SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[cman]

It Really Doesn't Matter.

[Raf]

Oh, it doesn't? Whew!

[OldSkool]

It Really Doesn't Matter.

IMO - it should matter. Unless we have just reverted to blind faith on uncomfortable topics. For me, once I decouple the idea of all that SIT is supposed to prove (as taught by TWI), then I have been able to follow along and work through towards my own conclusions.

Edited October 21, 2012 by OldSkool

[geisha779]

It Really Doesn't Matter.

It matters to me.

Jesus warns against vain repetition in prayer so, I would like to know about SIT vs free vocalization.

That is not a doctrinal statement, but a personal one concerning one of the reasons it is important to me. . . . . . . .

[chockfull]

A point that can be missed is that people who insist twi had it correct

seem to be the ones saying that to question SIT IN THE TWI STYLE

is to question the Bible, Jesus Christ, etc,

and everyone else is saying it's a separate doctrine that has no bearing

on the salvation of billions of Christians in history and the present.

Maybe I've missed it but outside of the language of the poll entry I haven't seen a lot of people supporting how TWI handled and taught that topic. I have asked a couple questions related to if the Bible says you can but somehow today you can only fake it what changed and how can you trust the Bible on other pointS then.

I don't believe it is a doctrine that has a bearing on salvation.

And yes, in TWI there was a lot of fake everything, this topic included.

[chockfull]

When it comes to the studies, I believe that is all we have been doing in the first place, which is why I find it so amusing/frustrating that we're poring over it to look for how closely it resembles language. Ink on a counterfeit bill. If I'm right, every subject is faking it. If you're right, God is not energizing it and therefore everyone is faking it.

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.

[Raf]

The more I understand Poythress, the more latitude I give him in his presentation. His paper is not a study in the same way Samarin's is. He's reviewing studies and presenting pastoral/theological implications. In that sense, he is being exceedingly fair and open-minded. Excessively fair, in my view, but I'm looking at the findings, not the theology.

You need to recall that I had not fully read any of these before I shared them on this thread. Only through studying have we understood exactly who was saying what, and on what basis to consider it. If Poythress (who is a linguist, if I am not mistaken) were writing in his capacity AS a linguist, the things he said would be indefensible. But because he us writing as a theologian to the church, his decision to be non judgmental has to be appreciated on its own terms. I think if you pinned him down and separated the linguist from the pastor, you would see two starkly contracting conclusions.

[Raf]

And yes, our debate is futile. No amount of proof we present can persuade you, unrepeatable anecdotes won't persuade me, so what's the point, right?

Well, I do appreciate the intellectual challenge to my position. Plus I think you spotted a decent flaw in Samarin's presentation that works to both our benefit: it's silly to exclude SIT as a language using Hockett's 16 criteria, but it would be equally ridiculous to INCLUDE SIT as a language on those same criteria. It seems the whole list is useless when applied to this purpose. I wouldn't have seen that if you didn't press the issue (FYI; not done examining the list yet. Some of the items went right over my head even after several readings. So I reserve the right to amend my opinion as I understand the list better, assuming any growth in understanding).

So futile, yes, if we're looking to change each other's minds.

But I'll bet we each have readers who are valuing this effort.

Except Excy. Excy is seriously tired of this carp.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Ok, another long boring post alert. I promised a more detailed look at the criteria for the design features of language, and here it is:

Looking a bit more closely at Hockett's 16 design features of language and Samarin's use of it as applied to glossolalia, I have to admit that I'm at a loss as to what Samarin was even getting at. There are some things that need to be explicitly pointed out, however.

First, Samarin says he excludes glossolalia as language "primarily" (his word) because it fails to meet the communication features on Hockett's list. For this, Chockfull chides Samarin and calls him "Captain Obvious." I think Chockfull missed the point. In this case, Samarin is First Mate on the Good Ship Obvious, of which Hockett is the Captain. The communication features of glossolalia DO exist in theory, but they are immeasurable because we would need both sides of the communication to be able to measure it. In other words, we need God to somehow, tangibly, let the investigator know that the message was received and understood. No one is alleging that this takes place on a level we can dispassionately observe. So there is simply no way to make any determination of what the absence of evidence (as opposed to disproof) shows us.

