chockfull

I'm not asking you to believe anything. I was completely foolish even responding to your question about what I thought a linguist who wrote an article 44 years ago might speculate about a fictional event. Now, apparently your underlying reasons for this are coming out. You were asking the questions as a trap to bait me. Here, let me put this whole question to rest for you. I DON'T KNOW what a linguist who wrote an article 44 years ago might think about a fictional miraculous phenomenon that he experienced. But I'll highlight some POSSIBLE RESPONSES for you: Samarin might: 1) Jump up and down for joy. 2) Jump up and down in anger. 3) Fall down on his face and worship God 4) Tear out all his hair 5) Go and get an ice cream Now that's not an exclusive list, but it should be enough to keep you busy refuting me for a while at least. I don't know what he might think is or is not xenoglossia. He further writes about it - direct quote: "The word [xenoglossia], in fact, is supposed to have been coined by Charles Richet (as xenoglossie in French) at the turn of the century when he reported on his investigation of "automatic writing in foreign language" to the London Society for Psychical Research." So he also might think you are a psychic?

So let me recap. We are in the middle of a thread where you are presenting tons of "proofs" that SIT is not a language and not real, and the scientific method you want to use is to try and speculate how a linguist who wrote an article 30 years ago might react to a fictional event? And I'm the one looking ridiculous? It's equally likely that after 30 years he tired of the subject and now has zero interest in it any more. Can you get a little more petty than this? All the roots of the word are right from the Bible, oh but the whole word isn't. Come on, now. I don't even know what point you are trying to make about this at all. You stated one plausible explanation, I stated another. Neither proves anything.

Yes that explanation is reasonable. So are several other explanations that would provide a cause for that which are equally reasonable. Look, you are getting some confusion in your terminology here. I call this an explanation, not a postulate. A postulate is to assume without proof, or as self-evident. To take for granted. Geometry has postulates of point, line and plane. These are universally accepted as true without the need to prove them. Now while I could let you slide on that definition, it would be you shooting yourself in the foot. You don't state postulates about something you are proving. That's the whole point of proving it. But then again that seems to be a common theme in this thread - you mixing up postulates with proofs. Again - that's one plausible explanation among many. Another plausible explanation is they were SIT with a non-native speaker's accent. No it doesn't prove anything. And I'm certainly not postulating that anything phonetically resembling a language IS a language. Presenting sketchy postulates as proven fact does nothing but confuse people.

Look I have no idea how he would respond if God performed that miracle right in front of his face. I see accounts in the Bible where people fall down on their face and worship God. But there is absolutely no way to tell how a man is going to react to something. Well, if you don't like the conclusion you are at, perhaps you ought to re-evaluate the logic that got you there. Here's the verse and transliteration of I Cor. 12:30: "have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" " mh. pa,ntej cari,smata e;cousin ivama,twnÈ mh. pa,ntej glw,ssaij lalou/sinÈ mh. pa,ntej diermhneu,ousinÈ" Why don't we invite the reader to play "where's Waldo?" and see if they can find glossolalia somewhere in the horrible cut and paste job I did from my Greek text? Or I guess we could just believe you when you state your opinion as fact again.......

No they don't. I dealt with this in a previous post where Samarin discusses the "derivative and innovative" features of glossa. He studied this by comparing glossa samples to an English consonant map, found that the sounds mapped, but then noted that applied to "several other" known languages. Then he describes "innovative" features where the sounds being made weren't in the native language, and he postulates that's because someone had exposure to the language before. This is easily explained by the fact your first learned language will produce an accent in another language you learn. And in phonetic structure Samarin found glossa samples to phonetically be similar to language to the point where he could distinguish between them and samples of "gibberish" inserted. They had sentences, phrasing, word breakdowns, etc.

