Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Artifacts & History
Help! Paleolithic stone-age language is coming out of my mouth!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Heinrich Hundekok" data-source="post: 24798" data-attributes="member: 354"><p><strong>Help! Paleolithic stone-age language is coming out of my mouth!</strong></p><p></p><p>No kidding. It's coming out of your mouth too! You can't prevent it.</p><p> </p><p>Ok, this sounds wild, but I've thought about this ever since I started studying language and litterature at the university some years back. If you think that I'm just beeing too silly with all this, then go ahead and tell me - you're probably right, anyway ;-D</p><p> </p><p>But here goes...</p><p> </p><p>Now, in order to be meaningful, any sentence - written or spoken, in any existing language - has to contain at least three things: a <strong>subject</strong>, an <strong>object</strong> and a <strong>verb</strong>.</p><p>A simple example would f.inst. be: "The man is building a time machine." In this case 'the man' is the subject, 'a time machine' is the object and 'is building' is the verb.</p><p> </p><p>Pretty simple, huh? Now, the interesting thing here is the <strong>subject</strong>-part, so lets have a closer look at that. Now, The subject is always the <em>acting</em> part, the one that <em>does</em> something. Very often the subject is a concious live animate beeing (ie. a person) that acts upon a dead <em>in</em>animate object, but it does'nt have to be this way.</p><p> </p><p>Now, whats really funny here is that - as far as I can see - any word normally put under the "object" category fits into the "subject" category as well -and vice versa.</p><p> </p><p>F.inst. </p><p> </p><p>"The concious live man fell down onto the unconcious dead stack o' bricks"</p><p> </p><p>and vice versa...</p><p> </p><p>"The unconcious dead stack o' bricks fell down onto the concious live man."</p><p> </p><p>...who by then would'nt be very concious or live anymore, but that's an entirely different matter. The main point here is that in our language, we treat dead inanimate objects the same way we treat live animate ones. You can't distinguish between dead and live things through speech. </p><p>Water "runs" the exact same way a guy doing excersize in the park "runs". The coffee cup "stands" the same way I "stand" in the queue at the supermarket. During a storm the trash-bin "flies" through the air just the same way a bird "flies". </p><p> </p><p>In our language, dead inanimate objets have the exact same ability to <em>act</em> and <em>do things</em> as any living man, tree or animal. We simply do not distinguish between them. At least in any language that I know - please weigh in all you people from non-european or non english-speaking countries.</p><p> </p><p>The man <strong>runs</strong> down the street - we assume that he does this because he wants to do so, that he does this as an <em>act of will</em>. But what about water that <strong>runs</strong> down the stream? Within the boundaries of our language, we can't say that it runs any differently from the guy in the park. We're forced by our language to use the same word in two "different" cases -there's no way around this folks. There isn't a word for running(animate subject) and running(inanimate object), it's the same word in both cases. </p><p> </p><p>The water <em>acts</em> by running, exactly like when the cat acts by leaping or the man acts by running or engineering a timemachine. Almost as if any sort of action ever occuring always happened due to a force of will realising its wish to act.</p><p> </p><p>Now funny thing is, the correct term for this would be <strong>animism</strong>.</p><p> </p><p>Animism is thought to be the oldest - and most primitive - sort of religion. It is found among american indians and among many other "primitive" groups of people, living like we imagine having done in the stone-age.</p><p>The main point in animism is that all things have a "spirit" (not in a christian sense, though) - all things are alive. Al things have some sort of life, conciousness, what ever you feel like calling it... a spark of life in it.</p><p> </p><p>Here in Europe animism's probably been killed centuries ago by more "advanced" religions, not least christianity. But the idea of animism is not really strange to modern people, some of you spiritual people in here may very well have an animistic view on the world. </p><p> </p><p>But one thing's for sure - animism is all over our language - even today in the space age. We've shaped the world around us - even space - but we still haven't engineered our language to fit the time we live in. As far as language goes, we are still in the paleolithic stone-age.</p><p> </p><p>H.H.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Heinrich Hundekok, post: 24798, member: 354"] [b]Help! Paleolithic stone-age language is coming out of my mouth![/b] No kidding. It's coming out of your mouth too! You can't prevent it. Ok, this sounds wild, but I've thought about this ever since I started studying language and litterature at the university some years back. If you think that I'm just beeing too silly with all this, then go ahead and tell me - you're probably right, anyway ;-D But here goes... Now, in order to be meaningful, any sentence - written or spoken, in any existing language - has to contain at least three things: a [b]subject[/b], an [b]object[/b] and a [b]verb[/b]. A simple example would f.inst. be: "The man is building a time machine." In this case 'the man' is the subject, 'a time machine' is the object and 'is building' is the verb. Pretty simple, huh? Now, the interesting thing here is the [b]subject[/b]-part, so lets have a closer look at that. Now, The subject is always the [i]acting[/i] part, the one that [i]does[/i] something. Very often the subject is a concious live animate beeing (ie. a person) that acts upon a dead [i]in[/i]animate object, but it does'nt have to be this way. Now, whats really funny here is that - as far as I can see - any word normally put under the "object" category fits into the "subject" category as well -and vice versa. F.inst. "The concious live man fell down onto the unconcious dead stack o' bricks" and vice versa... "The unconcious dead stack o' bricks fell down onto the concious live man." ...who by then would'nt be very concious or live anymore, but that's an entirely different matter. The main point here is that in our language, we treat dead inanimate objects the same way we treat live animate ones. You can't distinguish between dead and live things through speech. Water "runs" the exact same way a guy doing excersize in the park "runs". The coffee cup "stands" the same way I "stand" in the queue at the supermarket. During a storm the trash-bin "flies" through the air just the same way a bird "flies". In our language, dead inanimate objets have the exact same ability to [i]act[/i] and [i]do things[/i] as any living man, tree or animal. We simply do not distinguish between them. At least in any language that I know - please weigh in all you people from non-european or non english-speaking countries. The man [b]runs[/b] down the street - we assume that he does this because he wants to do so, that he does this as an [i]act of will[/i]. But what about water that [b]runs[/b] down the stream? Within the boundaries of our language, we can't say that it runs any differently from the guy in the park. We're forced by our language to use the same word in two "different" cases -there's no way around this folks. There isn't a word for running(animate subject) and running(inanimate object), it's the same word in both cases. The water [i]acts[/i] by running, exactly like when the cat acts by leaping or the man acts by running or engineering a timemachine. Almost as if any sort of action ever occuring always happened due to a force of will realising its wish to act. Now funny thing is, the correct term for this would be [b]animism[/b]. Animism is thought to be the oldest - and most primitive - sort of religion. It is found among american indians and among many other "primitive" groups of people, living like we imagine having done in the stone-age. The main point in animism is that all things have a "spirit" (not in a christian sense, though) - all things are alive. Al things have some sort of life, conciousness, what ever you feel like calling it... a spark of life in it. Here in Europe animism's probably been killed centuries ago by more "advanced" religions, not least christianity. But the idea of animism is not really strange to modern people, some of you spiritual people in here may very well have an animistic view on the world. But one thing's for sure - animism is all over our language - even today in the space age. We've shaped the world around us - even space - but we still haven't engineered our language to fit the time we live in. As far as language goes, we are still in the paleolithic stone-age. H.H. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Artifacts & History
Help! Paleolithic stone-age language is coming out of my mouth!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top