Raf

Second time: I never said "end of story." Middle of story would be more correct. The story gives me the first half of a Scooby-Doo episode. You're asking me to believe a ghost haunted the museum based on the evidence presented thus far. But knowing that the end of the episode always reveals the curator trying to make everyone think there's a ghost, I'm not going to draw a conclusion until I see the end of the episode. Now, if you're not obliged to show me the end of the episode, fine. I am entitled to base my conclusion on the end of the episodes whose conclusions I have seen. Not a perfect analogy, to be sure. Backatcha.

Ok, I am going to start looking at Chockfull's latest post (post 1134) in pieces rather than as a whole, because the last time I tried to review a post as a whole, the site actually wouldn't let me and I had to break it up into three separate pieces (two of which were fused by GSC because they were posted too close together chronologically, something we've all experienced, I'm sure). And let me apologize in advance because some of what I'm about to write is not new to this thread. It's been said before and either ignored or (inadvertently, I'm sure) been misunderstood and therefore misrepresented. Anyway, let's start with the distinction between glossolalia and xenoglossia, as defined by Samarin and summarized by Chockfull. Chockfull originally wrote: Note that there is a definition, followed by an argument based on that definition. When I pressed Chockfull to clarify his understanding of Samarin's definition of xenoglossia, he came back with an accurate, in-context quote. Gladly. But before I do, let me ask folks to see if they can identify it for themselves. In the meantime, let me ask everyone a question: When you are among friends in casual conversation, how do you demonstrate a knowledge of English? Do you establish that you are aware of a considerable vocabulary, able to define each word you use, and have a working (though imperfect) knowledge of the rules of grammar, defending your use of gerunds and participles? Probably not. How do you demonstrate to your friends that you know English? You speak it. That's enough to demonstrate your knowledge of English, isn't it? And if I were to ask you how you came about your knowledge of English, you would answer some combination of (my terms here are not technical) social absorption, instruction, reading... learning, in essence. Speaking a language is sufficient to be labeled a demonstration of knowledge of that language. And that is the key and essential difference between Chockfull's first cited definition of xenoglossia and his second. The difference is so critical that it renders his argument, based on the first definition, invalid. Because people who speak in tongues most certainly claim to be demonstrating knowledge of a language: by speaking it. That's what speaking in tongues MEANS. If we're not going to agree on basic definitions, then every point we're arguing is moot. If I spoke Swahili in front of Samarin, he would ask me how I came to understand Swahili. If my answers could not satisfy him as a linguist, he would refer the case to a psychologist or (and I really regret his use of the term) a parapsychologist. Their goal would be to prove or disprove whether something supernatural happened, a search for truth beyond the scope of a linguist's professional interest. Samarin lays this out on page 53. I have said this before. It has been ignored. The effect of this distinction being ignored is a deceptive argument put forth by Chockfull, although I concede that it likely was not intentionally deceptive. No one is claiming that xenoglossia is a KNOWLEDGE of the foreign language, and no one is distinguishing between glossolalia and xenoglossia on that basis. At this point it is imperative, for the purposes of THIS conversation, to recognize that when Samarin talks about glossolalia, he is not talking about our definition of speaking in tongues. (Yes, I have already said this. Numerous times). He is giving a practical definition, not a doctrinal one. The heart of my argument is that the modern practice does not match the doctrinal. LONG before Samarin ever gets to Hockett's list of design features of language, he establishes that what he is putting through the "linguoscope" (I just made that word up) is not a foreign language. So Chockfull demands: Well, you got me. He never says that outright. The best I can say is that in the paper before us (his book, which he wrote later, should arrive in my mailbox in a few days) very strongly implies it in several places. I can give you THOSE page numbers: p. 52: "But xenoglossia and glossolalia are not identical [emphasis his]. A case of xenoglossia would reveal a natural language, but a glossa is never a natural language [emphasis mine], and it is like a language only in very limited ways. p. 55: "Having ruled out the possibility of charismatic xenoglossia [emphasis mine], we are left with untold thousands of cases of unintelligible verbal utterances." Unfortunately for my purposes, Samarin never lays out (in THIS paper) exactly how he arrived at that conclusion. Disappointing, I must admit. It appears to be a de facto argument. The proof at how he arrived at this conclusion is simply not addressed in the paper we're reviewing. My hope is that it is addressed in more detail in the book I have ordered, which was written four years later. What we do know from linguistics is that each language has a fairly consistent phonetic structure, and two languages can have very similar structures without being the same language. Spanish and Portuguese, for example, sound very similar to anyone who is unfamiliar with either language. Someone with only a passing familiarity with Spanish might believe an overheard conversation to be in Spanish when it is, in fact, Portuguese. But no fluent Spanish speaker would ever make the same mistake. A similarity in phonetic structure does not prove an identical language. What a linguist can do is compare the phonetic structure of a glossa to the phonetic structures of known languages to determine if there is a match. What they find is, in general, there IS a match -- usually to the native language of the speaker. Sometimes there are other phonemes (the units of a phonetic structure) thrown in, but those can usually be attributed to the speaker's exposure, however limited, to other languages. That's how I could throw the "ch" sound of "Chanukkah" into a glossa, even though that sound is not an English phoneme and I do not speak Hebrew. It's as simple as being exposed to the sound. But the existence of a foreign phoneme into the glossa doesn't suddenly make my glossa Hebrew. You see, a matching phonetic structure is not like a fingerprint. If two phonetic structures are a perfect match, that doesn't mean you've found the language. Remember how most glossa of English speaking charismatics match English phonemes? Well, that doesn't mean their glossa is English! Quite the contrary, in terms of English, the glossa is gobbledy-gook. The next thing to do is a very simple, objective test: find a speaker of the language for which it is a match and just ask them if it's the same language. [You can only do this once you have a match. If you don't have a match, you don't have that language. Doesn't mean you don't have another language. You have to keep comparing]. The more languages (or, more accurately, phonemes) a glossolalist has been exposed to, the more variety he can bring to his glossa. Some people are very good at it. It's almost as if they have been practicing by holding up an alphabet and mimicking the sounds while producing glossa. But that doesn't make their glossa a real, human language that someone somewhere on Earth can speak. As I review the studies (not just Samarin, but what little I can see of Goodman and some of the others), the basis for rejecting glossolalia as xenoglossia has EVERYTHING to do with phonetic analysis and nothing to do with Hockett's list of the design features of language. So the contention that Samarin allowed unrecognized languages to slip past him and then rejected those real languages as meaningless glossa is, considering these facts, a stunning and baseless accusation of incompetence. And even if one were to justify that accusation against Samarin, one would still have to contend with the other linguists who have also failed to recognize any actual, foreign language in a sample of glossolalia. In effect, the validity of the argument against my position seems to rest heavily on the accusation that all linguists who have reviewed glossolalia are incompetent to identify languages.

