the wonderful world of words the babble of apes or inspired by god billy ioannidis

8/13/2019 the Wonderful World of Words the Babble of Apes or Inspired by God Billy Ioannidis

1/257

The Wonderful World of Words:

The Babble of Apes or Inspired by God?

Billy Ioannidis


2/2572


3/257

The Wonderful World of Words:

The Babble of Apes or Inspired by God?

by

Billy Ioannidis

2ndEdition 2009

3


4/257

Dedication

This book is dedicated to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God, who loves me, a sinner,so much that he laid down his sinless life and shed his own precious blood to pay for andwash away my sins, so that by turnin away and repentin of my unbelief and nowbelievin in him, who died on the cross at Calvary for our sins accordin to the scriptures!and who was buried, and then rose aain the third day accordin to the scriptures, that Iwould have, throuh his lovin race, eternal life" #men"

4


5/257

pecial Than!s

I would like to e$tend my heartfelt thanks"""

to my best friend and sister, Soultana, whom has always been there for me whenever Ineeded her and whom listened very patiently as I tried to e$plain the lanuae discoveriesthat I was inspired to reveal" Soultana is someone whose heart is always ivin and whoselife is a briht and shinin e$ample of the love that is in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ"She is someone who loves me very much and whom I love very much, and whom lives byand instils in others faith, love, and hope",

to my ood lon%time friend, Louie, whom was the first one to hear of some of the ideas thatare presented in this book and whom is someone who was always willin to ive an ear to

hear what I had to say",

to my &number one fan&, Christina, whom has been very supportive as I have been writinthis book and whose enuine interest has meant a lot to me" That ta poume",

to Charles, #'am%Gyana, Shannon, (ela, Isis, Corina, )arren *au%)arrenson, +ick, Steve&Stephano& Burrell, (halil, James, #nthony and *ohannes",

to Goole"ca and Goole Books, BlueLetterBible"or, hyme'one"com, and *ahoo Babel-ish",

and to .om and /ad, for your love, sacrifices, character and leadin by e$ample"

5


6/257

Table of Contents

"rolo#ue $ A %east of &uestions' a &uest for Truth (

)hapter * $ ettin# the ta#e *0

)hapter 2 $ +e said: +u,an -easonin# on the .ri#in of /an#ua#e **

)hapter $ o,e %acts that 1a!e ou Wonder and o,e Truths to "onder 20

)hapter 3 $ God said : 4In the be#innin# 5as the Word6667 29

)hapter 8 $ Ada, and Ee )reated in the I,a#e of the Word

3

)hapter ( $ In the be#innin# there 5as one lan#ua#e

9

)hapter $ The To5er of Babel' of Babble' and the )reation of ;e5 /an#ua#es 32

)hapter < $ .n the Trail of /oo!in# for "arallel /e#ends to the Bible=s To5er of Babel tory 3(

)hapter 9 $ A /oo! Bac! Before 5e /oo! %or5ard 88

)hapter *0 $ earchin# for the /an#ua#e of God' Ada, and Ee ((

)hapter ** $ /oo!in# for )lues as to the True .ri#ins of En#lish Words 3

)hapter *2 $ ee!in# )lues that the En#lish /an#ua#e is Desi#ned by God


7/257

"rolo#ue0A %east of &uestions' a &uest for Truth

12mer, 345, ,, )oorden, .ots, )6rter, 789:;?@A, =alabras, Laf

#s you may be wonderin, what I have shown you above, it is how to spell the word )ordsD in a EfewF of the morecommon lanuaes of today" #nd I emphasis the word few, for there are, believe it or not, over ,H lanuaesspoken all over the world in this present day and ae" So what I have shown you is really but a tiny portion of thethousands of different ways to you could write the word )ordsD"

Some of the ,H plus lanuaes spoken around the planet like ebrew, Greek, #ramaic, 2yptian, BasKue, #rabic,#lbanian, Chinese, and edic Sankrist have been around for thousands of years" Mn the other hand, modern day2nlish, is in comparison one of the babiesD of lanuaes and has only been spoken for N years or so"

#nd from the uniKue and elaborated click sounds familiar to some of the #frican lanuaes to the widely held romantic-rench lanuae, diversity of sounds is ever present in the realm of lanuaes"

Definition of /anu#a#e

Thouh weFve seen the word ElanuaeF, and weFve spoken the word but what does the word ElanuaeF meanO

Lookin into the #merican linuist +oah )ebsterFs PQRQ #merican /ictionary of the 2nlish Lanuae the followinwords appear

LAN'GUAGE,n. [L. lingua, the tongue, and speech.]

1. Human speech; the expression of ideas by words or significant articulate sounds, for the communication ofthoughts. Language consists in the oral utterance of sounds, which usage has made the representatives ofideas. hen two or more persons customarily annex the same sounds to the same ideas, the expression ofthese sounds by one person communicates his ideas to another. !his is the primary sense of language, theuse of which is to communicate the thoughts of one person to another through the organs of hearing. "rticulatesounds are represented by letters, mar#s or characters which form words. Hence language consists also in$. ords duly arranged in sentences, written, printed or engraved, and exhibited to the eye.%. &tyle; manner of expression.'thers for language all their care express.(. !he inarticulate sounds by which irrational animals express their feelings and wants. )ach species ofanimals has peculiar sounds, which are uttered instinctively, and are understood by its own species, and itsown species only.

*. "ny manner of expressing thoughts. !hus we spea# of the language of the eye, a language very expressiveand intelligible.+. " nation, as distinguished by their speech. an. -.

#nother definition of lanuae is leaned from a modern source which is the online .erriam%)ebster dictionary

1 a:the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a communityb1/:audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs $/:a systematicmeans of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionali0ed signs, sounds, gestures, or mar#shaving understood meanings -/:the suggestion by obects, actions, or conditions of associated ideas orfeelings 2language in their very gesture 3 &ha#espeare4 %/:the means by which animals communicate

7


8/257

httpwww"merriam%webster"comdictionarylanuae

&uestions

The subUect matter of lanuaes, its development, and oriins is one that has captured the curiosity of the minds ofmany a prominent man over the aes from diverse persuasions and vocations"

.en such as =lato, 2picurus, Lucretius, itrivius, Cicero, /iodorus, Mrien, Jerome, #uustine, Conrad Gesner,/ante, Leibni', Bu$torf, .a$, .uller, John 2lliot, Bentley, Mtto Jespersen, +oah )ebster, #lfredo Trombetti, JosephGreenber, .erritt uhlen, Steven =inker, +oam Chomsky, and Isaac .o'enson, have all thrown in their intellectualweiht on the study of lanuaes, which is commonly known today as the science of linuistics"

The mystery that surrounds lanuae and words is somethin that my adolescent mind would ponder form time totime, thouh my curiosity was only recently peaked in my late RFs" #nd from that point forward it was a subUect thatrew more important to me, and I bean to spend Kuite a lot of time in a dictionary thinkin about words, and studyinwords, and lookin at words, and hearin words"

#nd from there, as life works out, one thin led to another where I felt inspired to look at this clue and that clue, and toresearch this book here and that website there, and the rest of the story is this book and the paes in your hands"

#nd althouh I have nothin of the educational pediree of the above list of distinuished intellectuals and thinkers, orany formal academic trainin in linuistics, what I do brin to the table, is a love for a ood mystery, and an inspiredearnest seekin of the truth, an open mind to o, like a ood detective, wherever the evidence and clues lead me, anda healthy curious appetite to know the answer to the followin list of linuistic Kuestions that were stirred within mealon the way

)here are we to believe that the ability to move our tonue and share and speak words like, 56 love you7,came fromO

#nd when did human beins posses the ability to speak these words one to anotherO

#nd how did it happenO

#nd why did it happenO

)hat is the story, what is the history of lanuae, of spoken wordsO

/id lanuae evolve from the MMM, MM, ###, ###D of apes to the 8hhhurh uhD of cavemen and thentowards the eleant lanuae of Shakespeare, or, is lanuae a divine, beautiful ift from above, from GodO

#nd how did this word wordD come to be named wordDO )here did even the word wordD come fromO /id we simplystumble across the word wordD by accidentO /id man invent the word wordDO Mr did we take a vote on it, sometime inthe distant past, or, is there a divine inspiration behind the word wordDO

#nd how did the words that I am writin to you riht now and the words that you are readin this moment come to haveeven the meanins that you and I have for them, and the spellins that we have for them, and the pronunciations thatwe have for themO

These are the types of Kuestions that not only I, but many a person, both schooled and unschooled, linuist andlaymen, creationist and evolutionist, and people from all other faiths, have pondered and debated throuh thepassaes of the aes"

#s one would suspect, the beliefs and opinions that these Kuestions raise vary on every side and this book willobUectively present the Kuest for the evidence, for the facts, for the truth"

8


9/257

And Then 1ore &uestions

-urther and other more specific Kuestions that will be looked into to resolve the mystery of lanuae include thefollowin

)hat others ideas and theories from ancient times up until today have been proposed by philosophers and linuists onthe oriins of lanuae and the diversification of lanuaeO

Is the oriin of lanuae still a mysteryD to evolutionists and linuists of todayO

Is lanuae uniKue only to humansO

as there ever been a lanuae less communityO

)hat do the archaeoloical findins reveal about the worlds oldest lanuaesO /o the findins support the evolutionof lanuaes theory or do we see that the oldest lanuaes are as fully developed and as sophisticated, if not more,then our modern lanuaesO

