SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

And Take Three:

Your other points that you bring up are very valid.

Why thank you.

How can you determine the other 2/3 of Hockett's list without understanding the meaning of the words spoken? You can't. You can't prove it is a language. You can't prove it's not a language...

Not with THIS list. Agreed.

So we are back at square one for proving the OVERALL question of tongues being a language. But we HAVE gained valuable insight on tongues from a phonetic point of view.

Accepted, with the caveat that everything you're applying to SIT also applies to free vocalization.

And SITers who have not subjected their "product" to objective analysis have accounts where real, human language was produced. These were done IN A SETTING THAT IS CONGRUENT WITH HOW SCRIPTURES DESCRIBE THAT TONGUES SHOULD WORK, as opposed to man's manufactured test lab. The importance to this is BIG. IF tongues work according to descriptions in scripture, and someone (JUST ONE PERSON IS ENOUGH FOR PROOF) produced a language in this setting, then this cannot be discounted.

A response of "I don't believe them" is not a scientific, logical, or reasonable response.

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.

Now you could say "these accounts are firsthand accounts, yet are not independently verifiable". That is accurate. That is logical, reasonable, and supports the scientific method.

Make up your mind.

The fact that in a small sample space like the one we have posting on this forum (number of members in the hundreds) we have TWO DISTINCT FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS should give any reasonable scientist enough ammo to try and investigate these types of accounts more globally.

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.

But "I don't believe them" ????????????? "End of story" ???????????

Give me a break with that logic.

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?

[OldSkool]

[waysider]

D.C. al Fine

[Raf]

Disagree. We must examine each [item on Hockett's list] on merit to see whether they make sense. The first 5, all a phonetic sound list, all DO make sense.

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.

The linguistic analysis of glossa IMO can't be proven one way or the other without the miraculous phenomenon that happened in Acts 2 happening in a lab or an account similar to don and socks being reproduced in a lab.

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.

Hockett's list is NOT irrelevant to the discussion as it was brought up by a LINGUIST.

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.

[I skipped a quote. Shoot me. Raf.]. I never said I didn't believe they were real human languages. I just said that it's never been a sticking point in my prayer life that what I was speaking to God actually had to be a measurable known human language. I figured I just spoke as the Bible instructs and God energizes. It's worked for me for a while.

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.

I would state this differently. The FACT that SIT is PHONETICALLY indistinguishable from language does not mean that what is spoken is genuine and not faked. That cannot be determined unless the language is understood.

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.

Here's another rub. Do you include the interpretation of tongues in trying to apply Hockett's features? I would say that you have to, but insert the caveat that the interpretation could be faked. If you include the interpretation, then many more of Hockett's feature list can be checked off. I think it still leaves a handful that SIT would not satisfy.

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).

What conclusion would this leave a reasonable person? That SIT and language are similar phonetically, and that you can't reach a 100% conclusion one way or the other on whether or not it is a real language unless you understood the language. It seems to be unprovable either way without God's express cooperation. And it does seem possible to fake it.

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:

That's as far as you have to go to prove ASL is not a language by Hockett's feature list. And it does highlight an issue with using that list exclusively as proof or criteria. And Hockett would probably also include ASL as a language and note it as an exception, as would most reasonable people.

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?

Edited October 23, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

There are many types of sign language. They, for the most part, are not interchangeable. People using American Sign Language don't understand people using German Sign Language who don't understand people using British Sign language who don't understand people using Australian Sign Language and so on. So, my question is this: Can someone who speaks American Sign Language, "speak in tongues" in Argentinian Sign Language? If it was real, doesn't that sound plausible?

edited for spelling

Edited October 23, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

Sounds more snarky than plausible, to be honest.

[chockfull]

All right - we're getting Lambchops raspberries from others here. We seem to agree on the fine-grained detail of what we're digging into here.

Where we diverge is what conclusion it tells us. I say NONE. You say "it proves they are not a language".

I will stop at saying my conclusion of your position is that you have a very selective and low burden for what you consider proof. And don't expect me to accept what you call PROOF, because it absolutely is not by any kind of application of logic and scientific method.

[Raf]

All right - we're getting Lambchops raspberries from others here. We seem to agree on the fine-grained detail of what we're digging into here.

Where we diverge is what conclusion it tells us. I say NONE. You say "it proves they are not a language".

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.

I will stop at saying my conclusion of your position is that you have a very selective and low burden for what you consider proof. And don't expect me to accept what you call PROOF, because it absolutely is not by any kind of application of logic and scientific method.

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.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

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.

And I say Samarin's conclusion that SIT is absolutely at least in part based upon his evaluation of it with Hockett's criteria. So it's circular logic to say that he "proved it's not a language" when even you yourself agree and put forth that SIT is not the type of thing that makes sense to measure by Hockett's list.

