and_execution

34:04 While after my conversion to Catholicism I did shilly-shally about what obedience of papacy (Novus Ordo, Palmarian or Pope Michael) or episcopacy (FSSPX, Sedes, Orthos), I never felt tempted to get back to Protestantism.

One half hour, the memory of a word by St. John Chrysostom made me question whether Calvin could have been right about "only spiritial presence" and if so, whether I was among those effectively predestined to Hell, but apart from that half hour, I have not looked back to Protestantism.

I can love what Jonathan Sarfati writes, mostly, but I cannot go to a service with him. I can find Kent Hovind in some respects genius as an intellect, but I am not going to his adventureland to give my life to Christ. Loving Fundamentalism is very different from loving Protestantism.

Continuing first separate Thread

HomeSchooling, Germany and US · Other Thread Under Same Video (excursus : Continuing first separate Thread) · When bullies and bullied are both stuck in the same school ... · There are Other Debates Too

Some things are getting hard to follow, so, take this as snippets, rather than coherent dialogue.

As you recall, the OP was:

Prototypical I was homeschooled from elementary through high school in the US, and honestly I don't have the highest view of the way a lot of us in our homeschool circles were taught. Religious fundamentalism and suspicion of authority were major themes in the curriculum and instruction we received. I graduated 8 years ago, and I'm still discovering things I should have been taught. The parents of my homeschooled friends loved to point out the SAT/ACT numbers and the other performance metrics you brought up in the video, but I don't think any of them even realized there might be flaws in the studies reporting the numbers they loved so much. I wasn't really taught how to evaluate a source for reliability, quality, and bias in my homeschool career. Overall I'm not a fan, it was a fairly isolating experience.

Here are some more answers, either to that or to others in the thread.

The Real E.B.

A lot of the people criticizing the OP's evaluation of their own homeschool experience need to read Tara Westover's Educated. A lot of religious fundamentalists in the U.S. see homeschooling as a opportunity to avoid teaching their children about history, science, etc. which, FYI, are not covered by the SAT or, I assume, the ACT.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The Real E.B. "A lot of religious fundamentalists in the U.S. see homeschooling as a opportunity to avoid teaching their children about history, science, etc"

In exactly what ways?

Do you count not teaching "evolution is true proven science" as not teaching science? What would you refer to in "history"?

...

Jessica Ely

This is because your parents were shitty at their job (sorry but they were). I was homeschooled for 3 years and I ended up ahead of my peers. For 3 years in highschool I was able to sleep through class and still ace the test because I already learned everything. It wasn't isolating to me either because my mom made sure she set up things for me to do with kids who weren't homeschool. I played softball and when that was in the off season I was really involved in Girl Scouts. There is secular homeschooling (absolutely no religion) and it's becoming more and more popular. I'm guessing soon secular homeschooling will be more popular than the religious fanatic homeschool groups. Covid has changed a lot in the US when it comes to homeschooling. As I said there's more programs set up for secular homeschooling. Parents aren't putting their children into school because of all the school shootings. I'm one of these parents. I will not put my daughter into a traditional school until I know she will be safe like my brother was when he was in traditional school. My daughter will have everything a traditional school gives and more because I have 1 child to focus on rather than 30+.

...

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Humans are apes, big apes just like chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutangs. We are running apes, with short arms and long legs and furless, that's our strength, we can evacuate heat by sweating and we can run a long time without collapsing, we are the fastest of the great apes, and aditionally humans are highly social apes, and very smart and have developed a highly sophisticated language and eventually writing, making this way the knowledge immortal through generations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez The problem is, apes don't have a capacity for "developing" anything like human language.

How do apes communicate?

Partly in gestures, but when it's in sounds, the sounds are each symbolic, and need to be uttered in a specific tone and volume of loudness to be understood. When each sound is symbolic, and the symbolism can be varied by rhythm and tone and repetitions, there is no more than maximum 500 messages that can be made (not sure if any ape attains that, if they do, it's probably including signals by gesture). There is no notionality.

By contrast, man has messages called "sentences", "phrases", "sentence words" that give a complete message. Each such is subdivided into more than one morpheme. A morpheme has an incomplete message, like "car" or "is" or "red" and is sometimes notional, like "car" and "red" sometimes conveying the exact relation between notions, like "is" (confer "was", "is not", "could be", "would be if"), and even the level of morphemes is a highly open class, since you can always form new morphemes for new notions, due to the fact that the morpheme is not one soundsymbol, but sounded as a series of sounds that in an exact sequence code for the exact morpheme. "Car" is conveyed by the sounds "k" and "ah" or (in US), the sounds "k" and "ah" and "r" - each if which can equally be used in other morphemes if put into other sequences. Sometimes also the soundshape of a morpheme varies according to context, like "car" and "carry" are related (a car carries passangers and goods and its driver).

Even with a limited lexicon, the number of sentences that can be made is infinite, since there is infinite recursivity - something no beast communication has.

An example is "this is the cat that killed the mouse that ate the malt that lay in the house that Jack built" ... even that cat could not translate this into miawls.

This is as impossible to develop from how apes communicate, as it is to mend a trouser and continue using it as a trouser until one day it is also a house. Or to mend a house and continue living in it until you have made it a trouser.

Evolution is, simply, impossible (unless you mean things like Chihuahuas and Great Danes having a common ancestor couple - on the Ark).

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl There is an ape species that can communicate sophisticated topics using sound: Human Ape.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez In order to argue it an "ape species" you are pretending it developed from apes without this sophistication.

I have pointed out and you have ignored, why this is impossible.

Carlos Lopez

In Natural History Museum in Paris there is a pavillion dedicated to great apes. When you enter there is a natural size gorilla model, very realistic, beside a natural size chimp, beside a natural size orangutang, and beside A MIRROR.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez I am not denying that men have some functions on common with apes.

Men also have some functions not in common with ANY irrational animal.

And the functions there are in common do not warrant a common ancestor who lacked the function NOT in common.

To reason about which you once again missed the chance.

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't argue humans as an ape species. There is no aguing possible, it is a fact. We humans are obviously apes, we are not ruminants nor viverrids, we are an animal species like any other mammal, and our clad is clearly apes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez "we are an animal species like any other mammal"

The exact thing I just disproved. By the way, in English it's clade.

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Evolution, baby, that's how species come to be, that's how an species splits in two.

Environment changes. Where there were trees now there is a savannah. All those apes who lived in the trees are now walking through the savannah.

Thousands of generations after, all those apes with longer legs were having more children than the shorter legs ones and have changed the whole species, and the same for the loss of hair.

As the brain keeps growing, mothers start having problems with births, so only the babies with a slow development are succesfully born, and that changes the whole species angle of neck and head and also flattens our faces. That drives to a better vocalization, and that drives to a more and more sophisticated communication.

Thosands of generations after, we learned to build.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez "that's how species come to be, that's how an species splits in two"

At least the latter. The first land-species were created on day 6.

"As the brain keeps growing, mothers start having problems with births, so only the babies with a slow development are succesfully born, and that changes the whole species angle of neck and head and also flattens our faces. That drives to a better vocalization, and that drives to a more and more sophisticated communication."

• 1) The most probable outcome would have been stillbirths, not adaptation, and end of line.
• 2) Better vocalisation does not in and of itself drive to more and more sophisticated communication.
• 3) Just in case you missed it, the two systems are so incompatible there is no chance of one more and more growing into the other.

@Carlos Lopez Just to check ... you are aware of anatomic differences that are not just gradual, right?

• 1) Men have, apes lack Broca's area (and Wernicke's too, but it's Broca's that leaves imprints on the inside of the skull).
• 2) Apes have, men lack air bags attached to hooks at the hyoid bone (the two types of hyoid bone can be checked)
• 3) Ear structures differ, those of apes are thicker, apes have a far lower range of audible tones, and they cannot hear sounds like T or P, because they are too shrill.
• 4) Oh, men have a different type of the FOXP2 gene too.

None of these can be reduced to "gradually bigger brains" or "gradually flatter faces" ...

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes the most probable outcome would be a growing number of stilbirths, but not all, and those who made it passed that ability to the next generation, and that's how evolution works: mutation and death are its tools.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez Now, the problem is, that works up to a point. Not up to changing an ape into a man.