Ummmm - everywhere you see the term "speaking in tongues" that is the Greek word glossolalia. That's where the term comes from. You demonstrating a KNOWLEDGE of the language would involved not just speaking words you don't understand but would involve you understanding the language when it is spoken to you. That's the difference between a "knowledge" of a language, and just speaking it. If you understood it when it was spoken to you, then it would not need to be interpreted. Look, even basic common sense in discussing this bears this out. If I speak another language like Spanish, and I tell my friends "I know Spanish" then when we go to Tiajuana do you think they are going to expect that I can converse with the cab driver? Or just that I can speak it to him but not understand anything he says? And discussing possible scenarios about what we think Samarin might conclude about them is about as far from anything scientific as I can imagine.

Not so much this as the linguists haven't had an understanding of the languages involved. I'm still not seeing why some of these linguists, or people heavily invested in proof, don't do something like post up all of the samples of SIT on one website and offer a reward for anyone able to identify verifiably what language they are.

All right, I'm looking up xenoglossolalia in other references, and it seems that definition is all over the map. Some say it's the same as glossolalia, others say it's glossolalia but describing the miracle where others understood (so socks example would be xenoglossolalia). Still others say like I think Samarin is saying that it involves "knowledge" of the language. Dictionary definitions aren't any better that I could find. One describes xenoglossolalia as SIT, and has a link to the glossolalia definition, which is taken from the psychic and occult dictionary.

Yes, you establish that you are aware of a considerable vocabulary, enough to understand what your friends are saying. Yes, if you use a word your friends don't understand, a knowledge of English would involve defining that word you used. Yes, you have a working knowledge of the rules of grammar, to the point where you are able to construct whole sentences in conversation to convey the ideas in your head. Yes, demonstrating a knowledge of English is a whole lot more involved than just speaking it. For example, a non-English speaker could memorize the Gettysburg address and recite it word for word without deomonstrating that they have a knowledge of English. This happens worldwide with music all over the place. Bands playing concerts in places that don't speak their language experience that the audience can sing along to their songs. A knowledge of English (or of any language) can be measured by taking standardized tests, which will rate the speaker from 1 to 5. Scores above 3 indicate "fluency" in a language, demonstrating a measurably higher knowledge of the language. 100% disagree. And I submit that there is no difference between the first time where I paraphrased Samarin (which turned out to be an exact quote except was missing the word "demonstrate". If you look at other works defining xenoglossalalia, it usually is talking about the psychic phenomenon where a conversation with a spirit guide leads to phrases that are in different languages, then interpreted. But ALWAYS, the defining difference between glossolalia and xenoglossalalia is whether or not the speaker has a knowledge of the language they are speaking. xenoglossalalia simply notes that the person did not learn the language by normally accepted means (i.e. in my previous example the spirit guide spoke Spanish and liked Santeria - the medium did not). That is absolutely NOT what SIT means. Very clearly wrapped up in the definition is the concept that the speaker DOES NOT have a knowledge of the language. The 12 apostles did not learn the 25 languages described at Pentecost, they spoke forth via the spirit, and God energized the language. This bypassed the human mind. This is signified by a distinction in the very defining Greek words in the Bible. glossolalia - suffix is laleo - to speak, with the emphasis on the speaking part rather than the content of the message. Speaking from considered thought is a different Greek word - lego. It is not glossolego in the texts, it is glossolalia.

Sheesh. We can't even get our criticisms right. It's doubting Thomas high on wacky tobaccy. It must be your Satanic methods that are preventing you from getting that right. I guess we have some more colorful language coming out at times here - usually during about the 10th time we've gone over the same point we are belaboring much to the agony of our readers. I submit that it's simply a defense mechanism when dealing with tedious drudgery and it serves to keep the rest of our audience from falling completely asleep. Well, Thomas had to reach out his hands and touch Jesus side. He could have said "I don't believe your account. End of story" and walked away without ever touching Jesus. I'm sure if you are praying in earnest to God about this and are not completely thickheaded about it that He will find some way to answer your prayer. I'm 100% completely unsure about how He would even go about that, but that's why I don't have the big chair.

Changed his mind? I mean who knows what a man would do? I've been surprised so many times it's not surprising any more.

