SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

As I said, if we disagree on that, the rest of the conversation is moot. Say hi to everyone for me.

[chockfull]

All right, I'm looking up xenoglossolalia in other references, and it seems that definition is all over the map. Some say it's the same as glossolalia, others say it's glossolalia but describing the miracle where others understood (so socks example would be xenoglossolalia). Still others say like I think Samarin is saying that it involves "knowledge" of the language.

Dictionary definitions aren't any better that I could find. One describes xenoglossolalia as SIT, and has a link to the glossolalia definition, which is taken from the psychic and occult dictionary.

[Raf]

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.

Oh, the word "glossolalia" appears in the Bible now? Do tell, where?

Seriously, if you think there is no difference between your first definition of xenoglossia and your second, then you are forced, forced to conclude that I could speak Swahili in front of Samarin but because I do not otherwise "demonstrate a knowledge" of Swahili, even though it really was Swahili, he would dismiss it as meaningless glossalalia.

That's not deceptive. That's just dumb. (Not you. You're smart. Your analysis, not so much).

[chockfull]

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.

Not so much this as the linguists haven't had an understanding of the languages involved. I'm still not seeing why some of these linguists, or people heavily invested in proof, don't do something like post up all of the samples of SIT on one website and offer a reward for anyone able to identify verifiably what language they are.

[Raf]

Not so much this as the linguists haven't had an understanding of the languages involved. I'm still not seeing why some of these linguists, or people heavily invested in proof, don't do something like post up all of the samples of SIT on one website and offer a reward for anyone able to identify verifiably what language they are.

I wonder why people who claim to SIT don't just go into James Randi's office, SIT, and collect their $1 Million.

We can only go off the studies that have been done.

I find your dismissal of linguists' ability to detect and identify language to be without basis. They have a way to do that. Phonetic structure. And the results keep coming back to the language of the speaker.

That's as close to an objective standard for proof as you're going to get.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Oh, the word "glossolalia" appears in the Bible now? Do tell, where?

Ummmm - everywhere you see the term "speaking in tongues" that is the Greek word glossolalia. That's where the term comes from.

Seriously, if you think there is no difference between your first definition of xenoglossia and your second, then you are forced, forced to conclude that I could speak Swahili in front of Samarin but because I do not otherwise "demonstrate a knowledge" of Swahili, even though it really was Swahili, he would dismiss it as meaningless glossalalia.

You demonstrating a KNOWLEDGE of the language would involved not just speaking words you don't understand but would involve you understanding the language when it is spoken to you. That's the difference between a "knowledge" of a language, and just speaking it. If you understood it when it was spoken to you, then it would not need to be interpreted.

Look, even basic common sense in discussing this bears this out. If I speak another language like Spanish, and I tell my friends "I know Spanish" then when we go to Tiajuana do you think they are going to expect that I can converse with the cab driver? Or just that I can speak it to him but not understand anything he says?

And discussing possible scenarios about what we think Samarin might conclude about them is about as far from anything scientific as I can imagine.

[chockfull]

I find your dismissal of linguists' ability to detect and identify language to be without basis. They have a way to do that. Phonetic structure. And the results keep coming back to the language of the speaker.

No they don't. I dealt with this in a previous post where Samarin discusses the "derivative and innovative" features of glossa. He studied this by comparing glossa samples to an English consonant map, found that the sounds mapped, but then noted that applied to "several other" known languages. Then he describes "innovative" features where the sounds being made weren't in the native language, and he postulates that's because someone had exposure to the language before.

This is easily explained by the fact your first learned language will produce an accent in another language you learn.

And in phonetic structure Samarin found glossa samples to phonetically be similar to language to the point where he could distinguish between them and samples of "gibberish" inserted. They had sentences, phrasing, word breakdowns, etc.

[waysider]

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.

You give a guy/gal who is skilled in carpentry some materials and tools and they can build something..... a doghouse, a birdhouse, a breadbox, a coffin for your dead dog Rover. If it's a familiar object, you can identify it. If it's not, you can't identify it.... but, you know it's SOMETHING.