)hat does the Bible have to say in reards to the oriins of lanuae, is it attributed to bein a ift from GodO

/id God create the worlds by speakin wordsO

/id the )ord, God, have to teach #dam and 2ve lanuae, or, were #dam and 2ve speakin to their creator from thevery day that he created them O

)hat is the sinificance of the tower of Babel story, as told in Genesis PP of the Bible, in relation to lanuaesO /oesthis story help to account for the thousands of lanuaes that e$ist todayO

#re there similar leends and myths of the tower of Babel story in other ancient writinsO

#re there similarities between todayFs thousands of lanuaesO

#re humans prorammed, hardwiredD for lanuaeO #re humans born with built in universal rammerDO

/oes the human brain contain special areas devoted to lanuaeO

)hat does the study of the Bible identify as the first lanuae as ever bein spokenO

as this lanuae of #dam and 2ve, what is often referred to as the lanuae of 2den or the #damic lanuae, beenpreserved, and is it still bein spoken todayO

Is there consensus in reards to what this first lanuae is, if not, what other lanuaes have been thouht to be asbein the lanuae of 2denO

)hat is the modern day evidence that is leadin many prominent creationists, evolutionists, and linuists into thebelievin in the monoenesis of lanuae Vthat there was once a mother tonueD or proto%world or #damiclanuaeDWO

)hy is the work done by Isaac .o'eson in reards to tracin the etymoloy of 2nlish words challenin some

linuists to re%think the BibleFs story of the tower of Babel and the belief of a mother tonueD as bein trueO

/oes the study of 2nlish words reveal enineered like patterns and codes that o beyond mere coincidenceD andchanceD and provide ample evidence that lanuae is desined by GodO

)hat are these patterns and codes, embedded within 2nlish wordsO

ow do we reconi'e these patterns and codesO )hat toolsD do we need to see themO

#re there multiple layers of meanin encoded within 2nlish wordsO

)hy are these patterns and codes even presentO

9


10/257

)here do we o to test themO

/o some of these patterns and codes only come to life in the liht of lookin at Bible versesO

>eepin# the -i#ht %ra,e of 1ind

Before we tackle these Kuestions toether, keep in mind, that you need to be willin to challene your respectivebeliefs and step outside the proverbial bo$D" -or I will be presently facts and evidence that is enerally not tauht, atall, in our education system Vboth public and privateW" The pursuit of truth needs to be an earnest endeavour!whereupon one is willin to seek all the clues, even if it oes aainst what you have believed in the past" )ith such aopen mindset you will be able to look at and weih the evidence and allow the evidence to speak for itself

-or when a close minded attitude is brouht to the table, no new truth will be discovered by that person when theyleave the table" They will leave the same way as they came without iven what is presented before them a sample, ataste"

The answers to these Kuestions outlined above, as you are able to imaine, will have some deep and powerfulaftershocks, albeit if your worldview%belief system is #nostic, #theist, Buddhist, indu, Jehovah )itnesses, Jewish,

.ormon, .uslim, +ew #e, +eopaan, oman Catholic , Taoist, )iccan, Xoroastrian or another"

Seekin the truth to these Kuestions has been a rewardin Uourney" The discoveries that been revealed to me haveforever chaned my understandin of the oriins of lanuaes, of the vary words we use to communicate, to share ourideas, beliefs feelins, dreams, and hopes" # Uourney, I hope that you will share with me throuh the passae of thesefollowin paes"

I happily invite you to take a seat with me as we will eat toether" I hope you enUoy the words that have been preparedfor you"

Y Y Y

Some words to ponder and keep in mind as you are readin this book

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. 9ro 1:1- /

"s#, and it shall be given you; see#, and ye shall find; #noc#, and it shall be opened unto you ?or every onethat as#eth receiveth; and he that see#eth findeth; and to him that #noc#eth it shall be opened. @at ++A:/

Bome now, and let us reason together... 6sa 11: /

ZMne point that I need to raise to your attention before we o on any further, and perhaps you have already cauht on,is that rammar isnFt one of my strenths and so you many find rammatical errors from time to time" I hope youaccept my apoloies for that"[

10


11/257

)hapter * ettin# the ta#e

5hatever you thin#, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is reason. Cou must needs spea# it in yourmind; and while you are spea#ing, you admit speech as an interlocutor with you, involved in which there isthis very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with your word, you are by reciprocalaction/ producing thought by means of that converse with your word. !hus, in a certain sense, the word is asecond person within you, through which in thin#ing you utter speech, and through which also by reciprocity

of process/, in uttering speech you generate thought.7 A Tertullian

/an#ua#e &uotes

Edda Wei#land:

5!here are today approximately *DEE languages spo#en in our world.7

2dda )eiland, ialogue and Bulture VJohn BenUamins =ublishin Company, R\W p" i$

Willia, )ho,s!y:

5Language is not merely a means of expression and communication; it is an instrument of experiencing,

thin#ing, and feeling ... 'ur ideas and experiences are not independent of language; they are all integral partsof the same pattern, the warp and woof of the same texture. e do not first have thoughts, ideas, feelings,and then put them into a verbal framewor#. e thin# in words, by means of words. Language and experienceare inextricably interwoven, and the awareness of one awa#ens the other. ords and idioms are asindispensible to our thoughts and experiences as are colors and tints to a painting.7

)illiam Chomsky, Hebrew the )ternal LanguageV=hiladelphia Jewish =ublication Society, PHN\W, p"]

;or, )ho,s!y:

5&ome intellectual achievements, such as language learning, fall strictly within biologically determinedcognitive capacity. ?or these tas#s, we have Fspecial design,G so that cognitive structures of great complexityand interest develop fairly rapidly and with little if any conscious effort.7

+orm Chomsky, eflections on LanguageV+ew *ork =antheon, PH\NW, p" R\"

)harles Au#ustus Bri##s' Ale@ander Bal,ain Bruce:

5?or language is a living thing, and has its birth, its growth, its maturity, its decline, and its death.7

Charles #uustus Bris, #le$ander Balmain Bruce,Iiblical &tudy its principles, methods and history, together with acatalogue of boo#s of referenceVCharles Scribner1s Sons, PQQ^W, p" ^N

Willia, )hauncey %o5ler:

5!he birthAplace of language is the birthAplace of the human race.7

)illiam Chauncey -owler, )nglish Jrammar !he )nglish Language in 6ts )lements and ?orms. ith a History of 6ts'rigin and evelopment. esigned for 8se in Bolleges and &choolsVarper _ Brothers, PQQNW, p" ]\

5!H) >"L8) '? L"KJ8"J).

*. !he gift of reason to the human race derives its great value from the gift of speech. )ach is a complement ofthe other. )ach would be nearly valueless without the other.

=ust conceive for a moment of a soul swelling with large thoughts and strong emotions in the body of a man withoutthe gift of utterance. &uch a soul, thus confined within walls of flesh, struggling in vain to come forth intocommunication with others, must, to a large extent, be isolated from human #ind. 6n native intellect he may be angelA

11


12/257

bright, in affections angelA lovely, but the wor#ings of that intellect and those affections must be the wor#ings of one insolitary confinement; and the consciousness of this impotence must be as is the ineffectual struggle to spea# when thenightmare sits brooding on the sleeper. " single instance, however, furnishes but a faint illustration of what would bethe wretched condition of the human family if they were all so many mutes. @utum et turpe pecus would they be. Ieingmute, they would, of course, be degraded. &peech is the deliverer of the imprisoned soul. 6t brings it into communionwith another soul, so that the two become one. 6t leads the thoughts and the emotions into light and liberty. ordsreaching from the spea#erMs tongue to the listening ear are the lin#s of that electric chain upon which thought flies frommind to mind, and feeling from heart to heart, through the greater or the smaller circles of human society.

!H) 9)@"K)K! >"L8) '? L"KJ8"J).

+. !he gift of speech to the human race derives its permanent value from letters; or, to use eNuivalent terms,spo#en language derives its permanent value from written language.

