Talk:Adamic language

Edit war

I am not sure what is going on here. Slrubenstein keeps blanking content (without comment), and Wikinger keeps restoring it. Can there please be some debate on the talkpage so we can at least be clear on what exactly is under dispute? dab (𒁳) 16:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Slrubenstein blanks referenced Catholic private revelation from God about Adamic language, while keeping unreferenced Jewish theories about Adamic language I think that he simply denies Catholic revelation from God about Adamic language, while preferring Jewish theories. Because Slrubenstein is massively involved in edits of Judaism-related articles, I think that he simply wants to display in article only Jewish version, while he wants Catholic version to be omitted, due to his Jewish fictional imaginations. Wikinger (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We should assume good faith I suppose. The Midrash bit is arguably referenced (Genesis Rabba). But then some of the removed content was also referenced. But I really don't see the problem. The section should be tended to and expandend, not bulldozed. dab (𒁳) 18:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All Adamic language solutions should be displayed, to give readers chance of acknowledging them. Slrubenstein's vandalisms prevented this. Wikinger (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic content

"It is, however, unclear how much from the Biblical perspective this language was preserved by Adam's descendants until the confusion of tongues (Genesis 11:1-9), or whether it began to evolve naturally (Genesis 10:5)."

According to whom? The editor who wrote this? that would violate NOR. Presumably this sentence represents a view, and a notable view. Please provide a reliable and verifiable source.

"There is no ancient claim that the Adamic language was identical to Biblical Hebrew, for "the Torah was written in the vernacular" of the Israelites (Talmud Sanhedrin 21b)."

The above does not belong in the article. The lack of a source means nothing. We should add to the article only claims for which there are sources. If there is no source for a claim, let us simply not put the claim in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

At least you finished blanking sourced statements. Because both Bible and Emmerich's revelations were both religious works that has status of holy books, that are believed by Catholics as created under God's inspiration, they are on equal footing as sources. Wikinger (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your appeal to divine inspiration fails Wikipedia´s criteria for verifiability. Stick to Wikipedia´s policies on verifiable and reliable sources. At most you could claim that Emmerich made these above two claims. Please provide citations and page numbers anc we can rewrite this as "According the Emmerich ..." and perhaps then reinsert it into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is citation available here: http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/origin_sorcery.htm (Chapter 7 - The Tower of Babel)

"The first tongue, the mother tongue, spoken by Adam, Sem, and Noe, was different, and it is now extant only in isolated dialects. Its first pure offshoots are the Zend, the sacred tongue of India, and the language of the Bactrians. In those languages, words may be found exactly similar to the Low German of my native place. The book that I see in modern Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, is written in that language."

I already placed link to this citation into article, but you didn't even checked this citation. It directly reveals Proto-Indo-European as Adamic, because it states that first pure offshoots of Adamic are Bactrian, Zend, and Indian, that are of course Indo-European. Wikinger (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You are disobeying our NPOV policy and our Verifiability policy. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. No source can possibly "reveal" that PIE is Adamic. A source can reveal only that some notable view holds that it is Adamic. You need to make it clear that this is view, not the truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The statements criticised by Slrubenstein just gesture at the general content of the debate. I don't see how they are controversial. They are informed by Eco's book, and by all means they should be expanded into greater detail. Eco is a good place to start, and has lots of literature to pursue further. Of course this article needs a lot of work. You should invest your energies in building it, not in haggling about stubby content that acts as a placeholder until somebody can be bothered and add a proper discussion. Wikinger, your apparently confused assertions are not helping. This is a serious subject, and needs serious philological discussion, not rhetorics. dab (𒁳) 20:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is not about the content but that the content is being presented as truth, when this is forbidden at Wikipedia. It must be presented as a verifiable and clearly identifiable view. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I wanted only to prevent vandalism. I considered Slrubenstein's edits vandalisms, because he blanked sourced sections, falsely describing his edits as deletion of unsourced sections. Wikinger (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I again removed the above mentioned material, which violates NPOV as it is presented as a fact rather than as an identifiable point of view, and also because it has no bearing on the question of divine language. Wikinger accuses me of "vandalism" because I have removed content that is unencyclopedic and violates our policies. I have here provided an explanation for my edits with constructive suggestions for what kind of work might produce acceptable edits. I urge Wikinger to and Dbachmann to read the "Comments" below for more discussion on the problematic nature of the removed text. My edits are by no means arbitrary and definitely not vandalism. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Violation of NOR

