Conservapedia talk:World History Lecture Two
Peoples who only had primitive languages were easily conquered by groups that had more powerful languages. - What in all that is holy, is a "primative" language, and how the F does language have ANYTHING to do with winning. What exactly is a "primative" language, sir? One that grunts? Got's to go make me a sock! --WaitingforGodot 10:32, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
- Rant 2, yes, I'm talkign to myself.... Had Christ come into this world in 2000 or 1000 B.C., would there have been a language powerful enough to express His ideas? HOly Spirit could not be expressed...- What exactly does this mean??? Does he think that Jesus spoke English??? he spoke GREEK, which exist 2000 years earlier. dear god in heaven, this guy is ruining your good name.--WaitingforGodot 10:34, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
- Aramaic, actually, but yes, true. Interestingly, very few people speak Aramaic these days, and it's clearly an endangered language. I wonder if that means it's a primitive language as well. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 10:38, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
- True that. but i hadn't read his comments on the Greek (and as you said, NOT aramic) translation and how "perfect" those are for holy spirit, but english apparently isn't good enough for "holy spirit". Hello, idiot boy. Define "love". there is a reason some concepts are termed "abstract", cause no amount of language can actually define them. HELLO
- Rant 3 (i sware, this is the last one, cause the idiot is done expounding on one of the many things he knows nothing about - that I happen to care about) "This was one of the greatest advances in the history of mankind, perhaps as great as the invention of the wheel, because now language could begin to describe powerful concepts and abstract ideas." see, first comes the language, THEN comes writing, not the other way around. If speakers haven't invented a concept yet, the language doesnt need to code it down. and by the way, China and japan, with its annoying little Character-Based language manages to do just fine in that "philosophy" area. IDIOT!!!!!!!!! ok, Godot is done ranting.--WaitingforGodot 10:41, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
- Aramaic, actually, but yes, true. Interestingly, very few people speak Aramaic these days, and it's clearly an endangered language. I wonder if that means it's a primitive language as well. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 10:38, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Sour grapes
Sorry, but Assfly is right on this one. Very briefly the fable goes that the fox, unable to reach the grapes, comments that they were probably sour anyway. [1]. As such "sour grapes" is a term referring to someone saying that they never wanted what they have just found they can't have. Jack Hughes (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Reliability of Herodotus
This is nitpicking but the idea that archaeologists accepted his work as gospel, or even remotely reliable, at any point in history strikes me as being extremely unlikely given that his reliability has been questioned since his own time. His critics include Cicero, Aristotle, Josephus, Harpocration and Plutarch. One early modern commentator (I can't remember who) said that Herodotus was both the father of history and the father of liars. It is worth mentioning that Herodotus does in fact admit that he relied on hearsay evidence. Alsto003 (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Alex