Correct

Btw, glad to see my methods have gone from Satanic to doubting Thomas. At least now I'm being compared to a disciple. You know what Jesus did to Thomas? He showed him exactly the proof he wanted to see. Is God a respecter of persons? Why does Thomas get his proof and I don't? What changed? You're going to have to answer those questions for me to even consider your position seriously. (no you aren't)

Chockfull, I picked Swahili because it is a language Samarin would have recognized. Could you answer the question as if Samarin recognized the language but determined that other than speaking it, I had no knowledge of Swahili. What would he have done with such a case?

Blatant lies and distortions exalting the life of a con man who preyed upon God's people to satisfy his lust for money, power and flesh is NOT "positive." It is pathetic. Not you. I'm sure you're a swell guy. So long as you're not emulating the man you admire. P.S. The conclusion of Mark 16 is a crock.

Let me just ask you to clarify your understanding of Samarin's definition of xenoglossia (which you have here misstated in a manner which I have previously corrected, and which correction you have ignored to dishonest effect, if not intent). The way you describe it, if I were to SIT in front of Samarin and produce perfect Swahili, yet I did not demonstrate any systematic understanding of that language's vocabulary or grammar, he would categorize my Swahili as glossolalia and declare it to be non-language based on Hockett's list. I think we can agree that such a hypothetical occurrence would be absurd, and thus I have to assume I am misunderstanding you. So before I critique what you have posted here, I'd appreciate the clarification.

You know, I'm going to cool down and reply later, or maybe tomorrow. I've tried to be patient with your distortions and misrepresentation of Samarin's work for days now, and it's just gotten beyond ridiculous already. I'm gonna go hug my babies and let your post sit as the last word for a few hours.