PLUS you have again studiously avoided giving any kind of account on how on your view language originated.

It does not happen just bc there are human brains or as you not very brightly put it "more developed brains" - a human brain has up to age 2 (or sth) to learn (start learning) a first language, after that, with no language learned, the age for learning a first language is gone.

The Venzuelan sign language is no case against this, since each of the children had arguably already learned a FIRST sign language at home. The homes where it was developed simply furnishes the deaf children with a second language more common to all than their first language.

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I repeat again: there is no changing, humans are apes as we have always been. We've changed in size, proportions and abilities through millions of years, but we are apes all the way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez Apes have hyoids with hooks for airbags, and apes have ears that are thicker in outer duct, thicker in malleus, thicker in incus, thicker in stapes.

Imagine your thickest guitar string, and then make it twice as long and now try to play a high pitched melody. Won't work. Apes can't hear what we hear, and this includes nearly all consonants and also probably the higher formants of the vowels.

Apes also lack Broca's area and Wernicke's area, and have a clearly different version of FOXP2.

Your repetition of a Darwinist delusion is not remotely interesting, and you are not in a position to call me "to order" ...

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl What apes are you exactly talking about?
Humans are apes. What do you think we are? Do you at least believe in the meaning of DNA?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez I am talking about the ones supposed to be "our closest relatives" but also about other ones. As far as I know this is valid for all of those traditionally called apes.

And give up trying to "call me to order," I enumerated good reasons not to join your linguistic revolution.

I certainly believe DNA has meaning. Among other things, the FOXP2 gene looks one way for us, and another for apes.

Btw, recent studies have shown that "1 % difference" doesn't hold, it is actually more like more than 15 % difference.

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl 15% difference with what species exactly?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez Chimp.

@Carlos Lopez Details in this video, yes, it's creationist, but refers to studies by non-such:

Chimp-Human DNA: Less similar than previously reported
CMI Video | 9 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlNLoEGu0po

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I always laugh at creationists because of the lack of imagination of the imaginary creator...¿Why did he give all birds, reptiles, mammals so many common features ¿Why they all have just four extremities, a head on top of a neck made exactly with the same type of bones an with just two eyes, two holes for breathing, and a mouth and an excreting hole on the other side? the same scheme for all. Just boring for any creator..I rather know that we animals look like each other because we are close relatives.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez We seem to share 50 % of the genome with bananas. That doesn't mean we are close relatives.

It means many vital processes have to be provided and they are similar in men, beasts and plants.

Now, your criticism of the Creator is totally off, since it requires His imagination to lack what yours has when you write music, if you do. Artistic unity.

If you missed it, the video referred to studies made by non-creationists. Two of them. So, your laughing at creationists isn't even a counter-argument.

Do you ever get tired of just shifting the point and going off a tangent?

@Carlos Lopez "the same scheme for all. Just boring for any creator"

Scarlatti wrote 555 Sonatas.

They were all what we call sonatinas now. They all had a first repetition beginning with a segment of music in the tonic scale, and ending with a segment of music in another scale, often the dominant. They all had a second repetition where the themes are identic but the scales are inversed. Creators aren't people who get bored.

If God got bored as easily as I do, you would have been zapped because you are boring in this discussion, you see, the Creator does not just bring species into existence, but also uphold individuals, and each individual in it, as long as it exists. So, don't laugh at God for not getting bored.

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Do you realize that your god is just one of the thousands of gods and godesses humans have invented along millenia to ease their fear to the unknown? In which way is your god more real than Zeus or Kukulkan?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez Known earthly facts of Zeus. He was born on Crete. He banished his father to Italy. He was buried. Presumably died first.

I'm not saying he's not real, I am saying he really was a man, perhaps even the real father of Minos, Rhadamantys and Sarpedon.

I am however saying, what's known from stories of what he did visibly on earth is highly inadequate to make him even "the thunderer" let alone "ruler of heaven and earth" (and with delegations to brothers "of sea and netherworld" or to his son Minos "judge of the dead").

What's known of Jesus is lot's more substantial for affirming His divinity, like this triplet:

• claimed to be God and to resurrect Himself
• then did resurrect on the Third Day
• then went up to Heaven after promising to stay with His Church, and His Church is still around.

You seem suddenly a lot less eager to defend Evolutionism, aren't you?

And, in a thread about homeschooling, your argument takes on a very odd flavour of your wanting state schools to be obligatory and normally involve teachers who think like you on these issues and who are not ashamed to tell it to their students.

You are aware that one reason Catholics hated Azaña was a school system with lots of Freemasons in it? That Freemasons were expelled from the school system after Franco won?

But even if you had a point. Even if I had no reasonable clue between God the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost or Zeus, which as said I do, either of them makes more sense than apes developing language (human sense, not just communication) because their brains grew bigger and their faces flatter.

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Bigger brain, shorter arms, longer plantigrade legs, and no fur. All that accounts for the 1% of difference between you and a chimp.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez As said, the Creationists were referring to NON-such for the percentage between us and chimps being more like 15 %.

2018, Richard Buggs, professor of evolutionary genomics (8:50 in the video, for the following I continued to 10:56)
Jeffrey Tmpkins, PhD in genetics Clemson University published a book in 2021, admitting his results (independent of those by Buggs) challenge evolution.

84.4 % similarity. Not 99, not 98.5, just 84.4.

Now, you are still excruciatingly shy about the differences that are relevant for language and that are involved in the communication systems themselves. Is that because you have no answer?

@Carlos Lopez Correction, the latter of the two is not a non-such, he is a creationist, but Buggs isn't, he's evolutionist.

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't see the relevance of the language. It's all about sounds and interpretation, just like all apes do.
Our language is just more complicated, but the motivations keep the same: sex domination, prestige...
The more social the ape is the more sophisticated is the language. Whales have a language too, and dolphins and orcas, and suricatas, and otters have their language too, it is just that they have much less messages to communicate than we have.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez "just like all apes do."

No. Apes interpret single sounds.

We interpret coded sound sequences. And sequences of such.

None of the species you mention has an actual language with three levels or with notionality.

And having the brain of a man doesn't give you a human language, see feral children.

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ¿What do you mean with "feral children"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez A feral child is one that has not lived among people, but among beasts. It does not learn a human language, if this state of affairs is carried on. This is something he can never repair later on in life. He can never learn a language even if recovered by people.

Now, this means, a man cannot learn a language on his own, he needs to be brought up by parents having one.

And this also rules out men starting out without a language and inventing it, since without language, you simply aren't an intelligent inventor.

The atheist option is, man always existed from eternity, and so did the world. Disproven. The other option is, God always existed and always had language, and when creating man, endowed him with it.

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I have never seen or heard of such a thing as a child raised by animals except in movies and novels, but anyway if such a thing was even possible (I don't think so..), obviously the kid would learn the language of his/her breeders, he would bark or roar or moo or whatever language he/she learnt.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez But that would imply the child in a beast type of communication.

One sound = one message.

Human type communication is
Complete message = subdivided in incomplete meaning units.
Incomplete meaning unit = subdivided in meaningless sounds.

You learn one human language with some understanding by the age two, you can learn any other later on.

But if you learn a bestial one, you can't. They are too different.

Now, first example:

"Marina Chapman claimed to have lived with weeper capuchin monkeys in the Colombian jungle from the age of five to about nine, following a botched kidnapping in about 1954.[7] Unusual for feral children, she went on to marry, have children and live a largely normal life with no persisting problems."

Why did she not have any persisting problems? Because at age 2 she had not yet been feral, she was still with her family.

More typical:

"Dina Sanichar, discovered among wolves in a cave in Sikandra (near Agra) in Uttar Pradesh, India in 1872, at the age of 6. He went on to live among humans for over twenty years, including picking up smoking, but never learned to speak and remained seriously impaired for his entire life"

Also with monkeys:

"John Ssebunya, from Uganda, was a toddler when his father killed his mother and hanged himself. Instead of going into a care facility, he went to live with vervet monkeys. For two years he learned how to forage and travel. The monkeys protected him in the wild. When he was around seven years old, he was brought back to civilization. According to a local villager, the only forms of communication he was capable of were crying and demanding food, and he was a "wild boy" whom everyone feared."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

Carlos Lopez

The atheist- science option is: man as a species starts as about 2 million years ago, and gets its usual today configuration about half a million years ago. Animal life started about 700 million years ago with 200 million years of sponges, and then there was an complex animal explosion. Unicellular life started about 3,800 million years ago, and Earth solidified 4,500 million years ago.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez What you call the atheist option, for one thing stamps atheism as a religion, and for another thing, for the reason explained, is a non-option.