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).

Samarin as I already explained earlier, makes a quantum leap from his findings to his conclusions. The REASON he says they are NOT languages is exactly because of some of the interactive and sociological elements missing from it per Hockett's criteria. It's not proven that glossa is not turning out foreign languages. The languages weren't understood. Please provide the page number in which Samarin proves that the languages COULD NOT EVER be understood BY ANYONE HUMAN.

You are making a leap of logic from there to that they are not languages. If they are not, then they never at any time on earth would have had anyone that understood them. Prove that, and you prove they are not languages. Short of that, NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN.

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.

How is this a detour when it is the crux of your argument that everyone was/is faking? xenoglossia is defined as a "knowledge of a language someone hasn't learned normally". Nobody has ever contended that SIT provides you with the knowledge of a language. So how is finding that's different than SIT make your work 'done'? To bring you back on point here, we are studying whether or not glossolalia produces languages. If it does, then your belief that everyone is faking it modern day has some holes in 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.

Ah, the "Doubting Thomas" standard of proof. So God has to pull the miracle off with SIT where someone in the audience understands the language and you'll believe it. Or wait, no you won't. You think that is a "secondhand" account. You would need to hear a non-native English speaker SIT and the tongue be English for you to believe it. I guess "high" would be the way to describe that standard of proof, if by "high" you mean "wacky tobaccy high". You could pray a long time without God ever doing that one.

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.

Well that's a creative twisting of my viewpoint, considering that I never suggested phonological structure proves anything. The ONLY thing I noted was that "linguists find a phonological resemblance to language, but did not recognize the language". I stated that would not prove anything one way or another. So how is it you misconstrue that into a "low standard of proof"????? when I'm not saying it proves anything??????

Your last sentence also is a very creative way to state that none of the linguists recognized the language of any of the samples presented.

[Raf]

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.

[Raf]

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.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Raf

[WordWolf]

BTW, chockful....

In case you're wondering if Raf is being fair with you...

I asked him earlier to take it down a notch or 2.

Initially, he disagreed, but obviously he reconsidered,

since for several days he's been VERY nice about all this.

He took it down so many notches I can't see where it fell,

so to speak.

In other words, I've been monitoring how nice he's been

posting, and he's been a lot nicer with you than you have

with him, which is not what I was expecting.

Please take a few deep breaths, wait and come back to the

thread, and please reconsider there might be nicer ways

to make the same points. You've been disagreeing with

him, but you can disagree without being "disagreeable."

It weakens your position in the eyes of the readers if

you're responding to his points with name-calling.

Honestly, I'd LIKE to agree with you, but you need to

bring more substance to the table and less reacting

before I can even consider it. You're not giving me

any reason to agree.

[chockfull]

Please take a few deep breaths, wait and come back to the

thread, and please reconsider there might be nicer ways

to make the same points. You've been disagreeing with

him, but you can disagree without being "disagreeable."

It weakens your position in the eyes of the readers if

you're responding to his points with name-calling.

OK.

Honestly, I'd LIKE to agree with you, but you need to

bring more substance to the table and less reacting

before I can even consider it. You're not giving me

any reason to agree.

What exactly is the substance you are looking to be brought to the table?

[chockfull]

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).

Here is the direct quote. p. 50 Paragraph 3. "But it should not be so general that it includes xenoglossalalia, that is, demonstrating knowledge of a language one has not learned in the normal ways".

Any more on how I've misstated it, you've corrected it, and I'm dishonest?

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.

From Samarin's definitions, I would think that your example would be accurate. Without demonstrating knowledge of Swahili, it would not be xenoglossalalia (see quoted definition). So it would be glossolalia to Samarin. And he declares glossolalia to be a non-language based on Hockett's list and the idea that it is not conversational. So yes, I believe that after carefully reading Samarin's work, you could SIT in perfect Swahili in front of Samarin, and if he or another linguist present did not understand Swahili, and there was nobody in the audience who understood the Swahili, and it was not recorded and shopped around to see if anyone understood the languages (I'm still not understanding why these guys have not done that - maybe because their works were before the internet age). I believe that he would conclude as you say.

[waysider]

SIT is not a "language". Why not? It's not because no one understands it. That point is moot. Rather, it's not a "language" because it fails to meet the critical criteria of syntax. A language must have syntax. There is no discernible syntax associated with SIT. That's not my opinion. That's the straightforward reality of the issue.

[chockfull]

SIT is not a "language". Why not? It's not because no one understands it. That point is moot. Rather, it's not a "language" because it fails to meet the critical criteria of syntax. A language must have syntax. There is no discernible syntax associated with SIT. That's not my opinion. That's the straightforward reality of the issue.

