waysider

Like ? :B)

"glossa has some similarities and some differences with natural languages". Yes, that's true. Then again, you could say the same of a comparison of elephants and jelly beans

What is it you think I don't understand?

First century: People hear languages they understand and interpret expound on them for people who don't understand them. Today: People hear "languages" they DON"T understand and "interpret" them for other people who also don't understand them. Am I sensing a discrepancy here? ...................................................... Is that more what you had in mind?

Ahh, yes. Interpretation. Who is able to interpret something that they don't understand?

Forget Hockett. Here's the essence of what Samarin said, according to your post: "Glossas, by this standard, are not human languages, primarily because they really are not systems of communication. They are not characterized by semanticity (7), arbitrariness (8), displacement (10), prevarification (14), and reflexiveness (15)". .................................................................. Oh, but wait. When people speak in tongues, sounds come out of their mouths. Likewise, when people speak in a known language, sounds come out of their mouths. Therefore speaking in tongues is synonymous with language. Do we really need to reexamine why this is a fallacy? (Hint: It constitutes a false conclusion)

"However, when you ask them for detail like "what changed?" there seems to be no answer." I thought the answer was rather obvious. The record in Acts talks of people speaking in languages that were understood by some the hearers. People, today, doing what they assume to be a replication of what happened at Pentecost, are unsuccessful in producing languages that are understood by any of the hearers. Can there possibly be an answer that's more straightforward than that? ............................................................................... "People are working those scriptures and applying them, coming to conclusions about gifts and manifestations. At least they are on the affirmative side of the argument that SIT works as the Bible describes." But, SIT doesn't work the way the Bible describes. That's the whole point of this thread, isn't it? If SIT worked like the Bible describes, there would be understandable languages being produced by the speakers. That isn't happening. If it is happening and I'm not aware of it, please call my attention to it.

" Samarin shows in his study that glossa samples have the same construct as languages with respect to the cadence and linguistic breakdown into sentences, phrases, sub-phrases, and words." ............................................................................................ Quite the contrary. What Samarin's studies show is that glossolalia does NOT have an established syntax as would an actual language.

There's not much to tell. It's part of the hands-on training that takes place in improv. class. It's not a textbook sort of thing. The director will instruct you to make up a language and sell a prop or have a conversation with another actor, etc. Earlier, I posted a of Andy Kaufman (as Latka) telling a joke to Danny DeVito (as Louie). You've probably seen similar things if you have ever watched Whose Line Is It Anyway? It's not much different than session 12 or an excellor session in that you just "let yourself go" and do it. The difference is in the context it's placed in and the sort of coaching you're given to overcome your inhibitions.

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer. There are general recommendations that might apply but every situation is unique.

"So what I'm getting from WordWolf is that if you have experience in acting, faking interpretation and prophecy isn't that hard. OK. So those with acting backgrounds could more easily fake it. I don't have an acting background. So I couldn't easily fake it. The vast majority of people in TWI don't have acting backgrounds (except for trying to act like they were happy). So for the vast majority, faking it would be exactly like I describe it." ....................................................................................... This is a false conclusion. Session 12 of PFAL and the Intermediate Class provide all the necessary "background" to make faking it rather simple. Specifically, they provide the culturalization that facilitates it. You do not need specialized theatrical training to do it. What specialized theatrical training has done for me is to help me recognize what I was seeing.

"An accurate statement from the evidence seen to date would be that all the evidence is inconclusive trying to prove that SIT produces a language." No, it's not inconclusive, it's nonexistent. There is NO (zip, zero, none) existing evidence that speaking in tongues produces a language. That's a far cry from "inconclusive".

"I don't know who waysider studied under." I served an apprenticeship with a well known Equity company. (Which means I exchanged my services in the set shop for an opportunity to study under the tutelage of veteran actors and play bit parts.) BTW...Dinner is served.

I have the book......somewhere. I personally think the author was full of turnip greens and pinto beans.

Are you telling me you can't string together something like, "My little children, look neither left nor right but keep your eyes on me for I am the Lord thy God, your sufficiency in all."?........I find that difficult to believe.

Easy or not, if you're able to do it at all, it proves the point.

~removed~

"Suffice it to say that the extent that languages have mathematical structures that can be charted and verified is debatable and questionable." Seriously? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? The only one "debating and questioning" that is you. Languages have structure. Period. That has nothing to do with the Bible. It's just a matter of fact.

"In my opinion, there is way too little time when people are practicing in a worship meeting between when they SIT and when they interpret for them to completely construct the sentences in the interpretation." Who said they construct complete sentences during the short span of time between the tongue and the interpretation? Do you seriously not understand what it means to "fake it" or are you being contrary? Just for shirts and girdles, why don't you bring forth a "word of prophesy" on the spot. See for yourself how easy it is to extemporaneously recall portions of scripture that are lodged in your memory and arrange them into some semblance of a message. Oh, wait. I forgot. Mr. Wierwille said that wouldn't be decent and in order.

Check out this "excellor session".

If today's SIT is not the same as the SIT in Acts 2 and further described in I Cor., why would anyone want to continue to do it? Wouldn't it make more sense to want to do the same thing that was being done in Acts/Cor.?

Aw, shucks!

An alien? Oh, lordy, I thought I heard it all. Now, not only could it be a language from an angel or a dead civilization, it might even be something spewing forth from . :o

"Yes, tongues could be considered or described as a language." Except.....It has no identifiable structure to qualify it as a language (any language). "It could also be described as a "means of communication". With tongues via the Spirit in ones private prayer life, a means of communication with God in prayer and praise." Except.....There is no discernible message being communicated. Genuine languages (be they human or animal) have mathematical structures that can be charted and verified. There is no mathematical structure to what we were exposed to in The Way and have been calling "speaking in tongues". When speaking in tongues was witnessed on The Day of Pentecost, people understood, messages were conveyed. If we are to believe the record, they must have had a definitive structure or no one would have understood. Therefore, it would appear to me that what we, today, call speaking in tongues is not the same thing referenced in Acts 2.

Why? It doesn't meet any structural criteria that would qualify it as a language, understood or otherwise.