On the other hand, you give a guy/gal who is ignorant of carpentry the same materials and tools and you never know what you'll get. Suppose they cut the boards up into random sizes and start pounding nails and attaching hinges willy-nilly until they run out of parts. What is it? Who knows?

It's got boards. I recognize those. Nails... ditto. Hinges... ditto. So, I recognize the parts but not the finished product because it hasn't been assembled in a conventional manner.

Now consider tongues. The person starts speaking. "Leche", he says, as your ears pick up. And then there's a "pimiente" sprinkled in. Something that sounds remotely like "caliente" randomly finds it's way into the mix. Hmmmmmm....His tongue must be Spanish. Well, sure, those are Spanish words but, they aren't arranged in any logical sequence.

So, he has put together parts that you may be able to identify individually but it's all randomly assembled so, even though he said SOMETHING, it hasn't communicated the message, "Hey, look at me! I'm a birdhouse!"

Language communicates messages. Even if you don't understand the actual message, you should be able to understand that there is some sort of message being conveyed, just as you may not understand what it is the carpenter built but, you will recognize that it is SOMETHING..

[Raf]

So if I spoke in Swahili but didn't understand it, it's not a language according to Samarin.

You cannot escape my conclusion based on the premise you present, and the conclusion is ridiculous.

"Glossolalia" does not appear in the Bible. It is a modern term coined to encapsulate the Biblical phrase that IS used.

No they don't. I dealt with this in a previous post where Samarin discusses the "derivative and innovative" features of glossa. He studied this by comparing glossa samples to an English consonant map, found that the sounds mapped, but then noted that applied to "several other" known languages. Then he describes "innovative" features where the sounds being made weren't in the native language, and he postulates that's because someone had exposure to the language before.

Because the postulate he proposes is perfectly reasonable, as has been demonstrated. It is absolutely consistent with free vocalization. I WANT to produce a foreign language. Therefore, I inject foreign sounds into my glossa.

And in phonetic structure Samarin found glossa samples to phonetically be similar to language to the point where he could distinguish between them and samples of "gibberish" inserted. They had sentences, phrasing, word breakdowns, etc.

They had those things because the glossalist WANTED them to have those things, not because of anything supernatural and not because it was a real language. Sentences, phrasing, word breakdowns, longer pauses for periods, shorter pauses for commas: all of those are encapsulated in phonological structure, which you said last night proves nothing.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

The notion of Samarin distinguishing examples of gibberish inserted into the samples he studied is a false re-reporting of SHERRILL's findings. They are not Samarin's.

Samarin rejected gibberish because he considered them poor samples of glossolalia. It was presented to him AS glossolalia, and the speaker no doubt considered them glossolalia. But the obvious "gibberish" nature of it caused him to reject them. (I believe this is a reasonable interpretation of the account he gives on page 51).

It was Sherrill who claimed to insert gibberish samples among the glossolalia samples and claimed the linguists easily spotted the difference. But as I've noted earlier, we do not know enough about Sherrill's approach to take it seriously at this time. That could change with more information. Did you order his book yet?

Edited October 24, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

So if I spoke in Swahili but didn't understand it, it's not a language according to Samarin.

Look I have no idea how he would respond if God performed that miracle right in front of his face. I see accounts in the Bible where people fall down on their face and worship God. But there is absolutely no way to tell how a man is going to react to something.

You cannot escape my conclusion based on the premise you present, and the conclusion is ridiculous.

Well, if you don't like the conclusion you are at, perhaps you ought to re-evaluate the logic that got you there.

"Glossolalia" does not appear in the Bible. It is a modern term coined to encapsulate the Biblical phrase that IS used.

Here's the verse and transliteration of I Cor. 12:30:

"have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

" mh. pa,ntej cari,smata e;cousin ivama,twnÈ mh. pa,ntej glw,ssaij lalou/sinÈ mh. pa,ntej diermhneu,ousinÈ"

Why don't we invite the reader to play "where's Waldo?" and see if they can find glossolalia somewhere in the horrible cut and paste job I did from my Greek text?