&ummon to your memory some tribe of men gifted li#e others with reason and speech, but without the aid of letters.However correct and bright their thoughts may be, however strong and graceful their emotions, however distinct andeloNuent their expression, they must all die with the individual, or be but faintly transmitted to future generations, at lastto fade entirely from the memory of man, or be mingled up with fables. Iut let those same thoughts, and emotions, andexpressions be recorded by letters and transmitted to the future, and they become the seedA corn in the minds of thenext generation, to bear a glorious harvest of new thoughts and new emotions, or, at least, a profitable harvest in theapplication of #nowledge to those arts of life which minister to human improvement. >ox volat. !he voice flies from thelips to mingle with the winds, to be lost without an echo to the thought which it conveyed. &cripta manenl. ritten

down, it may continue sounding on, as from a trumpetAtongue, through all time, spea#ing still to the common heart ofman li#e Homer, or to the conscience li#e 9aul.7

Ibid, p"Fs ]H%^

5)arly theories of language were preoccupied with its origins. Iefore the 1:th century, theories attributed theorigins of language to divine intervention. Language was considered a gift from Jod. @ost cultures have astory or myth about the creation of language and the nature of the first language. "ll cultures have a languageorigin story. ...the sun goddess, "matera0u, was the creator of language in =apan. 6n Bhina, the &on ofHeaven was !MienAt0u, and he gave language and the power of words to man. Breation myths almost alwayshave a god from the heavens or the god of light both creating man and giving him speech powers. !hesetendencies are recurring in the creation myths of the "merican 6ndians. @ichabo was the god of light in

"lgonNuian mythology, and the culture god of the 6roNuois was the god of the dawn. ?rom these collection ofstories and myths come reports of similar experiences and behaviors. 6t is possible to interpret the myths assaying that language accompanied reason....6t must have been impossible for the ancients to conceive ofhuman life without language, so language must have coincided with the birth of human beings.7

Donald G6 Ellis' ?rom language to communicationLawrence 2rlbaum #ssociatesW,PHHH, p" ]

Y Y Y

#s you can probably imaaine thouh, not everyone throuhout the aes, has held unto the belief, as captured above,that lanuae is a ift from GodD" #s such, in the followin chapter, we will look into some of the more popularalternative views that have been theori'ed by man, from both ancient and modern times, as to Uust how they believe

this awesome human ability of lanuae came to be"

12


13/257

)hapter 2 +e said: +u,an -easonin# on the .ri#in of /an#ua#e

5!here are almost as many models of how language originated and evolved as there are scholars addressingthis Nuestion.7 A -obert >6 /o#an

Ideas fro, Antiuity

)e will bein by lookin into some of these many models and see what ideas were bein postulate thousands of yearsao within the minds of Greek and Latin philosophers"

-irst off, is the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who lived from ]^P B"C"0 R\ B"C", whose thouhts about the first staein the development of lanuae as stated within his Letter to Herodotus are captured in /eborah Levine GeraFs book

"ncient Jree# 6deas on &peech, Language, and Bivili0ationVR], P\W

5"""in the beginning names did not come into being by coining. ather, the very nature of humans O in theirdifferent tribes O experienced individual feelings and received individual impressions. )ach of these feelingsand impressions caused them to exhale and dispatch air in their own individual manner and also according toethnic differences from place to place.7

Gera ives an account as to 2picurusF second stae of lanuae, where reason and convention play a part as wellDVR], P\PW

5Later words were coined ointly within each tribe in order to ma#e designations less ambiguous and moresuccinctly expressed. "lso the men who were aware introduced certain unseen entities and brought wordsfor them into usage. Hence some men gave utterance under compulsion and others chose words rationallyan it is thus as far as the principal cause is concerned that they achieved selfAexpression.7 Letter toHerodutus P iog. Laert.1E. +*/

Commentin on 2picurusF beliefs on the staes of lanuae development, /eborah says VR], P\P,P\]W

Here )picurus argues for a natural origin of language in the strongest sense of the term names are evo#ed Oactually prompted O by nature, with menGs feelings and impressions giving rise directly to sounds. )picurusGfirst men spea# under the compulsion of natures. ...and it is only at a later age that humans use reason.

"ncient authors who cite )picurusG views will spea# of words bursting forth from primitive humans accordingto circumstance; their speech is said to be instinctual, a#in to snee0es, coughs, and groans. !hus first wordsare doubly natural they arise directly and naturally, and there is a natural fit between word and obect, sinceimpressions and feelings shape the very vocal sound.

...in the )picurean scheme they [humans] master language from the beginning. "nother important innovationfound in )picurus is that he imagines a series of original, natural languages rather than one single universaltongue. ...Blimate, circumstances, and races vary in different places, and divergent languages simply reflectthe disparate, natural responses evo#ed by these varying factors of environment, ethnic group, andsurroundings. 9g 1+1A1+-

/ucretius, who was a oman =oet and philosopher who lived in the Pstcentury B"C", voiced his belief in reards to thebeinnin of speech as bein

QIut nature impelled them to utter the various sounds of the tongue and use struc# out the names of things,much in the same way as the inability to spea# is seen in its turn to drive children to the use of gestures,when it forces them to point with the finger at the things which are before them.Q

T" Lucreti Cari /e erum +atura Libri Se$By Titus Carus Lucretius, 2dition R, =ublished PQ, p" P^P

These are /eborah GeraFs comments on Lucretius views on the oriin of lanuae VR], ]QW

13


14/257

Qhen discussing the origin of language, Lucretius argues that man learns language instinctively or naturallyhe compares a child learning to spea# to a calf growing horns, a whelp growing claws, and a bird learning touse his wings. =ust as animals emit different cries to express their pain, fear, or happiness, so man

possessed of voice and tongue, used different sounds to express his varying emotions. Lucretius, then, seesthe earliest form of human language as an expression of feelings, and manGs first use of speech is notdissimilar to animals use of diverse sounds to convey their varies emotional responses. !his #ind ofcommunication may have been Nuite basic in form, for Lucretius, primitive man signifies his feelings instammering fashions, by means of cries and gestures...Q

Citruius, a Pstcentury B"C" oman writer, architect, and enineer described the development of lanuae as such, asnoted in /eborahFs book VR], PNQW

Q6n this gathering of men, as they breathed forth different sounds, they fixed articulate sounds by chance inthe course of their daily routine. Kext, signifying the things they used more freNuently, humans began tospea# by chance accruing to the event.Q

/eborah retells the thouhts of Diodorus iculus, who was a Pstcentury B"C" Greek historian, on the oriins oflanuae as bein VR], P]W

Q?rom meaningless and confused cries by slow degrees they articulated forms of speech and by agreeingamong themselves on expressions for every obect in front of them created a mutually intelligible mode ofcommunication about everything...Q

/eborah further elaborates on /iodorus views on lanuae by sayin VR], P^W

Q"""iodorus posits a series of first languages, rather than a single original tongue, and he thin#s, that differentgroupings of men went through the same phases of creating languages in different areas of the inhabitedworld. ?or each grouping developed its own form of speech. Kot everyone spea#s the same languageiodorus explains, for each group composted words by chance. ...!his is why there is every conceivable formof language, he concludes.Q

)iceroVP B"C" 0 ^] B"C"W was a oman statesman, lawyer, philosopher and his account of the beinnin oflanuae is stated as such within /eborahFs book VR], P^W

Q"nd when [reason] found men with stammering voices uttering unformed and confused sounds, sheseparated these sounds into distinct classes, assigning words to things as a #ind of distinguishing mar#. !huswith the most pleasant tie of speech she bound together previously solitary men. Q

Ideas %ro, the *9th)entury $ "resent

The followin section covers some of the more prominent and fantastic ideas, in relation to the oriin of lanuae, thatwere spawned in the PHthcentury and onwards by philosophers, linuists, scientists, and by most notably, )harlesDar5in"

-or the theory of evolution%natural selection, as advocated by Charles /arwin, has since the PHthcentury heavilyshaped the ideas of linuists in search of the oriin of lanuae, as attested by the followin Kuote

14


15/257

5Iut it was the wor# of arwin, including his own speculation on the origin of language, that gave particularimpetus to attempt to construct an evolutionary theory of the origin of language in the late nineteenth century.

"t that time linguistics was very strongly influenced by the theory of evolution.7

John Lyons, &emantics >olume 1 Cambride `niversity =ress, PH\\W, p" QN

-irst, we will be readin from an online articlethat summari'es and critiKues some of the more common wild theoriesthat ran rampant in the PHthcentury" Two of these theories, which .a$ .ller coined bow%wowD and pooh%poohD,were advanced by Charles /arwin

Mver the centuries, many theories have been put forward%%and Uust about all of them have been challened,discounted, and often ridiculed" 2ach theory accounts for only a small part of what we know about lanuae"

ere, identified by their disparain nicknames, are some of the oldest and most common theories of howlanuae bean"

The Bo5Wo5 Theory

#ccordin to this theory, lanuae bean when our ancestors started imitatin the natural sounds around them"The first speech was onomatopoeic %%marked by echoic words such as moo, meow, splash, cuc#oo,and bang"

hatMs wrong with this theoryR

elatively few words are onomatopoeic, and these words vary from one lanuae to another" # do1s bark, forinstance, is heard as au auin Bra'il, ham hamin #lbania, and wang, wangin China" In addition, manyonomatopoeic words are of recent oriin, and not all are derived from natural sounds"

The Din#Don# Theory

This theory, favored by =lato and =ythaoras, maintains that speech arose in response to the essentialKualities of obUects in the environment" The oriinal sounds people made were supposedly in harmony with theworld around them"

hatMs wrong with this theoryR#part from some rare instances of sound symbolism, there1s no persuasive evidence, in any lanuae, of aninnate connection between sound and meanin"

The /a/a TheoryThe /anish linuist Mtto Jespersen suested that lanuae may have developed from sounds associatedwith love, play, and%%especially%%son"

hatMs wrong with this theoryR#s /avid Crystal notes in How Language or#sV=enuin, RNW, this theory still fails to account for &the apbetween the emotional and the rational aspects of speech e$pression"&

The "ooh"ooh Theory

This theory holds that speech bean with interUections%%spontaneous cries of pain V&Much&W, surprise V&Mh&W,and other emotions V&*abba dabba do&W"

hatMs wrong with this theoryR

+o lanuae contains very many interUections, and, Crystal points out, &the clicks, intakes of breath, and othernoises which are used in this way bear little relationship to the vowels and consonants found in phonoloy"&