So as far as THAT observation is concerned, Chockfull is 100 percent correct.

However (and this is a BIG however), I was left with the impression after reading Chockfull's post that glossolalia did in fact fit the other design criteria, and that was offered as some indication that Samarin had indeed found a language but failed to recognize it. There is a distinct possibility I'm misunderstanding or misreading Chockfull. If I am, I apologize. I am proceeding as if I understood him correctly.

The truth is, SIT does NOT fit many of the other design features of language, nor can it, and Samarin never claims it does. When we look at the list, there are easily definable features that SIT DOES fit, but in the same way gibberish and free vocalization fit. I've made reference to a couple already and will go into a tad more detail now. My reasons for finding the qualities useless to this discussion are in brackets.

* They are audible sounds coming from your mouth. [but we can say that about SIT, fakery, gobbledy-gook, gibberish and snoring].

* They are spoken by someone with the intent that someone else hears them. [but the intent of the speaker is irrelevant to the question at hand. It testifies to the sincerity of the SITter, not the objective content of the utterance].

* Rapid fading: All linguistic signals are evanescent. [Excuse me while I whip this out... my dictionary, that is... Ok, so once you finish speaking, the sound goes away (unlike, say, a beacon signal, which is recurring and contains information, but is not a language). This quality is true of every utterance, whether speaking with the understanding, SIT, free vocalization, gibberish, etc. MAJOR "no duh."]

* Interchangeability: "Adult members of any speech community are..." [i stopped reading right there. SIT is not a speech community, and therefore this quality is not applicable to SIT.

* Specialization: [Without boring you, this looks like involves the biological mechanics of speech. It tells us nothing about the intrinsic quality of SIT as language].

* Semanticity and * Arbitrariness [both of these require a working knowledge of the vocabulary of the words spoken, and a knowledge of vocabulary is not alleged in SIT].

* Discreteness: [i’m not quite clear what this is saying, but it appears unfair to apply it to SIT because it requires an understanding of a message, and SIT doesn’t allege understanding].

* Displacement: Messages may refer to things remote in time and place… [unfair to apply to SIT for reasons I hope are obvious by now].

* Openness: new terms are coined freely and easily [unfair to apply to SIT].

* Tradition: Language is passed down by teaching and learning [unfair to apply to SIT].

* Duality: [Key here is that it requires a knowledge of the grammar of the utterance being spoken. The EXISTENCE of such grammar is in question, and the knowledge of it is unattainable unless the language is identified and known].

* Prevarication: The message can be false or logically meaningless. [irrelevant to SIT, whose CONTENT is unknown, never mind its veracity or lack thereof].

* Reflexive: we can communicate about communication. [irrelevant to SIT]

* Learnability: Self-defined [And clearly irrelevant].

So, far from Samarin finding that glossolalia contains all the elements of language except those of communication, I think it’s more clear that this list has no application to determining SIT as language whatsoever. It is unfair to use it to dismiss SIT as language in the context of our discussion, and it most certainly cannot be used to prove SIT is a language because it requires logical leaps beyond SIT’s definition to draw that conclusion.

The question then becomes, well what the heck is Samarin doing here? And that’s going to take me a little more reading to figure out.

For my purposes (and for the purposes I think are intrinsic to the discussion we’re having on this thread), the issue we’re looking at is not Hockett’s design features (which, I remind you, I did not bring up or consider relevant until pressed to do so), but rather Samarin’s reasons for dismissing SIT as xenoglossia. He does so on terms unrelated to Hockett’s list (see pgs 50, 52-55, and note that by his definition, a person seeking to prove a genuine Christian case of xenoglossia fits the definition of "parapsychologist." It took me a few readings to get that).

