Part 2
What do I mean by this?
In T-speech, if one were to record a sample and play it to several people who ‘interpret tongues’, one would get several different interpretations; typically, totally different and unrelated to each other. Occasionally, some similarities may be noted between interpretations, but given the religious context of interpretations, occasional similarity or overlap is to be expected.
Language simply does not work that way. You can’t have multiple meanings/interpretations for the same sentence; As someone once commented, “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – you can’t have multiple meanings to justify an obvious discrepancy.” You can however certainly have subtleties that change the nuance of what’s being said, but “The brown dog is big.” can never be “The white cat is small.” which is what happens frequently with T-speech with respect to multiple interpretations for the same ‘sentence’.
Further, another complicating issue is that the ‘interpretation’ of any given utterance is typically inordinately longer than the actual glossic string. There are indeed languages in the world where one word can often translate into an entire sentence in English, but an entire paragraph or two simply does not happen in any language. Again, without getting into details here, many will argue that T-speech and its subsequent interpretation are two totally different and unrelated phenomena.
In short, T-speech fails on even the simplest definition and criteria of what communication and language consists of.
In addition to the above, one other element must also be considered. Languages will contain a lexicon. A lexicon is simply a ‘dictionary’, if you will, of morphemes with their meanings. When one learns a language, one is learning a lexicon as well – all the meaningful particles of that language and their assigned meaning. T-speech does not have anything even remotely suggestive of a lexicon.
If one were to imagine a purely hypothetical situation just for the purpose of this exercise – an alien craft lands and beings emerge and begin speaking to humans in a language which no one on earth has ever heard before. That language, even though completely alien (literally) will contain morphemes, a grammar, a lexicon, and, although we may not have the physical ability to reproduce them, phonemes. The morphemes, grammar and lexicon may be completely alien (no pun intended) to our way of thinking, but they will be there nonetheless. These things are universal to language. Even the meowing patterns of cats, the songs of the humpback whale, and the ‘dancing patterns’ of honeybees, as ‘alien’ as they may seem to us, all conform to the criteria of ‘communication’ with respect to a single general meaning assigned to a specific pattern. T-speech just doesn’t have this – you can’t have several (often distinctly) different meanings for the same utterance; to do so negates the need for T-speech in the first place.
Lastly, as mentioned above, there are no two ‘tongues’ that are exactly alike. Each one is unique to the individual speaker. Oftentimes speakers report being able to produce several different ‘tongues’ – This is just the subconscious drawing upon a different subset set of phonemes – the same set isn’t always used every time a person speaks; for some speakers it’s a rather random thing and thus, it comes across as a totally different ‘tongue’.
That said, there’s definitely a lot of copying of particular ‘phrases’ or ‘words’ that well known pastors use that speakers will either consciously or unconsciously pick up on and copy. One that I hear frequently is “kishanda” (usually pronounced “kee-SHAHN-dah”) which I would argue it is simply derived from a corrupted pronunciation of the English word “Sunday”. This copying of certain words between speakers has become so common with the advent of the computer age and the internet, that the words have almost become ‘standardized’. It is noted that these words typically are used to initiate a glossic string which begs the question of whether speakers are using this to, “initiate/jump start” a glossic utterance, rather than coming up with their own way to initiate a glossic string. In Pentecostal parlance, this jumpstarting a glossic string by beginning with a ‘set word’ is known as “priming the pump”.
Another rarer element of T-speech is the corrupting of actual words (in the speaker’s native language) to fit the syllable and sound structure of that speaker’s T-speech. For example, one speaker from Australia, whose T-speech was studied and transcribed, used a good smattering of such words in their T-speech.
“Phrases” in T-speech are often inter-dispersed with praise phrases in the speaker’s native language. It’s not uncommon to hear a speaker say things like “Praise Jesus”, “Hallelujah”, “In Jesus’ name”, etc. while engaged in T-speech. Hebrew terms are also not uncommonly heard. These include words such as ‘meshiakh’,’Yeshu’a’, Yahweh, etc. This usage seems to lend to the ‘authenticity’ of the practice of T-speech.
Another characteristic of T-speech not found in language (unless children’s ‘play language’ is taken into consideration) is the repetition of the same syllable several times. This typically occurs at the end of a given glossic string. Some words in some languages (particularly if that language has the syllable structure CV and contains a rather limited phonemic inventory - again, languages of Oceana come to mind here), will have repetition. Indeed, in some languages, syllable reduplication is a common grammatical feature; however, they still will never contain the same syllable repeated multiple times in almost every word uttered.
Given all the above factors, there is simply no way to argue for modern tongues as language.
There are, as many people point out, thousands of languages in the world, even ancient ones that are no longer spoken – how do we know tongues isn’t one of them? It’s rather straightforward: by the same criteria as described above. And, yes, there are indeed thousands of languages spoken in the world today – but not one of them is remotely close to what people are producing in their glossolalia/tongues.