The o+e+o Theory

#ccordin to this theory, lanuae evolved from the runts, roans, and snorts evoked by heavy physical labor"

hatMs wrong with this theoryRThouh this notion may account for some of the rhythmicfeatures of lanuae, it doesn1t o very far ine$plainin where words come from"

15


16/257

#s =eter -arb says in ord 9lay hat Happens hen 9eople !al#Vintae, PHH]W, ll these speculationshave serious flaws, and none can withstand the close scrutiny of present knowlede about the structure oflanuae and about the evolution of our species"&

ichard +ordKuist, =h"/", Bow )ow, /in /on, _ *abba /abba /o The Mriins of LanuaeDhttprammar"about"combRQ^RPthe%oriins%of%lanuae"htmOpP

/r" Clarence L" .eader, in an article found within !he )ncyclopedia "merican,commented on the &pow%wow&, &bow%wow&, &din%don& and &pooh%pooh& theories VPH]H, p"1s ]QR%]Q^W

5"ll of these theories must be regarded as attempts to conecture how speech might conceivably have ariseninstead of as anything even remotely approaching a scientific demonstration of how speech actually didarise.Q

#nd as you will be readin the followin Kuotes about modern day ideas as to the oriins of lanuae from prominentlinuists and evolutionists you will notice that many of these theories are the fruits of seeds that have been sowed inthe soil of Charles /arwinFs theory of evolution"

I will be showin Kuote after Kuote and will allow these Kuotes to speak for themselves """for now"

#uthors .orten " Christiansen, Simon (irby, point in their book Language )volution that it was a paper published bySteven =inker Vprominent Canadian%#merican e$perimental psycholoist, conitive scientistW and =aul BloomV=rofessor of =sycholoyW that ot the lanuae oriins by means of natural selction wheels oin in our times VR],]W

5!he landmar# paper FKatural Language and natural &electionG, published in 1DDE by &teven 9in#er and 9aulIloom...is considered by many to be the catalyst that brought about the resurgence of interest in the evolutionof language.1 !he paper proposed the theory that the human ability for language is a complex biologicaladaptation evolved by way of natural selection.7

teen "in!er and "aul Bloo,

5"ll we have argued is that human language, li#e other speciali0ed biological systems, evolved by naturalselection. 'ur conclusion is based on two facts that we would thin# would be entirely uncontroversiallanguage shows signs of complex design for the communication of propositional structure, and the onlyexplanation for the organs with complex is the process of natural selection.Human language, li#e otherspeciali0ed biological systems, evolved by natural selection. hile there are no doubt aspects of the systemthat can only be explained by historical, developmental, or random processes, the most li#ely explanation forthe complex structure of the language faculty is that it is a design imposes on neural circuitry as a response toevolutionary pressures.7 1DDE, %:/

16


17/257

-urther thouhts by Steven =inker on lanuae are

5Bhoms#y and some of his fiercest opponents agree on one thing that a uniNuely human language instinctseems to be incompatible with the modern arwinian theory of evolution, in which complex biological systemsarise by the gradual accumulation over generations of random genetic mutations that enhance reproductivesuccess. )ither there is no language instinct, or it must have evolved by other means. &ince 6 have beentrying to convince you that there is a language instinct but would certainly forgive you if you would ratherbelieve arwin than believe me, 6 would also li#e to convince you that you need not ma#e that choice. !hough

we #now few details about how the language instinct evolved, there is no reason to doubt that the principalexplanation is the same as for any other complex instinct or organ, arwinMs theory of natural selection"...[Language] is composed of many parts syntax, with its discrete combinatorial system building phrasestructures; morphology, a second combinatorial system building words; a capacious lexicon; a revampedvocal tract; phonological rules and structures; speech perception; parsing algorithms; learning algorithms.!hose parts are physically reali0ed as intricately reali0ed structured neural circuits, laid down by a cascade of

precisely timed genetic events. ... ?irst, if language involves, for its true expression, another individual, whodid the first language mutant tal# toR 'ne answer might be the fifty percent of the brothers and sisters andsons and daughters who shared the new gene by common inheritance. Iut a more general answer is that theneighbours could have partly understood what the mutant was saying even if they lac#ed the newfangledcircuitry, ust using overall intelligence.7

Steven =inker, !he language instinctV)" .orrow and Co"W, PHH^, p"1s ]]], ]R, ]N

;oa, )ho,s!yV#merican linuist, philosopher, conitive scientistW

5Bhoms#y, for instance, speculates that at one time there must have existed Man ancient primate with thewhole human mental architecture in place, but no language facultyM. )ventually Ma mutation too# place in thegenetic instructions for the brain, which was then reorgani0ed in accord with the laws of physics andchemistry to install a faculty of languageM Bhoms#y 1DD: 1+/.7

John 2arl Joseph, +iel Love, Talbot J" Taylor, Landmar#s in linguistic thought 66 the estern tradition in the twentiethcentury VoutledeW, RP

56Mve said nothing so far about the production of language. !he reason is that there is little to say of anyinterest. "part from peripheral aspects, it remains largely a mystery.7

+oam Chomsky, 9owers and 9rospects eflections on Human Kature and the &ocial 'rder, VLondon =luto =ressW,PHH, p" P

teenGouldVprominent #merican palaeontoloist, evolutionary bioloist, and historian of scienceW

5Ces, the brain got bigger by natural selection. Iut as a result of this si0e, and the neural density andconnectivity thus imparted, human brains could perform an immense range of functions Nuite unrelated to theoriginal reasons for the increase in bul#. !he brain did not get big so we could read or write or do arithmetic orchart the seasons3yet human culture, as we #now it, depends upon s#ills of this #ind. . . . !he universals of

language are so different from anything else in nature, and so Nuir#y in their structure, that origin as a sideconseNuence of the brainGs enhanced capacity, rather than a simple advance in continuity from ancestralgrunts and gestures, seems indicated. !his argument about language is by no means original with me,though 6 ally myself fully with it; this line of reasoning follows directly as the evolutionary reading for KoamBhoms#yGs theory of universal grammar./7

Steven J" Gould, Tires to Sandals,D Katural History V#pril PHQHW, pp" Q0PN, Kuoted in/aniel C" /ennett, arwinGs angerous 6dea V+ew *ork Simon _ Schuster, PHHNW, p" ]H"

17


18/257

%rans de WaalV/utch =rofessor, psycholoist, primatoloist and etholoistW

5Humans are Nuite different because they possess language, which underlies every maor intellectualachievement of humanity. !his discontinuity theory is implausible because evolution cannot proceed byinspired umps, only by accretion of beneficial variants of what went before. Language is a uniNue yet highlycomplex adaptation. 6f it is completely unrelated to the cognition of other species, a remar#ably andimprobably/ rapid adaptive process must have gone on in the few million years since we last shared an

ancestor with a living ape. @ore li#ely, the flowering of human intellect in language is built upon, andcomposed of, many other abilities A which may histories independent of one another.7

-rans de )aal, !ree of origin what primate behavior can tell us about human social evolution Varvard `niversity=ressW, RR, p" P^Q

Terrence W6 Deacon:V#merican anthropoloist and =rofessor of Bioloical #nthropoloy and +euroscienceW

5!he worldMs languages evolved spontaneously. !hey were not designed. ...Languages are social and culturalentities that have evolved with respect to forces of selection imposed by human users.7

Terrence )" /eacon, !he &ymbolic &pecies !he BoAevolution of Language and the IrainVarmondsworth =enuinW,PHH\, p" PP

-obert >6 /o#anV=rofessor , media ecoloistW

Mne thin that is common and certain amonst secular linuists pursuin the answer to the oriin of lanuae from anevolutionary paradim is that there is no consensus in reards to their theories amon them as shown aain by=rofessor obert (" Loan, who poses the followin Kuestion in his book VR\, P]" P^W

5Question 1:as the origin and evolution of language a purely arwinian process governed by natural selection acting onthe human genomeR

!here is no uniform answer to this Nuestion within the linguistic community. !here are almost as many modelsof how language originated and evolved as there scholars addressing this Nuestion. &ome linguists are highlysceptical of a arwinian explanation of the origin of language while some are extremely supportive of the ideaand believe that all of the features of language, including the 8niversal Jrammar postulated by Bhoms#y, canbe explained in terms of biological natural selection operating on the hominid genome.