The notion that SIT is a known language or a human language unknown to the linguists who have studied the phenomenon may have some merit in theory, but the more linguists look at the subject, the less credible that objection becomes. We have been focusing on Samarin because we have access to a complete detailed article. For other linguists, he have conclusions and findings but little access to how they got there.

[chockfull]

And yes, our debate is futile. No amount of proof we present can persuade you, unrepeatable anecdotes won't persuade me, so what's the point, right?

Well, I do appreciate the intellectual challenge to my position. Plus I think you spotted a decent flaw in Samarin's presentation that works to both our benefit: it's silly to exclude SIT as a language using Hockett's 16 criteria, but it would be equally ridiculous to INCLUDE SIT as a language on those same criteria. It seems the whole list is useless when applied to this purpose. I wouldn't have seen that if you didn't press the issue (FYI; not done examining the list yet. Some of the items went right over my head even after several readings. So I reserve the right to amend my opinion as I understand the list better, assuming any growth in understanding).

So futile, yes, if we're looking to change each other's minds.

But I'll bet we each have readers who are valuing this effort.

Except Excy. Excy is seriously tired of this carp.

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.

[Raf]

Ok, so we're now at the point of this being a mental exercise. Cool deal. I'm game.

Thoughts on the design-features list? Did I represent you correctly?

I know I haven't dealt with everything you've written. Is there anything you insist I get back to?

Edited October 22, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

The more I understand Poythress, the more latitude I give him in his presentation. His paper is not a study in the same way Samarin's is. He's reviewing studies and presenting pastoral/theological implications. In that sense, he is being exceedingly fair and open-minded. Excessively fair, in my view, but I'm looking at the findings, not the theology.

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".

You need to recall that I had not fully read any of these before I shared them on this thread. Only through studying have we understood exactly who was saying what, and on what basis to consider it. If Poythress (who is a linguist, if I am not mistaken) were writing in his capacity AS a linguist, the things he said would be indefensible. But because he us writing as a theologian to the church, his decision to be non judgmental has to be appreciated on its own terms. I think if you pinned him down and separated the linguist from the pastor, you would see two starkly contracting conclusions.

yes we are both coming up to speed on this field and the resources in it in the midst of discussing it and debating.

[Raf]

You're looking at one section of Samarin but ignoring others: the section where he rules out glossolalia as xenoglossia is central to this thread. The use of Hockett's list is relevant to some point he's making, but not to this discussion. It's a big fat distraction.

[Raf]

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".

You incorrectly summarize my position, and you selectively summarize Samarin's.

My position is that it's not a language because no people have ever used the system of words, etc to communicate with each other. It is not Spanish, French, Swahili, Mandarin, etc. The list is about 7,000 languages long.

Samarin explicitly agrees with that.

My view doesn't allow for code, as Poythress posits. It is not what the Bible describes. Yes, God is flexible and can change. But if we're allowing for that, we no longer have the Bible as the defining lodestone of this experience.

When he goes off on the Hockett's list tangent, which I think we agree is irrelevant to our discussion, he does so after having already failed to identify the glossa as language.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

He found languages he did not know. He was evaluating whether or not he would consider them languages based upon 14 characteristics linguists agree on that constitute a language. He found 5 of those characteristics not present. My contention is that is simply because those 5 characteristics constitute the conversational aspect of language, of which tongues is not designed for conversation.

Bringing this back up for context to my post from earlier today. It was 16 elements, and as we go through them one by one, you really can't apply any of them to SIT with any value to this discussion. I apologize if my summary of your comment failed to accurately capture it. He merely emphasized 5. He offered no evaluation of those that remained.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Looking a bit more closely at Hockett's 16 design features of language and Samarin's use of it as applied to glossolalia, I have to admit that I'm at a loss as to what Samarin was even getting at. There are some things that need to be explicitly pointed out, however.

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.