I removed this: "Dante in the Divina commedia implies that the language of Paradise was different from later Hebrew by saying that Adam addressed God as I rather than El." Unless you actually have a quote in which Dante states that Hebrew is not the Divine Language, this violates NOR because it is you who are drawing the inference. Wikipedia does not publish editors´own interpretations of primary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Slrubenstein, but you are not being reasonable here. dab (𒁳) 10:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC

(see talk section above, unencyclopedic content, see article section on medieval language) "Writings by Emmerich" may be a verifiable source, but Wikinger´s appeal to divine inspiration is not a verifiable source and masks original research. In the article, I believe the claims about linguistics and the history of language ignore or distort actual research in historical linguistics. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not original research, I only stated that both Emmerich's writing and Bible has status of being believed by Catholics as inpired by God. Wikinger (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinger, it is you who are the vandal for deleting my request for comment [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It wast eventually countervandalism, but not vandalism proper, because you previously waged edit war previously making repeatable vandalisms in article by mindless reverts, that deleted unnecessarily even Pay Lay Ale etymology [2], that I wanted to comment several minutes later with proper reference. Wikinger (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

See section above on unencyclopedic content (in talk). Possible NPOV and NOR violations claims about the history of language (and perhaps the history of religion) disregard historical research. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

A few suggestions here:

1. I recommend tagging claimed original research and discussing it on the talk page rather than simply removing it. I understand the policy permits summary removal, but doing so can exacerbate tensions and prevent reaching a rational consensus through discussion, and this possibly be happenning here.

2. I would be inclined to agree with User:Slrubenstein that at least some of the disputed material represents an original research synthesis. For example, the quoted passage from Talmud states that Adam spoke the "vernacular of the Israelites", but this passage doesn't support a claim about what that language was or wasn't. Perhaps the Talmud assumed this language was Hebrew.

3. Similarly, drawing an inference that Dante had an opinion about the language of Paradise from the fact that Adam addressed God as I also appears to be a clear example of WP:SYN. Dante didn't express any direct opinion on this subject, so the claim he expressed an indirect opinon is sourcable to the editor, not to Dante.