!hen there is the middle ground, in which 6 place myself, of those who ta#e the position that biological naturalselection played an important, perhaps even a dominant, role in the origin of language but that this alone doesnot or cannot/ explain all aspects of the phenomenon. )ven arwin admitted the possibilities of othermechanisms when he wrote, M6 am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusivemeans of modification, 1:(DS1D*:, *D/. !hose in the middle group...accept natural selection as themechanism responsible for the emergence of language but maintain that there were two forms of natural

selection operating, one biological acting on the hominid genome and the other cultural operating on thelanguage itself.7

9erhaps the most prominent sceptic of the natural selection approach is Koam Bhoms#y, who maintains thatnatural selection can explain certain things but not the origin of speech M)volutionary theory appears to havevery little to say about speciation, or about any #ind of innovation. 6t can explain how you get a differentdistribution of Nualities that are already present, but does not say much about how new Nualities can emergeM1D:$, $-/.... Human language is an embarrassment for evolutionary teory be!ause it is vastly more

"o#erful tan one !an a!!ount for in terms of sele!tive fitness'1D:*, 1-$A-, emphasis mine/.7

18


19/257

1ichael )orballisV=rofessorW

#uthors Christiansen and (irby outlines as to what .ichael Corballis believes in reards to the oriins of lanuaeVR], QW

5@ichael Borballis...sees language as originating with a system of manual gestures, but comes to thisconclusion from the viewpoint of cognitive and evolutionary neuroscience ... He argues that whereas nonA

human primates tend to gesture only when others are loo#ing, their vocali0ation are not necessarily directedat othersAperhaps because of differences in voluntary control over gestures and vocali0ations. Borballissuggest that one of the first steps in language evolution may have been the advent of bipedalism, whichwould have allowed the hands to be used for gestures instead of locomotion. He follows 9in#er in pointing toa gradual evolution of a capacity for grammar, though Borbalis maintains that language remained primarilygestural until relatively late in our evolutionary history. !he shift from visual gestures to vocal ones wouldhave been gradual, and he propose that largely autonomous vocal language arose following a geneticmutation between 1EE,EEE to (E,EEE years ago.7

-obin DunbarVBritish anthropoloist and evolutionary bioloistW

Mnce aain, Christiansen and (irby point out that this theory, as others, is met with opposition as hihlihted by obin/unbar VR], Q%HW

5!he gestural theories of language origin as outlined by...Borballis are not without their critics. obin unbarargues...that the arguments in favour of a gestural origin of language are largely circumstantial. He moreovercontends that gestural language suffers from two maor disadvantages in comparison with spo#en languageit reNuires direct line of sight, and it cannot be used at night. 6nstead, unbar proposes that languageoriginated as a device for bonding in large social groups. He notes that grooming is the mechanism of choiceamong primates to bond social groups. However, human social groups tend to be too large for it to be

possible for grooming to bond them effectively. Language, on this account, emerged as a form of groomingAatAaAdistance, which is reflected in the large amount of time typically spent verbally FservicingG socialrelationships. unbar sees the use of primateAli#e vocali0ations in chorusingAa #ind of communal singingAas a#ey intermediate step in the evolution of language. 'nce such cooperative use of vocali0ations was in place,grammar could then emerge through processes of natural selection.7

Eliabeth BatesVwas a =rofessor of psycholoy and conitive scienceW

56f the basic structural principles of language cannot be learned bottom up/ or derived top down/, there areonly two possible explanations for their existence either 8niversal Jrammar was endowed to us directly bythe Breator, or else our species has undergone a mutation of unprecedented magnitude, a cognitiveeNuivalent of the Iig Iang.7

2li'abeth Bates Kuoted in Steven =inker, !he Language 6nstinct How the@ind Breates Language V+ew *ork arper =erennial, PHH^W, ]N"

Y Y Y

#s you have Uust read there are many different ideas, theories and speculation from the secular world, from times ofantiKuity riht up to modern times, in reards to the oriins of human lanuae and as to how lanuae evolved"

)e have read of the beliefs that attributed the oriin of lanuae, in ancient times to the reasonin of men, by thepromptin and impellin of nature, by men needin to e$press themselves, and by chance"

In more modern times, we read of numerous theories like 5IowAow7, 5ingAong7, 5LaALa7, 59oohA9ooh7, and 5CoAHeAHo7, where, to reiterate in the words of =eter -arb 0 5"ll these speculations have serious flaws, and none canwithstand the close scrutiny of present #nowledge about the structure of language and about the evolution of ourspecies.7.

19


20/257

)e also read of contemporary theories where the oriins of lanuae is the result of evolutionary means of naturalselection7, 5genetic mutations7, and5as a side conseNuence of the brainGs enhanced capacity7, to name a few"

#nd based on lookin at the sum of all the theories that we have looked into, it appears apparent that tacklin theKuestion of how human lanuae oriinated and evolvedD is still a most challenin one for secularists, who are inmany, many ways, no closer to answerin this mystery since the times of 2picurus who lived more than R,] yearsao"

In the followin chapter we will look into what evidence, I dare say if any, is out there to support the secular views on

lanuae oriins and evolution"

20


21/257

)hapter o,e %acts that 1a!e ou Wonder and o,e Truths to "onder

5&cientists, historians, and detectives observe data and proceed thence to some theory about what bestexplains the occurrence of these data. e can analy0e the criteria which they use in reaching a conclusionthat a certain theory is better supported by the data than a different theory3that is, is more li#ely, on the basisof those data, to be true.7 A -ichard 5inburne

)onfessions fro, Eolutionist=s

)e have Uust read in the previous chapter some of the plentiful theories that have been proposed by both man fromancient times and by leadin contmeporay evolutionists, linuists, and scientists in reards to the oriin of lanuae,and so now will be seekin to see if there is any empirical evidence that supports the ideas that they have presented sofar"

This first Kuote that we will be lookin at is from evolutionist Terrence /eacon, whom we have already read from in theprevious chapter" This Kuote does not look promisin in the least and is in fact Kuite damain in our search forempirical evidence that supports the secular claims of lanuaes oriins from an evolutionary conte$t

5Teories of language origins ave almost universally been embarrassments to em"iri!al s!ien!e.!his is because they are typically li#e narratives exemplifying certain linguistic theories and deep

philosophical commitments rather than efforts to understand the processes involved in generating thisuniNuely complex phenomenon. !he reasons for this tendency are not hard to find. !here is an almostcomplete absence of direct evidence of the process itself; and in incomprehensibly complex organ the brain/underlying the capacity to acNuire and use language; and many competing philosophical preconceptions thatall ma#e strong claims about the nature of language and its role in human cognitive uniNueness. !hese areserious constraints and biases though in least one these areas A neuroscience A there has been considerable

progress in developing critical tools and compiling relevant evidence/. !hese limits have licensed theacceptance of considerably more speculation in this field than in many others. Iut even as some of theselimitations are becoming removed, as relevant comparative and developmental linguistic and neurologicaldata are becoming available, 6 believe we are still crippled in a more fundamental way by theoretical biasesand naivete.7 [emphasis mine]

Bruce " )eber, /avid J" /epew, )volution and learning the Ialdwin effect reconsideredV.IT =ressW, R], p"1s QP%QR

This ne$t Kuote from Christine (enneally Ms book !he first word the search for the origins of language looks at lanuaefrom both a Chomskian and Lieberman perspective and their respective problems VR\, p"1s Q%HW

5hen it comes to the idea of language as an adaptation, the challenge of grasping evolution is furthercompounded by our inability to imagine ourselves without language. Language not only fills our lives, but wedo our imagining, to a large extent, with language. ... 6n addition to the natural obstacles to imagining howlanguage, or anything, evolved, the way language was defined by generative linguistics made its evolutionseem even more incomprehensible. "lthough Bhoms#y forswore explicit discussion of the language evolutionNuestion, many scholars thought the answer was implicit in his model of language. 6ndeed, Bhoms#y spo#eoften of innateness, and when you invo#e innateness, itMs hard not to ma#e a few assumptions about genetics

and evolution. "s a result, it seemed to many linguists and other cognitive scientists that the only way aninnate universal grammar could exist, the only way humans could be born with a language organ, was if itwas genetically endowed. !he implication was that the language organ was specified in the genome, andgenerally it was assumed that there was a gene or genes specifically for language. "t the same time,Bhoms#y saw language as a perfect, formal system. &o it appeared that a gene for this mathematical entitymust have appeared out of nowhere with no precursors in other animals. Tis !ontribute$ to te#i$es"rea$ vie# tat language evolution #as im"ossible an$ language's very e%isten!e #asmira!ulous. ... 6n the 1D:Es and 1DDEs, while Bhoms#y expressed no interest in its study [9hilip] Liebermanwas examining s#ulls, listening to apes, and testing brains, all in search of clues to languagMs origins.Lieberman argues that not only should you study language evolution, but you canMt even begin to understandlanguage if you donMt start with evolution. His research is grounded in the basic tenets of messy biology.

21


22/257

hen you loo# at the problem through his eyes, it becomes harder to see language evolution as eithermystical or impossible. 6nstead, it loo#s merely insanely complicated.7

The followin Kuotes sum up the problems, difficulties and perple$ities that an evolutionary account to lanuae ariseas captured by the words of evolutionists themselves"

-ichard Da5!ins:Vevolutionary bioloistW

5@y clear example is language. 5Kobody #nows how [language] began. !here doesnGt seem to be anything li#e syntaxin nonAhuman animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it. ...)Nually obscure is the origin ofsemantics; of words and their meaning.7

8nweaving the ainbowVBoston, ouhton%.iflin Co", PHHQW, p" RH^"

1a##ie Taller,an:V=rofessor of LinuisticsW

5Language is an extremely complex phenomenon and evolutionary accounts of it are therefore oftenconsidered problematic.7

.aie Tallerman, Language origins perspectives on evolutionVM$ford `niversity =ressW, RN, p" P

-onald >6 6 1acaulay:

5!he emergence of human language as an efficient system of vocal communication, however, presents achallenge to evolutionary theory, since there is a fundamental problem in even imagining how the #iinds ofcalls primates use could have developed into human language. !he problem lies in the segmental nature oflanguage and particularly the segments #nown as phonemes. &ince phonemes are meaningless inthemselves, it is hard to see how they could have developed out of a system in which individual calls hadseparate meanings. "nother problem in trying to understand the evolution of language is the lac# of fossilevidence. 8nfortunately, bone structure is not the most important aspect of the vocal tract and the softer partsof the body do not survive as fossils. "ttempts have been made to extrapolate the si0e of the vocal tract froms#ull fossils in order to determine when human beings first began to use language. )ven if successful andthey have been challenged/, these efforts would still not provide any explanation of how language evolved.7

onald (" S" .acaulay, !he &ocial "rt Language and 6ts 8sesVM$ford `niversity =ress `SW, PHH, p" P\