What's the meaning of "syntax", and do you have a link to a study we can read about it?

It has more adjectives. Thus it sounds louder in my head.

Hmmm. Comment my feelings on this. OK. First, here's a quote from this site: My feelings on this are it's a lot of horse puckey. VPW was an adulterer, who took advantage of young women. See Kristin Skedgell's book "Losing the Way" for concrete examples in detail. Oh, and in case you think she's lying, there are plenty who corroborate her stories. Also, VPW was a plagiarist. Receiving the Holy Spirit Today contains by conservative estimate about 70-80% of the exact content of J.E.Stiles book (who VP said led him into tongues) although Stiles book was published earlier. I guess if that's what you mean by a "many-faceted" ministry all right then. A list of people who used to be in the Way, but now run splinter groups or fellowships. Nice if you want to get in touch with someone from your past. This was plagiarized almost exactly from Oral Roberts most famous sermon, entitled "The 4th Man". You can find transcripts of that on Amazon to compare, and can find Oral's original teaching too. Oh, and by the way, they used to play Oral's teaching for the Corps in training. Somehow they were too brainwashed to pick up on the plagiarism angle of it. You have a nice and blessed day too!

Here is the direct quote. p. 50 Paragraph 3. "But it should not be so general that it includes xenoglossalalia, that is, demonstrating knowledge of a language one has not learned in the normal ways". Any more on how I've misstated it, you've corrected it, and I'm dishonest? From Samarin's definitions, I would think that your example would be accurate. Without demonstrating knowledge of Swahili, it would not be xenoglossalalia (see quoted definition). So it would be glossolalia to Samarin. And he declares glossolalia to be a non-language based on Hockett's list and the idea that it is not conversational. So yes, I believe that after carefully reading Samarin's work, you could SIT in perfect Swahili in front of Samarin, and if he or another linguist present did not understand Swahili, and there was nobody in the audience who understood the Swahili, and it was not recorded and shopped around to see if anyone understood the languages (I'm still not understanding why these guys have not done that - maybe because their works were before the internet age). I believe that he would conclude as you say.

OK. What exactly is the substance you are looking to be brought to the table?

And I say Samarin's conclusion that SIT is absolutely at least in part based upon his evaluation of it with Hockett's criteria. So it's circular logic to say that he "proved it's not a language" when even you yourself agree and put forth that SIT is not the type of thing that makes sense to measure by Hockett's list. Samarin as I already explained earlier, makes a quantum leap from his findings to his conclusions. The REASON he says they are NOT languages is exactly because of some of the interactive and sociological elements missing from it per Hockett's criteria. It's not proven that glossa is not turning out foreign languages. The languages weren't understood. Please provide the page number in which Samarin proves that the languages COULD NOT EVER be understood BY ANYONE HUMAN. You are making a leap of logic from there to that they are not languages. If they are not, then they never at any time on earth would have had anyone that understood them. Prove that, and you prove they are not languages. Short of that, NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN. How is this a detour when it is the crux of your argument that everyone was/is faking? xenoglossia is defined as a "knowledge of a language someone hasn't learned normally". Nobody has ever contended that SIT provides you with the knowledge of a language. So how is finding that's different than SIT make your work 'done'? To bring you back on point here, we are studying whether or not glossolalia produces languages. If it does, then your belief that everyone is faking it modern day has some holes in it. Ah, the "Doubting Thomas" standard of proof. So God has to pull the miracle off with SIT where someone in the audience understands the language and you'll believe it. Or wait, no you won't. You think that is a "secondhand" account. You would need to hear a non-native English speaker SIT and the tongue be English for you to believe it. I guess "high" would be the way to describe that standard of proof, if by "high" you mean "wacky tobaccy high". You could pray a long time without God ever doing that one. Well that's a creative twisting of my viewpoint, considering that I never suggested phonological structure proves anything. The ONLY thing I noted was that "linguists find a phonological resemblance to language, but did not recognize the language". I stated that would not prove anything one way or another. So how is it you misconstrue that into a "low standard of proof"????? when I'm not saying it proves anything?????? Your last sentence also is a very creative way to state that none of the linguists recognized the language of any of the samples presented.