Carlos Lopez

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I see, four "feral children" in all History; thats not enough to make any study, that's just a rare and random exception to the rule.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Carlos Lopez You didn't look up the link to wikipedia, did you?

The feral children are more numerous than four, and those who were absent from human company in the years up to two (unless for a short while) never learn to talk.

Learning to talk is strictly dependent on being exposed to talk. Check with a speech pediatrician, if you neither believe me nor wikipedia.

And let's be grateful for them being extremely rare, it is a great misfortune, it's very far from how it's depicted in Mowgli.

@Carlos Lopez I went over the wiki article and found 34 cases worth taking seriously, and I have not counted confined children (not strictly feral) or those marked as hoaxes.

Primates: 4, Wolves: 3, Dogs: 6, Bears: 1, Sheep: 2, Cattle: 1, Goats: 1, Other cases: 13, Non journalistic modern reports: 3.

...

Chuck Sucks

I see you had a gripe about 'suspicion of authority' that is created in homeschool environments. Are you saying that isn't taught in public schools and if so has it ever occurred to you that the reason 'suspicion of authority' isn't taught is because the government wants obedient adults who don't question them.

...

Frank F

@Hans-Georg Lundahl science is not a religion, it does not require belief but a willingness to adjust your worldview to new facts

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Frank F Sounds nice.

I suppose sciences, like electromagnetics or chemistry.

But I think the subject was more like Evolution and (relative) Heliocentrism. And those believing that are often obtuse to facts that are not necessarily new, but new to them.

Frank F

@Hans-Georg Lundahl World you care to list one or two such facts about heliocentrism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Frank F Yes, gladly.

• 1) It has not been observed.
• 2) In order to deduce it from observations and facts of Newtonian mechanics, you don't just need to assume that Newtonian mechanics exist, but that it is the only thing existing on that scale - like if you admit even the possibility of a God or of angels, with the known attributes of Catholic theology, you cannot rule out the mechanism - if you will - of God turning the universe around us night and day, and of angels moving sun, moon, other planets in orbits, and stars in the narrower circles known by observations partly called "aberration" and partly "parallax" ...
• 3) so, you can also not (unless you presume atheism as the positively certain starting point) even use parallax to prove stellar distances, and therefore not to prove the "distant starlight problem" that some proposed against YEC.
  
  Oh, forgot:
• 4) as Robert Sungenis pointed out, the Michelson Morley experiment does not support earth moving through space.

Frank F

@Hans-Georg Lundahl well, i would say it has been observed sufficiently, e.g. by unmanned probes, by the bending of light in response to a stellar mass (visible during a solar eclipse). But apart from that #2 assumes god or gods are content with playing „the man behind the curtain“ and have nothing better to do than moving the sun and the planets to confuse some poor mortals. To me it seems much more sensible to assume that a hypothetical god simply got the universe started, by creating the laws of nature that we are observing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Frank F "i would say it has been observed sufficiently,"

I obviously disagree.

"e.g. by unmanned probes,"

Exactly what observations by them? They refute Ptolemy and planets other than Sun and Moon having orbits directly centred on earth (or bifocal, with earth in one focus). But that's no refutation for Tychonian.

"by the bending of light in response to a stellar mass (visible during a solar eclipse)."

Now, that proves mass, but it does not prove mass and its concomitants inertia and gravity are the sole actors. Congratulations to observing part of Newtonian mechanics, but that is not observing heliocentrism.

"But apart from that #2 assumes god or gods are content with playing „the man behind the curtain“ and have nothing better to do than moving the sun and the planets"

Your objection presumes that this would exhaust their capacity.

God may have lots of better things to do and use other angels as servants in such cases (like witnessing the Resurrection), but angels are plenty to go, and God's own power and attention are unlimited.

"than moving the sun and the planets to confuse some poor mortals."

Why would it "confuse" when that is a prime way in which people have historically actually figured out that God exists and that angels exist?

Why presume that the "modern scientifically minded" men are God's privileged go to as to what is enlightening and what is confusing to man?

"To me it seems much more sensible to assume that a hypothetical god simply got the universe started, by creating the laws of nature that we are observing."

We do not observe laws of nature. We observe agencies that follow laws of nature and classify their normal way of acting as "laws of nature" - these agencies (for instance mass) do not exhaust the agencies available if God and angels exist and even if we exist as opposed to being byproducts of electro-chemical and biological processes, notably in the brain.

Frank F

@Hans-Georg Lundahl This is getting really silly. Of course you can make any assumptions you like and it is obviously impossible to prove the non-existence of gods. You can always claim that some unseen agency is the real reason behind any observation. I could with equal validity claim that our world is merely a prison created by an evil god who seeks to keep us chained to material reality by creating an elaborate charade.
But of both are equally impossible to prove or disprove, then why bother?
Donˋt bother answering, i think this exchange is a complete waste of time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Frank F "it is obviously impossible to prove the non-existence of gods"

And exactly for that reason, it is impossible to prove Heliocentrism.

"I could with equal validity claim that our world is merely a prison created by an evil god who seeks to keep us chained to material reality by creating an elaborate charade."

Unfortunately such a theology exists. They were called Albigensians, and I am happy we burned some of them on the stake and converted lots of the others.

"But of both are equally impossible to prove or disprove,"

The actual character of God can be proven by His actions, that is by history. Take a re-read of the Gospels, please!

Frank F

@Hans-Georg Lundahl If I were to subscribe to such a ludicrous theology (which i most emphatically do not) the answer would be obviously: you are an agent of the adversary/demi-urge/whatever trying to lead us astray and such should be burned/quartered/killed in a variety of unpleasant ways and are just lucky that your lies form the basis of the beliefs of lots of people otherwise you would burn instead of the Albigensians.
Any theology should only be consumed in moderation to avoid unwanted and possibly dangerous sideeffects.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Frank F Well, if you do not subscribe to such a ludicrous theology, how about, God:

• 1) creating the world
• 2) running it currently
• 3) doing it in such a way as to make it obvious, like turning the heavens around little earth?

That's a pretty clarifying and honest way to run a universe. Works pretty well too, until Galileo gets nearly deified by Freemasonry.

"Any theology should only be consumed in moderation to avoid unwanted and possibly dangerous sideeffects."

That sounds like a call to apostasy. No thanks.

Get on to : When bullies and bullied are both stuck in the same school ...

I Don't Completely Agree with Candace Here, to Put it Mildly

I Actually Don't Completely Disagree with Emily Ratajkowski
Candace Owens Podcast | 3 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gmRDVRHLAc

1:57 Jim Jones used Kool-Aid for the collective suicide.
Are you saying it's wrong to use Kool-Aid in your non-alcoholic punch bowl?

Confer age gap and kool-aid, porn industry and the Jim Jones sect. Punch bowl and lawfully wedded marriage.

2:10 Is Emily herself pronouncing her surname like that?

Because, it's obviously a Slavic one (though in the usual Slavic custom it's an adjective and would be Ratajkowska for a girl), and in Slavic (as well as most Germanic) languages, J is pronounced like Yod, and AJ is how we (Swedes are not Slavs, but non-English Germanics) would spell the diphthong in "pie, tie, cry" (paj - the actual loan word - taj, kraj).

3:02 I cannot answer for Kardashian.

I could answer for myself.

1) What I acquired since I was 18 is anyway so ultra-geeky, a 53 year old woman would be as much behind if she started dating me as an 18 year old girl.
2) I am 54. With a woman of 54, I cannot really hope to have children at all. With a woman of 40, I can, but with a large possibility of the first child being Downs syndrome.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think they deserve to be killed or something, but I do think it is permissible and advisible for men, even my age, to get younger women so they don't get a child with Downs as the very first one. I think it vastly better for a child of that condition to have elder siblings.

Yes, it has more to do with the age of the woman than with the age of the man. From 20 to 40 in a woman, the risk of having a child with Downs rises from 1 / 10 000 to 1 / 100. For every ten years a man is above 35, it only compounds this with 11 % of the risk as it is.