Or I guess we could just believe you when you state your opinion as fact again.......

[Raf]

Look I have no idea how he would respond if God performed that miracle right in front of his face. I see accounts in the Bible where people fall down on their face and worship God. But there is absolutely no way to tell how a man is going to react to something.

BUT WE DO HAVE A WAY TO TELL HOW HE WOULD REACT TO THIS! He tells us exactly what he would do!

Well, if you don't like the conclusion you are at, perhaps you ought to re-evaluate the logic that got you there.

THE LOGIC THAT GOT ME THERE WAS YOURS!

Here's the verse and transliteration of I Cor. 12:30:

"have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

" mh. pa,ntej cari,smata e;cousin ivama,twnÈ mh. pa,ntej glw,ssaij lalou/sinÈ mh. pa,ntej diermhneu,ousinÈ"

Why don't we invite the reader to play "where's Waldo?" and see if they can find glossolalia somewhere in the horrible cut and paste job I did from my Greek text?

Or I guess we could just believe you when you state your opinion as fact again.......

I agree that "glossa" is in the Bible.

I agree that "laleo" is in the Bible.

"Glossolalia" is not. That's not my opinion. The verse you cite does not contradict what I am saying. Glossolalia as a word was coined by those studying it. And you can emphasize the laleo part all you want, but you can't escape the glossa part. It means languages.

Look, you're swinging wildly here and looking a little ridiculous. Take a breath. Do what I did yesterday. Walk away for a while, and come back when you've had time to think about it.

[chockfull]

Because the postulate he proposes is perfectly reasonable, as has been demonstrated. It is absolutely consistent with free vocalization. I WANT to produce a foreign language. Therefore, I inject foreign sounds into my glossa.

Yes that explanation is reasonable. So are several other explanations that would provide a cause for that which are equally reasonable. Look, you are getting some confusion in your terminology here.

I call this an explanation, not a postulate. A postulate is to assume without proof, or as self-evident. To take for granted. Geometry has postulates of point, line and plane. These are universally accepted as true without the need to prove them.

Now while I could let you slide on that definition, it would be you shooting yourself in the foot. You don't state postulates about something you are proving. That's the whole point of proving it. But then again that seems to be a common theme in this thread - you mixing up postulates with proofs.

They had those things because the glossalist WANTED them to have those things, not because of anything supernatural and not because it was a real language.

Again - that's one plausible explanation among many. Another plausible explanation is they were SIT with a non-native speaker's accent.

Sentences, phrasing, word breakdowns, longer pauses for periods, shorter pauses for commas: all of those are encapsulated in phonological structure, which you said last night proves nothing.

No it doesn't prove anything. And I'm certainly not postulating that anything phonetically resembling a language IS a language. Presenting sketchy postulates as proven fact does nothing but confuse people.

[Raf]

Yes that explanation is reasonable. So are several other explanations that would provide a cause for that which are equally reasonable. Look, you are getting some confusion in your terminology here.

I call this an explanation, not a postulate.

Ok, but postulate is the term YOU used. Just saying.

A postulate is to assume without proof, or as self-evident. To take for granted. Geometry has postulates of point, line and plane. These are universally accepted as true without the need to prove them.

I was using the term because you did.

Now while I could let you slide on that definition, it would be you shooting yourself in the foot. You don't state postulates about something you are proving. That's the whole point of proving it. But then again that seems to be a common theme in this thread - you mixing up postulates with proofs.

Stop using the word if you don't want me to repeat it.

Again - that's one plausible explanation among many. Another plausible explanation is they were SIT with a non-native speaker's accent.

That's neither a postulate nor a hypothesis. It's conjecture. And you accuse me of not being faithful to the scientific method.

No it doesn't prove anything. And I'm certainly not postulating that anything phonetically resembling a language IS a language. Presenting sketchy postulates as proven fact does nothing but confuse people.

Then stop doing it.

