Archaeologica.org

<courage even to discuss the age of languages. too bad, as i was looking for some serious information as to which language may be the oldest, length of time used, its influences and so on. >
Try Sanskrit. Like Latin, it is *still* being taught and used by clerics, p52 of "An Indoduction to Indo-European Languages"; "Classical Sanskrit was codified in the 5th century BCE by the grammarian Panini in his monumental *Astadhyayi* 'The eight chapters'. This highly abstract and algebraic grammar, which is based on an earlier work that hasnt been preserved, is the object of enduring and serious scholarship both in India and in the West; in effect the *Astadhyayi* fixed the form of Sanskrit and prohibited further change."

Makes me wish I had a knack for language. I have enuf trouble with English. but the whole idea of a language existing for over 2500 years that is just as readable now as the day it was written... is remarkable.

daybrown wrote:[...] I have enuf trouble with English.

No lo contendere.

but the whole idea of a language existing for over 2500 years that is just as readable now as the day it was written... is remarkable.

...and b!@$%!!
Because it takes 10 years of hard study to be able to decipher one Sanskrit sentence in one day.
'Readable' is the overstatement of the year.
Ancient Greek is just as old, a lot more "readable" than Sanskrit, and is probably taught at a college near you.

Rokcet, maybe you can read my english? I dunno how readable Sanskrit is now, only that, because of the Apadhyasi, its a *fixed* form that has not changed in 2500 years, whereas Greek and all the other languages have evolved in various ways. I expect Homeric, Platonic, Alexandrian, & Byzantine Greek, never mind modern Greek, present challenges to those who think they know Greek.

but if you know Sanskrit, its all the same... bitch.

all the other languages have evolved in various ways

Oh, no, D/B...you used the E word!

what about akkadian? i have read that most languages get their roots from this ancient tongue. sanskrit may be difficult but its longevity doesn't seem to reach back far enough, which would be the same for ancient greek.

we all know that language changes as time goes on, new words are added, spelling is changed so i don't think that can be used as a criteria. i face the dumbing down of the english language constantly as people look for the easiest way to speak and write. shows like espn do not help the structure of the english tongue nor its usage as they look for 'hip' and 'cool' ways to describe something even when it breaks the rules.

Minimalist wrote:

all the other languages have evolved in various ways

Oh, no, D/B...you used the E word!

ROTFLMAO!!!

my my my.... no takers on the language riddle. i honestly do not know what language he would have spoken and irt would have been interesting to read reports that made an attempt to define theworld's oldest language.

surely, one group of people were left with the original langauge spoken at the time of the dispersal from Babel.

sorry that was me and i forgot to sign a name to the previous post.

since you are always crying about how this is an archaeological forum yet no one uses archaeology, here is your chance to do so as you explore the riddle.

Noah's a fictional creation....you can have him speak Pig Latin for all it matters.

Noah's a fictional creation....you can have him speak Pig Latin for all it matters.

not even a hint of an open mind, so how can you call yourself a scientist? or a historian? you have pre-determined conclusions that hider any investigative discussions.

a good discussion could comeof it if you allow it to develope

You, who are dedicated to that sorry old book for all your answers, have the nerve to call someone else "closed-minded?"

You're going to love the next installment of Current Biblical Archaeology which takes apart the David-Goliath myth.

You're going to love the next installment of Current Biblical Archaeology which takes apart the David-Goliath myth

people try but when you take a closer look, their theories require more faith than the Bible stories. at least we know that they name goliath existed at the time which lends credence to the account.

As usual, you grasp at straws.

Your precious bible is becoming less relevant with each passing year.

Minimalist wrote:[...] Your precious bible is becoming less relevant with each passing year.

...at the hands of capable empirical scientists, archaeologists and free thinkers.
HA!
We'll get you sangoma's yet!