I am not sure you got the memo, but as a Catholic, I believe the FIRST purpose of marriage is to get children. Primum bonum matromonii proles. There are two other ones as well, defeating what lust would otherwise make sinful, and the honour of mutual exclusivity.

An unmarried man who dates someone around 18 while he is 50 is the moral equal of an unmarried man who does so while he is 18, not of a married man of 50 trying to get adulterously laid with a girl of 18.

And the reasons I am yet unmarried are partly due to the first thing I mention, and partly due to prejudices like the one you voice here. AND, yes, I could have avoided it if I had left Sweden a year or two before 30, but a Catholic (SSPX) priest I corresponded with told me not to. This led to (along with my very misplaced obedience) difficulties that degraded my life to when I finally left Sweden, and beyond.

Jade Blackwell

Why are u thinking about having a child at YOUR age? It is dumb for women AND men to become parents at that age…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jade Blackwell It is that for woman. Not for men. Isaac was 60.

Jade Blackwell

@Hans-Georg Lundahl okay, you ask a child how it feels to have an old parent that is 60 plus. I bet they wish they could have had more time with them. It is just a selfish thing to do to a child…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jade Blackwell Losing parents can happen anyway.

And if it's "selfish" to make children, we need more of that "selfishness" ... an aging population is not helping things. Rejuvenating the population obviously means making babies.

@Jade Blackwell One more thing: if I do not marry and do not make a baby, what benefit is it to a non-baby that it was never made?

Jade Blackwell

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I am having a hard time understanding this question. Are we talking about Santa Claus now? Something that doesn’t exist?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jade Blackwell If I do not make a baby, how does that non-baby profit from my "altruism" in not making it?

Life is a gift. Sometimes we get it in somewhat painful circumstances. CSL and JRRT both lost mothers, to cancer and diabetes - at age 7. How would they have been happier if their mothers had foreseen to be dying soon, and abstained from "selfishly" making babies? They wouldn't have been happy, because they wouldn't have existed.

Jade Blackwell

@Hans-Georg Lundahl As a society, we should not be worried about quantity of life, but quality. Sure you can have children in bad circumstances. But how often does society suffer the consequences of children being brought up in trauma? Trauma is why there are so many drug addict, mentally ill, homeless people. More homeless people that society now has to deal with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jade Blackwell Society is not concerned, legitimately.

Putting society over people is Babylonian and Communist.

No, "society" does not have to deal with homeless people. Giving alms is an individual choice.

@Jade Blackwell Plus you are forgetting how fewer young is heavily impacting the "quality" of life of the old. Plus some young tend to overstimate it and think euthanasia is doing people a service.

3:09 In relation to matrimonial duties, man and wife are equal.

In biology, man and woman are not equal. A significantly older wife is not comparable to a significantly older husband. Man has the longer fertility span. Would not have been the case before the fall, was not perhaps even the case before the Flood, but is the case now.

A woman can marry an age peer, and her husband will still be active when it becomes irksom to her due to menopause, so, he will be tempted to infidelity.
Or she can marry an older man, they can calm down sexually same calendar year, and his "infidelities to her" will have been before they met or before they married.

3:48 The Church has definitely not deemed 18 year olds too young to marry, nor should you.

The push for 18 (raising marriageable age to) came from progressives and anticlericals, not from Christians.

The key is what you mean by "fully" - should you have run your own business at 18? No. But did you have the EQ to pick a husband? Yes, you did, even if you didn't actually pick one back then.

For centuries, the Church has held to 14 / 12, only in the XXth C. raising it to 16 / 14. The younger age being the one when a girl could become a married woman, because puberty comes on average two years later in men.

4:04 Yeah, experience.

One thing that should not be the determining factor in choice of a husband or wife because premarital experiences are not ideal.

I agree 18 is a bit too young to run a business with book-keeping - and business does require experience. But picking a man or a wife requires taste.

I took a look at the age stats (both death and marriage) in the offspring of St. Lewis IX of France up to the generation of Lewis XI (not getting in all of them, I got exhausted after somewhere beyond 600).

The dates for when they married were not available on wiki so often, so, I get a far numeric basis for my estimate (not to mention quite a few died unmarried).

Of the ladies, ten married at unknown ages, and 58 between 7 (would have been betrothal abusively counted as final marriage) and 24. Median 16.
Of the gents, 17 married at unknown age, and 46 at ages between 11 (see previous) and 49, median 24.

In other stats on royalties, I find even more discrepancy, like a couple ancestral to* Prince Albert, the man was 43 years older than a 16 year old wife.

Sorry, that was a conflation, that man was 43 years older than a 20 year old wife* and another couple** was between a man of 43 (age, not older) and a woman of 16.

*26) Anton Ulrich von Sachsen-Meiningen (* 22. Oktober 1687 in Meiningen; † 27. Januar 1763 in Frankfurt am Main)
⚭ 1750
27) Charlotte Amalie von Hessen-Philippsthal (* 11. August 1730 in Philippsthal (Werra); † 7. September 1801 in Meiningen)

**30 Jean-Frédéric de Brunswick-Calenberg, né le 25 avril 1625, Herzberg et 31 Bénédicte Henriette de Wittelsbach, née le 14 mars 1652 à Paris, sont mariés le 30 novembre 1668. Il avait 43 ans et elle 16.

Language Related

Language Related · Who Can Understand Quenya and Sindarin? Anyone who takes the trouble to learn them · Language Related, Again · Language Related - It's Not Tedious for Me!

Q I

Is Avestan different from Latin?
https://www.quora.com/Is-Avestan-different-from-Latin/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Pell Premier

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

1.XII.2011

Is Ukrainean different from Irish? Is Old Slavonic different from Old Irish?

Pretty much yes to all three of the questions.

Avestan is a language of ancient Persia, still used by Zoroastrians.

Latin is a language of Old Rome, still used by Catholics and Medieval Geeks among other interested parties.

Q II

Are romance languages dialects of Latin?
https://www.quora.com/Are-romance-languages-dialects-of-Latin/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

John

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

1.XII.2011

I do call them that.

A bit exaggerated, but think of it in terms of Homer’s Ionic and Sappho’s Aeolian being two different dialects. Doesn’t mean mutual intelligibility without study.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.XII.2011

It can be added at least two Romance languages are actually called Latin.

• Ladino as the more ritual version of Judeo-Spanish (the more colloquial being Djudezmo);
• Ladin as a North Italian / South Tyrolean version of Occitan.

Dante speaking of words for “yes” considered Spaniards as saying “si”, French as saying “oïl” and “Latins” as saying “oc” - it was obviously Occitan in North Italy and South France he meant, and the dialect of it in North Italy is called “Ladin” … so, I am not the first to call Romance “dialects of Latin”

Q III

What is the "mother" of Germanic languages if Latin is the "mother" of all Romance languages?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-mother-of-Germanic-languages-if-Latin-is-the-mother-of-all-Romance-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

John

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

1.XII.2011

Proto-Germanic.

A very probable proto-language, as contrasted with Latin, an actually documented one, and Nostratic a very improbable one. Or Proto-Indo-European, supposed mother of both Proto-Germanic and Latin, an at least dubious one.

Q IV

Why is it not "Gloria in excelsissimis Deo"?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-not-Gloria-in-excelsissimis-Deo/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Anatolio Custodio

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

1.XII.2011

Because “excelsus” is already superlative in meaning.

It already means “most high”.

Q V

How do we know that Linear B, the script used by the Mycenaeans, was primarily an administrative tool?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-Linear-B-the-script-used-by-the-Mycenaeans-was-primarily-an-administrative-tool/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

St. Andrew, 30.XI.2022

Because the texts have been deciphered and the uses were uniformly administrative.

Not even one text has been found with as much as a narrative, not even an official report.

No, just tax receits and tax bills - 100 oxen for the temple of Poseidon and things.

Q VI

Would someone from the Middle Ages be able to understand our language?
https://www.quora.com/Would-someone-from-the-Middle-Ages-be-able-to-understand-our-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

29.XI.2022

In written form and if given opportunity (for instance by wikipedia) to see new words for new concepts, yes.

In spoken form, he would need more or less time to acclimatise to the changes in pronunciation, perhaps at least 2 weeks.