Wendy >6 Wil!ins "rofessor of /in#uistics and )o#nitie cience and Fennie Wa!efield /in#uist:

5espite the lac# of evidence for intermediate stages in linguistic evolution, the alternatives are hard toaccept. 6f some speciesAspecific characteristic did not evolve in piecemeal fashion, then there would seem tobe only two ways to explain its appearance. )ither it was put in place by some stillAundiscovered force,

"era"s troug $ivine intervention, or it was the result of some relatively abrupt change in thedevelopment of the species, perhaps some sort of spontaneous and widespread mutation . . . but thefortuitous nature of such a happenstance mutation ma#es that explanation seem suspect. "s has been

pointed out 9in#er and Iloom, 1DDE/, the chances against a mutation resulting in a system as complex andapparently so ideally suited to its tas# as is language are staggeringly high.7[emphasis added]

)endy (" )ilkins and Jennie )akefield, &Brain 2volution and +eurolinuistic =reconditions,& Behavioral and BrainSciences PQ VPW PP%RR"

1orten +6 )hristiansen' i,on >irby:

5!o understand language, we need to #now where it came from, why it wor#s the way it does, and how it haschanged. !o some it may be a surprise that, despite rapid advances in many areas of science, we still #nowrelatively little about the origins and evolution of this peculiar human trait. ... 8nderstanding the evolution oflanguage is a hard problem...7

.orten Christiansen, Simon (irby, Lanuae 2volution VM$ford `niversity =ress `SW, R], p"Fs P%R, P^

22


23/257

+u,ans 5hen )o,pared to all Ani,als are Words Apart

1a@ 1ller:VGerman philoloistW

5here, then, is the difference between brute and manR hat is it that man can do, and of which we find nosigns, no rudiments, in the whole brute worldR 6 answer without hesitation the one great barrier between thebrute and man is Language. @an spea#s, and no brute has ever uttered a word. Language is our ubicon,and no brute will dare to cross it. !his is our matter of fact answer to those who spea# of development, whothin# they discover the rudiments at least of all human faculties in apes, and who would fain #eep open the

possibility that man is only a more favoured beast, the triumphant conNueror in the primeval struggle for life.Language is something more palpable than a fold of the brain, or an angle of the s#ull. 6t admits of nocavilling, and no process of natural selection will ever distill significant words out of the notes of birds or thecries of beasts.7

-riedrich .a$ .ller, Lectures on the &cience of LanguageV Lonman, Green, Lonman, and obertsW,PQP, p" ]^

teen "in!er:

5Language is obviously as different from other animalsM communication systems as the elephantMs truc# isdifferent from other animalsM nostrils. Konhuman communication systems are based on one of three designsa finite repertory of calls one for warnings of predators, one for claims of territory, and so on/, a continuousanalog signal that registers the magnitude of some state the livelier the dance of the bee, the richer the foodsource that it is telling its hivemates about/, or a series of random variations on a theme a birdsong repeatedwith a new twist each time Bharlie 9ar#er with feathers/. "s we have seen, human language has a verydifferent design. !he discrete combinatorial system called QgrammarQ ma#es human language infinite there isno limit to the number of complex words or sentence in a language/, digital this infinity is achieved by

rearranging discrete elements in particular orders and combinations, not by varying some signal along acontinuum li#e the mercury in a thermometer/, and compositional each of the finite combinations has adifferent meaning predictable from the meanings of its parts and the rules and principles arranging them/. ...)ven the seat of human language in the brain is special. !he vocal calls of primates are controlled not by theircerebral cortex but by phylogenetically older neural structures in the brain stem and limbic systems, structuresthat are heavily involved in emotion. Human vocali0ations other than language, li#e sobbing, laughing,moaning, and shouting in pain, are also controlled subcortically. &ubcortical structures even control theswearing that follows the arrival of a hammer on a thumb, that emerges as an involuntary tic in !ouretteMssyndrome, and that can survive as IrocaMs aphasicMs only speech. Jenuine language . . . is seated in thecerebral cortex, primarily in the left perisylvian region.7

Steven =inker, !he language instinctV)" .orrow and Co"W, PHH^, p" ]^R

23


24/257

;oa, )ho,s!y

5... human language appears to be a uniNue phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.7

+oam Chomsky, Language and @indVChicao arcourt, Brace _ )orld, Inc", PHQW, p" NH"

+enry 1orris:V#merican youn earth creationist and Christian apoloist" e is considered by many to be &the father of modern

creation science"&W

5!here are no normal humans that cannot spea# and no animals that ever can. !his is the great unbridgeablegap between all man#ind and every component of the animal #ingdom. )volutionary scientists have mademany attempts to teach chimpan0ees to spea#, but all to no avail.7

enry .orris, =h"/", The .ystery of uman LanuaeD, httpwww"icr"orarticlemystery%human%lanuae

"hilip /ieber,an:VLinuist and =rofessorW

5Iut though animal trainers and investigators have tried since the seventeenth century to teach chimpan0eesto tal#, no chimpan0ee has ever managed it. !rue, a chimpan0eeMs soundAproducing anatomy is

fundamentally different from our own. Iut chimpan0ees might still produce a muffled approximation of humanspeech if their brains could only plan and execute the necessary articulate maneuvers. !o do this, they wouldhave to have our brains.7

=hilip Lieberman, &=eak Capacity,& !he &ciencesVvol" ]\, +ov/ec PHH\W, p" R\"

tephen 1atthe5s' Bernard )o,rie' and 1arcia "olins!y:

5Language is perhaps the most important single characteristic that distinguishes human beings from otheranimal species. . . . Iecause of the different structure of the vocal apparatus in humans and chimpan0ees, itis not possible for chimpan0ees to imitate the sounds of human language, so they have been taught to usegestures or to#ens in place of sounds . . . but chimpan0ees never attain a level of linguistic complexity beyondthe approximate level of a twoAyearAold child. 7

Stephen .atthews, Bernard Comrie, and .arcia =olinsky, editors"tlas of Languages !he 'rigin and evelopment ofLanguages !hroughout the orldV+ew *ork -acts on -ile, Inc", PHHW, p" P"

Brad +arrub' Bert Tho,pson:

5!he fact is, no animal is capable of spea#ing in the manner in which people can spea#. &peech is apeculiarly human trait. 6n an article titled 5BhimpA&pea#7 that dealt with this very point, !revor @aor wrote,

?irst, chimps do not possess the anatomical ability to spea#. &econd, the sign language they learnis not natural, even for humans. Bhimps have to be trained to communicate with this language; it isnot something they do in the wild. "nd unli#e humans, trained chimps do not seem to pass this s#illon their young. !hird, chimps never #now more than a few hundred wordsAconsiderably less thanmost young children...[)]volutionists have no way to bridge the gap from innate ability to language

relying on natural selection or any other purely natural cause. hyR Iecause language is complexand carries informationAthe trademar#s of intelligent design 1DD%, 1%[-]1/.7

Brad arrub, Bert Thompson, !he !ruth about Human 'rigins "n 6nvestigation 'f !he BreationSevolution Bontroversy"s 6t elates !o !he 'rigin 'f @an#indV#poloetics =ress Inc"W, RN, p"Fs PHQ%PHH

Continuin futher, arrub and Thompson point out

5)ven though apes, dogs, and birds can be 5trained7 to do certain things, they cannot arson and communicateideas with others so as t have true mental communion. !he intelligence of animals is unli#e that ofhuman#ind. "s @oore went on to discuss,

24


25/257

[t]he purest and most complex manifestation of manGs symbolic nature is his capacity for conceptualthought, that is, for thought involving sustained and high order abstraction and generali0ation.Bonceptual thought enables man to ma#e himself independent of stimulus boundness thatcharacteri0es animal thin#ing. "nimals, especially primates, give undeniable evidence of somethinganalogousto human thought O analogous yet medically different in that their thought is bound to theimmediate stimulus situation and to the felt impulse of the organism. "nimal thin#ing, too, is rivetedto the realm of survival Tbroadly ta#en/ and therefore encompasses a variety of needs pertinent tothe species as well as to the individual. !hese differences account for the distinction between!on!e"tualthought, which is the exclusive prerogative of man, and"er!e"tualthought, a cognitive

function based directly upon sense perception, which man shares with other animals p. -%, emp. inorig./.

!hus, the issue is not 5can animals thin#R,7 but rather 5can they thin# the way humans doR7 !he answer,obviously, is a resounding 5KoU7 6n summari0ing his thoughts on this subect, !revor maor offered thefollowing conclusion concerning the intelligence of chimpan0ees.