No, I say Samarin in general concludes SIT is not a language. But not using Hockett's list. Hockett's list allows us to draw no conclusions in the context of this discussion. If I have to say that one more time, I will be forced to conclude your misrepresentation is deliberate. You counter that Samarin wouldn't know a language if he had a recorded sample of it in his hands. "He found languages he did not recognize," you called it. Your evidence for this? Hockett's list. THAT notion has been debunked. Samarin rejects glossolalia as real human languages on the grounds that they are, objectively, NOT. If glossolalia were turning out foreign languages, then the necessary investigation would be into how the language was acquired (Biblical affirmation, possession by Xenu, reincarnation. He doesn't care. It's not interesting to him as a linguist). This whole exercise has been one humongous detour from the main point of this thread, because once we determine that linguists have consistently found that glossolalia is not xenoglossia, my work was done. You're the one who keeps demanding we investigate the ink on the counterfeit bills. And I'm the one accused of stating my opinions as fact? I don't even know what the hell you're talking about here. Seriously, what standard of proof did I propose that was so low that you are rejecting it? I have conceded all along that I cannot prove everyone is faking it. I have one standard of proof, and it's a high but exceedingly simple one: Show Me The Language. And the best you countered with is a couple of unverifiable anecdotes. That's a mighty low standard for proof. Such a low standard that at least one of the people who offered the account immediately recognized its inadequacy for that use. If anyone has a low standard of proof, it's you, suggesting that phonological structure (which can be faked very easily, convincingly and routinely) and uncorroborated anecdotes are stronger than the failure of any linguist to actually detect a language in a sample of SIT, regardless of the setting in which the sample was produced.

Sounds more snarky than plausible, to be honest.

I believe I have examined all 16 items and successfully refuted the absurd notion that the first five have any conclusive bearing on our discussion. Agreed. And agreed that this appears to not have taken place in any linguistic study of glossolalia. We should be done here. But you insist on analyzing the ink. So... By the way, it was Tom and Socks, not Don and Socks. This was not that long ago. You and I have already mixed up a handful of key details in their stories in such a short period of time. How many other details get mixed up, exaggerated, distorted by well-intentioned people after 40 years? Another reason not to take the stories at face value. Not to dismiss them, but to wait for further proof. I dismiss them only if further proof is not forthcoming. Let's also agree, please, that you cannot discount SIT as a language using Hockett's list. Whatever Samarin was doing in this section was either unfair to you or misunderstood by all of us. Or both. My vote goes with both. Ok, I've gone through Hockett's list item by item and I've showed exactly why, on each item, it's irrelevant to the discussion we're having. "Is not!" is not a reasoned response to my analysis. Please provide one. And on this front, we have no argument. My argument only holds if those preaching SIT insist it is a known human language (living or dead would qualify). If you do not insist it is a known human language, we have no ability to argue because we're not agreeing on basic ground rules. If THAT's what you're saying, you're right: can't be proved or disproved. Our disagreement becomes entirely doctrinal. That is both generous of you and questionable. Where do you get that SIT is phonetically indistinguishable from language? Not denying it, but asking you for the basis of that statement. Um, no, you can't, for the very reasons you described. But even more than that, testing interpretation is even a problem hypothetically. Unless the interpretation is a word-for-word translation, you cannot expect to find a one-to-one corollary between the tongue and the interpretation. It is by definition untestable. We all agree that fakery of interpretation and prophecy was widespread. Without a 100% confession rate, it would be impossible for me or anyone else to prove fakery was universal. You would also need them to test interpretation in each of the doctrinal ways in which it is taught. And even then, you can't eliminate the problem of the brain injecting meaning into glossa (do I subconsciously come up with "words" while I'm thinking of certain subjects or people? Has my repetition of this process over 40 years fused, in my mind, concepts like "God, love, faithful, powerful," etc. in ways that would appear to be translation but nonetheless originated in ways I made up? There is no way whatsoever to measure that, not even in theory). The only thing I'll add is that SIT, free vocalization (faking SIT) and language are similar phonetically. Next: responding to ASL not being vocal-auditory, but meeting EVERY OTHER design feature of language, you wrote: Again, you are mistaken by the standard Samarin describes. After providing Hockett's list, he writes: "Ten of these properties constitute a defining set for language." Then he lists them. Guess what's not on the list. Come on, guess. Please? One teensy guess?