On a more esoteric note (and one can either take this or leave it), if tongues were a "universal heavenly language", why would there ever be a need for more than just one rather than countless thousands (one unique one per speaker)?
One could also argue that tongues, being a ‘heavenly’ language does not need to have all these elements described above. It’s a “heavenly language” after all, and does not need to be bound by any human definitions of language. You’re trying to analyze something spiritual/supernatural in earthly terms.
The constraints described further above however, are, as mentioned, universal – if you utter a string of sounds and call it language, those sounds must have some type of structure which defines it and assign it meaning (morphemic structure, grammar, syntax, etc.), otherwise it’s simply free vocalization produced by the subconscious; non-cognitive non-language utterances (NC-NLU’s) – the best working and most accurate description of modern T-speech.
With respect to “tongues” being an existing language, as one Linguist (Dr. Wlm. Welmers) puts it, “Among us (Linguists), we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world and have studied at least one representative of related languages from every group of related languages in the ancient world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in some of the more remote parts of the world. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with, modern or ancient."
Dr. Welmers further makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it."
As a linguist, I completely concur with his challenge - real language is unmistakable, as is glossolalia/T-speech.
Without getting into further lengthy discussions (already done on other posted topics regarding tongues), in all cases where the Bible talks about ‘tongues’ it is simply a reference to real language – there’s nothing in those passages that cannot be explained in the context of real language. I would even argue that in some cases, given the context of the situation, it’s much easier to understand the passage in terms of real language than it is in terms of the modern concept of ‘tongues’.
Modern tongues are simply not what those that ‘speak’ them perceive, want, or need them to be.
Are they a tool by which a person can establish a closer relationship with the divine and thus strengthen their spiritual path? Can their usage even aid in the physical/spiritual healing process? To both questions…Yes, absolutely! I would argue that this is done in both Christian and non-Christian usage on a daily basis.
It must be noted however, that the use of this tool is highly dependent on one’s faith; the two go hand-in-hand. Tongues cannot correctly be used without faith, no matter what religious path that faith may encompass. For many, both Christians and non-Christians alike, tongues are in fact a very powerful tool.
Are they a heavenly/angelic language or a language spoken somewhere on earth? No, they are not. Tongues are completely self-created whether speakers are consciously aware of it or not. As such, they are neither divine, nor mysterious.
What do I mean by this?
In T-speech, if one were to record a sample and play it to several people who ‘interpret tongues’, one would get several different interpretations; typically, totally different and unrelated to each other. Occasionally, some similarities may be noted between interpretations, but given the religious context of interpretations, occasional similarity or overlap is to be expected.
Language simply does not work that way. You can’t have multiple meanings/interpretations for the same sentence; As someone once commented, “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – you can’t have multiple meanings to justify an obvious discrepancy.” You can however certainly have subtleties that change the nuance of what’s being said, but “The brown dog is big.” can never be “The white cat is small.” which is what happens frequently with T-speech with respect to multiple interpretations for the same ‘sentence’.
Further, another complicating issue is that the ‘interpretation’ of any given utterance is typically inordinately longer than the actual glossic string. There are indeed languages in the world where one word can often translate into an entire sentence in English, but an entire paragraph or two simply does not happen in any language. Again, without getting into details here, many will argue that T-speech and its subsequent interpretation are two totally different and unrelated phenomena.
In short, T-speech fails on even the simplest definition and criteria of what communication and language consists of.
In addition to the above, one other element must also be considered. Languages will contain a lexicon. A lexicon is simply a ‘dictionary’, if you will, of morphemes with their meanings. When one learns a language, one is learning a lexicon as well – all the meaningful particles of that language and their assigned meaning. T-speech does not have anything even remotely suggestive of a lexicon.
If one were to imagine a purely hypothetical situation just for the purpose of this exercise – an alien craft lands and beings emerge and begin speaking to humans in a language which no one on earth has ever heard before. That language, even though completely alien (literally) will contain morphemes, a grammar, a lexicon, and, although we may not have the physical ability to reproduce them, phonemes. The morphemes, grammar and lexicon may be completely alien (no pun intended) to our way of thinking, but they will be there nonetheless. These things are universal to language. Even the meowing patterns of cats, the songs of the humpback whale, and the ‘dancing patterns’ of honeybees, as ‘alien’ as they may seem to us, all conform to the criteria of ‘communication’ with respect to a single general meaning assigned to a specific pattern. T-speech just doesn’t have this – you can’t have several (often distinctly) different meanings for the same utterance; to do so negates the need for T-speech in the first place.