"re chimps intelligentR !he answer is yes. o chimps possess the same &in$of intelligence ashumansR !he answer would have to be no. Humans are more intelligent, an$they possessadditional forms of intelligence. hat w must remember, also, is that the greatest capabilities of theapes belong to a handful of superstars li#e


26/257

Fohn +o5land )a,pbell' F6 Willia, chopf:

5"re there any primitive human languages that could similarly represent an intermediate stage from&ha#espeareMs sonnets to the bar#ing of dogsR 6n the 1Dth century there were periodic reports by )uropeanexplorers claiming to have discovered, in some remote corner of the world, a tribe of people so primitive thatthey had no real language and ust grunted QughQ to each other. 6n fact, all such reports proved false. "llexisting normal human languages are fully modern and eNually expressive technologically primitive peopledo not have primitive languages. 6f any languages were to be rated primitive, they would have to include)nglish and Bhinese, languages with simple structures but spo#en by people usually thought of as having

developed advanced civili0ations. "ll the languages of the Kew Juinea tribes with which 6 have wor#ed aremuch more complex than )nglish. 6n addition, the oldest languages of which we have any firm evidence arethe first written languages )gyptian and &umerian/ preserved from about (,EEE years ago, and those werealready typical complex languages.7

John owland Campbell, J" )illiam Schopf, Breative evolutionRUVJones _ Bartlett =ublishersW, PHH^, p" Q

tephen "in!er and "aul Bloo,:

5"ll human societies have language. "s far as we #now they always did; language was not invented by somegroups and spread to others li#e agriculture or the alphabet. "ll languages are complex computationalsystems employing the same basic #inds of rules and representations, with no notable correlation withtechnological progress the grammars of industrial societies are no more complex than the grammars of

hunterAgatherers; @odern )nglish is not an advance over 'ld )nglish. ithin societies, individual humans areproVcient language users regardless of intelligence, social status, or level of education. Bhildren are Wuentspea#ers of complex grammatical sentences by the age of three, without beneVt of formal instruction. !heyare capable of inventing languages that are more systematic than those they hear, showingresemblances tolanguages that they have never heard, and obey grammatical principles for which there is no evidence in theirenvironments.7

Stephen =inker and =aul Bloom, 5Katural Language and Katural &election,7in !he "dapted @ind, ed" Jerome "Barkow, Lida Cosmides, and John Toby V+ew *ork M$ford `niversity =ress, PHHRW, p" ^NP"

1orten +6 )hristiansen' i,on >irby:

5"lmost all linguists ta#e it for granted that in some important sense, all languages are eNual. !hat is, there is

no such thing as a FprimitiveG language O the language of a nomadic tribe of hunterAgatherers is no lesscomplex than the language spo#en in an industriali0ed society.7

.orten " Christiansen, Simon (irby, Language )volution, p" ^

-ichard Da5!ins:

5...all the thousands of languages in the world are very complex some say they are all exactly eNuallycomplex, but that sounds too ideologically perfect to be wholly plausible/. 6 am biased towards thin#ing it wasgradual, but it is not Nuite obvious that it had to be. &ome people thin# it began suddenly, more or lessinvented by a single genius in a particular place at a particular time.7

ichard /awkins, 8nweaving the ainbowVBoston, ouhton%.iflin Co", PHHQW, p" RHN"

Geor#e Gaylord i,pson:

5@any other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed. ...)ven the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammarand large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied bytheir spea#ers. ... !he oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated,complete from an evolutionary point of view.7

Geore Gaylord Simpson, 5!he Iiological Kature of @an7,Science, ol" PNR, RR #pril PH, p" ^\\"

26


27/257

Fohn /yons:

5...no sign of evolution from a simpler to a more complex state of development can be found in any of thethousands of languages #nown to exist or to have existed in the past.7

John Lyons, &emantics >olume 1VCambride `niversity =ressW, PH\\, p, QN

1atthe5s' tephen' Bernard )o,rie' and 1arcia "olins!y:

56t would seem li#ely that further light could be thrown on the evolution of human language by studying moreand less complex human languages spo#en today. However, while it is possible to find parts of one languagethat are simpler than the corresponding parts of another language, no evidence has ever been produced thatwould suggest that one particular language as spo#en by modern humans is more or less complex than anyother.7

.atthews, Stephen, Bernard Comrie, and .arcia =olinsky, eds", #tlas of Lanuaes The Mriin and /evelopment ofLanuaes throuhout the )orld V+ew *ork -acts on -ile, Inc", PHHW, pp"PP%PR"

-alph /inton:

5!he soAcalled primitive languages can throw no light on language origins, since most of them are actuallymore complicated in grammar than the tongues spo#en by civili0ed peoples.7

Linton, alph, The Tree of Culture V+ew *ork #lfred #" (nopf, PHNNW, p" H

cientific .bections to the Eolutionary 1odel on /an#ua#e

The followin subheadind looks at the kind of scientific obUections that the evolutionary model on lanuae raises aspresented by /r" )erner Git

51. !he morphological reNuirements for speech do not rely on the existence of a single organ, but depend onthe simultaneous availability of a voiceAproducing mechanism, a suitable throat cavity together with thetongue/, and a highly complex control system the brain/. How is it possible that such a diverse and exactly

matching set of components could have developed together, when A in the words of


28/257

(. 6n various experiments with chimpan0ees, "merican researchers e.g., the Jardner couple with ashoe;9reAmac# with &arah/ attempted to confirm an evolutionary development of speech. !hey rendered science asimilarly good service as, in an earlier era, those who tried to discover perpetual motion. !he impossibility ofbuilding a machine that can run without reNuiring a source of energy consistently reinforced the law of energyconservation. !he ape experiments confirmed that real speech exists nowhere in the animal world; even themost diligent training never resulted in anything possessing the essential characteristics of human speech.Bertain concepts could only be developed in cases where the primary survival instincts of the animals wereinvolved.

*. &peech is a nonAmaterial phenomenon; that is why all evolutionary hypotheses for its origin fail.7

/id God `se 2volutionO Mbservations from a Scientist of -aithBy )erner Gitt=ublished by +ew Leaf =ublishin Group, R, p"Fs RQ%RH

Y Y Y

Come no#, an$ let us reason togeter, sait te L() ... 6sa 11: /

/espite todayFs leadin evolutionists, scientists and secular linuists earnestly seekin for the true oriins of lanuae,

the picture that has been painted, based on their own words, is that they have merely theories without much, if any,empirical evidence for any of their ideas" #nd recallin the words of evolutionists .orten " Christiansen, Simon (irbyVR], P%R, P^W

5!o understand language, we need to #now where it came from, why it wor#s the way it does, and how it haschanged. !o some it may be a surprise that, despite rapid advances in many areas of science, we still #nowrelatively little about the origins and evolution of this peculiar human trait. ... 8nderstanding the evolution oflanguage is a hard problem...7

There own words and confessions attest to the fact that they are no more closer today to understandin the oriins oflanuae as from the time that men bean to try to e$plain it with humanistic philosophy and reasonin, and by lookinat lanuae from a purely material viewpoint"

Come now, and let us reason toether, why else have they but mere theories with all their considerable efforts and timespent on ponderin and seekinO Just maybe it is because there domatic and reliious like 'eal for believin in theevolutionary account has kept them from truthfully seekin all the clues, from lookin at all the evidence, and frompursuin all the leads

# true scientist, as I understand to believe, is to be concerned with the pursuit of truth and truth alone, no matter whatroad it leads them to" But when you put your beliefs before truth, your beliefs will keep you from findin the truth youare seekin for"

By lookin at solvin the Kuestion of the oriins of lanuae from their riid atheistic belief system they have knowinlydecided to turn their respective backs as to even considerin what the Bible says in reards to this issue, as attested toby )erner Gitt VR, p" RHW

5&peech researcher Jipper came to the significant conclusion [J1, p. *(] Q"nybody who as#s Nuestions

about the origin of speech...has already separated himself from the Iible.Q 6ndeed, theories on the origin ofspeech, which have been increasing steadily since the Qenlightenment,Q are all directed against biblical

pronouncements.7

-or the Biblical account on this issue has since the rise of the so called #e of eason been mostly pushed aside,inored, mocked at, ridiculed, and viewed by most in the field of linuistics as bein nothin more than the mere fairytales and myths of men"

#nd why is this position held as soO It is because that is what they believe! it is because that is their opinion But isthere belief and opinion based on facts or is it based on preUudiceO Let me ask you this Kuestion #re not theevolutionary theories that you have Uust read in reards to the oriin of lanuae more akin to bein fairy tales and themyths of menO

28


29/257

In liht of this, and placin ourselves in the shoes of a scientist and detective seekin answers, seekin truth, we will inthe ne$t chapter turn our focus and look at the Biblical account on the oriins of lanuae to see what clues and truthsare within it in order to solve this mystery"

Y Y Y

In the words of evolutionist =hilip Lieberman

5?or with speech came a capacity for thought that had never existed before, and that has transformed theworld. 6n the beginning was the word.7

Lieberman, =", =eak capacity, !he &ciences,]\R\, +ovember/ecember, PHH\

Creationist enry .orris e$pounds on LiebermanFs conclusion

5"lthough r. Lieberman had no such intent when he Nuoted =ohn 11 in this way, he actually was giving thetrue explanation for the origin of language. 6t was, indeed, by Qthe ordQ that Qall thingsQ were created in thebeginning note =ohn 1-/, and that would include human language. !here is no better3in fact, no other3wor#able and plausible explanation.7

enry .orris, =h"/", The .ystery of uman LanuaeD, httpwww"icr"orarticle\\

29


30/257

)hapter 3 God said: 4In the be#innin# 5as the Word6667

56n the beginning was the ord, and the ord was with Jod, and the ord was Jod. !he same was in thebeginning with Jod. "ll things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 6nhim was life; and the life was the light of men. ...!hat was the true Light, which lighteth every man that comethinto the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world #new him not. ... "nd theord was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the