And Take Three: Why thank you. Not with THIS list. Agreed. Accepted, with the caveat that everything you're applying to SIT also applies to free vocalization. Um, a response of "I don't believe them" is an ENTIRELY scientific, logical and reasonable response. Your dispute is that it's not a Biblical response. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's a better argument than the one you're making. But no scientist, logician or person operating under the auspices of mere reason is going to take those accounts at their word without the ability to even verify who the participants were, whether they are credible, and whether they really heard what they claimed to hear. Don't make me pull out the UFO analogy again! We have ample evidence that fakery of this phenomenon was widespread. Make up your mind. Oh, so if there were scientific investigation of these accounts, and those investigations turned up that they were phony, you would accept that? Somehow, I don't believe you. You keep calling them firsthand accounts, so let's make sure we use our terms correctly. These are firsthand accounts of the fact that this was claimed by others in their presence. They are not firsthand accounts of the truth of those claims. They are secondhand accounts of the truth of the claims. If they claimed to BE the one who understood, that would be a firsthand account. A complete firsthand account? No. Because then we would need to find the other person to be able to determine THAT person's veracity. For example: Let's say Socks' Asians really DID understand what was spoken in a tongue. That would appear miraculous, but to make absolutely sure we HAVE a miracle, we need to make sure that the speaker had no knowledge of that language. So we need the other side to reach a reasoned conclusion. But let's say we ONLY have the speaker, and he assures us to everyone's satisfaction that he did not know the language. But we don't have the hearers. We do not have any independent verification that the hearers were telling the truth when they claimed to understand what was spoken in a tongue. Do we know enough about them to conclude that they were being truthful. Certainly not! We know nothing about them at all, except that they were Asian. So the story as presented is within the realm of possibly true, but as you duly noted, unverifiable. We can only examine evidence that is before us. Decades-old stories about a miraculous event that happened right before my eyes but I can't tell you who the speaker was and I can't tell you who the hearer was and I couldn't find either without a detective kit and GoogleEarth ... that's not proof. I never said "end of story." You said that. I said I don't believe them. More evidence, the IDs and accounts of the people who were actual participants, would be more helpful. You noted in an earlier post that they are under no obligation to report or defend their experience to me. I agree, wholeheartedly. By the same token and by the same logic, I am under no obligation to believe them. Can we move on?

