The Devolution of Languages

By Dr. Joseph Kezele

This is the third issue concerned with the origin of languages. The last issue (hyperlink) addressed the first point regarding the evolutionary model’s assumptions:

1.  Change in grammar has been in the direction of increasing complexity.

We demonstrated that languages are in fact simplifying with time. Second point:

2.  Sound shifts are random in the evolutionary model. However during the first millennium, B.C., a very significant change called the First Germanic Sound Shift occurred in consonants when Proto-Germanic was developing. The pattern of consonant changes:

Then from 600 to 800 A.D., the Second Germanic Sound Shift occurred, again demonstrating consistency in the patterns.

These examples demonstrate that languages shift sounds in non-random patterns. Third point:



3. Languages change uniformly through time according to the evolutionary model:


Here is Matthew 6:24 in three time periods. The first is Old English from 1,000 years ago:


Ne mæg nan man twam hlafordum ƥeowian oððe he soðlice ænne hatað and oðerne lufaƥ: oððe he bið anum gehyrsum. and oðrum ungehyrsum; Ne magnon ge gode ƥeowian and woruldwelan:


Matthew 6:24 from 500 years ago:


No man can serve two masters. For ether he shall hate the one and love the other: or els he shall lene to the one and despise the other: ye can not serve God and mammon.


Matthew 6:24 from 37 years ago:


No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.


Notice the phenomenal amount of change in the 500 years between the first two, but only minimal change in the last 500 years. This is not a uniform rate of change. Next point:


4. Change in language occurs in isolation:


The evolutionary biological model needs small, isolated gene pools for a new trait to become established. However people groups that remain isolated preserve their language with minimal change. History shows when peoples speaking different languages come into contact with each other, rapid changes occur. Vocabulary is borrowed in both directions, and grammar is simplified while efforts are made to establish communication. Think about what you do with a person who speaks no languages you speak: Me Tarzan – you Jane. Final point:


5. The biological model calls for random chance mutations in the four letters of the DNA alphabet to add information—vocabulary:


In our language analogy, new words would appear by random changes of syllables. But when we look at vocabularies, new words are formed by:


1. Logical additions to or combinations of existing words:


Verb – to mother


Adjective – motherless, mothering, mother’s


Adverb –motherly


Noun – mother, motherhood, mother-in-law, motherboard, mother-of-pearl, mothercraft, motherland, Mom, Mommie.


2. By borrowing from other languages:


Kimono, kindergarten, babushka, taco, monsoon, wadi, sitar, igloo, wampum.


3. Or by creating acronyms:


NASA, NATO, laser, scuba, radar, snafu, Gestapo (a borrowed acronym).


From these examples it should be clear that vocabulary grows through intelligent input with a plan.


In summary, the evolutionary biological model fails when applied to languages. The historical account in Genesis Chapter 11 explains the supernatural origin of unrelated language family trees. Languages have been simplifying their grammar; vocabulary has been added by intelligent input. Rapid change occurs when languages come in contact with each other.


The next issue will discuss the parts of the body relating to language.

NINE – EVOLUTIONARY MODEL OF LANGUAGE

By Joseph Kezele, M.D.

In the last issue we discussed the origin of languages and some features that distinguish them. The biblical account at the tower of Babel readily explains their supernatural origin. We also discussed how languages can be genuinely grouped into families, but that these hundreds of language families cannot be connected with each other to form a single tree of all languages.

This is a fundamental failure for the evolutionary model for the origin of languages. That model is based on the supposed evolutionary model of life progressing from the original one-celled organism through a myriad of intermediary forms such as the invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, until man finally emerges from the primates. This evolution is assumed to have occurred in isolated groups by random, chance events with no purpose, plan or intelligent input, with all physical processes having proceeded at a uniform rate.

Applying the biological evolutionary model to languages, the following concepts are expected to have occurred in the past:

1. Change in grammar has been in the direction of increasing complexity
2. Sound shifts are random, not consistent
3. Languages change uniformly through time
4. Change in a language occurs within isolation
5. Random chance mutations to add information—vocabulary

Let’s examine each assumption one by one. Change in grammar has been in the direction of increasing complexity. The English language is probably the one of the finest examples of all the Indo-European languages of the untruth of this assumption. As mentioned in the previous issue, the reconstructed Proto Indo-European language had eight cases. Each case is a different use of nouns and their accompanying adjectives in a sentence.

For example, John took Luke’s book from Peter and said “Paul, in Rome I will give the book on that table with a note written with this pen to Mark.”

John - the subject of the sentence. Nominative case. book - what the verb acted upon, the direct object. Accusative case. Luke’s - the possessive form of Luke. Genitive case. Paul – to whom the quoted sentence is addressed. Vocative case. in Rome – location of an object, person or place. Locative case. to Mark - the person to whom the book is given, the indirect object. Dative case. with this pen – the means by which the note was written. Instrumental case. on that table – position of an object. Prepositional case. from Peter - separation or motion away from something. Ablative case.

Today, Czech and Latin use seven of these cases—but not the same ones—Russian six, and German four. English is a great example of simplification. It has combined all but the Genitive (possessive case) and Dative (indirect object) into the Nominative (subject) form.

The Genitive case has been reduced to the possessive pronouns – mine, ours, yours, its, his, hers, theirs and whose – and the ‘s construction, as in “Luke’s”. “Thy” and “thine”, known only to readers of the King James Bible and singers of older hymns, are the archaic possessive forms of the singular and plural forms of “thee” and “thou”. “Thee” and “thou” are the familiar form of addressing a person, which have been supplanted by “you”, which was then the formal form for the second person (I being the first person and they the third person).

The Dative case has been even more severely reduced to these pronouns – me, us, him, her, them and whom. In my lifetime the use of the word “whom” has all but ceased, and it probably will disappear in the next generation. Since English has eliminated so many forms of the cases, it must compensate in some manner in order to maintain the meaning of the sentence. It does so by making the order of the words, called syntax, critically important. Changing the order changes the meaning. Try it with the sample sentence above.

It should be quite clear that changes in grammar have been in the direction of increasing simplicity, not complexity. In other words, devolution has occurred and is still occurring today.

The remaining four points will be addressed in the next issue.