?ather,/ full of grace and truth.7 =hn 11A%, DA1E, 1% /

Fesus )hrist is God

In case you are not familiar with the above verses from the oly Bible, 5the ord7is one of the titles of Jesus Christ"Mther verses that attest to this include P John PP%], P John N\, evelation PHPP%P]"

#nd as you Uust read it should be apparent from these verses that 5the ord7, Jesus Christ, Vwho is the Son of God, orthe second person within the Christian Trinity% e$plained as bein three persons in one Spirit the -ather, the Son, andthe oly SpiritW is God, and that "ll things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made7

Fesus )hrist is the )reatorThese are some of the other verses in the Bible that clearly reveal that the world was made by him7, the ordD, JesusChrist

"nd to ma#e all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hathbeen hid in Jod, #o !reate$ all tings by *esus Crist )ph -D / Zemphasis added[

Jod, who at sundry times and in divers manners spa#e in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath inthese last days spo#en unto us by his &on, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by #om also ema$e te #orl$s; ho being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, an$u"ol$ing all tings by te #or$ of is "o#er, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on theright hand of the @aesty on high; Hbr 11A- / Zemphasis added[

ho hath delivered us from the power of dar#ness, and hath translated us into the #ingdom of his dear &on6n whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins ho is the image of theinvisible Jod, the firstborn of every creature: +or by im #ere all tings !reate$, tat are in eaven, an$tat are in eart, visible an$ invisible, #eter tey be trones, or $ominions, or "rin!i"alities, or

"o#ers: all tings #ere !reate$ by im, an$ for imAn$ e is before all tings, an$ by im all tings!onsist. Bol 11-A1+ /Zemphasis added[

4The Word7

.aybe you are wonderin why Jesus Christ is even iven the name the ordD in the oly Bible, and what that name,the ordD, sinifiesO

)ell to answer that Kuestion let us bein by lookin at what a popular #merican theoloian #le$ander Campbell wrotein the PHthcentury on the ordD

The oly Spirit selected the name )ord, and therefore we may safely assert that this is the best, if not theonly term, in the whole vocabulary of human speech at all adapted to e$press that relation which e$isted &inthe beinnin,& or before time, between our Saviour and his God"

These postulata bein stated, I proceed to inKuire what sort of a relation does this term representO #nd hereevery thin is plain and easy of comprehension" I shall state numerically a few thins universally admitted bythe reflectin part of mankind

30


31/257

Pst" # word is a sin or representative of a thouht or an idea, and is the idea in an audible or visible form" It isthe e$act imae of that invisible thouht which is a perfect secret to all the world until it is e$pressed"

Rd" #ll men think or form ideas by means of words or imaes! so that no man can think without words orsymbols of some sort"

]d" ence it follows that the word and the idea which it represents, are co%etaneous, or of the same ae orantiKuity" It is true the word may not be uttered or born for years or aes after the idea e$ists, but still the wordis Uust as old as the idea"

^th" The idea and the word are nevertheless distinct from each other, thouh the relation between them is thenearest known on earth" #n idea cannot e$ist without a word, nor a word without an idea"

Nth" e that is acKuainted with the word, is acKuainted with the idea, for the idea is wholly in the word"

+ow let it be most attentively observed and remembered, that these remarks are solely intended to e$hibit therelation which e$ists between a word and an idea, and that this relation is of a mental nature, and more akin tothe spiritual system than any relation created, of which we know any thin" It is a relation of the most sublimeorder! and no doubt the reason why the name )ord is adopted by the apostle in this sentence was because ofits superior ability to represent to us the divine relation e$istin between God and the Saviour prior to hisbecomin the Son of God" By puttin toether the above remarks on the term word, we have a full view of

what John intended to communicate"

#s a word is an e$act imae of an idea, so is &The )ord& an e$act imae of the invisible God" #s a wordcannot e$ist without an idea, nor an idea without a word! so God never was without &The )ord,& nor &The)ord& without God! or as a word is of eKual ae, or co%etaneous with its idea, so &The )ord& and God are co%eternal" #nd as an idea does not create its word, nor a word its idea! so God did not create &The )ord,& nor&The )ord& God"

Such a view does the lanuae used by John suest" #nd to this do all the scriptures aree" -or &The )ord&was made flesh, and in conseKuence of becomin incarnate, he is styled the Son of God, the only Beotten ofthe -ather" #s from eternity God was manifest in and by &The )ord,& so now God is manifest in the flesh" #sGod was always with &The )ord,& so when &The )ord& becomes flesh, he is 2manuel, God with us" #s Godwas never manifest but by &The )ord,& so the heavens and the earth, and all thins were created by &The

)ord"& #nd as &The )ord& ever was the effulence or representation of the invisible God, so he will ever beknown and adored as &The )ord of God"& So much for the divine and eternal relation between the Saviourand God" *ou will easily perceive that I carry these views no farther than to e$plain the nature of that relationuncreated and unoriinated which the inspired lanuae inculcates"

""" The first sentence of John I paraphrase thus -rom eternity was the )ord, and the )ord was with God, andthe )ord was God" e was, I say, from eternity with God" By him all thins were made, and he became fleshand dwelt amon ua" e became a child born and a son of man" #s such he is called 2manuel, Jesus,.essiah, Son of God, Mnly Beotten of the -ather"D

#le$ander Campbell, The Christian Baptist, V/"S" BurnetW, PQ]N, p" ]]^

#nd the !yndale Iible ictionary has this followin entry for5the ord7

The Word of God /eliberately recallin Genesis P, the Gospel writer, John, named the Son of God &the)ord"& #s the )ord, the Son of God fully conveys and communicates God" The Greek term logos it wasused in two ways by the Greeks" The word miht be thouht of as remainin within a person, when it denotedhis thouht or reason" Mr it miht refer to the word oin forth from a person, when it denoted the e$pressionof his thouht, i"e", speech" #s a philosophical term the logosdenoted the principal of the universe, even thecreative enery that enerated the universe" In both the Jewish conception and the Greek, the logoswasassociated with the idea of beinnins % the world bean throuh the oriination and instrumentality of the)ord VGn P]ff", where the e$pression &God said& is used aain and aainW" John may have had these ideasin mind, but most likely he oriinated a new term to identify the Son of God as the divine e$pression in humanfrom VJh PP^W" e is the imae of the invisible God VCol PPNW, the e$press imae of God1s substance VebP]W" In the Godhead, the Son functions as the revealer of God and the reality of God, which is a central

31


32/257

theme throuhout John1s Gospel" John used a similar title in his first epistle& &the )ord of life& VP Jn PP%]W"#nd in evelation PHPP%P, Jesus is presented as the (ins of kins and Lord of lords, who has name onhim &the )ord of God"&

)alter #" 2lwell, =hilip )esley Comfort , !yndale Iible ictionaryVTyndale ouse =ublishers, Inc"W, RP, p" P]P

Words Eual Worlds

There are additional passaes from the Bible that clearly illustrate and act as further witnesses that the )ordFs wordsare commands of creation Iolded text my emphasis/

y te #or$ of te L() #ere te eavens ma$e-and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Hegathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earthfear the L' let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. +or e s"a&e, an$ it #as $one- e!omman$e$, an$ it stoo$ fast. 9sa --*AD /

Troug fait #e un$erstan$ tat te #orl$s #ere frame$ by te #or$ of Go$, so that things which areseen were not made of things which do appear. Hbr 11- /

6t is the spirit that Nuic#eneth; the flesh profiteth nothing te #or$s tat . s"ea& unto you, tey are s"irit,an$ tey are life. =hn **- /

In the be#innin# God aid

+ow that we have read that 56n the beginning was the ord7 and have hopefully come to reali'e that the ordD,spoken of here is Jesus Christ, the revealer of God, and that the world was made by him7, and Iy the word of theL' were the heavensmade7, it is time to o back to the book of beinnins in the Bible"

-or within the book of Genesis, you will see and hear for yourselves Uust what those words were that the ordD spoke6n the beginning7, those words which are words of life, of creation, and where life sprins to bein as the ordDverbally commanded it

6n the beginning Jod created the heaven and the earth.

"nd the earth was without form, and void; and dar#ness was upon the face of the deep. "nd the &pirit of Jodmoved upon the face of the waters.

An$ Go$ sai$, Let tere be ligt: an$ tere #as ligt.

"nd Jod saw the light, that it was good and Jod divided the light from the dar#ness.

"nd Jod called the light ay, and the dar#ness he called Kight. "nd the evening and the morning were thefirst day.

An$ Go$ sai$, Let tere be a firmament in te mi$st of te #aters, an$ let it $ivi$e te #aters from te#aters.

"nd Jod made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters whichwere above the firmament and it was so.

"nd Jod called the firmament Heaven. "nd the evening and the morning were the second day.

An$ Go$ sai$, Let te #aters un$er te eaven be gatere$ togeter unto one "la!e, an$ let te $rylan$ a""ear and it was so.

"nd Jod called the dry land )arth; and the gathering together of the waters called he &eas and Jod saw thatit was good.

An$ Go$ sai$, Let te

the wonderful world of words the babble of apes or inspired by god billy ioannidis

Documents