Having trouble posting my full response to chockfull's first post. Need to take a few minutes between "takes" as it were. Take one: A lenghtier-than-necessary discourse on a part of this discussion not in contention. I never said the speaker understood the language. Patently false. Not only CAN we do this, we MUST. Otherwise, we are unable to process or synthesize information. Wierwille wasn't always wrong in his Biblical interpretations. Sometimes he was right on the money. Must one accept all of his theology just because one agrees with some of it? Not at all. There is nothing dishonest or illogical about that. I did it with Poythress and you had an objection to my conclusion, but not my process. The process is sound. I am not disputing Samarin's conclusions, by the way. What I am disputing is its application to THIS discussion. There are things Samarin discusses that have nothing to do with our dialogue (mediums, for example). I'm not spending my time analyzing them because they are irrelevant to this discussion. I made a judgment call early on that the criteria section, aka, Hockett's list, had nothing to do with our discussion here. I could very easily have been wrong about that. But it turns out I was absolutely correct -- to the benefit of your position, not mine. I would have LOVED to look at the list and use it as proof of my position. But it's not. It's not proof of either of our positions. It doesn't even begin to address our positions. It's irrelevant ... to our discussion. That doesn't mean he was wrong to bring it up. Just not in our context. (If he were having our conversation, this would be a fault. But he's not. So it isn't). Again, I am not the one who cited Hockett's list or demanded a review of it. We are not disagreeing here. Where we are disagreeing is in the application of Hockett's list in the context of THIS thread's discussion. Samarin is not having the same discussion we are. His use of Hockett's list is unrelated to the idea of whether SIT is producing (to put it in your terms) a language he does not recognize. He already dismisses that idea long before he gets to Hockett's list. Ok, now wait a cherry-picking minute. What's tediously pedantic is having to spell out for you every time Samarin discusses glossolalia, he has already eliminated foreign languages from consideration. That's the only point of this thread. We are discussing the ink on a counterfeit bill. If I sound repetitious, it's because you keep proceeding as if that point has not been made. Take Two: That is a tautology. Phonological structure does not prove something IS a language. It only proves that it SOUNDS like one, and that is because the speaker wants it to. Otherwise, it would be gibberish. Now who's employing the argument-from-authority fallacy. While you rely on "Samarin is a linguist," let's look again at Hockett's list and determine the 1/3 of it satisfied by glossalalia (am I the only one who noticed that we dropped from about 2/3 to about 1/3)? Glossalalia is like language in the following ways: * It employs vocal-auditory channels. Just like language. Just like free vocalization. In the context of the discussion we are having, this proves nothing. * It is directed from the speaker to the recipient. Just like language. Just like free vocalization (when employed as a fake SIT experience, the way I did). In the context of this discussion, this proves nothing more than that the SITter is sincere about wanting God to hear it, whereas the free vocalist knows on some level that he's faking it. Linguistically, it is no different). * Rapid fading: after you're done speaking, the sound goes away. Just like language. Just like free vocalization. In the context of this conversation, it proves nothing. * Interchangeability: Glossa does not fit in any real sense, but let's say it does. Anyone who speaks in tongues can hear someone else speaking in tongues. Just like language. Just like free vocalization. Proves nothing. * Complete feedback: The person speaking also hears himself (literally or figuratively doesn't matter. The wording is that the transmitter also receives the message). Just like language. Just like free vocalization. * Specialization: (looks like this means it doesn't require a whole lot of physical effort. Check me on that). Just like language. Just like free vocalization. Proves nothing. That's 6 of 16 items (37.5%) on Hockett's list. Neither SIT nor free vocalization meet any of the other standards, but dismissing either of them as language on that basis is patently unfair... TO YOU. It's unfair TO YOU. It is unfair TO YOUR SIDE for Samarin to use this list. I am agreeing with that. We should be on the same side here. What we see in those six items is that SIT is like real language in ways that prove absolutely nothing as to its legitimacy as a language. If you can use that list to say glossolalia has 1/3 of the defining characteristics of language (which sounds impressive until you look at the list), then I am equally justified in saying that FAKING glossolalia has 1/3 of the defining characteristics of language. And they are the same characteristics. If I were really trying to be a pain here, I would point out that this is further proof that SIT IS free vocalization. But that would be unfair, because while the list may be relevant to some point Samarin is trying to make, it is not relevant to the conversation we are having! I don't think this is my opinion anymore. I think I've demonstrated this ad nauseum. Right. And so is free vocalization, which also sounds like a language. That's why I fooled everyone for years. That's why (in MY OPINION) we ALL fooled EACH OTHER for years. But that's my opinion. I accept that you disagree, but give me some credit for basing my opinion on something firm here. Nothing in this study, or in the use of Hockett's list, suggests anything remotely resembling proof that SIT is language.

Wanted to add the link to Amazon's Lee Strobel page, in keeping with my own request. I also see that I confused Lee Strobel with Josh McDowell (Evidence That Demands a Verdict). Here's McDowell's page.

"When I was growing up in Bakersfield, my favorite thing in the whole world was to go to the movies on Saturday afternoons for the Chapter Plays." "Cliffhangers." "I know that, Mr. Man! They also called them serials. I'm not stupid ya know... Anyway, my favorite was Rocketman, and once it was a no breaks chapter. The bad guy stuck him in a car on a mountain road and knocked him out and welded the door shut and tore out the brakes and started him to his death, and he woke up and tried to steer and tried to get out but the car went off a cliff before he could escape! And it crashed and burned and I was so upset and excited, and the next week, you better believe I was first in line. And they always start with the end of the last week. And there was Rocketman, trying to get out, and here comes the cliff, and just before the car went off the cliff, he jumped free! And all the kids cheered! But I didn't cheer. I stood right up and started shouting. This isn't what happened last week! Have you all got amnesia? They just cheated us! This isn't fair! HE DID'NT GET OUT OF THE COCK - A - DOODIE CAR!" "They always cheated like that in cl... chapter plays."