First, Samarin says he excludes glossolalia as language "primarily" (his word) because it fails to meet the communication features on Hockett's list. For this, Chockfull chides Samarin and calls him "Captain Obvious." I think Chockfull missed the point. In this case, Samarin is First Mate on the Good Ship Obvious, of which Hockett is the Captain. The communication features of glossolalia DO exist in theory, but they are immeasurable because we would need both sides of the communication to be able to measure it. In other words, we need God to somehow, tangibly, let the investigator know that the message was received and understood. No one is alleging that this takes place on a level we can dispassionately observe. So there is simply no way to make any determination of what the absence of evidence (as opposed to disproof) shows us.

So as far as THAT observation is concerned, Chockfull is 100 percent correct.

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"????

However (and this is a BIG however), I was left with the impression after reading Chockfull's post that glossolalia did in fact fit the other design criteria, and that was offered as some indication that Samarin had indeed found a language but failed to recognize it. There is a distinct possibility I'm misunderstanding or misreading Chockfull. If I am, I apologize. I am proceeding as if I understood him correctly.

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?

[Raf]

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.

Yes, but he was doing so with a list that, in EACH of its elements, measures something irrelevant to this discussion, as I later made clear. And he did not "find 5 discrepancies." He highlighted five "primarily." But as we examine all 16, none of them makes very much sense in this context.

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.

Yes, exactly. I agree with you. It's precisely because of this fact that the whole list, all of it, is irrelevant, as I think I clearly established. .

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.

Actually, no, the vast exercise is not a waste of time. The analysis of glossolalia IS a waste of time because once it's determined not to be a known, existing, human language that some race of people do or did use to communicate with each other once upon a time or presently, the discussion is moot. It's only because of the assumption that glossolalia can be something other than a known language and thus qualify AS a language that we are even having THIS part of the discussion. Read through the thread: Hockett's list isn't something I held up as an authority, and Samarin's use of it is something I ignored until you demanded I account for it. I've accounted for it, and I showed item by item how and why Hockett's list is irrelevant to this discussion.

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.

I am not arguing with your feelings, or anyone else's. I'm arguing that what you produce is not a language (ie, not a system of words, phrases and sentences that human beings use to communicate with each other).

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.

Not sure what you mean by the last sentence, and the first two speak to your sincerity and doctrinal belief. Whether "groanings which cannot be uttered" is a reference to SIT is arguable. Let's investigate the verse (here or in doctrinal, whatever suits you). Here's a question: if they are groanings which cannot be uttered how are you uttering them? Let's get to what the verse actually says before we argue that it proves or establishes something. The quote from I Corinthians neither says nor implies that the utterance will be something no one on Earth would understand if given the opportunity. In fact, by using the word "languages" (because that's what "tongues" means), the implication given is exactly the opposite. They spoke languages in Acts and they sure as shooting THOUGHT they were speaking languages in Corinthians (and, I must add, I am not disputing that at all). The issue is not what they were doing then. The issue is, are we now reproducing what they did then and there? And the objective evidence appears to be that the answer is no.

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.

Fair enough. Let's take it a piece at a time. First, let's acknowledge that what was sold to us in TWI differs a great deal from what you (Chockfull) personally experienced, and part of our disagreement appears to stem from that. If you never believed that the utterances you brought forth were are real human language, then it's easy to see your passionate defense of your experience and your apparent dismissal of the fact that it should produce a real, human language that is spoken by people somewhere on Earth. My whole approach to this discussion cannot make much sense to you in that regard. I could prove it's not a real human language in 100% of the cases and that won't matter to you because you never claimed it was. That is a doctrinal disagreement that is beyond the scope of this thread.

THIS thread tackles the claim (made in TWI and resurrected, to horrific effect, by the video of JAL that was posted a few pages ago) that SIT should produce a real human language. How clear was it that this should be tongues of men (adding "of angels" almost as an afterthought, which we've already agreed appears to be a hypothetical hyperbole and not a realistic claim)?

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"????

An interesting... and utterly unrelated... question.

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.

