Your response to Mongrowl's suggested link, effectively conveyed the rudeness and lack of civility in discourse, you intended.
Your point was significantly less impressive.
"...(these beliefs) have no place in any serious discussion of linguistics, philology or the evolution of language"
Erik, any 'serious discussion' of linguistics, and the '*evolution of language', would most certainly allocate places of importance, not only for the role of religion in respect to a languages' word sources, but also inclusion of critical areas for the language generative elements supplied by:
Philosophical world views; creation myths; cultural patterns; gender roles; social and behavioral psychology; artistic disciplines; oral traditions; and genetic and geographical migration. This is the short list of linguistical contributory factors to any languages' origin.
"Religion is the domain of faith;..."
Erik, Religion is not
the domain of faith, belief is. And faith in ones belief is often ones 'religion' of choice. This would include a faithful belief in the absolute reason and logic of science; or the absolute belief in the uselessness of any opinion, devoid of 'demonstrable evidence'.
The noun, 'religion'is from the early Ecclesiastical Latin verb , 're-liga-re'. 'Re/ra' is from the Hebrew(ra)/Greek(affix)/Amharic/M'du N'jter(Kemetic), meaning; 'source', 'whole', 'beginning', 'All That Is' or 'the One'. The stem, 'liga' is from Latin/Greek, meaning 'to bind'. (The root of 'ligament'.)
Thus, originally, the act of religare, meant 'to bind (back) to source'. The positing of 're' at both the front and back of this word literally and figuratively re-in-forces
(pun intended relentlessly)its meaning.
The later use of 're' as a prefix meaning simply to 'go back' had its earliest usage in St. Jerome's Vulgate; the translation into Vulgar Latin of biblical writings in Greek, which were earlier translations of the original Hebrew. (Take note Haro.)
Its,(religare), earliest usage had no direct religious connotations.
'Binding to the source' was attained by acquiring and applying the laws revealed by higher or divine knowledge. The claim to possession of doctrines of divine knowledge was not limited to early Christianity. But, that requires elaboration that is not relevant here.
Religare was the act of an individuals re-membering
, as it were, to All That Is; by learning, believing, and accepting in faith, any doctrine claiming a path to absolute knowing. By that difinition, and your comments----it still applies.
In curious contrast, your almost religious reverence for 'logic' is understandable. The logic of 'logos' is from the Greek, by way of the Hebrew 'loh-gohs', meaning the 'mind of God'.
"en ra-KAY ayn ha LOH-gohs", is the beginning of the Greek Genesis of John 1:1.
The first two words, reading left-to-right, are en ra-KAY, the preposition en meaning in, on, or at, followed by the noun ra-KAY meaning beginning or first. This phrase corresponds to the first line in the Hebrew Book of Genesis, 'be-re-SHIYT'; in fact the Greek (Septuagint) translation of Genesis 1:1 starts off with just these two words, en ra-KAY.
The next word, ayn, is the third person imperfect form of the verb "to be" -- it means "he/she/it was."
The final two words, ha LOH-gohs, are the definite article "the" followed by that very important biblical word Logos. The pronunciation of ancient Greek has it with short O's.
Its semantic range is broad, though I suspect this was not the case originally. Presently accepted meanings include; the mind or word (of God), source, one thing, matter; it's also not the only Greek word rendered "word" in English (the second most common is RA-ma, usually transliterated as rema). English Bibles invariably render ha LOH-gohs in John 1:1 as "the Word" (or "the word," since there is no distinction between upper and lower case letters in the oldest manuscripts).
So a word-for-word translation from the Greek to English is just what most English Bibles render: "in-beginning was the-word.
Thus, the faithful (you may sign that list Erik) may conclude that logic (and by extenstion, reason) are the sole domains of God. Mankind must make do with religion.
Erik,when you write;
"...linguistics, on the other hand, seeks to piece together the history and evolution of the world's languages from demonstrable evidence."
I'm tempted to insist that you provide,'demonstrable evidence', to support your obvious assumption, in the form of whatever might constitute a 'Linguistic's Mission Statement'
I must admit I'm impressed by your psychic abilities; evidenced by your ability to gleam Mongrowl's personal belief system and 'agenda', from nothing more then the link supplied.
"Clearly you are a believer in those ancient stories; I am not, and to me it is not credible that someone without a religious agenda, wanting to understand how language evolved, could, for instance, take seriously the premise of the Edenics site".
*(Note: Languages can not evolve, influence or develop. These are relative values. Languages are not independent agencies nor do they pocess accountability. They do
exhibit the various appropriations and acquisitions supplied by their speakers.
Establishing the origins of any language should entail a through inclusion and comparative analyses of all the applicable attributes of its agents---human beings).
For the religion or logic challenged':