4. I disagree with Slrubenstein's reasoning on the issue of Anne Catherine Emmerich's material, although it may ultimately prove to be inappropriate for inclusion on somewhat different grounds. This is an article on a religious as well as a scientific/linguistic subject, so religious viewpoints are certainly relevant. Divine inspiration would appear to be a fairly commonly-claimed basis for religious viewpoints. Whether editors believe in it or not is simply not Wikipedia's business. What is Wikipedia's business is whether Anne Catherine Emmerich is an important enough mystic to be considered as representing a significant religious view under the WP:NPOV policy. I believe this is an example of a difference between notability and significance where matters of religion are concerned. A religious thinker only needs to be mentioned in a few sources to be notable and get an article, but needs substantially more and higher quality coverage for what the thinker has to say to be considered a significant viewpoint that can be mentioned on other religion articles' subjects. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure to what reasoning you are referring to. I do not believe I have made any claims about the inclusion or exclusion of Emmerich´s material. I do not believe I deleted or removed any material attributed to her from the article. My only comment was that the claim that Emmerich´s views have some kind of claim to "truth" because they were divinely revealed has no status at Wikipedia. Do you dispute this, Shirahadasha? I stand by it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What a lie! You deleted Emmerich-related material here: [3], thus don't be surprised if I called you vandal. Wikinger (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Note 1: I agree what she says (assuming it's significant) can't be presented as bare fact, but I don't think this is a problem. It's generally good policy to attribute with "according to" language when there are multiple viewpoints anyway, all we have to do is say something like "According to (secondary religious source) 19th Century Catholic mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich was divinely inspired to..." etc. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Note 2: The Anne Catherine Emmerich article indicates that her visions were the basis among other things for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and that her stock with the Vatican more or less seems to have been going up lately. For these reasons, it may not be entirely outside the realm of possibility that her views might be considered a significant religious viewpoint (although whether this is so on this subject is another matter). I would recommend consulting an expert in Catholic theology, who perhaps might be able to locate secondary sources discussing her views. If the material is included it should be clearly labeled and attributed as a religous viewpoint. Given the fact that inferences were attributed to the source in other cases, it might also be worth checking whether she actually said what is claimed or whether this is simply an inference drawn by an editor. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree with what you say as such, but I wonder if you are not raising a red-herring, given that my RfC is not over whether or not we include her views, as long as they are properly identified as such. Perhaps I expressed myself unclearly, so please, Shirahadasha, allow me to clarify now: I did not mean that Emmerich´s writings are not verifiable sources. I meant that God is not a verifiable source. It seemed to me that this is what Wikinger is claiming. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I think the most important thing you write, is "although whether this is so on this subject is another matter." Emmerich may or may not be a notable source for conservative Catholic faith. But I question whether she is a notable source on linguistics (Wikinger is using her as a source on Proto-Indo-European languages, an object of scholarly research) or on Israelite or Rabbinic thought (another context in which her claims are invoked) ' in these two cases at least, I suggest she is a fringe and inappropriate source. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the OR identified by Shirahadasha, a significant problem of this article is that it positions the subject in the scientific sphere, when it is really only in the realm of religion. For example, the expression "hypothetical proto-language" in the lede. The first para of the "In modern linguistics" section is out-of-context OR, while the second para has nothing to do with "modern linguistics."
Suggestion: rearrange the article to discuss the 'sources' in their own contexts (i.e. one section per source). This will stifle the tendency to build bridges between sources. Also, rewrite the lede sentence to not posit that Adamic is anything but mythological. Its not really a "language" (prototypical or otherwise). -- Fullstop (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the gist of the misunderstanding here. This article strikes me, too, as being more about religious beliefs than scientific linguistics, although there was a substantial period of history where religious philologists wouldn't have perceived any incompatibility. As to claims that religious views are true, I think the standard attribution approach covers everything that needs to be covered. I realize we Judaism editors are used to thinking of claims of Divine revelation as events that refer only to ancient history, but not all religions think this way, and there's no reason to treat contemporary claims to revelation any different from ancient ones. While contemporary claims to revelation are less likely to be regarded as significant then those that have stood the test of time, this isn't an absolute bar. If it's a significant religious view, it simply doesn't matter what we editors think of it. I suspect it it's not likely to be significant. But its the sources, not my personal opinion, that matter here. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about "claims about the history of language" but about the history of linguistics. Modern linguistics emerged only very gradually in the late 18th century. Before that, study of language was immersed in mythology and speculation, and many opinions of venerable 17th and 18th century scholars sound like patent madness today. It is still fascinating to review them, and trace the close ties of language and mythology. I really fail to see Slrubenstein's point. Nobody claims there ever was an "Adamic language". Adam is just a character from an Iron Age Hebrew story. But a story that had considerable cultural influence on medieval and early modern thought. dab (𒁳) 10:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

While the article may once have been in relation to the "history of linguistics," this is - for the average reader who actually reads the thing from top to bottom - not so.

Today, the article stands in the realm of religion, and the notion that the article is "about the history of linguistics" is myopic (if not "patent madness"). In fact, the idea that it is a historical/scientific curiosity is not evident at all.

If the article is supposed to be in relation to the history of linguistics, then the article needs to be restructured/rewritten. As a side effect, the esoterica would then not provoke an illusion of science, which is what Slrubenstein is justifiably objecting to.