All right - we're getting Lambchops raspberries from others here. We seem to agree on the fine-grained detail of what we're digging into here. Where we diverge is what conclusion it tells us. I say NONE. You say "it proves they are not a language". I will stop at saying my conclusion of your position is that you have a very selective and low burden for what you consider proof. And don't expect me to accept what you call PROOF, because it absolutely is not by any kind of application of logic and scientific method.

Disagree. We must examine each on merit to see whether they make sense. The first 5, all a phonetic sound list, all DO make sense. The linguistic analysis of glossa IMO can't be proven one way or the other without the miraculous phenomenon that happened in Acts 2 happening in a lab or an account similar to don and socks being reproduced in a lab. Hockett's list is NOT irrelevant to the discussion as it was brought up by a LINGUIST. Doctrinal. i'll start a thread in a while on "Scriptures that pertain to SIT figuratively". That should provide enough ammo to argue over this there for quite a while. I never said I didn't believe they were real human languages. I just said that it's never been a sticking point in my prayer life that what I was speaking to God actually had to be a measurable known human language. I figured I just spoke as the Bible instructs and God energizes. It's worked for me for a while. I'm not 100% on the figurative hyperbole interpretation but it does have a strong case for interpreting it that way. I would state this differently. The FACT that SIT is PHONETICALLY indistinguishable from language does not mean that what is spoken is genuine and not faked. That cannot be determined unless the language is understood. Here's another rub. Do you include the interpretation of tongues in trying to apply Hockett's features? I would say that you have to, but insert the caveat that the interpretation could be faked. If you include the interpretation, then many more of Hockett's feature list can be checked off. I think it still leaves a handful that SIT would not satisfy. What conclusion would this leave a reasonable person? That SIT and language are similar phonetically, and that you can't reach a 100% conclusion one way or the other on whether or not it is a real language unless you understood the language. It seems to be unprovable either way without God's express cooperation. And it does seem possible to fake it. That's as far as you have to go to prove ASL is not a language by Hockett's feature list. And it does highlight an issue with using that list exclusively as proof or criteria. And Hockett would probably also include ASL as a language and note it as an exception, as would most reasonable people. Does that help us with language classification of glossa? Not really. Still at the point where it's unprovable until understood directly.