He would have understood your question above, but pronounced it:
Woolld sawmeh-awneh from the Middle Ahges bay ahbleh taw oonderstund oor lunguahge?

He would have liked to correct it to:
Woolldeh sawmeh-awneh from the Middle Ahges bay ahbleh taw oonderstunden ooreh lunguahge?

Or in the orthography we have nearly inherited:
Woulde someone from the Middle Ages be able to understanden oure language?

I presume here we are talking of the late Middle Ages, Chaucer on.

Between 1166 and 1350’s we know too little. Before 1166 - no, Anglo-Saxon was actually another language. Just as a Roman speaking Latin could not have understood modern Italian.

Q VII

How do linguists determine the meaning of words that have been lost to history?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-linguists-determine-the-meaning-of-words-that-have-been-lost-to-history/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

28.XI.2022

They do in fact not do so, the cases where they determine meanings of words in reconstructed languages, are cases when the words have been reconstructed from cognates that have NOT been lost to history.

If in the very hypothetical *pχtehr (if that’s how pH2teH1r is supposed to be pronounced), the linguists determine the meaning to be father, it is because “father” is the meaning of these actual non-lost words that are supposed to derive from pχtehr, namely:

• Sanskrit pita(r)
• Greek πατὴρ
• Latin pater
• English father and other versions of Germanic
• Irish athair

the meaning of all these attested words is supposed to be “father” and nothing else, primarily.

Conversely, if the Greek words for “one” is ἓν in the neutre gender, (heis, mia, hen, I found the Greek writing for the last one) and linguists say this is *sem meaning “same”, this is because these words are all supposed to derive from sems, sem / soms, som:

• Greek heis, mia, hen “one” (feminine “mia” is supposed to have been “smia” with s lost before m, and the other forms have s turn into h before a vowel - so, *sems, *smia, *sem)
• English same “same”
• Polish sam “same, self-same”

and here the Greek is the odd one out. Especially as other Indo-European groups have another word for “one” … so, again, it’s not about words that have been lost to history.

But what about the Indo-European word for “if” … well, turns out, there is none that we can reconstruct so far. Even those who DO believe there was an Indo-European Proto-Language, the one we call Proto-Indo-European.

Q VIII

What is the connection between ancient civilizations such as Sumerian, Egyptian, Indian (Harrapa-Mohenjadaro), Chinese, etc.? If there is a connection, how strong is it?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-connection-between-ancient-civilizations-such-as-Sumerian-Egyptian-Indian-Harrapa-Mohenjadaro-Chinese-etc-If-there-is-a-connection-how-strong-is-it/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

28.XI.2022

I would say the connection is, they are usually a few centuries after Babel.

Fu Hsi in China would have been there already in the Palaeolithic, as can be seen from the tale men lived in the woods under him, that is, in the 350 years between Flood and Babel when Noah was still alive.

Q IX

How have ancient languages influenced the development of modern day language families?
https://www.quora.com/How-have-ancient-languages-influenced-the-development-of-modern-day-language-families/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

28.XI.2022

Some ancient languages very certainly are mother languages for language families.

Latin for Romance, Koiné for Neo-Hellenic (Dhimotiki, Pontic, to some degree Tsakonian), these are known ancient languages. So is Old Irish for the Goidelic or Q-Celtic languages, and to some degree Old Brythonic, which is so for the P-Celtic ones.

Proto-Germanic for the Germanic ones is nearly unknown. Proto-Celtic behind Old Irish and Old Brythonic is unknown, but probable.

Q X

What is the etymology of numbers? Do they have different names depending on the language used? If so, what are these names for each number and why is that so?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-etymology-of-numbers-Do-they-have-different-names-depending-on-the-language-used-If-so-what-are-these-names-for-each-number-and-why-is-that-so/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

28.XI.2022

Three questions, I’ll answer each.

"What is the etymology of numbers?"

I'll assume that numbers actually usually meant that number as far back as one can safely reach.

"Do they have different names depending on the language used?"

Language or language group, yes. I'll give you 1 to 10 in two Indo-European languages and 2 Finno-Ugric ones. In cases a given number has more than one form depending on gender or case, I give the one given first in dictionaries.

1		unus		heis		egy		yksi
2		duo		duo		két		kaksi
3		tres		treis		három		kolme
4		quatuor		tettares		négy		neljä
5		quinque		pente		öt		viisi
6		sex		hexa		hat		kuusi
7		septem		hepta		hét		seitsemän
8		octo		okto		nyolc		kahdeksan
9		novem		ennea		kilenc		yhdeksän
10		decem		deka		tíz		kymmenen

Between Latin and Greek, unus and heis are different, the rest are the same. The Greek word for one is related to a common Indo-European word for same. The common Indo-European word for one also exists in Greek, but only as "one on the diceroll"

Between Hungarian and Finnish hét and seitsemän could be different, or hét could be related to the first part, seit. The last three are clearly different. The first six are the same. While Hungarian and Finnish ARE (probably) related, Quechua and Aymara share as many number words, and are not considered related.

This is a good caution against taking the number words of diverse Indo-European languages as proof they are related through a same mother language.

Reasons why unrelated languages would borrow from each other - to avoid confusion (if a word means ten in one language and four in the other, they will use the word for four of the first language and the word for ten of the second, and ditch the word that means different things totally), to update number systems (if one language only counts up to four, or is ridiculously hard to learn because it is consistently base 20, it may align on a language that counts to 10), to conform to a prestige language or a help language. For instance, one to ten aligned objects could have ritual meanings in a lost but once common cult.

"If so, what are these names for each number and why is that so?"

Look, with 6000 - 8000 languages in somewhat fewer than 300 recognised language families, that is an impossible task.

Q XI

In what two gendered languages do all the nouns have the same gender in both languages?
https://www.quora.com/In-what-two-gendered-languages-do-all-the-nouns-have-the-same-gender-in-both-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Man Martinez

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

27.XI.2022

I don’t know any two languages that are both two gendered and have all nouns of the same gender, unless it’s very closely related ones.

Hebrew and Arabic may have all nouns that exist in both have same gender in both, but not Hebrew and Welsh or Welsh and French.

Q XII

How do linguists know that Proto-Indo-European was spoken thousands of years ago?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-linguists-know-that-Proto-Indo-European-was-spoken-thousands-of-years-ago/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Nov 25th, 2022

St. Catherine's day

For the commonalities between the languages that on the ground of these commonalities are classified as Indo-European, there are two explanations:

• ancestral identity of languages (like between French and Spanish, which in the most ancestral form known are the same language Latin), and this explanation is what is meant by Proto-Indo-European;
• ancestral neighbourhood of languages (as between Bulgarian and Romanian sharing traits) including of languages that are not neighbours now.

So, we don’t know THAT Proto-Indo-European was spoken.

But we know, IF it was, THEN it was so thousands of years ago.

Earliest Hittite text, Anitta’s decree, is carbon dated (in itself or associated material) to 2000 BC, and earliest Greek text in Mycenaean Greek to 1600 BC. Each is, as far as I am concerned, a bit younger, since the carbon 14 levels were still rising, but it’s still within the millennium prior to King David, the millennium near the end of which Troy fell, the second millennium BC.

And by then, Mycenaean Greek and Hittite were two clearly distinct languages, Mitanni (very early Armenian) coming in a bit later than the two, so three. And I think already in the very first texts, you can find the commonalities.

Therefore, the cause of these commonalities, be it ancestral neighbourhood or ancestral identity, needs to be prior to these. And prior to 1500 BC certainly is “thousands of years ago”

Q XIII

If Greeks came from much older Minoans, then how exactly do the Indoiranians fit into anything? How did the language just magically attain cognates with Sanskrit?
https://www.quora.com/If-Greeks-came-from-much-older-Minoans-then-how-exactly-do-the-Indoiranians-fit-into-anything-How-did-the-language-just-magically-attain-cognates-with-Sanskrit/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Carlos Grey

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Nov 24th, 2022

You are asking more questions than one.

“If Greeks came from much older Minoans,”

I have no indication Greeks came from Minoans, nor that Minoans were much older.

A certain culture type was fashionable with Minoans before it became so in Greece too. Englishmen aren’t older than Algonquins, just because stone-houses in England are older than similar stone-houses among Algonquins in reservations.

“then how exactly do the Indoiranians fit into anything?”