[chockfull]

BUT WE DO HAVE A WAY TO TELL HOW HE WOULD REACT TO THIS! He tells us exactly what he would do!

So let me recap. We are in the middle of a thread where you are presenting tons of "proofs" that SIT is not a language and not real, and the scientific method you want to use is to try and speculate how a linguist who wrote an article 30 years ago might react to a fictional event?

And I'm the one looking ridiculous?

It's equally likely that after 30 years he tired of the subject and now has zero interest in it any more.

I agree that "glossa" is in the Bible.

I agree that "laleo" is in the Bible.

"Glossolalia" is not. That's not my opinion. The verse you cite does not contradict what I am saying. Glossolalia as a word was coined by those studying it. And you can emphasize the laleo part all you want, but you can't escape the glossa part. It means languages.

Can you get a little more petty than this? All the roots of the word are right from the Bible, oh but the whole word isn't. Come on, now. I don't even know what point you are trying to make about this at all.

That's neither a postulate nor a hypothesis. It's conjecture. And you accuse me of not being faithful to the scientific method.

You stated one plausible explanation, I stated another. Neither proves anything.

[Raf]

So let me recap. We are in the middle of a thread where you are presenting tons of "proofs" that SIT is not a language and not real, and the scientific method you want to use is to try and speculate how a linguist who wrote an article 30 years ago might react to a fictional event?

And I'm the one looking ridiculous?

Yes. You are asking me to believe that Samarin would consider the speaking of a known language that the speaker did not otherwise understand to not be a sample of xenoglossia. I think that's absurd.

It's equally likely that after 30 years he tired of the subject and now has zero interest in it any more.

Not to question your grasp of the facts any more than necessary, but 1968 was 44 years ago.

Can you get a little more petty than this?

I suppose I could sink to your level.

All the roots of the word are right from the Bible, oh but the whole word isn't. Come on, now. I don't even know what point you are trying to make about this at all.

Only that you're claiming things about the Bible that aren't true to the Bible, and if you're going to expect me to accept what you present as the Biblical truth to this, you need to get your facts straight.

You stated one plausible explanation, I stated another. Neither proves anything.

I never said your explanation was plausible. I never judged your explanation at all. And I still don't.

[chockfull]

Yes. You are asking me to believe that Samarin would consider the speaking of a known language that the speaker did not otherwise understand to not be a sample of xenoglossia. I think that's absurd.

I'm not asking you to believe anything. I was completely foolish even responding to your question about what I thought a linguist who wrote an article 44 years ago might speculate about a fictional event. Now, apparently your underlying reasons for this are coming out. You were asking the questions as a trap to bait me.

Here, let me put this whole question to rest for you. I DON'T KNOW what a linguist who wrote an article 44 years ago might think about a fictional miraculous phenomenon that he experienced. But I'll highlight some POSSIBLE RESPONSES for you:

Samarin might:

1) Jump up and down for joy.

2) Jump up and down in anger.

3) Fall down on his face and worship God

4) Tear out all his hair

5) Go and get an ice cream

Now that's not an exclusive list, but it should be enough to keep you busy refuting me for a while at least.

I don't know what he might think is or is not xenoglossia. He further writes about it - direct quote: "The word [xenoglossia], in fact, is supposed to have been coined by Charles Richet (as xenoglossie in French) at the turn of the century when he reported on his investigation of "automatic writing in foreign language" to the London Society for Psychical Research."

So he also might think you are a psychic?

[Raf]

Why do you hypothesize everything about what Samarin would have done EXCEPT what Samarin tells you he would have done?

It wasn't a trap to bait you. It was an effort to clarify your definition of xenoglossia in the context of this discussion. A person speaking in tongues and producing a foreign language would be exhibiting xenoglossia. You don't agree with that. I find your disagreement to be... let me find a word that you used; hang on a minute; ah, here it is... petty.

