SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

By the way, tell me if I'm mistaken here, but he discredits all the xenoglossia claims presented to him.

[chockfull]

Thing is, I think he DOES explain why the phonetics don't lead him to conclude it's a language. The limited number of phonemes, the fact that they all come from the speaker's native language, the fact that they are lacking in variety compared to real languages (but have much more variety than gibberish). I think you're selling him short.

That section is linguistically challenging to follow all the terms. He covers it being "derivative" and "innovative". Taking him on face value him stating that glossa is "all" using nothing but English consonants sounds like damning evidence. Until he states that "that chart above, which would fit at least in part several other natural languages of the world". So in other words, the consonants he is mapping linguistically could come from "several other natural languages of the world" that Samarin knows about. Come on, now Sam!!!!!! I also have personal evidence (no you cannot record me) that I have heard consonants in tongues when I am praying that do not map to English consonants. And I couldn't guarantee you'd hear it if you did record me - it changes.

"Innovative" features he highlights as borrowed sounds, simplification of syllable structure, increasing frequency of words, and borrowing from other languages. He states people "have had contact with" a different language.

So to me he really, really, really wants to find out that people are making it up. So he extends his rationale to say if a person ever heard someone else use a consonant sound not in English, then they can mock it in tongues. That's quite a logical leap there, Sam!!!!!

Jabberwocky

Now, this one you can diagram AND present with theatrical flair.

It's still not a real language.

ix-nay on the abberwocky-jay

But I can still feel the emotion in Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

Edited October 18, 2012 by chockfull

[chockfull]

By the way, tell me if I'm mistaken here, but he discredits all the xenoglossia claims presented to him.

He thinks it is all fake. I personally think that if someone's spirit guide is into Santeria, and speaks fluent Spanish, and interprets it into English, that it might be possible that the spirit guide actually might have taken up residence in Juan from Columbia previously. Thus its not really the person exhibiting xenoglossalalia, it's his spirit guide.

So is he really faking it, or not? Or did the devil make him do it? Hmmmmmm. Questions to ponder.......

Edited October 18, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

Samarin studied samples of glossolalia from all around the world, so naturally he would find phonemes from the various languages represented by the speakers. Not sure I'm getting your objection there.

SITters are derivative in their use of basic sounds but innovative in how they combine them: exactly what I would expect of someone making up something with the intent of making it sound like a language.

Am I missing something?

So to me he really, really, really wants to find out that people are making it up. So he extends his rationale to say if a person ever heard someone else use a consonant sound not in English, then they can mock it in tongues. That's quite a logical leap there, Sam!!!!!

That is not a leap at all! It is a perfectly logical explanation. As a tongues speaker, I had the following to work with: English, Spanish, smatterings of French, Hebrew and Greek (not a lot, as little as the rest of us had through TWI exposure) and Arabic (not any knowledge of the actual language, but an ability to imitate sounds made by the workers at various stores near where I lived and worked). All of those could inform my tongues language. It really doesn't take much. Today I met a bunch of Mongolians. The sounds that came from their mouths as they spoke their native language was NOTHING like ANYTHING I ever heard in SIT.

But, if it makes you feel any better, it sounded like gibberish to me. ;)

[geisha779]

As an actual linguist and someone who dedicated some time to the effort and the field.... Samarin may possibly have some understanding of how exposure to another language may be influential in a persons language skills.

Published how many years ago now? I imagine this classic work and respected study which has become somewhat an authority on the matter has been reviewed a few times now. There may be things that appeared assumed, but in reality are not. . . . we do it all the time when we assume things about our readers, and when we don't go into detail, but understand the truth behind something we state as a reason.

Just because he didn't go into the details of how exposure to a second language might work....that doesn't mean it is an unlearned or unreasonable assertion.

Edited October 19, 2012 by geisha779

[chockfull]

Samarin studied samples of glossolalia from all around the world, so naturally he would find phonemes from the various languages represented by the speakers. Not sure I'm getting your objection there.

SITters are derivative in their use of basic sounds but innovative in how they combine them: exactly what I would expect of someone making up something with the intent of making it sound like a language.

Am I missing something?

Read that page one more time. To prove languages were "derivative" he did consonant maps of English speakers doing glossa. Then he noted all their glossa consonants were English, missing only 6 of all available. Then he noted that the English consonant map applied to "several other native languages". Then he ignored that and concluded that was an indication they were all making it up.