According to some, the ancient Minoans could be very early Indoiranians.

But it seems the linguist who proposed this changed his mind and considers the language of Linear A as close to Hattic instead.

“How did the language just magically attain cognates with Sanskrit?”

I don’t think there is anyone - including myself - who considers that Greek “just magically” attained cognates with Sanskrit.

I just looked up my lists with 32 reconstructed proto-words from Pokorny. 13 had cognates in both Hellenic and Indoiranian, and I have divided these into three groups:

Hellenic Iranian IIII (four words)
Hellenic Indian IIII (four words)
Hellenic Iranian and Indian V (five words).

There are exactly two possibilities for two languages to attain cognates without magic, the one is, they have a common origin, and the other is, they borrowed one direction or the other.

Obviously, for the mutual borrowing theory, I’d have been very happy to have an Indoiranic Minoan, since that’s the area of Greek and Hittite, two early IE languages, also had opportunity to borrow from each other.

Carlos Grey

Nov 24

So I worked it out. Basically Greek civilisation began with minoans who are non indoaryans. They mixed with the Iranians in Anatolia somehow. And their language replaced whatever they were using. Kinda sounds like an indoaryan invasion type of thing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2.XII.2022

Where do you find Iranians in Anatolia?

How do you figure Minoans replaced anyone?

Carlos Grey

2.XII.2022

Science says that the Mycenaeans were the earliest Greeks and minoans share DNA with the Greeks. « The ancient Mycenaeans and Minoans were most closely related to each other, and they both got three-quarters of their DNA from early farmers who lived in Greece and southwestern Anatolia, which is now part of Turkey » it’s clear that minoans weren’t indoeuropean. They spoke a different language and were genetically different in prehistory. They learned the language from somewhere. And there’s so many hundreds of years of different empires that it is no suprise how they gained indoeuropean languages and Iranian dna. Similar thing occurred with the austronesians and Sanskrit, and ancient Indians and Iranian. Chinese and Japanese all gained Sanskrit words. So it’s easy to say that early Greeks were genetically different and they eventually evolved over time. Their civilisation however began with the minoans. And if we look at africa they can speak lots of European languages but their civilisation is very different

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2.XII.2022

“Science says that the Mycenaeans were the earliest Greeks”

Archaeology says they were the earliest Greeks we have writing from.

“minoans share DNA with the Greeks.”

OK.

"it’s clear that minoans weren’t indoeuropean."

Whatever that means …

"They spoke a different language and were genetically different in prehistory."

Different from Yamnaya? Certainly.

"They learned the language from somewhere."

By THE language, do you mean Greek or "Indo-European"?

"And there’s so many hundreds of years of different empires that it is no suprise how they gained indoeuropean languages and Iranian dna."

Where does any Iranian DNA come in? Sources?

"Chinese and Japanese all gained Sanskrit words."

Not sure they did. Apart from the very few that go with Buddhism.

"So it’s easy to say that early Greeks were genetically different and they eventually evolved over time. Their civilisation however began with the minoans."

But their people doesn't necessarily begin with Minoans - does it?

Carlos Grey

2.XII.2022

It’s all speculation. They mostly descend from Anatolia farmers. And some of their hieroglyphs match greek. And I think they have a little bit of yamnaya dna, but it’s not of significance. There’s been lots of empires like the hitties, but I think they are too modern. All I can do is speculate that early Greeks were descended from Anatolian farmers since we know next to nothing

This objectively began with the minoans.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2.XII.2022

Oh, the writing certainly is from first Crete, Linear A, then Mycenaean Greece, Linear B.

I note that the blue in the Mycenaean at most gets to 15 %.

That blue would be the most possible connection to Yamnaya.

Now, there are two differences of opinion between people who argue:

• whether the Indo-Europeans came from Yamnaya or from Anatolian Farmers
• whether they began as a single proto-language and its speakers or as speakers of different languages in a Sprachbund.

I would actually advocate that Indo-European began as a Sprachbund involving Hittite, Luwian and Greek, with Armenian just to the East too, among Anatolian farmers.

That’s why I asked where the Iranians come in.

Beautiful pictures of Minoan-Mycenaean culture, but remember that culture can spread even where language and genes do not do so.

Q XIV

Do the Magyars have their own language?
https://www.quora.com/Do-the-Magyars-have-their-own-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Nov 25th, 2022

St. Catherine's day

No, they share it with the Szekely of Romania.

But yes, they have a language which is different from German or Slavic, and in English that language is called Hungarian.

Q XV

What is the most complete fictional language?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-complete-fictional-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

3 years ago

“Fictional language” usually refers to languages that aren’t actually shown and which the author doesn’t actually have to complete even a sentence in.

You mean “conlang” and more precisely “artlang” - a language which is constructed as opposed to inherited (Esperanto, PIE and Quenya ass opposed to French and English) and for artistic purposes rather than international communication or historical linguistics (Quenya as opposed to PIE or Esperanto).

Of Tolkien’s artlangs, Quenya and Sindarin are the most complete, but since then Dothraki, Klingon and a language in Avatar … Näävi? … have been more completed.

Steven Lytle

1 year ago

The Avatar language (and race) is Na’vi.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2.XII.2022

Thank you!

Q XVI

Do Icelanders speak a Scandinavian language that is different from other Scandinavians, and if so, how is it different?
https://www.quora.com/Do-Icelanders-speak-a-Scandinavian-language-that-is-different-from-other-Scandinavians-and-if-so-how-is-it-different/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Nov 20th, 2022

All Scandinavian languages are different from each other.

Main batch, so to speak, are East Norse languages. Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian Bokmål. About as close as English and Scots Leid.

Other batch - Guthnic. Counts as a dialect of Sweden, sometimes, but linguists have unearthed it is actually a language of its own.

Yet another batch. West Norse. Norwegian Landsmål, Icelandic and Faroese.

The Norwegian Landsmål is on the hedge, since connected to Norwegian Bokmål, but Icelandic and Faroese are clearly different.

Vocabulary, sounds, and Icelandic and Faroese still have four cases.

Q XVII

If one were to learn ancient Greek or Latin for the purpose of reading ancient texts as they were originally written, would it be okay to learn only to read and write, or does being able to speak/understand a language play a role in comprehension?
https://www.quora.com/If-one-were-to-learn-ancient-Greek-or-Latin-for-the-purpose-of-reading-ancient-texts-as-they-were-originally-written-would-it-be-okay-to-learn-only-to-read-and-write-or-does-being-able-to-speak-understand-a-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Answer requested by

Logan Perry

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

Nov 26th, 2022

Being able to speak and understand the language as spoken exposes you to more situations of using the language and therefore works as a booster.

The last few centuries it has been deemed OK to get writing and reading only, that’s how I learned Latin and (partly, and lost some since) Greek. In decades after I learned, speaking and understanding spoken Latin has made a comeback, so anyone training to be a Latin teacher now would arguably be trained to speak too.

Catholic priests are usually trained to speak, since they are using it as an international help language, a bit like non-priest tourists tend to use English, Spanish or French in foreign countries.

Q XVIII

How did Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio contribute to the development of the Italian language?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Dante-Petrarch-and-Boccaccio-contribute-to-the-development-of-the-Italian-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Nov 26th, 2022

They were the three first major authors to write in Italian, Dante and (to a smaller extent) Petrarch writing poetry and Boccaccio in prose.

Q XIX

What is the origin of human language? Do all human languages share a common origin, or did different groups independently invent language over time? What evidence can you point to for one theory over another?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-human-language-Do-all-human-languages-share-a-common-origin-or-did-different-groups-independently-invent-language-over-time-What-evidence-can-you-point-to-for-one-theory-over-another/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Nov 17th, 2022

I will give the Biblical and Catholic answer to each.

What is the origin of human language?

God gave it to Adam

Do all human languages share a common origin, or did different groups independently invent language over time?

Neither exactly.

At Babel, different groups certainly got new languages, but they didn't invent them.

Human language cannot be invented. Each except Hebrews got a new language God gave them.

After that, each Babelic language has diversified, and some have also in part or totally coalesced.

What evidence can you point to for one theory over another?