Lastly, as mentioned above, there are no two ‘tongues’ that are exactly alike. Each one is unique to the individual speaker. Oftentimes speakers report being able to produce several different ‘tongues’ – This is just the subconscious drawing upon a different subset set of phonemes – the same set isn’t always used every time a person speaks; for some speakers it’s a rather random thing and thus, it comes across as a totally different ‘tongue’.
That said, there’s definitely a lot of copying of particular ‘phrases’ or ‘words’ that well known pastors use that speakers will either consciously or unconsciously pick up on and copy. One that I hear frequently is “kishanda” (usually pronounced “kee-SHAHN-dah”) which I would argue it is simply derived from a corrupted pronunciation of the English word “Sunday”. This copying of certain words between speakers has become so common with the advent of the computer age and the internet, that the words have almost become ‘standardized’. It is noted that these words typically are used to initiate a glossic string which begs the question of whether speakers are using this to, “initiate/jump start” a glossic utterance, rather than coming up with their own way to initiate a glossic string. In Pentecostal parlance, this jumpstarting a glossic string by beginning with a ‘set word’ is known as “priming the pump”.
Another rarer element of T-speech is the corrupting of actual words (in the speaker’s native language) to fit the syllable and sound structure of that speaker’s T-speech. For example, one speaker from Australia, whose T-speech was studied and transcribed, used a good smattering of such words in their T-speech.
“Phrases” in T-speech are often inter-dispersed with praise phrases in the speaker’s native language. It’s not uncommon to hear a speaker say things like “Praise Jesus”, “Hallelujah”, “In Jesus’ name”, etc. while engaged in T-speech. Hebrew terms are also not uncommonly heard. These include words such as ‘meshiakh’,’Yeshu’a’, Yahweh, etc. This usage seems to lend to the ‘authenticity’ of the practice of T-speech.
Another characteristic of T-speech not found in language (unless children’s ‘play language’ is taken into consideration) is the repetition of the same syllable several times. This typically occurs at the end of a given glossic string. Some words in some languages (particularly if that language has the syllable structure CV and contains a rather limited phonemic inventory - again, languages of Oceana come to mind here), will have repetition. Indeed, in some languages, syllable reduplication is a common grammatical feature; however, they still will never contain the same syllable repeated multiple times in almost every word uttered.
Given all the above factors, there is simply no way to argue for modern tongues as language.
There are, as many people point out, thousands of languages in the world, even ancient ones that are no longer spoken – how do we know tongues isn’t one of them? It’s rather straightforward: by the same criteria as described above. And, yes, there are indeed thousands of languages spoken in the world today – but not one of them is remotely close to what people are producing in their glossolalia/tongues.
On a more esoteric note (and one can either take this or leave it), if tongues were a "universal heavenly language", why would there ever be a need for more than just one rather than countless thousands (one unique one per speaker)?
One could also argue that tongues, being a ‘heavenly’ language does not need to have all these elements described above. It’s a “heavenly language” after all, and does not need to be bound by any human definitions of language. You’re trying to analyze something spiritual/supernatural in earthly terms.
The constraints described further above however, are, as mentioned, universal – if you utter a string of sounds and call it language, those sounds must have some type of structure which defines it and assign it meaning (morphemic structure, grammar, syntax, etc.), otherwise it’s simply free vocalization produced by the subconscious; non-cognitive non-language utterances (NC-NLU’s) – the best working and most accurate description of modern T-speech.
With respect to “tongues” being an existing language, as one Linguist (Dr. Wlm. Welmers) puts it, “Among us (Linguists), we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world and have studied at least one representative of related languages from every group of related languages in the ancient world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in some of the more remote parts of the world. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with, modern or ancient."
Dr. Welmers further makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it."
As a linguist, I completely concur with his challenge - real language is unmistakable, as is glossolalia/T-speech.
Without getting into further lengthy discussions (already done on other posted topics regarding tongues), in all cases where the Bible talks about ‘tongues’ it is simply a reference to real language – there’s nothing in those passages that cannot be explained in the context of real language. I would even argue that in some cases, given the context of the situation, it’s much easier to understand the passage in terms of real language than it is in terms of the modern concept of ‘tongues’.
Modern tongues are simply not what those that ‘speak’ them perceive, want, or need them to be.
Are they a tool by which a person can establish a closer relationship with the divine and thus strengthen their spiritual path? Can their usage even aid in the physical/spiritual healing process? To both questions…Yes, absolutely! I would argue that this is done in both Christian and non-Christian usage on a daily basis.
It must be noted however, that the use of this tool is highly dependent on one’s faith; the two go hand-in-hand. Tongues cannot correctly be used without faith, no matter what religious path that faith may encompass. For many, both Christians and non-Christians alike, tongues are in fact a very powerful tool.
Are they a heavenly/angelic language or a language spoken somewhere on earth? No, they are not. Tongues are completely self-created whether speakers are consciously aware of it or not. As such, they are neither divine, nor mysterious.
-
1
- Show all