I went through these point for point already. Everything on the list that can apply to SIT is fakable. Everything on the list that can't apply to SIT proves nothing about it being a language or not being a language because you have to know what the words mean to make that determination. [Can I assume that you're catching up and haven't gotten to this part of my posts yet?]

There is absolutely no way a sane person would argue that SIT does not use a vocal-auditory channel for linguistic communication.

This is not correct. It would have been accurate to say "There is absolutely no way a sane person would argue that SIT does not use a vocal auditory channel." Whether it's linguistic communication is very much in dispute. But I would even go a step further and allow it for your definition because you certainly intend to communicate to God. But because it's fakable, alluding to it proves nothing.

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?

Actually, this is demonstrably false.

ASL does not fit the vocal-auditory criterion, by definition.

ASL DOES fit broadcast transmission.

ASL DOES fit rapid fading.

ASL DOES fit interchangeability.

ASL DOES fit complete feedback.

ASL DOES fit specialization.

ASL DOES fit semanticity.

ASL DOES fit arbitrariness.

ASL DOES fit discreteness (I think).

ASL DOES fit displacement.

ASL DOES fit openness.

ASL DOES fit tradition.

ASL DOES fit duality of patterning.

ASL DOES fit prevarication.

ASL DOES fit reflexiveness.

ASL DOES fit learnability.

So the only thing ASL does not fit is vocal-auditory channel. It's a language in every other way.

Now, if you were to start waving your arms around all over the place and tapping your forehead and twisting your fingers, then claim that was a foreign sign language, and no one who was an expert on foreign sign languages were able to identify which sign language you were producing, I'd say you were just engaged in free gesticulation, not signing in foreign SLs.

Oh, I'm sorry, you didn't really expect me to respond to that challenge, did you? Sorry.

ASL is clearly a language by all but one of these criteria. Maybe two. Still not sure on discreteness.

Mind you, I am not the one who finds this list useful in this discussion. It should not apply to SIT. None of it should. I am struggling to comprehend why Samarin chose to go there.

But if you look back on the section on xenoglossia (you know, the whole point of looking at linguistic studies in the first place? to see if it's ever been shown that SITters are producing real, human languages) we find that Samarin dismisses SIT as foreign language on grounds completely unrelated to Hockett's list.

Unfortunately, he does it in a kind of overview-summary form because (and this is really important: pay attention) he is not interested in xenoglossia as a linguist. Xenoglossia would produce a foreign language. Glossolalia is not foreign languages. That alone should have ended the discussion. But you insist we continue to study the ink on the counterfeit bills. Okey dokey, if it makes you happy.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

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.

Returning to this line because I think I misunderstood you the first time.

In Acts, when the apostles spoke in tongues, the tongues were known, human languages. There is nothing in the other accounts in Acts that suggests the tongues spoken mean anything other than known, human languages. The people around them may or may not have understood what was spoken (I lean toward "did not"), but it's the same terminology as Acts 2, and there's no good reason to believe Luke changed the meaning without telling anyone.

There is nothing in Corinthians to suggest that the meaning of tongues changed there either. The word means "languages," and a plain reading of the text would leave the reader with the impression that it is talking plainly about normal languages. Not understood by the speaker, but real, human languages nonetheless.

So we don't agree on that.

What we DO seem to agree on is that Hockett's list makes no sense when you try to apply it because we are working with an incomplete set of information. We don't know the vocabulary. We don't know the grammatical structure. We can sense the phonological structure, but by itself, phonological structure is superficial (and easily faked). Breaking a "sentence" up with longer pauses between them (signifying different sentences) and shorter pauses within them (signifying commas or other punctuation marks) doesn't suddenly convert what I'm speaking into a language. Free vocalization does exactly the same thing. Phonological structure proves nothing.

The only way SIT can "pass" any kind of objective test would be to produce a real, human language. The apostles did it, according to Acts. SITters who've subjected their "product" to objective analysis have not. It is reasonable to conclude that the SITters who participated in the studies, at the time they participated in the studies, are not doing what they did in Acts.