For human language being by God:

it is structurally very different from that of any beast and its communications. A message by a beast has a sound, or perhaps a sound component and a gesture component. A message by a man has a subdivision into morphemes, and these are incomplete messages conveying concepts. A morpheme in turn has a subdivision in sounds, that form a kind of code for the morpheme, and one agreed on "artificially." Or rather in the borderland between artifice and nature called tradition. It is anyway arbitrary. This allows a human message to convey knowledge, and not just communicate.

It also presupposes an anatomy very different from that pretendedly had by ancestors of ours, and there is no scenario for some of the transitions, though this is not the case with the ear.

For human languages having different origins that don't come from a single one, and this at Babel:

For the tower of Babel, there is very little evidence in traditions around especially the Old World. Most cultures are kind of landlocked into themselves and take monoglotty for granted. Example, to a Hindoo, Sanskrit is the origin and not just Prakrits and their descendants like Hindi, but also Tamil and Telegu are incomplete or even debased forms of Sanskrit.

But for the Flood, apart from geology, we have stories around the world.

Now, to have the kind of language diversity we see 1000 years after the Flood, in Abraham's day, we need more than just diversified language change, which is even now splitting and merging languages from or with each other. That other thing is most likely divinely imposed, as it is unlikely that people knowing the original language would all have simply given it up for new languages they invented as an "anti-esperanto"

Also, as I identify Babel with Göbekli Tepe, it is interesting to note that in the years I identify as Noah's remaining lifespan after the Flood, there was one collection of 32 signs used on Upper Palaeolithic all over the world. If alphabetic (and the number of symbols suggests that), this suggests a single language.

At the precise time of Göbekli Tepe, there aren't any at all.

After Göbekli Tepe, we have different proto-writings in Vinča, Gradeshnitsa, Kamyana Mohyla, Jiahu, Harappa and some more. This suggests different languages.

Q XX

What is the oldest surviving text in any Indo-European language?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-oldest-surviving-text-in-any-Indo-European-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Nov 17th, 2022

I think it is King Anitta’s decree.

It’s about treating Hattusha as the Israelites treated Jericho under Joshua.

Difference is, Hattusha was not just rebuilt but also made the capital after this decree.

Associated material would be carbon dated to 2000 BC, meaning the real date would be a bit later than 1610 BC:

1610 B. Chr.

0.952011 pmC/100, so dated as 2020 B. Chr.

or

1610 B.C.

95.2011 pmC, so dated as 2020 B.C.
New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

Q XXI

What is the definition of Proto-Indo European (PIE)? Can you speak it if you are fluent in all its descendants/branches?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-definition-of-Proto-Indo-European-PIE-Can-you-speak-it-if-you-are-fluent-in-all-its-descendants-branches/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Nov 4th, 2022

These are two questions.

"What is the definition of Proto-Indo European (PIE)?"

The definition of Proto-Indo-European, by those who believe it, is, one language (or a reconstruction of it) that is mother language of all Indo-European languages and no other languages.

Proto-Celtic is not it, since it is ancestral to all Celtic languages and only to Celtic languages, and therefore leaving out all of the other branches of Indo-European : not ancestral to Indic, not ancestral to Baltic, not ancestral to Greek etc. And PIE is ancestral (if such a common ancestor existed) to all of these.

This poses a question - if a reconstructed language state were a theoretically possible ancestor to a language group outside those already considered as Indo-European, but also of all those including it, what would one do?

One could consider PIE a daughter language of that language state, and one could consider the language group as a hitherto missed branch of Indo-European.

For Tokharic, one opted for the latter.

With Finno-Ugric, a language having both all Indo-European as daughter languages and all Finno-Ugric ones would be a pre-Indo-European one. If it also included daughter languages like Greenlandic and Japanese and Turkic, it would be the one called Nostratic.

"Can you speak it if you are fluent in all its descendants/branches?"

No, you can't. That is one reason why the theory is hard to test.

If you are fluent in all Romance languages, you aren't automatically fluent in Latin. And Latin is far closer to any Romance language, than PIE if it existed is to any IE language. Similarily, you don't become fluent in Proto-Germanic by speaking all Germanic languages alive today, or Proto-Celtic by speaking all Celtic languages alive today.

Proto-Germanic, like Proto-Celtic, like Proto-Indo-European, are conlangs, reconstructions of what ancestor languages could have looked like, and like any other conlang, like any other language overall, that kind of conlang too has to be learned before you know it.

And while Proto-Germanic can be considered nearly testable because the very oldest inscriptions in Proto-Norse (a language actually documented, but you can't call it Old Norse because Old Norse is a language about 1000 years younger) are considered as close to Proto-Germanic, so the documentation of Proto-Norse is nearly a standin for documenting Proto-Germanic, you do not have a similar documentation of Proto-Indo-European - except by one linguist's reconstruction of it (yes different linguists reconstruct PIE differently, these are different conlangs), where it reminds fairly closely of Hittite.

Now, is Hittite in fact proof of the PIE theory, that there was such a language?

In his studies of the Hittite tablets, Hrozný observed that numerous words possessed endings which corresponded to those well known in the Indo-European languages. He demonstrated other lexical correspondences as well, including wātar “water” with Old Saxon watar, ug “I” with Latin ego , kuis “who” with Latin quis.

As confirmation, Hrozný cited a sentence from an instruction for temple servants which can be considered the first fully understood sentence of Hittitology:

From:

Rediscovery of the Hittites
https://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/HPM/hpm-en.php?p=anfhet-en

There is no doubt that words are in fact shared.

But there is also no doubt that languages can come to share words by other processes than by one descending from the other or vice versa or both from a third.

Q XXII

How similar are the Sanskrit people to the Latin people? Why do they say “tu”?
https://www.quora.com/How-similar-are-the-Sanskrit-people-to-the-Latin-people-Why-do-they-say-tu/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Carlos Grey

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

2.XII.2022

“How similar” …?

Genetically, culturally and linguistically - not very.

Linguistically, there certainly is a set of words common even between Latin and Sanskrit, but not as many as between Latin, Celtic and Germanic or Latin and Greek, and not as many as between Sanskrit and Avestan. Or probably even Slavic and Sanskrit.

“Why”…?

There are two options. Ursprache (Proto-Language) or Sprachbund (or several successives ones, it means areal features).

Q XXII

How do linguists decipher extinct (ancient) languages such as Latin?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-linguists-decipher-extinct-ancient-languages-such-as-Latin/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

6.XII.2022

St. Nicolas of Myra

Latin never went extinct and never needed deciphering by linguists.

Same for Classical Greek.

By contrast, Akkadian and Sumerian actually did go extinct.

And these were deciphered due to bilingual or trilingual texts involving already known, since preserved, ancient languages.

“The inscription was crucial to the decipherment of cuneiform as it includes three versions of the same text written in different cuneiform-based languages: Old Persian, Elamite, and the Babylonian variety of Akkadian.”

Behistun Inscription - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behistun_Inscription

The one of the languages that was already known (since preserved from then to our time) on this one being Old Persian.

Akkadian then gave us Sumerian:

“Whatever the status of spoken Sumerian between 2000 and 1700 BC, it is from then that a particularly large quantity of literary texts and bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian lexical lists survive, especially from the scribal school of Nippur.”

Sumerian language - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language

Q XXII

What is the difference between Old Latin, New Latin, and Medieval Latin?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Old-Latin-New-Latin-and-Medieval-Latin/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

5.XII.2022

Classic Latin is the Latin one tends to imitate. Prose authors like Cicero, Caesar, Tacitus, Sueton. Poets like Catullus, Horace and Virgil, starting with the comic poet Terence.

Old Latin is Latin that’s older than Terence.

After Classic Latin you have Late Antiquity and two types of Medieval Latin, namely the kind that starts to deviate from Classic (Jordanes, St. Gregory of Tours), and the type that’s very roughly a copy of Classic Latin, concentrating (even for prose) on Virgil and on works from Late Antiquity like Sts Augustine and Jerome.

New Latin starts when Petrarch rediscovers Cicero, and starts using this to make his prose more like Classic Latin.

I’ll give you samples of each in order.

Old Latin (Plautus):
Mercator Siculus, quoi erant gemini filii,
Ei surrupto altero mors optigit.

“A merchant from Sicily, who had twin sons, [to] him death covered after one of them had been taken away.”