-- Fullstop (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry -- it did not occur to me that the article could "provoke an illusion of science" to any sane person. I am a little irritated by Wikinger's erratic statements now. You are most welcome to expand and improve the article. What we cannot do is go out of our way to prevent the confused and insane taking 17th century opinions at face value. Sorry, I refuse to forego discussing 17th century scholarship just because some people seem to be too far gone to appreciate the discussion for what it is. But this is by no means an objection to clarification and informed expansion of course. dab (𒁳) 12:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that my interpretation of "I" as English pronoun was wrong, because there both Hebrew words are compared, not English with Hebrew. Wikinger (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Dante was Italian, not English or Hebrew. As I said, discussion of this in some detail is in the Umberto Eco book cited. I just don't have the time to dig it up and provide you with verbatim quotes right now, but in the spirit of AGF, you could all assume that I have in fact read the book, and if you are interested in improving the article try to get hold of a copy of your own. dab (𒁳) 12:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this edit: [4] Wikinger (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been engaged in a simmering edit war with Wikinger and Dab. I fear I shall never be able to reach some understanding with Wikinger based on WP pollicies. But I hope that Dab and I can resolve our sifferences in good faith. It is my hope that there has been a misunderstaning between us, and I hope we can now begin to clear this up. Above, Dab wrote "I am sorry -- it did not occur to me that the article could "provoke an illusion of science" to any sane person." I think this hits the nail on the head. Dab proposes that any "Adamic languages" is a literary construction, perhaps of ancient Israelite thought, or Rabbinic thought, or of others ' but NOT a real language relevant to the history of actual languages. If this is Dab´s vision of what the article ought to be, I agree with him. I would only note that this article should then provide serious accounts of claims about Hebrew and God´s language made by Rabbis, Jewish theologians and writers, and others, and I would further note that it does not provide such an account.

But this vision is ´´not´´ the source of the edit conflicts between myself and Dab. I have deleted material which Dab has restored, which has no bearing on Adamic language as a literary construction. I have been removing unsourced or inappropriately sourced, fringe POV and OR claims, that are clearly about the history of language. I provide three examples:

Anne Catherine Emmerich stated in her private revelations that most direct descendants of the Adamic language were Bactrian, Zend and Indian languages. In this way Emmerich identifies Adamic language as Proto-Indo-European language.[1]

Some Early Modern scholars on basis of Genesis 10:5 have assumed that the Japhetite languages are the direct descendants of the Adamic language, having separated before the confusion of tongues, by which also Hebrew was affected, confirming in this way Emmerich's private revelations.

According to Ernst Cassirer, The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century philosophers of language still supposed that phenomena of onomatopoeia offered the key to the basic and original language of mankind, the lingua adamica.[13] The modern concept corresponding to that of the Adamic language is that of the Proto-World language, but rather than positing divine inspiration, linguists also assume that it arose from proto-linguistic forms of communication.

Dbachman, how on earth were you interpreting these statements? Above you write, "I really fail to see Slrubenstein's point. Nobody claims there ever was an "Adamic language"." Youo are being unfair to me, and not taking my point seriously ' and you seem not to be reading the text at all. Of course Wikinger is claiming there was an Adamic language! Just read the actual text, he is claiming that it is idnetical to proto indo european! How can you fail to see my point about Wikinger´s claims?

According to the above material, the Adamic language is Proto-Indo-European, and early modern scholars - in context this must refer to scholars of language - see the Japhetite languages as descendents of Adamic/Proto'Indo'European, and that other scholars claim that the origins of Adamic language is not divine revelation bht onomatopoeia, i.e. the Adamic language is a more natural language. This identification of Adamic language with natural (onomotopoeic) sources and wth Proto'Indo'european is not making claims about Adamic language as a literary creation, but as the source of Sanskrit, German, Latin, etc. Why do you think I deleted it? Why did you restore it? Did you even read what you were restoring? Didn´t you assume good faith on my part, that I was deleting it (or removing it to this page) for serious reasons? I beg of you: if you are going to restore text I deleted, please take the time actually to read the text and my explanation of the problems with the text. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