And yes, Samarin might think you're a psychic. Or an alien. Or reincarnated. Or God-energized. He might think any of those things. Not as a linguist. Just as a person. He's completely open to all of it as far as being a scientist is concerned. But we'll never know, because none of the samples he reviewed before this paper or since turned up xenoglossia.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

By the way, as someone who is not a linguist, I am apt to get my terminology wrong from time to time. I know what I mean, but a real linguist might correct me in my use of certain terms.

I'm seeing where my references to "phonetic structure," for example, might have been better stated "phonemic strata." They mean the same thing in my head, but an expert might draw distinctions where I draw none. Just saying.

[chockfull]

It wasn't a trap to bait you. It was an effort to clarify your definition of xenoglossia in the context of this discussion. A person speaking in tongues and producing a foreign language would be exhibiting xenoglossia. You don't agree with that. I find your disagreement to be... let me find a word that you used; hang on a minute; ah, here it is... petty.

Well, I read in Samarin's article the context of xenoglossia before. And it is a term that originated in studying psychic phenomenon, more specifically, automatic writing. Automatic writing is when in a séance, the medium encloses a pen or piece of chalk completely between two writing surfaces and ties it up. Then the spirit guide writes down messages. Apparently some of these messages were in other languages, and sometimes they were translated. So the term was coined to come up with a description for how the medium learned those languages without ever studying them.

Then magically, by the stroke of some genius theologian somewhere, the term came to be loosely associated with SIT. And I say loosely because there is no way SIT even remotely resembles automatic writing in a different language.

Samarin himself describes it as the "knowledge of a language", so that was the definition I was speaking from. I find your conclusion that someone saying a few phrases in a language consists of "a knowledge of a language" to be lacking. I find that the difference between that and a true "knowledge of a language", such as that which is described and measured via sources like the ACTFL Proficiency Guides (http://www.languagetesting.com/actfl-proficiency-scale) to be quite large indeed.

Edited October 24, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

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.

All credit for the improved tone of the conversation goes to Chockfull, not to me. As far as I was concerned, I gave what I got and I never apologized for it. When Chockfull turned down the volume, I turned down the volume. He gets all the credit.

That said, my rejoinder to the "can we get more petty" post might be considered a cheap shot. I do apologize for it.

[Raf]

Samarin himself describes it as the "knowledge of a language", so that was the definition I was speaking from. I find your conclusion that someone saying a few phrases in a language consists of "a knowledge of a language" to be lacking. I find that the difference between that and a true "knowledge of a language", such as that which is described and measured via sources like the ACTFL Proficiency Guides (http://languagetesting.com/scale.htm) to be quite large indeed.

Sigh. No, Samarin does not call it "knowledge of a language." He calls it "demonstrating knowledge of a language," and speaking a language demonstrates knowledge of it. Seriously, man. The practical difference by adding that one word is huge. Ignoring it or glossing over it changes everything we're discussing.

The terms xenoglossia and glossolalia are modern terms used to describe supernatural things. No, the Bible does not come as close to using the word xenoglossia as it comes to using the word glossolalia. But the vocabulary is a shorthand for what we are really discussing, and picking apart the vocabulary is not as useful as studying the actual claims made in both Biblical times and now.

Without resorting to modern terminology: The Bible describes people speaking in languages they did not know. Modern SIT does not produce this. The attempts to read into the Bible a sort of secret-code language to assert that they never really claimed to be speaking human languages is undercut by the fact that glossa (the spoken form) in the Bible has the very simple meaning of language. Efforts to redefine it are retroactive attempts to force the Bible to fit a faked practice. Let the Bible speak for itself. If what you're doing doesn't produce what the Bible plainly says it will produce, then scrap your practice and keep your Bible.

P.S. I'm not clicking on that link. I've chased enough of your red herrings when dealing with Hockett's list.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

All credit for the improved tone of the conversation goes to Chockfull, not to me. As far as I was concerned, I gave what I got and I never apologized for it. When Chockfull turned down the volume, I turned down the volume. He gets all the credit.

That said, my rejoinder to the "can we get more petty" post might be considered a cheap shot. I do apologize for it.