That is not a leap at all! It is a perfectly logical explanation. As a tongues speaker, I had the following to work with: English, Spanish, smatterings of French, Hebrew and Greek (not a lot, as little as the rest of us had through TWI exposure) and Arabic (not any knowledge of the actual language, but an ability to imitate sounds made by the workers at various stores near where I lived and worked). All of those could inform my tongues language. It really doesn't take much. Today I met a bunch of Mongolians. The sounds that came from their mouths as they spoke their native language was NOTHING like ANYTHING I ever heard in SIT.

But, if it makes you feel any better, it sounded like gibberish to me. ;)

Wow, and just to think - now we have a Shazam app that you can play music into and it finds the band!!!!! That has a certain "gen se qua" element to it, doesn't it? Now if only we would have a "Babelfish" app that you could do that with to tongues. Then we could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that either it is a language or that your software needs updating!!!!

But I'm sure it makes complete sense that somewhere in the depths of my unlimited subconscious mind, that I have a full range of the Haitian dialect of those guys that used to put up the tents at the ROA, to be pulled up by my horribly evil faking subconscious mind all when I'm trying to focus on something else and pray. I've got to watch that subconscious. I mean, who knows when I might be daydreaming about a steak while driving and it takes over and kills 3 pedestrians and then cusses out the cops. It's evil I tell you. EVIL

Edited October 19, 2012 by chockfull

[chockfull]

As an actual linguist and someone who dedicated some time to the effort and the field.... Samarin may possibly have some understanding of how exposure to another language may be influential in a persons language skills.

Published how many years ago now? I imagine this classic work and respected study which has become somewhat an authority on the matter has been reviewed a few times now. There may be things that appeared assumed, but in reality are not. . . . we do it all the time when we assume things about our readers, and when we don't go into detail, but understand the truth behind something we state as a reason.

Just because he didn't go into the details of how exposure to a second language might work....that doesn't mean it is an unlearned or unreasonable assertion.

All of Samarin's works I saw were published in 1972. After reading through the one article I have access to, he is very impressive on the linguistics side. I have to look up a lot of words when reading him. I mean, he was the Professor of Linguistics at Toronto University.

The examples he gave on the exposure to language were more like a guy with a Swedish surname in the study, if they had access to him they would ask if Swedish was spoken in the home as a youth. If so, then they could logically add Swedish sounds to look for in the glossa.

Not really unreasonable, and definitely not unlearned. Really good overall, and I might spend $31 to try and find an out of print copy of his main work on the topic.

Just because I point out inconsistencies and don't agree with his conclusions don't mean I don't respect his work.

[Ham]

just a question.. say that what we know as sit is NOT sit as supposedly known in the early church. Would that make it meaningless? OBVIOUSLY the practice is not speaking in a known language. At least as far as in recent times being genuinely documented.. and the interpretation messages.. not in any way can they be shown to even reflect what someone spoke in a tongue..

if even anything was spoken to begin with..

but does that make the practice actually meaningless? Maybe that's what troubles some here. Meaningless, yes. As far as in way terms, definitions and conditions..

maybe other terms need to be considered..

[Raf]

It's not that you can remember the language itself or the words. Just remembering the sounds is enough to give you something to inject into your SIT experience. I do not use the CH sound as in Chanukkah in my normal vocabulary, but I could use it in tongues because I've been exposed to the sound. I don't even know how to spell the Arabic sounds I heard, but I heard them enough to imitate them, and as long as I could do that, I could use them in tongues. It's supernatural proof of absolutely nothing. But ask me to repeat what I heard in Mongolian today (I don't know if that's the name of their language), and I couldn't do it. Expose me to it a few more times and I might. My ability to turn around and use it in SIT would not validate the SIT. Only my creativity.

I see the page you're talking about as far as English and accents. It should be noted that he put the word "accent" in quotes and he did not mean it in the same way as you and I talk about British accents or Southern accents. He was speaking there as a linguist: the use of exclusively English phonemes gives him away as a native English speaker. He's talking about one guy. The section where he talks about other language phonemes talks hypothetically, and quite reasonably I think, about how someone may come to the table with more than one set of phonemes to work with.

[Raf]

just a question.. say that what we know as sit is NOT sit as supposedly known in the early church. Would that make it meaningless? OBVIOUSLY the practice is not speaking in a known language. At least as far as in recent times being genuinely documented.. and the interpretation messages.. not in any way can they be shown to even reflect what someone spoke in a tongue..

if even anything was spoken to begin with..

but does that make the practice actually meaningless? Maybe that's what troubles some here. Meaningless, yes. As far as in way terms, definitions and conditions..

maybe other terms need to be considered..

The problem that I have is that Biblical SIT is a real human language and what's produced today is not. Disagree with me on either side of that, and there's nothing to debate because we can't agree on a basic foundation. Clearly Chockfull and I disagree on the first premise (real SIT is a real human language) and likely we disagree on the second (what's produced today is not). He's being polite enough to examine the second without addressing the first, which is at heart a doctrinal premise.