Agreed. There are two Greek words in glossolalia - they are: glossa - tongues - 3 defined meanings to this, could refer to the organ itself, or languages or dialects laleo - of persons speak, tell, with focus on speaking rather than on logical reasoning as with lego (say, speak); So do you find it significant that the root of the verb behind the "speaking" focuses on speaking as an act itself as opposed to the logical reasoning present in normal conversation? Many do. The understanding and emphasis to me is that the person speaking does NOT engage the logical reasoning mind to produce the language in tongues. Listen, by logic you can't cherry pick parts of your sources, ignore other parts and remain anything close to credible. Samarin included Hockett's features of language in his analysis of tongues AS A LINGUIST. AS A LINGUIST, as many have brought up to me criticizing me for pointing out problems in his research, he KNOWS MORE ABOUT LINGUISTICS, THE STUDY OF LANGUAGES, than anyone on this thread. As such, HE thought it pertinent to include Hockett's list in his study. Your main point of contention about tongues is IT IS NOT A LANGUAGE. Samarin discusses this. Samarin himself in his research did not obviate that Hockett's list "makes no sense". To him it made sense to apply this to glossa. That's why he included it in his study. I tell you spelling this stuff out is tediously pedantic, but obviously necessary as people are trying to follow logic on this thread. Phonological structure DOES prove something. It proves phonological structure. It proves that the 1/3 of the list included by Hockett is satisfied by glossa. It proves that phonologically, tongues can be INDISTINGUISHABLE from language. This is important to understand, and yes, Raf, you have to admit this. I know you really don't want to. But to not admit this is basically to stick your head in the sand and say that a good part of what linguists do to evaluate whether sounds are languages is invalid. And you are not a linguist, so you have little credibility repeating your opinion on this. Now does this prove glossa is a language? NO. It just proves it SOUNDS LIKE A LANGUAGE. It proves that phonetically it is like a language. Your other points that you bring up are very valid. How can you determine the other 2/3 of Hockett's list without understanding the meaning of the words spoken? You can't. You can't prove it is a language. You can't prove it's not a language. So we are back at square one for proving the OVERALL question of tongues being a language. But we HAVE gained valuable insight on tongues from a phonetic point of view. And SITers who have not subjected their "product" to objective analysis have accounts where real, human language was produced. These were done IN A SETTING THAT IS CONGRUENT WITH HOW SCRIPTURES DESCRIBE THAT TONGUES SHOULD WORK, as opposed to man's manufactured test lab. The importance to this is BIG. IF tongues work according to descriptions in scripture, and someone (JUST ONE PERSON IS ENOUGH FOR PROOF) produced a language in this setting, then this cannot be discounted. A response of "I don't believe them" is not a scientific, logical, or reasonable response. Now you could say "these accounts are firsthand accounts, yet are not independently verifiable". That is accurate. That is logical, reasonable, and supports the scientific method. The fact that in a small sample space like the one we have posting on this forum (number of members in the hundreds) we have TWO DISTINCT FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS should give any reasonable scientist enough ammo to try and investigate these types of accounts more globally. But "I don't believe them" ????????????? "End of story" ??????????? Give me a break with that logic.

What Samarin was getting at was to examine glossa with the attributes that are commonly accepted as the elements that define language to see whether or not they apply. He found 5 discrepancies out of 16. Why did he do this? Because the study of linguistics commonly accepts these. Because it was his field, and he was applying the knowledge of his field to glossa. No I think you guys are missing the point. SIT is never referred to in the Bible in the same sense as a language in the same context that other languages are referred to. Where are they referred to? Here's one example: Genesis 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. So this vast exercise of the fanfare and the trumpets and the declaration of "SIT is NOT a language" is to me all kind of a waste of time. I mean even to me how it "feels" is not like I am talking in one of the two languages I've learned. It's more of a prayer / worship / meditative experience for me where I am staying my mind on someone or something I don't understand and communicating with God. The scriptures I see on it like in Rom. 8 "groanings which cannot be uttered" I Cor 14 "if I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful" all carries that same "feeling" for want of a better word. And many times I don't want that feeling in prayer. I need to talk, I need to express my inner heart's thoughts and dreams, I don't need to disengage the brain from language processing. So to me my first reaction to some of the challenges for "proof" were like - "why would you want to put some kind of spectrometer on an experience like that?????" and then the ultimate that we were trying to get to is "whether or not they were a real language". My gut reaction was "who cares? it's just a way I can pray to God spiritually, and it's really not that big of a deal". And I think it got escalated because someone called me a liar and said I was faking it. So I decided to dig into it to respond and got caught up in the detail. I mean some of the prophetic implications of Pentecost to me go all the way back to Genesis 11:9. Mankind got too egotistical to allow him to make his hierarchies of politics and religion, so God confounded the language and scattered the people. Then on Pentecost, through Jesus accomplishments, he brought them all back together again with that display of SIT and the miracle of it uniting people again. I mean if you really want to attack an account of something, there's probably a better place to start than some random Africans in a prayer meeting. What do you mean "confounded the language of all the earth"???? It does fit many of Hockett's 16 defining features of a language. For example, the first 5 - Vocal-auditory channel, directional reception, rapid fading, interchangeability, complete feedback. There is absolutely no way a sane person would argue that SIT does not use a vocal-auditory channel for linguistic communication. So SIT for example, fits many of the criteria for language that say American Sign Language (ASL) does not. So does that mean next we will all be thrilled to enjoy Raf's next treatise on how ASL is not really a language, and thus all those deaf people are all faking it and lying to themselves?