[geisha779]

Paul quotes Isaiah 28 because part of the purpose of tongues was to speak to Israel through the tongues and lips of other men. God had His purpose for tongues in blessing and judgment. It was a big deal. Maybe, there is real significance to why it is SIT ....... Speaking in languages. God is never random.

Too add:

I am trying not to be too specific here, but, Chockfull made the point that SIT is never referred to in the Bible in the same sense as a language in the same context that other languages are referred. . . The account in Isaiah is specific. God was going to use the Babylonians to discipline Israel, it was judgement for their intense disobedience. They would be disciplined in a language they didn't understand. What would be the significance of a people who were chosen and separated out by the law and their language, being corrected in a foreign language they didn't understand? How would this be significant to SIT?

Reasonable people can disagree about what was understood at the house of Cornelius, but they were heard to be praising God by the Jews there. This is significant because these were gentiles being added to the church. These tongues with Cornelius were a sign to the Jews. Someone knew they were praising God, and it was not something that the Jews would have just assumed and went along with. Gentiles were now included . . . . . . this was shocking and maybe a bit of an affront to them. Peter had to defend what happened.

Just some thoughts.

Edited October 23, 2012 by geisha779

[geisha779]

One more thought. I believe tongues are for the hearer and not for God's benefit and not intended for the speakers benefit. I think scripture bears this out.....a manifestation, gift, whatever you term them, if they originate with God....they are going to be perfect every time they are used. Every prophecy, every healing, every tongue....if genuine, will be perfect and serve their purpose. There are not going to be any near misses.

[chockfull]

In Acts, when the apostles spoke in tongues, the tongues were known, human languages. There is nothing in the other accounts in Acts that suggests the tongues spoken mean anything other than known, human languages. The people around them may or may not have understood what was spoken (I lean toward "did not"), but it's the same terminology as Acts 2, and there's no good reason to believe Luke changed the meaning without telling anyone.

Agreed.

There is nothing in Corinthians to suggest that the meaning of tongues changed there either. The word means "languages," and a plain reading of the text would leave the reader with the impression that it is talking plainly about normal languages. Not understood by the speaker, but real, human languages nonetheless.

So we don't agree on that.

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.

What we DO seem to agree on is that Hockett's list makes no sense when you try to apply it because we are working with an incomplete set of information. We don't know the vocabulary. We don't know the grammatical structure. We can sense the phonological structure, but by itself, phonological structure is superficial (and easily faked). Breaking a "sentence" up with longer pauses between them (signifying different sentences) and shorter pauses within them (signifying commas or other punctuation marks) doesn't suddenly convert what I'm speaking into a language. Free vocalization does exactly the same thing. Phonological structure proves nothing.

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.

The only way SIT can "pass" any kind of objective test would be to produce a real, human language. The apostles did it, according to Acts. SITters who've subjected their "product" to objective analysis have not. It is reasonable to conclude that the SITters who participated in the studies, at the time they participated in the studies, are not doing what they did in Acts.

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.

[chockfull]

Yes, but he was doing so with a list that, in EACH of its elements, measures something irrelevant to this discussion, as I later made clear. And he did not "find 5 discrepancies." He highlighted five "primarily." But as we examine all 16, none of them makes very much sense in this context.

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.

Actually, no, the vast exercise is not a waste of time. The analysis of glossolalia IS a waste of time because once it's determined not to be a known, existing, human language that some race of people do or did use to communicate with each other once upon a time or presently, the discussion is moot. It's only because of the assumption that glossolalia can be something other than a known language and thus qualify AS a language that we are even having THIS part of the discussion. Read through the thread: Hockett's list isn't something I held up as an authority, and Samarin's use of it is something I ignored until you demanded I account for it. I've accounted for it, and I showed item by item how and why Hockett's list is irrelevant to this discussion.

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.