In my opinion, SIT has the meaning you bring to it: no objective meaning. There is nothing to interpret. Interpretations are from the heart of the speaker, and seeing as there's no way to prove or disprove divine inspiration there, it's not really worth debating. Widespread but not universal fakery has already been admitted by most on this thread on both sides of the debate.

Glad we could keep it civil this time, Chockfull.

[Ham]

maybe people need another frame of reference.. I've seen/ had some pretty wild things happen.. and I've gone through several models before I came to a rational, half-way believable explanation of what happened.. at least as to my own personal satisfaction.. in at least one or two cases, the jury is still out.

"something" happened. And its just your word, against mine.. but at the end of the day, I have to live with myself.

If you think with s.i.t., "something really happened".. I wouldn't settle for a half-baked, abusive alcoholic and nicotine addicted abusers explanation..

just a couple of thoughts. Carry on. I won't interrupt again.. unless you wish.

[waysider]

Ham

I think there needs to be a distinction made between "meaningless" (having no discernible meaning) and "worthless" (having no discernible value).

[chockfull]

It's not that you can remember the language itself or the words. Just remembering the sounds is enough to give you something to inject into your SIT experience. I do not use the CH sound as in Chanukkah in my normal vocabulary, but I could use it in tongues because I've been exposed to the sound. I don't even know how to spell the Arabic sounds I heard, but I heard them enough to imitate them, and as long as I could do that, I could use them in tongues. It's supernatural proof of absolutely nothing. But ask me to repeat what I heard in Mongolian today (I don't know if that's the name of their language), and I couldn't do it. Expose me to it a few more times and I might. My ability to turn around and use it in SIT would not validate the SIT. Only my creativity.

Just trying to put a little rational objectivity behind the "innovative" conclusion of his study. I might find it reasonable to think that a guy who spoke Swedish in his home for years growing up might reproduce some sounds. But going from there to a logical leap of ANYTHING you've ever heard? A bit much for me. I mean if that's true I really need to tap into the power of that subconscious. I mean I could be getting 100's on every test I take, and so much more!!!!! I mean with a subconscious that powerful what's next? The Secret?

I see the page you're talking about as far as English and accents. It should be noted that he put the word "accent" in quotes and he did not mean it in the same way as you and I talk about British accents or Southern accents. He was speaking there as a linguist: the use of exclusively English phonemes gives him away as a native English speaker. He's talking about one guy. The section where he talks about other language phonemes talks hypothetically, and quite reasonably I think, about how someone may come to the table with more than one set of phonemes to work with.

The example he gives is the English aspirated sound after the P in Paul, as opposed to the French language not having that. You know, kind of like my Spanish sounds to the natives in Cozumel? Gringo?

I'm sure if God can't get past my accent and make my tongue be a perfect representation of the language with absolutely no trace of Gringo, then I absolutely must be faking it, right?

[Raf]

But I'm sure it makes complete sense that somewhere in the depths of my unlimited subconscious mind, that I have a full range of the Haitian dialect of those guys that used to put up the tents at the ROA, to be pulled up by my horribly evil faking subconscious mind all when I'm trying to focus on something else and pray. I've got to watch that subconscious. I mean, who knows when I might be daydreaming about a steak while driving and it takes over and kills 3 pedestrians and then cusses out the cops. It's evil I tell you. EVIL

Joking aside, I want to be clear I am accusing no one of being evil or even of deliberately lying. I think we all got sold a bill of goods and we all were talked out of a reasonable skepticism at the earliest possible stage. We wanted to believe it. We believed it was God's Will. We were encouraged by everyone around us (whether they were literally around us or there "in spirit") and we were actively discouraged from doubting. We supported each other, congratulated each other, fed off each other. (Now who's doing the psychoanalyzing? Sue me).

But when I knew I could walk down the street and speak in tongues and get $1 million from a guy who was looking for proof of the supernatural, the jig was up. I knew I'd never see a dime because I knew in my heart what I had done and, these many years later, I finally confronted it.

That's my experience. I knew all along, but I could always avoid the confrontation because, after all, who was confronting me? No one. I had to confront myself.

So if I'm wrong, and this free vocalization really is Biblical SIT...

Crap, I'm out $1 million!

[chockfull]

I wouldn't settle for a half-baked, abusive alcoholic and nicotine addicted abusers explanation..

Could you tell me some stories about half-baked abusive alcoholics on nicotine to distract my mind from the pain of linguistics terminology?

[waysider]

Ham

In your mathmatical endeavors, did you ever encounter any information theory studies that might help explain tongues?