I'm sure that it's highly likely we are going to mouth off to each other in this conversation, despite all our best human intentions. It is a detailed topic that involves specialties we never studied like linguistics, we are analyzing studies via the scientific method and discussing rules of logic, we are defining terms that have sketchy backgrounds and little agreed common ground, and we are discussing doctrinal topics including specific scriptures and their interpretation. We are doing this over an internet forum, which makes it more tedious than a normal conversation.

And we are coming from an abusive cult.

Suffice it to say that I have low expectations for both this discussion and our behavior. And I find myself consistently exceeding even the lowness of those expectations I suppose I can accept credit for exceeding low expectations!!!! LOL!!!!!

Raf, I'm not taking the static personally, and don't you either. My disclaimer is that my mouthing off does not reflect my inner thoughts and innate value estimation of Raf or others on this thread. Raf's a pretty sharp guy, and it's been pretty fun in a manner of speaking worming through the muck with him on the topic.

If you need me to apologize for each individual mouthing off, I will. Sorry for those.

[Raf]

I've actually been offended by none of it. But it seemed to bother other people.

Best thing I did yesterday was to just back off and not immediately respond to that last post. Gave me a chance to regain my composure and gather my thoughts. And as you can see, I felt little need to go through most of it. If there's something I haven't addressed that you want me to, feel free to bring it up again.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Sigh. No, Samarin does not call it "knowledge of a language." He calls it "demonstrating knowledge of a language," and speaking a language demonstrates knowledge of it. Seriously, man. The practical difference by adding that one word is huge. Ignoring it or glossing over it changes everything we're discussing.

LOL. If you don't HAVE the knowledge, then you CAN'T DEMONSTRATE IT. SIT is not demonstrating the knowledge of a language, it is demonstrating the language itself.

The terms xenoglossia and glossolalia are modern terms used to describe supernatural things. No, the Bible does not come as close to using the word xenoglossia as it comes to using the word glossolalia. But the vocabulary is a shorthand for what we are really discussing, and picking apart the vocabulary is not as useful as studying the actual claims made in both Biblical times and now.

Oh, I don't know. I think the etymology of the word xenoglossia coming from mediums performing automatic writing is pretty useful. It certainly shows the scientists' absolute lack of ability to discern between Holy Spirit and devil spirit.

Without resorting to modern terminology: The Bible describes people speaking in languages they did not know. Modern SIT does not produce this.

"Modern SIT does not produce this".

And there goes Raf with the opinion rhetoric train again.

I contend that modern SIT DOES produce this, and that scientists with the demonstrated ability to not be able to discern between devil spirit and holy spirit are inept at measuring it. And that their sample space may very well be contaminated with fakers.

The attempts to read into the Bible a sort of secret-code language to assert that they never really claimed to be speaking human languages is undercut by the fact that glossa (the spoken form) in the Bible has the very simple meaning of language. Efforts to redefine it are retroactive attempts to force the Bible to fit a faked practice. Let the Bible speak for itself. If what you're doing doesn't produce what the Bible plainly says it will produce, then scrap your practice and keep your Bible.

And here comes my favorite strawman again. I'm just praying via the spirit and leaving the language part of it up to God and trusting Him to do what He says He will in scriptures. Is what is produced a human language? I DON'T KNOW OTHER THAN THE BIBLE I BELIEVE SAYS IT IS Is it the tongue of an angel? I DON'T KNOW - COULD BE THAT OR COULD BE ITS JUST FIGURATIVELY REFERRING TO ITS POWER AND HOLINESS.

I'm just letting the Bible speak for itself and I'm walking out on its promises. I trust that as you state, glossa means languages and what is produced is a language. But I've never had a first-hand experience like socks to prove it to myself.

P.S. I'm not clicking on that link. I've chased enough of your red herrings when dealing with Hockett's list.

LOL! So back to your fictional example, if you were SIT in understandable Swahili to Samarin, where do you think on the ACTFL language proficiency scale that would put your knowledge of Swahili? Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, or Superior?