Not sure what you mean by the last sentence, and the first two speak to your sincerity and doctrinal belief. Whether "groanings which cannot be uttered" is a reference to SIT is arguable. Let's investigate the verse (here or in doctrinal, whatever suits you). Here's a question: if they are groanings which cannot be uttered how are you uttering them? Let's get to what the verse actually says before we argue that it proves or establishes something. The quote from I Corinthians neither says nor implies that the utterance will be something no one on Earth would understand if given the opportunity. In fact, by using the word "languages" (because that's what "tongues" means), the implication given is exactly the opposite. They spoke languages in Acts and they sure as shooting THOUGHT they were speaking languages in Corinthians (and, I must add, I am not disputing that at all). The issue is not what they were doing then. The issue is, are we now reproducing what they did then and there? And the objective evidence appears to be that the answer is no.

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.

Fair enough. Let's take it a piece at a time. First, let's acknowledge that what was sold to us in TWI differs a great deal from what you (Chockfull) personally experienced, and part of our disagreement appears to stem from that. If you never believed that the utterances you brought forth were are real human language, then it's easy to see your passionate defense of your experience and your apparent dismissal of the fact that it should produce a real, human language that is spoken by people somewhere on Earth. My whole approach to this discussion cannot make much sense to you in that regard. I could prove it's not a real human language in 100% of the cases and that won't matter to you because you never claimed it was. That is a doctrinal disagreement that is beyond the scope of this thread.

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.

THIS thread tackles the claim (made in TWI and resurrected, to horrific effect, by the video of JAL that was posted a few pages ago) that SIT should produce a real human language. How clear was it that this should be tongues of men (adding "of angels" almost as an afterthought, which we've already agreed appears to be a hypothetical hyperbole and not a realistic claim)?

I'm not 100% on the figurative hyperbole interpretation but it does have a strong case for interpreting it that way.

I went through these point for point already. Everything on the list that can apply to SIT is fakable. Everything on the list that can't apply to SIT proves nothing about it being a language or not being a language because you have to know what the words mean to make that determination. [Can I assume that you're catching up and haven't gotten to this part of my posts yet?]

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.

ASL does not fit the vocal-auditory criterion, by definition.

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.

[waysider]

I thought it might be interesting to take a peek at some of the characteristics typically used to define a "language".

"All languages rely on the process of semiosis to relate signs with particular meanings. Oral and sign languages contain a phonological system that governs how symbols are used to form sequences known as words or morphemes, and a syntactic system that governs how words and morphemes are combined to form phrases and utterances."

SOURCE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language

"All languages rely on a..........syntactic system."

(This element is missing in speaking in tongues.)

Edited October 23, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

Having trouble posting my full response to chockfull's first post. Need to take a few minutes between "takes" as it were.

Take one:

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.

A lenghtier-than-necessary discourse on a part of this discussion not in contention. I never said the speaker understood the language.

Listen, by logic you can't cherry pick parts of your sources, ignore other parts and remain anything close to credible.

Patently false. Not only CAN we do this, we MUST. Otherwise, we are unable to process or synthesize information. Wierwille wasn't always wrong in his Biblical interpretations. Sometimes he was right on the money. Must one accept all of his theology just because one agrees with some of it? Not at all. There is nothing dishonest or illogical about that. I did it with Poythress and you had an objection to my conclusion, but not my process. The process is sound.

I am not disputing Samarin's conclusions, by the way. What I am disputing is its application to THIS discussion. There are things Samarin discusses that have nothing to do with our dialogue (mediums, for example). I'm not spending my time analyzing them because they are irrelevant to this discussion. I made a judgment call early on that the criteria section, aka, Hockett's list, had nothing to do with our discussion here. I could very easily have been wrong about that. But it turns out I was absolutely correct -- to the benefit of your position, not mine. I would have LOVED to look at the list and use it as proof of my position. But it's not. It's not proof of either of our positions. It doesn't even begin to address our positions. It's irrelevant ... to our discussion. That doesn't mean he was wrong to bring it up. Just not in our context. (If he were having our conversation, this would be a fault. But he's not. So it isn't).