[Ham]

Ham

I think there needs to be a distinction made between "meaningless" (having no discernible meaning) and "worthless" (having no discernible value).

maybe beauty is in the eye of the beholder..

one man's "junk" is another man's treasure..

[Raf]

The example he gives is the English aspirated sound after the P in Paul, as opposed to the French language not having that. You know, kind of like my Spanish sounds to the natives in Cozumel? Gringo?

We're not really disagreeing much. I'll let it go.

I'm sure if God can't get past my accent and make my tongue be a perfect representation of the language with absolutely no trace of Gringo, then I absolutely must be faking it, right?

It's an indicator. By itself, it proves nothing. Frank Purdue had a terrific Spanish vocabulary and a lousy accent. But you knew it was Spanish.

If all these tongues speakers were producing languages, Samarin would have had nothing to study. If any produced a real language, I think it's reasonable to suggest he would have mentioned it while he was laying down the difference between xenoglossy and glossolalia. Instead, he observes (after study, not before) that all glossolalia samples he reviewed were not language.

[Ham]

Ham

In your mathmatical endeavors, did you ever encounter any information theory studies that might help explain tongues?

No, I never did. Though you could probably do all kinds of neat things with computers, Fourier analysis, etc..

Probability distributions with the different kinds of sounds..

maybe somebody has, but I have not heard of it.

It is an interesting idea though. They have software where computers can do voice recognition.. there has to be some statistical analysis that might apply, at least as to the reasonableness whether it is some kind of "language" to begin with..

[chockfull]

If all these tongues speakers were producing languages, Samarin would have had nothing to study. If any produced a real language, I think it's reasonable to suggest he would have mentioned it while he was laying down the difference between xenoglossy and glossolalia. Instead, he observes (after study, not before) that all glossolalia samples he reviewed were not language.

And just to think, all you would have to do to turn this paragraph from rhetoric into accuracy is replace the word "languages" with "known languages".

[waysider]

No, I never did. Though you could probably do all kinds of neat things with computers, Fourier analysis, etc..

Probability distributions with the different kinds of sounds..

maybe somebody has, but I have not heard of it.

The Amazing Randi is waiting to make you a very rich man if you can run one of those programs and prove him wrong.

(I wouldn't quit your day job just yet.)

[chockfull]

It is an interesting idea though. They have software where computers can do voice recognition.. there has to be some statistical analysis that might apply, at least as to the reasonableness whether it is some kind of "language" to begin with..

I think voice recognition has its roots in ngrams mathematically. That's a bit different conceptually than statistical analysis or OR.

[waysider]

And just to think, all you would have to do to turn this paragraph from rhetoric into accuracy is replace the word "languages" with "known languages".

I think he probably phrased it that way because his emphasis was on the constructed characteristics not on any specific specimen.

[chockfull]

Joking aside, I want to be clear I am accusing no one of being evil or even of deliberately lying. I think we all got sold a bill of goods and we all were talked out of a reasonable skepticism at the earliest possible stage. We wanted to believe it. We believed it was God's Will. We were encouraged by everyone around us (whether they were literally around us or there "in spirit") and we were actively discouraged from doubting. We supported each other, congratulated each other, fed off each other. (Now who's doing the psychoanalyzing? Sue me).

Hmmm. Doesn't sound familiar. SIT first in a denominational church where 80% of the congregation didn't believe in it or accept it. Naturally occurred as a flow after being born again. Didn't learn many verses or have much teaching on it till later. TWI's BS corrupted it. Now trying to get back to the pure water.

As a psychoanalyst, Raf, don't quit your day job.

But when I knew I could walk down the street and speak in tongues and get $1 million from a guy who was looking for proof of the supernatural, the jig was up. I knew I'd never see a dime because I knew in my heart what I had done and, these many years later, I finally confronted it.

That's my experience. I knew all along, but I could always avoid the confrontation because, after all, who was confronting me? No one. I had to confront myself.

So if I'm wrong, and this free vocalization really is Biblical SIT...

Crap, I'm out $1 million!

How much you want to bet that guy has had someone try to collect $1M doing this, but because nobody could prove the interpretation they didn't win. The only way to win $1M from him is a Pentecost type of miracle. And if you believe God will back that, you need to be praying for the right numbers to enter in Lotto instead of wasting your time there!!!!

[waysider]

How much you want to bet that guy has had someone try to collect $1M doing this, but because nobody could prove the interpretation they didn't win. The only way to win $1M from him is a Pentecost type of miracle. And if you believe God will back that, you need to be praying for the right numbers to enter in Lotto instead of wasting your time there!!!!

Maybe...But sometimes the journey is more interesting than the destination.