In Classic Latin, quoi would have been cui, and instead of “Mercator Siculus” (nominative) + “ei” (dative) you would start with dative straight away. Mercatori Siculo, cui erant gemini filii, surrepto altero mors obtigit. And arguably “mors obtigit” + dative is not the first go-to phrase for saying someone died.

Classic Latin (Cicero):
Q. Mucius augur multa narrare de C. Laelio socero suo memoriter et iucunde solebat nec dubitare illum in omni sermone appellare sapientem; ego autem a patre ita eram deductus ad Scaevolam sumpta virili toga, ut, quoad possem et liceret, a senis latere numquam discederem; itaque multa ab eo prudenter disputata, multa etiam breviter et commode dicta memoriae mandabam fierique studebam eius prudentia doctior. Quo mortuo me ad pontificem Scaevolam contuli, quem unum nostrae civitatis et ingenio et iustitia praestantissimum audeo dicere. Sed de hoc alias; nunc redeo ad augurem.

“Quintus Mucius the augur used to tell much about his father-in-law Caius Laelius from memory and with gusto and to not hesitate to call him wise in every conversation; but I had been handed over to Scaevola by my father on taking my manlike toga on this condition, that, as much as I could and were allowed, never meave the side of the old man, and this way I confided to my memory much prudently discussed by him, much also briefly and aptly said and sought to become by his prudence more learned. When he had died, I took myself on to the pontifex Scaevola, whom singly I dare to name for our City the foremost in both talent and justice. But of him elsewhere, now I return to the augur.”

As this is Classic, no need to say how it differs from Classic, it doesn’t.

Late Antiquity (St. Augustine): Gloriosissimam ciuitatem Dei siue in hoc temporum cursu, cum inter impios peregrinatur ex fide uiuens, siue in illa stabilitate sedis aeternae, quam nunc expectat per patientiam, quoadusque iustitia conuertatur in iudicium, deinceps adeptura per excellentiam uictoria ultima et pace perfecta, hoc opere instituto et mea ad te promissione debito defendere aduersus eos, qui conditori eius deos suos praeferunt, fili carissime Marcelline, suscepi, magnum opus et arduum, sed Deus adiutor noster est.

“To defend the most glorious City of God either in this course of times, when it is stranger among the impious and lives by faith, or in that stability of its eternal seat, which now it expects with patience until justice be turned into judgement, and again the perfect peace to be attained by the most high last victory, in this work, instituted both by my promise to you and my duty [to defend it] against them who prefer their gods to its Founder, my dear son Marcellinus, I undertook a huge work and a difficult one, but God is our helper.”

Pretty close to Classic latin too.

Medieval Latin I (St. Gregory of Tours):
Principio Dominus caelum terramque in christo suo, qui est omnium principium, id est in Filio suo, furmavit, qui post creata mundi totius elementa, glebam adsumens fragilis limi, hominem ad suam imaginem similitudinemque plasmavit et insufflavit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae, et factus est in animam viventem.

“In the beginning the Lord in His Christ, who is the principle of all, that is, in His Son, formed heaven and earth, and after all elements of the entire world had been created took to Him a piece of brittle mud, formed man in his image and likeness and blew into his face the breath of life and he was made into a living soul.”

It is possible to say “principio” for “in principio”? St. Gregory of Tours does. It is possible to say “plasmavit” instead of “formavit”? St. Gregory of Tours does, especially as he has already said … “furmavit” - ah, yes, some of the vowels tend to get confused. Instead of “creatis elementis” he uses “post creata elementa” …

Medieval Latin II (Petrus Comestor):
Deinde subditur de creatione hominis sic: Faciamus hominem, etc. (Gen. I). Et loquitur Pater ad Filium, et Spiritum sanctum. Vel est quasi communis vox trium personarum, Faciamus, et nostram: factus est autem homo ad imaginem Dei, quantum ad animam . Sed imago Dei est anima in essentia, et ratione ejus, quia spiritus factus est et rationalis ut Deus. Similitudo in virtutibus, quia bona, justa, sapiens. Cum imagine pertransit homo (Psal. XXXVIII), quia illam habet etiam homo peccans, similitudine vero saepe privatur. Masculum vero et feminam creavit eos. Hoc quantum ad corpus, tamen dicitur creasse propter animam .

“Then it’s added on the creation of man, like this: “Let us make man etc” (Gen. I). And the Father is speaking to the Son and the Holy Ghost. Or the voice is like common to the three persons, “Let us make” and “our” - and man is made into the image of God, as to the soul. But the image of God is soul in essence, and for the reason because it is made spirit and rational, like God. The likeness is in virtues, since good, just, wise. With the image man goes beyond (Psalm 38), since even a sinning man has that, but is often bereft of the likeness. But “Man and woman He created them” - This as to the body, while He is said to have created for the soul.”

New Latin (St. Thomas More):

Th. Morus Domino Erasmo suo s.

Epistolae Obscurorum virorum operae pretium est videre, quantopere placent omnibus, et doctis ioco et indoctis serio, qui dum ridemus putant rideri stylum tantum, quem illi non defendunt, sed gravitate sententiarum dicunt compensatum et latere sub rudi vagina pulcherrimum gladium. Utinam fuisset inditus libello alius titulus: profecto intra centum annos homines studio stupidi non sensissent nasum quamquam rhinocerotico longiorem.

Londino 31. Oct. 1516.

“Thomas More to his Master Erasmus, salutations

The Letters of the Dark Men is a prize of work to see, how much it pleases everyone, both learned by the joke and unlearned by the seriousness, who, when we laugh think that only the style is being laughed at, which those don’t defend, but say [is] compensated by the weight of sentences and that under a rude sheath a most beautiful sword is hidden. Oh that the booklet were given another title: surely, in a hundred years men stupid by study would not sense the nose as it were longer than that of a rhinocerus.

London, 31. Oct 1516″

Back to fairly Classical Latin, plus some modern sentiment we identify easier with than with Cicero or Augustine.

Credits to Vicifons and their conspectus of categories of writers from different centuries:

Categoria:Scriptorum index chronologicus - Wikisource
[Subcategoriae Huic categoriae sunt hae 30 subcategoriae ex omnino 30 subcategoriis.]
https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Categoria:Scriptorum_index_chronologicus

One problem in this video

Otherwise it is great.

Chimp-Human DNA: Less similar than previously reported
CMI Video | 9 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlNLoEGu0po

But watch this, the comments were also left on the video:

18:37 Actually, there is empirical evidence how chromosome fusion could happen.

Mice in general have 40 chromosomes. Mice on Mallorca have 22.

The obvious implication is that some chromosomes fused.

Similarily, European hares and European rabbits are two chrosome pair numbers apart. There is a North American species which has the intermediate chromosome number and can mate with both, which our hares and rabbits can't between them.

The obvious implication is that some chromosomes fused. If you believe in baraminology - which I do - you would be hard set to deny this.

The REAL problem for Evolutionists is, how could a creature acquire more chromosomes than its ancestor.

P Z Myers gave diagrams for his theory, and the post is still up, but the diagrams are replaced with symbols saying "there used to be an image here" ...

He didn't mark telomeres on the diagram. His option would have involved the split between two centremeres (doubling event previous to this) leading to "naked" arms not protected by telomeres, as far as I can see.

I was given one possible answer, but have not been able to check it. Telomeres, on this view, aren't inherited but given at the meiosis or whatever the process is called.

18:49 Chromosome fissions with bare arms lacking telomeres are definitely also a thing for cancers.

21:47 Downs Syndrome is actually not a locus mutation, not a copying mistake.

But the study of karyogrammic mutations and their consequences show that the idea of animals developing more couples of chromosomes by this way is out.

Imagine two people with Downs get together, each providing a gamete not with one but with two chromosomes 21, and an offspring has 4 such. The thing is, tetrasomy 21 is an even worse condition than just trisomy 21. Meaning, this too is also a non-path for explaining how mammals could acquire more chromosomes than the first mammal (triploidy, tetraploidy as viable variants are not a thing in mammals).

21:53 Actually, lactose intolerance is the normal human condition above a certain age.

Lactase persistence is the mutation.

However, while lactase persistence is beneficial, it is a loss of function, the original having two informations - 1) setting on the lactase production so the mammal can profit from lactation, 2) shutting it off after the age of lactation. The mutation has meant this second part is garbled, so the production of lactase is continued by default.