Again, I am not the one who cited Hockett's list or demanded a review of it.

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.

We are not disagreeing here. Where we are disagreeing is in the application of Hockett's list in the context of THIS thread's discussion. Samarin is not having the same discussion we are. His use of Hockett's list is unrelated to the idea of whether SIT is producing (to put it in your terms) a language he does not recognize. He already dismisses that idea long before he gets to Hockett's list.

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.

Ok, now wait a cherry-picking minute. What's tediously pedantic is having to spell out for you every time Samarin discusses glossolalia, he has already eliminated foreign languages from consideration. That's the only point of this thread. We are discussing the ink on a counterfeit bill. If I sound repetitious, it's because you keep proceeding as if that point has not been made.

Take Two:

Phonological structure DOES prove something. It proves phonological structure.

That is a tautology. Phonological structure does not prove something IS a language. It only proves that it SOUNDS like one, and that is because the speaker wants it to. Otherwise, it would be gibberish.

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 who's employing the argument-from-authority fallacy. While you rely on "Samarin is a linguist," let's look again at Hockett's list and determine the 1/3 of it satisfied by glossalalia (am I the only one who noticed that we dropped from about 2/3 to about 1/3)?

Glossalalia is like language in the following ways:

* It employs vocal-auditory channels. Just like language. Just like free vocalization. In the context of the discussion we are having, this proves nothing.

* It is directed from the speaker to the recipient. Just like language. Just like free vocalization (when employed as a fake SIT experience, the way I did). In the context of this discussion, this proves nothing more than that the SITter is sincere about wanting God to hear it, whereas the free vocalist knows on some level that he's faking it. Linguistically, it is no different).

* Rapid fading: after you're done speaking, the sound goes away. Just like language. Just like free vocalization. In the context of this conversation, it proves nothing.

* Interchangeability: Glossa does not fit in any real sense, but let's say it does. Anyone who speaks in tongues can hear someone else speaking in tongues. Just like language. Just like free vocalization. Proves nothing.

* Complete feedback: The person speaking also hears himself (literally or figuratively doesn't matter. The wording is that the transmitter also receives the message). Just like language. Just like free vocalization.

* Specialization: (looks like this means it doesn't require a whole lot of physical effort. Check me on that). Just like language. Just like free vocalization. Proves nothing.

That's 6 of 16 items (37.5%) on Hockett's list. Neither SIT nor free vocalization meet any of the other standards, but dismissing either of them as language on that basis is patently unfair... TO YOU. It's unfair TO YOU. It is unfair TO YOUR SIDE for Samarin to use this list. I am agreeing with that. We should be on the same side here.

What we see in those six items is that SIT is like real language in ways that prove absolutely nothing as to its legitimacy as a language. If you can use that list to say glossolalia has 1/3 of the defining characteristics of language (which sounds impressive until you look at the list), then I am equally justified in saying that FAKING glossolalia has 1/3 of the defining characteristics of language. And they are the same characteristics. If I were really trying to be a pain here, I would point out that this is further proof that SIT IS free vocalization.

But that would be unfair, because while the list may be relevant to some point Samarin is trying to make, it is not relevant to the conversation we are having! I don't think this is my opinion anymore. I think I've demonstrated this ad nauseum.

Now does this [phonological structure] prove glossa is a language? NO. It just proves it SOUNDS LIKE A LANGUAGE. It proves that phonetically it is like a language.

Right. And so is free vocalization, which also sounds like a language. That's why I fooled everyone for years. That's why (in MY OPINION) we ALL fooled EACH OTHER for years. But that's my opinion. I accept that you disagree, but give me some credit for basing my opinion on something firm here. Nothing in this study, or in the use of Hockett's list, suggests anything remotely resembling proof that SIT is language.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Raf

[Rejoice]

Some Christians profess that SIT is a clarification of having the spirit of God within...as in being born again.

I know someone who was born profoundly deaf...cannot hear any sounds at all. How would a person like that ever speak in tongues?