HISTORY OF LANGUAGE - ONE PERSPECTIVE

The history of language, of necessity, is not settled. There are numerous perspectives, contingent on the historians’ worldviews. It stands to reason that if the historian contends man evolved from lower life forms over billions of years, the evolution of language would likely vary substantially from the historian who contends that man emanated from man.

Language, simply stated, is a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or conventional symbols. Although current members of Congress and society assert that language, as well as gender, is fluid, there must be some degree of constancy to make sense of the sounds or conventional symbols upon which communicators rely.

In the absence of such conventions, we simply have gibberish. Violence is a result often seen when language becomes incomprehensible. Irrespective of our desire to be politically correct, we must agree on certain truths, obvious to most of us for eons, if we wish to establish society.

Did language evolve through random, mindless mutations  - conveying intelligence from one entity to another? Did language arise from transmission of data from a Supreme Intelligence, conveyed in such a way as to be readily understood? 

It should come as no surprise to learn that many views assert the former, but few the latter. I will be exploring this topic from the latter perspective. Furthermore, the focus here will be on language shared amongst humans, not other creatures. 

Naturally, there is ample evidence that other creatures have a language as a means to convey messages to one another. Such language may be conveyed by  movement, sounds, vibrations, expressions, mannerisms, etc. However, this exploration is better left to those who specialize in these specific areas.

Both gender and language are “fluid,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said while discussing “gender inclusivity in the Spanish language,” defending the use of the terms “Latinx” and “Latine.” Researchers tell us there are more than 7,000 languages extant. Does such fluidity exist throughout this spectrum? Do we accept this premise to the extent that cultures around the world would agree? Sadly, most don’t even bother to consider the consequences of such views. They merely accept them as true because they comport with an unwillingness to accept “facts” as they are encountered.

John Locke said “Language is the great bond that holds society together.” Language is the common conduit whereby knowledge is conveyed from one man and one generation to another. It accomplishes this crucial task by enabling us to record our own thoughts and to communicate with others.

Etymologically, communication, the vehicle employed in the use of language, is intended to mean “common to all.” Interestingly, “common” is that which belongs to all, owned or used jointly, general, of a public nature or character. If that is the case, who determines how “fluid” language may be?

In Lewis Carroll’s “Through The Looking Glass,” Humpty Dumpty states, in a rather scornful tone, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” To which Alice replies, “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Humpty Dumpty replies, “The question is, which is to be master — that’s all.”

It does appear as though we have traveled “Through The Looking Glass.” Have we reached a point in society where language has become essentially unmoored from any semblance of rational thought?

During Senate Confirmation Hearings for a Supreme Court nominee, the nominee was asked if she could define what a woman is. The nominee responded that she couldn’t - stating she wasn’t a biologist. This transpired simultaneously with both the President and this nominee asserting that the nomination of the first Black woman to the Supreme Court was such a momentous occasion.

W. H. Auden, in “The Dyer’s Hand,” stated, “There is one evil... which should never be passed over in silence but be continually publicly attacked, and that is the corruption of the language.” 

There are many recent changes in the way words are used and corrupting the language. This corruption is leading to the corruption of civilization itself. 

Okay. Let’s return to the topic. What are the first words, for which we have a record, in history. Those who deny the Judeo-Christian account would obviously disagree. However, there appears to be substantial acceptance that the first words recorded quote God saying; “Yehi ohr” (“Let there be light.”). 

Subsequently, we find God speaking to Adam. The manner in which this exchange occurred is not disclosed. We then learn of Eve’s creation and references to communication she had with Adam. We also have an account of Eve communicating with Satan.

Clearly, we have documentation, the origin of which may be disputed, of information being exchanged between individuals from the Garden of Eden forward. There is no recorded account of difficulty in interpreting the language, irrespective of what it was, until the following account, “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech . . .. 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” (Genesis 11:1-7).

The manner in which words are used is extremely important. In spite of our best efforts, the words we use are often not understood in the manner intended. (For verification of this, ask any spouse who has been married for several years.) 

As an attorney, I have encountered numerous instances in which obfuscation was intentionally employed to take unfair advantage in a situation. If parties to a discussion do not mean what they say, it is impossible to have a meaningful dialog. A break down in communication will customarily lead to estrangement. It is said that when dialog ceases war commences.

How do we distinguish between dialect and language? Very poorly!

 Dialect is defined as a specific kind of language spoken by a defined group or region. Cultural influences impact the language spoken, contingent on societal constraints. Language is the means by which members of a specific culture communicate with each other. It is this communication  that bonds specific cultures together as a family - of sorts.

There are more than 300 languages in China. Mandarin is by far the most commonly spoken. Naturally, the number is quite varied, contingent on how you contrast language and dialect. It is quite interesting that both Chinese and Japanese languages share characters. The Chinese characters are referred to as “Hanzi.” The Japanese characters are referred to as “Kanji.” Although there are similarities, caution must be exercised to avoid insulting the listener.

As stated, the focus here is on a Judeo-Christian perspective regarding the history of language. It appears that whether one adopts a view of language evolving from lower life forms to man or that human language emanated from the Garden of Eden, the multiplicity of languages remains mysterious.

Linguists, by and large, purport that all human languages originated from one human language. Is it reasonable to assert that all these languages arose as dialects of that initial language? If the answer is yes, how do we account for the myriad extant dialects/languages? 

Interestingly, although there many differences, there are also many similarities. Even more interesting is the fact these variations often followed geographic isolation. The commonality of language closely related to regions to which individuals migrated. 

It seems strange that so many languages have arisen in Europe. Although, once again, there are many similarities, there are also marked distinctions.

If, as linguists tell us, one language, on average, disappears every 2 weeks, in what way is that consistent with a simply naturalistic process?  Why would mutations in language be waning? The contrary would appear to be the more likely result.

Certainly, one may suggest that this is the natural consequence of advancements in technology. However, this claim is a bit hollow when we observe that most industrialized nations cling bitterly to that identity created by a common language.

While there are those who reference the Bible as indicating that there were two distinct miraculous events: the original creation of Adam as a talking and understanding being; and the subsequent division of humanity into language groups as a judgment on the rebellion of the descendants of Noah, this view appears to ignore the purpose for which God subsequently took action to stem-the-tide on man attempting to usurp His throne. (See discussion infra.)

In summary, the Judeo-Christian account, once again, is clearly articulated in Genesis 11:1-9:

“1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

“3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

“5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

“8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel —because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.”

Prior to the account provided, we are told the whole world spoke the same language, i.e., there was one common speech for all people. In their hubris, the inhabitants intended to build a city with a tower that would reach up to heaven, ostensibly to usurp God’s dominion over them.

The term “Babel” is derived from the root meaning “to confuse” when God observed these efforts, He confused their language. This resulted in a balkanization, of sorts. When the inhabitants began speaking in many different languages, they were no longer able to understand one another. 

Although we are forced to speculate, it would appear that groups, not single individuals, began to utter phrases understood by discrete groups. It was these  discrete groups that splintered off into various tribes and scattered all across the face of the earth.

There is no doubt that many will dispute this view. However, I would contend that is at least as plausible, if not more so, than that espoused by secularists.