I think Poythress is a theologian and not a linguist, and Samarin is a linguist and not a theologian. I'm starting to pick up on a distinction in Samarin. I think his conclusions are saying glossa is "not a language" because like the 16 criteria everything in the linguistics field is set up to look at language from a perspective of how it works in the context of a sociological sense. Meaining that he would likely rule it out as being a language simply due to the fact it is not understood natively in most cases. So in that respect I think when Samarin says "it's not a language" this is quite different than your position. Your position is more "it's not a language because people are faking it and lying to themselves it means something when it is just basically gibberish super-imposed by the human brain dressing up the fakery to sound more like a language". Samarin's position is more "it's not a language because it's not really communicating with other humans and forming societal and sociological bonds, and that's basically what my field of linguistics says a language is". yes we are both coming up to speed on this field and the resources in it in the midst of discussing it and debating.

In many ways AA has done a work that TWI was and is too lazy to ever do anything close to. They have taken a specific category of people with special needs and dedicated resources to helping them. This includes work evaluating that category of people medically, psychologically, sociologically, setting up an infrastructure of meetings and mentorships, and packaging it into a simple enough program to implement that you see groups operating under their banner almost anywhere you go. TWI has a McDonald's approach - one size fits all. If someone shows themselves to have special needs, rather than doing any work at all towards adapting to meet those needs, TWI basically will isolate them, attack them, and eventually cast them out. Oh, and they will do this while vehemently denying they do anything like this with their mouths. In many ways, AA meets what society's expectations are for a non-profit. Help the community in tangible ways. TWI does not.

Well, sorry excy. This discussion has helped me to dig through the topic, even if it hasn't helped others (which I think it probably has - at least to stimulate thought and evaluation of TWI's teachings). I've heard a couple comments that people were more bored than the INT class (so some of our back and forth probably gets tedious to read). For you and I it's been a good exercise (to me) in critical thinking, logic, research, and how to approach scriptural studies and Christian topics in a post TWI state. I will probably continue to try to post content on this thread related to the topic such as when I finish new resource reading material, but will probably de-escalate the debate side of it. I know your beliefs and stance on the evidence well enough so going over it again and again would just be tedious. We are on the outlying opinion side of the debate and the poll is pretty evenly divided so I postulate that our two viewpoints probably represent the spectrum of what people's beliefs are on the topic. There are other little things or phrases that come up in the discussions that help me too. For example, geisha brought up "vain repetitions" in prayer. I hadn't considered that as applied to tongues in prayer, but that struck my interest in streamlining things. I mean if I'm sitting around with a mind picture and SIT over and over and over again, that's kind of a waste of brain matter. I'm sure God doesn't need to hear me repeat myself, regardless of what language its in. So you know, housecleaning some of that is good. If I know about something I'm praying about, it makes more sense to have the conversation with God in a language that I understand too so it helps my head. If I don't know, or if I'm just praying for someone's overall well being, then maybe just a focus on the person or situation and SIT seems a better fit. I like to improve things where I can.

I mean there is the distinct possibility that all our 50+ pages on the topic is a completely futile endeavor. But to me it's common sense to look at what you can to help your viewpoints / beliefs be the most fact and reality based you can. Your point on people faking it without knowing it is a possibility too. I mean if the people recorded aren't supposed to be and God subsequently shuts down that side of the spiritual energizing, then they are doing the same thing they always have been it just doesn't have the "magic sauce" in it. These are all things I would list in a study or paper in a "Caveat" section - probably all in bullet points. That way you obviate all of the potential roadblocks in your tests to reaching your findings. I find that Poythress does this a little better than Samarin. Poythress I think you described as "stops short of reaching conclusions". Now I don't know his logic but with a number of things up in the air about the feasibility of performing such a study, that approach to me seems a little better - share what you did find and leave the conclusions to the readers.