No, I don't want to quibble about which other language forms the largest influence on 'old English' vs 'middle English' vs 'modern English.  I'll certainly grant that latin itself is a more 'elder parent' than French and that French is very latin-ish to begin with.  I don't really have any dispute with you about the point of origin of English language.  We are certainly agreed that English is a bastard/mongrel language.  I never meant to suggest otherwise.


This is apparently where we are in disagreement.  As far as I understand the history of English, the early phase known as "old English" is the period of 5th century up to 1066.  That is the language of Beowulf.  It essentially developed as a vernacular language for the Angles and Saxons in England and that's about it.

I've found no references of this 'old English' language being used as a 'bridge' language for any third parties at that point in history - apart from the obvious connection with northern Germany and Denmark (from whence the Angles and Saxons came).  The only reference to the language in terms of the Mediterranean I can find would be the Vangarian Guard of the Byzantine Emperors and that's it.  In this last respect, it was always customary for Roman Emperors to have a private bodyguard made up of elite foreign/barbarian warriors. 


The 'middle English' beginning with the Norman conquest is the language of Chaucer and this is the particular phase I was referring to with my point about English being about 1000 years old.  That is to say, from a modern perspective (and a lay reader), the language of Chaucer can be very challenging indeed, but the language of Beowulf is utterly incomprehensible to anyone not trained to it.

That being said, you are most certainly correct that 'old English' obviously is much older than 1000 years. 

As noted above, I don't dispute the age of 'old English'.  However I must insist that 'old English' still has everything thing to do with being a British language.  That's where it was created, that's where it was used, that's where it grew to become the language we use today.  Certainly lots of other languages have had a large influence, but to say 'old English' has nothing to do with Britain just defies my comprehension.

I don't dispute this.  I only have disputed your assertion that English, whether that be 'old English' or 'middle English', served as any kind of international language prior to the modern era.  It certainly served as a common language for various peoples in Britain, no doubt of that, but I just don't see much evidence of its usage outside of Britain by non-Brits (using these terms loosely here).

As far as I understand western European history of the 5th to the 15th century, only Latin and later French could possibly be asserted to have any substantial currency as an international language in Europe at that time period.  Certainly not 'old English' except perhaps in some pockets on the outer edges of Europe.

Yes, I'm sure we are entirely in agreement on the entire lack of merit in the idea expressed in the OP.

I never disputed that English originates as a common means of communication in 'dark ages' Britain.  I have only objected to your assertion of the substantial international usage of the language at that time period. 

As far as I'm concerned, English's rise to international stature doesn't really begin until the industrial revolution and didn't really become dominant until WW2.

My apologies for continuing this topic digression about the history of English, but it is a more interesting topic than the OP.

1. English was invented entirely in Britain by Brits.

2. Old Saxon and Old French are the largest source of words in the English language.  There are some Celtic, Latin and Greek elements certainly.  The inclusion of "Spanish" in your list above (and missing French) is what caught my attention.

3. The development of the English language owes nothing to the goal of a cosmopolitian and all encompassing language to be used universally.  That is pure hyperbole.  English may have ended up that way, but it was never intended for that purpose.  Indeed, English was not usually spoken by a majority of the English ruling class until the 18th century, and English language grammar and spelling rules were only invented in the very late 19th century (for the simple reason that English elites for hundreds of years didn't think the language was worthy of educated persons).

4. French was the 1st internationally used language of diplomacy and commerce, not English.  Hence the expression lingua Franca.

The English language is only about 1000 years old.

For most of the time period you specify, Latin or French was the most heavily used international language.

Again, not correct.

Zoroaster has the honor of being the oldest (or first) monotheist religion, predating Akhenaten/Amenhotep IV by at least 1000 years or more

Btw, it sure is amazing the way the Jews keep constantly claiming to be the oldest monotheist religion when there are two clear examples of monotheists that predate them.

The Principal's act was a clear case of "attempted" intolerance. 

The Principal has every right to resign over such issues of conscience.  That is his private right.

But the Principal made a big public announcement about it - essentially a threat to ban the new club.

From the news story, it appears that this Principal only backed down once he learned that the school board couldn't legally support him.  So his attempt at intolerance failed.  And then he agrees not to resign.

That's pathetic.  The Principal threatens to resign over the gay club, then recinds his threatened resignation when he discovers that he's lost the battle.

Kinda makes me suspicious about those 'principles' he was standing on to make his resignation in the first place.  The terms of his resignation suggests that he ought to resign and stay resigned.

Indeed, this Principal apparently thinks that his religious principles and convictions are merely things used to posture with to get what you want.  If that fails, then the religious principles and convictions that motivated it all apparently are secondary to the Principal's love of this job and income.

Smells like hypocritical religioius posturing to me.  And a clear attempt at intolerance that failed. 

British medieval history is one of my fields of specialized study.  And yes, I've been watching the series.

For the most part, the series is remarkably good for a television-based mini-series on a famous historical period.  Sure there is some 'dramatic' license here and there, but overall, the series is rather well done from a purely historical perspective (no surprise given the production credits).

My only complaint is that they make Henry look a lot more decent, upstanding and clever than he perhaps really was.  He was a very typical medieval king, mostly concerned only for himself and his patrimony.  Personally, Henry VIII would not make my list of the top five best British monarchs.  He was way too self-centered and emotively reactive to be a good king.  He was a spendthrift, a mediocre administrator and didn't actually achieve much during his long reign.

Btw, Henry was indeed touted as an uncommonly handsome prince in his younger years.