you are right that Wikinger appears to be making nonsensical claims. However, this is irrelevant. This isn't about Wikinger's confused ideas, it is about the material you removed. There was nothing wrong with it. There appears to be some misunderstanding. Of course "God isn't a reliable source". Of course this isn't a topic of current linguistic scholarship. This is a topic of religion, mythology, philology, and the beginnings of the history of modern linguistics. You appear to have taken the article to make claims in Wikipedia's voice about such-and-such a nature of an "Adamic language". I cannot find any such claim, but that's perhaps because it didn't even occur to me to consider this a topic of actual linguistics, as I admit Wikinger, and by all appearances you as well, seem to be doing. I am sure we can come to a satisfactory solution if we can manage to clear up that sort of misunderstanding. To begin with, the categories this article is in, "Adam and Eve | Language and mysticism | Latter Day Saint doctrines, beliefs, and practices" do not attempt to pass this off as anything else than a topic of religion or mythology. Perhaps the "proto-language" in the lead may give the impression that this is about actual linguistics? We can try to rephrase that. Beyond that, I really think it should be clear to any reader, even Wikinger and Slrubenstein, that no claim is being made of any "Adamic language" that could be taken as an object of actual linguistic research. dab (𒁳) 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with what Slrubenstein has noted. Not only is Wikinger asserting that there is such a thing as an Adamic language, he/she is also explicitly asserting that his source establishes that Adamic language == PIE. Slrubenstein's critique of dbachmann for not reading is also justified.

Wikinger is selling Emmerick as "fact", and the removal by Slrubenstein was appropriate.

Oh, btw, Wikinger has pumped Emmerick at de:Adamitische Sprache and pl:Język Adamowy as well. Unlike here, where there is at least (at the end of the article) still a small token mention of the scientific angle, in those wikis its pure fringecruft all the way.

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

hm, hello, did you read what I just said? Of course I agree that Wikinger's claim of "PIE=Adamic" is nonsense. I also emphatically agree that he should not be allowed to present that claim as "fact" or endorse Emmerich in Wikipedia's voice: no dispute there. However, this is just about Wikinger's posts on talk and in edit summaries. The actual material Slrubenstein removed wasn't due to Wikinger at all, and simply stated that "Emmerich claimed such and such". There is nothing wrong with that, Wikinger or no Wikinger. So, can we please focus on the material in question instead of the rather futile debate on what Wikinger may or may not believe? Slrubenstein's statement that the Emmerich stuff for the purposes of Wikipedia holds no "truth" is perfectly correct, if a truism. That's what Slrubenstain said on talk. His edit to article space, however, consisted in just blanking the entire section without further ado. For me, this doesn't compute at all. dab (𒁳) 00:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

um, did you read what Slrubenstein removed? e.g. "It is, however, unclear how much from the Biblical perspective this language was preserved by Adam's descendants until the confusion of tongues (Genesis 11:1-9), or whether it began to evolve naturally (Genesis 10:5)"? Ditto "Some Early Modern scholars on basis of Genesis 10:5 have assumed that the Japhetite languages are the direct descendants of the Adamic language, having separated before the confusion of tongues, by which also Hebrew was affected, confirming in this way Emmerich's private revelations." etc etc ad nauseum.

Well, to me that looks very much like presentation of the old testament as 'fact', with a liberal dash of OR thrown in.-- Fullstop (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw, did it not occur to you that Wikinger evidently does not know what "Zend language" is? Even though the term does exist as a redirect on WP? (guess who created it)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that neither "Adamic" nor "Adamantic" (Adamantisch) had yet been coined in Emericks time. Wikinger is him/herself associating the term with Emerick, who simply said "The first tongue, the mother tongue, spoken by Adam, Shem, and Noah, was different, and it is now extant only in isolated dialects." How many instances of OR do you need before you'll accept Slrubenstein's removal as justified?