Julia Roberts lives in terror of her abusive husband, Will Smith, who is being hunted down by the government for a secret he doesn't even realize he holds.

Thanks for posting the link to that article. Will definitely give it a read. I prefer posting articles rather than books (this is, after all, an online reading room). But if we're going to post books, let's at least post Amazon links or something so that we can direct people to where those books are available. Thx.

George already listed his quotes. Since no one else guessed, and since I THINK I know the answer, I will guess. It sounds like Lois Lane in Superman with the spelling blunder, but the trespassing reference makes no sense for that movie. However, Lois Lane was a mom in another movie, so I will guess: Superman Returns.

Returning to this line because I think I misunderstood you the first time. In Acts, when the apostles spoke in tongues, the tongues were known, human languages. There is nothing in the other accounts in Acts that suggests the tongues spoken mean anything other than known, human languages. The people around them may or may not have understood what was spoken (I lean toward "did not"), but it's the same terminology as Acts 2, and there's no good reason to believe Luke changed the meaning without telling anyone. There is nothing in Corinthians to suggest that the meaning of tongues changed there either. The word means "languages," and a plain reading of the text would leave the reader with the impression that it is talking plainly about normal languages. Not understood by the speaker, but real, human languages nonetheless. So we don't agree on that. What we DO seem to agree on is that Hockett's list makes no sense when you try to apply it because we are working with an incomplete set of information. We don't know the vocabulary. We don't know the grammatical structure. We can sense the phonological structure, but by itself, phonological structure is superficial (and easily faked). Breaking a "sentence" up with longer pauses between them (signifying different sentences) and shorter pauses within them (signifying commas or other punctuation marks) doesn't suddenly convert what I'm speaking into a language. Free vocalization does exactly the same thing. Phonological structure proves nothing. The only way SIT can "pass" any kind of objective test would be to produce a real, human language. The apostles did it, according to Acts. SITters who've subjected their "product" to objective analysis have not. It is reasonable to conclude that the SITters who participated in the studies, at the time they participated in the studies, are not doing what they did in Acts.

I'm ok with the derail, but yeah, what you posted belongs on the main thread. You should repost it there. I'm okay with keeping it here, but I was hoping this thread would be linking to articles and books, and maybe describing them. Those interested in proving the life, death and resurrection of Christ might find great value in the works of Lee Strobel (Evidence that Demands a Verdict; The Case for a Creator; The Case for Christ). Interesting works, all.