What's the meaning of "syntax", and do you have a link to a study we can read about it?

[waysider]

Wiki is a handy place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax

[Raf]

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?

Edited October 24, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

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)

Edited October 24, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

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?

Changed his mind? I mean who knows what a man would do? I've been surprised so many times it's not surprising any more.

Edited October 24, 2012 by chockfull

[chockfull]

Btw, glad to see my methods have gone from Satanic to doubting Thomas. At least now I'm being compared to a disciple.

Sheesh. We can't even get our criticisms right. It's doubting Thomas high on wacky tobaccy. It must be your Satanic methods that are preventing you from getting that right.

I guess we have some more colorful language coming out at times here - usually during about the 10th time we've gone over the same point we are belaboring much to the agony of our readers. I submit that it's simply a defense mechanism when dealing with tedious drudgery and it serves to keep the rest of our audience from falling completely asleep.

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)

Well, Thomas had to reach out his hands and touch Jesus side. He could have said "I don't believe your account. End of story" and walked away without ever touching Jesus.

I'm sure if you are praying in earnest to God about this and are not completely thickheaded about it that He will find some way to answer your prayer. I'm 100% completely unsure about how He would even go about that, but that's why I don't have the big chair.

[Raf]

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:

Xenoglossia is defined as a "knowledge of a language someone hasn't learned normally". Nobody has ever contended that SIT provides you with the knowledge of a language.

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.

Here is the direct quote. p. 50 Paragraph 3. "But it should not be so general that it includes xenoglossalalia, that is, demonstrating knowledge of a language one has not learned in the normal ways".

Any more on how I've misstated it, you've corrected it, and I'm dishonest?

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:

Please provide the page number in which Samarin proves that the languages COULD NOT EVER be understood BY ANYONE HUMAN.

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.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Well, Thomas had to reach out his hands and touch Jesus side. He could have said "I don't believe your account. End of story" and walked away without ever touching Jesus.

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.

I'm sure if you are praying in earnest to God about this and are not completely thickheaded about it that He will find some way to answer your prayer. I'm 100% completely unsure about how He would even go about that, but that's why I don't have the big chair.

Backatcha.

[Raf]

By the way, I'm ignoring Waysider's contribution on the importance of syntax because my review of the material has not taken me there. My instinct tells me that it may be an unfair criterion to impose on a real, human language whose structure we do not know, but my instinct could very well be wrong. Waysider may have enough of an argument to state his case and cause me to change my ignorant mind. But I'm not inclined to dive into it on my own, respectfully.

[chockfull]

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.

Yes, you establish that you are aware of a considerable vocabulary, enough to understand what your friends are saying. Yes, if you use a word your friends don't understand, a knowledge of English would involve defining that word you used. Yes, you have a working knowledge of the rules of grammar, to the point where you are able to construct whole sentences in conversation to convey the ideas in your head.

Yes, demonstrating a knowledge of English is a whole lot more involved than just speaking it. For example, a non-English speaker could memorize the Gettysburg address and recite it word for word without deomonstrating that they have a knowledge of English. This happens worldwide with music all over the place. Bands playing concerts in places that don't speak their language experience that the audience can sing along to their songs.

A knowledge of English (or of any language) can be measured by taking standardized tests, which will rate the speaker from 1 to 5. Scores above 3 indicate "fluency" in a language, demonstrating a measurably higher knowledge of the language.

Speaking a language is sufficient to be labeled a demonstration of knowledge of that language.

100% disagree.

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.

And I submit that there is no difference between the first time where I paraphrased Samarin (which turned out to be an exact quote except was missing the word "demonstrate".

If you look at other works defining xenoglossalalia, it usually is talking about the psychic phenomenon where a conversation with a spirit guide leads to phrases that are in different languages, then interpreted. But ALWAYS, the defining difference between glossolalia and xenoglossalalia is whether or not the speaker has a knowledge of the language they are speaking. xenoglossalalia simply notes that the person did not learn the language by normally accepted means (i.e. in my previous example the spirit guide spoke Spanish and liked Santeria - the medium did not).

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.

That is absolutely NOT what SIT means. Very clearly wrapped up in the definition is the concept that the speaker DOES NOT have a knowledge of the language. The 12 apostles did not learn the 25 languages described at Pentecost, they spoke forth via the spirit, and God energized the language. This bypassed the human mind.

This is signified by a distinction in the very defining Greek words in the Bible. glossolalia - suffix is laleo - to speak, with the emphasis on the speaking part rather than the content of the message. Speaking from considered thought is a different Greek word - lego. It is not glossolego in the texts, it is glossolalia.