-- Fullstop (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Original text for the one relevant day in her diary (Tagebuch Band 5,11):

Am Abend lehrte Jesus in der Synagoge. Er lehrte von Abrahams Beruf und Reise nach Ägypten. Er sprach von der hebräischen Sprache, von Noah, Heber, Hiob usw., und ich sah viele Bilder aus dieser Lehre folgen. Er lehrte auch noch von Moses. Er sagte, daß schon in Heber Gott die Israeliten ausgesondert habe, denn diesem Mann habe er eine neue Sprache gegeben, die hebräische, welche mit anderen keine Gemeinschaft habe, um sein Geschlecht ganz abzusondern von allen anderen, denn früher habe er wie Adam, Sech und Noah die erste Muttersprache gesprochen. Die sei aber bei dem babylonischen Bau in viele Mundarten zerfallen und verwirrt worden, und Gott habe, um Heber ganz abzusondern, ihm eine eigene heilige, die althebräische Sprache gegeben, und ohne diese Sprache würden sie nie so rein und abgesondert geblieben sein. Hierüber hat Jesus gelehrt, und über den ganzen Ruf Abrahams usw.

Not quite in support of Wikinger's "In this way Emmerich identifies Adamic language as Proto-Indo-European language", eh? This quote is also the only place where something close to Adam's language is mentioned.

Wikinger's chapter references are false too. The chapter Bild von Noah und Babel (Tagebuch II,7) does not even mention language, and the chapter titled Babel (also Tagebuch II,7) barely mentions language either:

Ich sah aber noch alle Nachkommen Noahs, wenngleich als großes Volk bereits weit umher, doch noch in einer Sprache vereinigt leben. Ich sah von Chams Nachkommen viele nach Osten in ebenes Land gezogen, und sie begannen zu bauen.

No mention of language after that.

-- Fullstop (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is from http://www.all-jesus.com/deusch/Bibel2.htm relevant to http://www.all-jesus.com/scriptures/bible2.htm, while Bactrian, Zend and Indian are in http://www.all-jesus.com/scriptures/bible1.htm, and no http://www.all-jesus.com/deusch/Bibel1.htm exists. Thus you mistook distinguishing section equivalents at all. Wikinger (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is still no mention of "Adamic language" or "Proto-Indo-European" at all, leave alone the conclusion that In this way Emmerich identifies Adamic language as Proto-Indo-European language. Also no support in any source for the notion that "some Early Modern scholars" confirmed "in this way" Emmerich's private revelations.

While your theories of the archive1#Origin of Adamic language are fascinating, like everything you have added to this article (to include the de and pl versions) and Divine language, these are your own conclusions.

-- Fullstop (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ps: Please do not again edit comments that are not your own.

Again, I see no problem with the material Slrubenstein removed, except of course the "confirming in this way Emmerich's private revelations" bit, which unsurprisingly was added to the existing paragraph by Wikinger. The version which I am defending here is, of course, the pre-Wikinger version of 25 December. We can agree that Wikinger's additions were flawed in that they unduly mixed up Emmerich's visions with early modern scholarly debate. It should be noted that these "early modern scholars" wrote before Emmerich, so that Emmerich's claim is informed by them and not the other way around. In fact, in 1790 this mythological or biblical approach to linguistics had already become obsolete, and you will find it difficult to find any notable scholar after 1750, or even after 1700, proposing such views: they belong to the 16th and 17th centuries, and by 1720 or so would have come to be considered crackpot fantasy. 18th century linguists still had naive views by modern standards, but they preferred to derive language from "primitive man", not from biblical patriarchs. Note that the notion of a "parent language" of Bactrian, Zend etc. was breaking news of bleeding edge research in 1790, and Emmerich's taking up such recent exciting ideas in her mysticist speculations should be compared to the similar propensity of "quantum quacks" such as Deepak Chopra to sprinkle their New Age blather with exciting sounding "science" terms. dab (𒁳) 14:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fullstop, I wanted only to make this page shorter to load by optimizing indents. Wikinger (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)