Yes, but he was doing so with a list that, in EACH of its elements, measures something irrelevant to this discussion, as I later made clear. And he did not "find 5 discrepancies." He highlighted five "primarily." But as we examine all 16, none of them makes very much sense in this context. Yes, exactly. I agree with you. It's precisely because of this fact that the whole list, all of it, is irrelevant, as I think I clearly established. . Actually, no, the vast exercise is not a waste of time. The analysis of glossolalia IS a waste of time because once it's determined not to be a known, existing, human language that some race of people do or did use to communicate with each other once upon a time or presently, the discussion is moot. It's only because of the assumption that glossolalia can be something other than a known language and thus qualify AS a language that we are even having THIS part of the discussion. Read through the thread: Hockett's list isn't something I held up as an authority, and Samarin's use of it is something I ignored until you demanded I account for it. I've accounted for it, and I showed item by item how and why Hockett's list is irrelevant to this discussion. I am not arguing with your feelings, or anyone else's. I'm arguing that what you produce is not a language (ie, not a system of words, phrases and sentences that human beings use to communicate with each other). Not sure what you mean by the last sentence, and the first two speak to your sincerity and doctrinal belief. Whether "groanings which cannot be uttered" is a reference to SIT is arguable. Let's investigate the verse (here or in doctrinal, whatever suits you). Here's a question: if they are groanings which cannot be uttered how are you uttering them? Let's get to what the verse actually says before we argue that it proves or establishes something. The quote from I Corinthians neither says nor implies that the utterance will be something no one on Earth would understand if given the opportunity. In fact, by using the word "languages" (because that's what "tongues" means), the implication given is exactly the opposite. They spoke languages in Acts and they sure as shooting THOUGHT they were speaking languages in Corinthians (and, I must add, I am not disputing that at all). The issue is not what they were doing then. The issue is, are we now reproducing what they did then and there? And the objective evidence appears to be that the answer is no. Fair enough. Let's take it a piece at a time. First, let's acknowledge that what was sold to us in TWI differs a great deal from what you (Chockfull) personally experienced, and part of our disagreement appears to stem from that. If you never believed that the utterances you brought forth were are real human language, then it's easy to see your passionate defense of your experience and your apparent dismissal of the fact that it should produce a real, human language that is spoken by people somewhere on Earth. My whole approach to this discussion cannot make much sense to you in that regard. I could prove it's not a real human language in 100% of the cases and that won't matter to you because you never claimed it was. That is a doctrinal disagreement that is beyond the scope of this thread. THIS thread tackles the claim (made in TWI and resurrected, to horrific effect, by the video of JAL that was posted a few pages ago) that SIT should produce a real human language. How clear was it that this should be tongues of men (adding "of angels" almost as an afterthought, which we've already agreed appears to be a hypothetical hyperbole and not a realistic claim)? An interesting... and utterly unrelated... question. I went through these point for point already. Everything on the list that can apply to SIT is fakable. Everything on the list that can't apply to SIT proves nothing about it being a language or not being a language because you have to know what the words mean to make that determination. [Can I assume that you're catching up and haven't gotten to this part of my posts yet?] This is not correct. It would have been accurate to say "There is absolutely no way a sane person would argue that SIT does not use a vocal auditory channel." Whether it's linguistic communication is very much in dispute. But I would even go a step further and allow it for your definition because you certainly intend to communicate to God. But because it's fakable, alluding to it proves nothing. Actually, this is demonstrably false. ASL does not fit the vocal-auditory criterion, by definition. ASL DOES fit broadcast transmission. ASL DOES fit rapid fading. ASL DOES fit interchangeability. ASL DOES fit complete feedback. ASL DOES fit specialization. ASL DOES fit semanticity. ASL DOES fit arbitrariness. ASL DOES fit discreteness (I think). ASL DOES fit displacement. ASL DOES fit openness. ASL DOES fit tradition. ASL DOES fit duality of patterning. ASL DOES fit prevarication. ASL DOES fit reflexiveness. ASL DOES fit learnability. So the only thing ASL does not fit is vocal-auditory channel. It's a language in every other way. Now, if you were to start waving your arms around all over the place and tapping your forehead and twisting your fingers, then claim that was a foreign sign language, and no one who was an expert on foreign sign languages were able to identify which sign language you were producing, I'd say you were just engaged in free gesticulation, not signing in foreign SLs. Oh, I'm sorry, you didn't really expect me to respond to that challenge, did you? Sorry. ASL is clearly a language by all but one of these criteria. Maybe two. Still not sure on discreteness. Mind you, I am not the one who finds this list useful in this discussion. It should not apply to SIT. None of it should. I am struggling to comprehend why Samarin chose to go there. But if you look back on the section on xenoglossia (you know, the whole point of looking at linguistic studies in the first place? to see if it's ever been shown that SITters are producing real, human languages) we find that Samarin dismisses SIT as foreign language on grounds completely unrelated to Hockett's list. Unfortunately, he does it in a kind of overview-summary form because (and this is really important: pay attention) he is not interested in xenoglossia as a linguist. Xenoglossia would produce a foreign language. Glossolalia is not foreign languages. That alone should have ended the discussion. But you insist we continue to study the ink on the counterfeit bills. Okey dokey, if it makes you happy.

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

You incorrectly summarize my position, and you selectively summarize Samarin's. My position is that it's not a language because no people have ever used the system of words, etc to communicate with each other. It is not Spanish, French, Swahili, Mandarin, etc. The list is about 7,000 languages long. Samarin explicitly agrees with that. My view doesn't allow for code, as Poythress posits. It is not what the Bible describes. Yes, God is flexible and can change. But if we're allowing for that, we no longer have the Bible as the defining lodestone of this experience. When he goes off on the Hockett's list tangent, which I think we agree is irrelevant to our discussion, he does so after having already failed to identify the glossa as language.

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

Respectfully, Kit, that assertion is very much in question. I contend that these books will all contain sections on SIT because the authors falsely believe SIT to be what you describe. And each of us has stated an opinion.