The watchmaker argument was constructed by theists in response to the challenge of the theory of evolution.

Besides, I see no logical or rational reason why any atheist should need or want or bother to argue against the watchmaker argument.  Atheism itself does not require or necessitate that act.

From the perspective of philosophy, the watchmaker argument is nothing more than a restatement of the Genesis theory in that it is asserted entirely as an article of faith.  Atheism essentially just rejects all human-assertions or human-constructions of alleged statements of God's truth.  That is to say, atheism is entirely a negative assertion, it contains no positive content.  One cannot project positive content onto atheism itself. 

For example, the theory of evolution, or theory of natural selection, may be disproven in the future - if this were to occur, this would not directly impact the rational validity of atheism itself.  Atheism is not dependent upon evolutionary theory (they are merely mutually compatible concepts).

Btw, Candide is the name of a novel written by Voltaire in 1759, based on the famous Lisbon earthquake of 1755.  This novel serves as a classic example of 'atheist' type ideas in evidence - a full century before Darwin came along.  One might say that this novel represents the introduction of the idea of atheism into popular consciousness.

The term "atheist" originates (in usage) as a slur favored by religious types to use against their political enemies (circa 16th century).

According to Wiki (or the OED) it is not until the 18th century before any 'positive' usage/affirmation of the term is found.  Until that time, the term existed as a religious slur alone. 

Indeed, the 'positive' usage of this term is almost entirely identical to the way homosexuals have co-opted the term "fag" and Afro-Americans have co-opted the term "nigger" - turning these slurs into a badge they choose to be proud of.

Philosophy is NOT the search for truth. 

If that were true, then we'd be talking about 'aletheisophy' instead of 'philosophy' as that would be the proper term for the study or search for truth. 

As I've noted previously and repeatedly, philosophy is a search (or love) of wisdom.  It is a religious conceit to just assume that "wisdom" means "God" by definition.  It might, or it might not. 

According to the reasonings of epistemology, God's existence (or not) is a matter that categorically resides entirely outside the realm of human knowledge.  Philosophy is properly concerned with human-based knowledge - it is human subjective by definition.  Ergo, God's existence is not a relevant question of analysis in philosophy because the existence of God(s) are not subject to any consistent rule of human reasoning, human rationality or human logic.

The search for (or love of) truth is essentially the practical definition of religion (holding that truth is synonymous with God's truth).

There are several other "religious-themed" threads in this sub-forum that are begging for one's religious opinions regarding God's existence.  This isn't one of them.

If you follow Kant's reasoning, God's existence stands entirely outside the realm of human knoweldge (by definition).  Ergo, questions about God's existence have no place in philosophy.

Arguments about God's existence are a matter of religion alone.

Arguments about God's existence are not a matter of philosophic inquiry.

Apparently my sarcasm was too subtle.

I was mocking the notion that scientific rationalism begins with Darwin.

Sorry, but I've since had cause to reconsider that decision.

I take nothing personally.

However, I do take people's words for what they say, not what one might think they are implying by giving them the benefit of the doubt.  I give no one the benefit of the doubt.

I do like economics discussions, I do like to start economics threads, I do find the topic interesting, I have studied the topic and I'm the one who is posting here talking about not posting here.

And the comment was clearly directed as an argument about why people don't post on economics threads.  Ergo, since I was talking about that precise topic, it applies to me.  That may not have been the intention of the poster (I don't really care if it was or not), that is the outcome of that poster's words.

Anyway, I'm not sure which is more weird - the vague insult against any who might want to discuss economics (but won't because of commercial spam), or the 'full-court' press from all the site admins here to defend that view.  Seems odd.  (and no, I'm not asking for more admins to argue the point - the point is quite uninteresting).

In the west, both people and private corporations are free to fund and organize such protests and don't need government permission to do so.  This is perfectly legal and normal behavior.  I understand how this might be difficult for you to believe as this is certainly not the case in China. 

You seem to believe that the protests against the Olympic Torch were some anti-Chinese conspiracy.  That's laughable.   There have been protests against a whole lot of Olympics in the past.  Nothing unusual or suprising here.

Only China's authoritarian 'thin-skin' seems surprising here.

But I suppose that's to be expected - all authoritarian regimes are ferocious against any opposition, real or imagined.

Indeed, China sought to use the Olympics as a political billboard in the first place - no surprise that others will try to use these same Olympics for their political agenda.

Btw, RSF is a totally private interest.  It is neither a government agency, nor a media publication.

Nothing personal, but I'm not aware of such a distinction being meaningful or substantive in any way if you actually look at the content of what 'anti-immigration' people are saying about the issue.

USA has an illegal immigration problem because it has long choosen to categorize immigrants in that way.

The immigrants are coming no matter what - the only real issue is how you deal with that problem - either you can manage the process with legal immigration, or you can mis-manage the process and pander to the big-business lobby by categorizing immigrants as 'aliens' so that they can be paid less and denied rights.  Apparently the latter policy is quite electorally popular.

No, and I never said they were.

I suppose I'm being pedantic, but that's a common thing in philosophy.

The question of God's existence is irrelevant since God (or Gods), if they exist, are outside the realm of human knowledge.  Its not that this question isn't important, it is that this question cannot be rationally answered either way.  As such, the question is just a religious battle for converts (or pure speculation).  That has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with religion.

Anti-immigration is much like 'tort-reform' - policy proposals that are much loved by a small segment of the most vocal base of the Republican party and of interest to virtually no one else.

The 2006 midterms were a massive failure for the anti-immigration policy push.