Why Young Earth Creationists Should Consider the Sprachbund Theory (Indo-European, Uralic, Other)

I) Before Indo-European (The Indo-Uralic Hypothesis) Part TWO
Learn Hittite | 29 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHOmEB51YrA

So, if the common parent language is supposed to cover not just anything from Irish to Hindi, but also Finnish, Turkish, Japanese, how would the post-Babel time be enough for such divergence.

On the other hand, if similarities are due to Sprachbund phenomena, the extension of some outside Indo-European would be explainable.

II) The Germanic Substrate Theory
Tidsdjupet | 9 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Pa5Zo__js

The rise in Indo-European vocabulary for Germanic is due to a change in method of counting.

Method of Sigmund Feist, Bruno Lieblich, more or less proves "PIE" origin of a word, its presence in more than one "branch". This is what I am trying to test on PIE vs Sprachbund Project Newer method, Guus Kroonen, wants non-IE origin to be positively proven by presence of non-IE phonotactics. Like a word that's borrowed from another language typically remains in the phonotactic patterns of its language of origin?

I would say that Presley and Disney are two names showing very English phonotactics. But Presley (the famous Elvis) descends from someone in Munster bearing the name "Preslaar" which means he came (perhaps indirectly over generations) from Breslau. Disney (the famous Walt) descends from a Norman from ("de") a place called "Isigny" ...

The method of Guus Kroonen seen from this angle (the video might be oversimplifying and I have not checked Guus Kronen's original work, this is the first or maybe second time I hear of him) would be requiring absence of any possible Indo-European sound shape (like Presley is a possible English, but not a possible Finnish sound shape), something standing out as much from pre-Germanic as "déjà-vue" (when pronounced in French) stands out from English. Anything else is Indo-European, unless it has a known non-IE origin. Himmel (heaven or sky in German, Dutch and Scandinavian) must go back to a *kemelon or *kemelos or sth, even if debesīs, beheşt, ouranos, caelum, neamh, svarg, suggest that neither heaven nor the sky was called that in a language ancestral to Germanic, Baltic, Iranian, Greek, Italic, Celtic, Indic, while Slavic sides with Celtic, Albanian with Italic, and Armenian drakht gives yet another shade to the cloudscape. Just because *kemelon or *kemelos clearly does fit Indo-European phonotactics.

From Feist and Lieblich estimating to my Greek professor giving the news, the non-IE content of Germanic vocabulary, as my memory serves me, had risen from 30 to 80 %. By the method of Kroonen, it has sunk to 4 to 5 %. For the examples given in the video, I would probably tend to grant that "kuni-ngaz" can be attached to a compound the first part of which is cognate with "gens" or "genos" in an O-grade version of the stem, but when it comes to "hand" being from "hinna" according to a certainly IE-style Ablaut scheme, why would borrowed words not follow indigenous sound patterns? In Maltese, the word "inch" is "insh" but the plural is "unush" ... because nouns with the form CiCC can have plurals like CuCuC (initial vowel sound counts as silent consonant in Semitic).

So, Guus Kroonen's method seems, as portrayed in the video by my countryman, to ignore phonotactic levelling or productivity of Ablaut./HGL

PS, my countryman's video contains a diagramme for the population overturns in South Scandinavia:

The calibrated limits between the periods, whatever the exact meaning is (I think each period has a colour and to the right a genetic mapping, but I could be wrong), would in Biblical chronology reduce to:

11,700 BP = 9700 BC = between 2621 BC and 2608 BC
5,900 BP = 3,900 BC = 2005 BC
5,800 BP = 3,800 BC = before 1982 BC
4,800 BP = 2,800 BC = 1700 BC
4,600 BP = 2,600 BC = 1678 BC
3000 BP = 1000 BC = 1000 BC

The last one being beyond my recalibration tables. Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy./HGL

Sharing Dr. Sarfati's Observation on Australian Rabbits

Lessons from Australia’s rabbit plague
by Jonathan Sarfati
https://creation.com/australias-rabbit-plague-lessons

Contains answers to:

• How can we be so many if we descend from only 8 people?
• How could we avoid dangerous inbreeding if we descend from only 8 people?
• How did animals get to Australia from the Ararat Mountains?
• What did John Malthus get wrong?

I wish I had written it, but as it is, I can just warmly recommend it!
/HGL

PS, I can improve on one thing, making the links to Dr. Carter's podcasts on Biblical Genetics clickable:

Biblical Bottlenecks are not Bad
May 27, 2020 | Uncategorized
https://biblicalgenetics.com/biblical-bottlenecks-are-not-bad/

Evolutionary Bottlenecks are Disastrous
Jun 2, 2020 | Uncategorized
https://biblicalgenetics.com/evolutionary-bottlenecks-are-disastrous/

PPS, this one's also excellent:

Could humans take down mammoths with spears?
by Michael J. Oard | This article is from
Journal of Creation 37(3):13–15, December 2023
https://creation.com/humans-spear-mammoths

CMI really does far more good in the area of Creation Science than one could fear in terms of harm by Protestantism. Otherwise, I wouldn't promote it./HGL

Outside the Scope of My Carbon Tables

I heard on a video about the Manot Cave being "35 000 years old" and what the article was:

Early human collective practices and symbolism in the Early Upper Paleolithic of Southwest Asia
Omry Barzilai, Ofer Marder, José-Miguel Tejero, +22, and Israel Hershkovitz
December 9, 2024 | 121 (51) e2404632121
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2404632121

Why so? 35 000 BP = 33 000 BC, and that's on my tables?

Well, it's still outside the scope, because there is no apparent carbon date. Carbon 14, that is.

Isotopic analysis of calcite crusts on the boulder’s grooves revealed alignment with values found in speleothems from the cave dated to ~37 to 35 ka BP.

...

To further refine the dating of the anthropogenic engravings, we compared the isotopic composition (δ¹⁸O and δ¹³C) of the calcite crust samples taken from the boulder to the ones obtained for well-dated speleothems deposited in other parts of the cave (SI Appendix, 9). The isotopic values for the crust within the grooves (postengravings) on the boulder ranged between −4 and −5‰ for δ¹⁸O and from −8 to −10‰ for δ¹³C (SI Appendix, Fig. S14D). These values closely matched those of the speleothems deposited in Manot Cave approximately between ~ 37 to 35 ka (SI Appendix, Fig. S14C) (48).

Unlike carbon dated material, I do not here propose to give a real age, beyond the fact that 35000 years ago is a non-extant date, "before Creation" and therefore inflated./HGL

Homo erectus Hyoid Bone

Coll Antropol. 2008 Dec;32(4):1007-11.
A Homo erectus hyoid bone: possible implications for the origin of the human capability for speech
Luigi Capasso, Elisabetta Michetti, Ruggero D'Anastasio
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19149203/

Unlike the hyoid of the Neanderthal from Kebara, this one is not a fully human and functional one. B U T, it is also certainly not an ape hyoid. I'll cite the abstract of the paper a few times:

The hyoid bone body shows the bar-shaped morphology characteristic of Homo, in contrast to the bulla-shaped body morphology of African apes and Australopithecus.

Creationist conclusion, Homo erectus was human.

The almost total absence of muscular impressions on the body's ventral surface suggests a reduced capability for elevating this hyoid bone and modulating the length of the vocal tract in Homo erectus.

Creationist conclusion, this Homo erectus or Homo erectus in general, had a handicap.

The shield-shaped body, the probable small size of the greater horns and the radiographic image appear to be archaic characteristics; they reveal some similarities to non-humans and pre-human genera, suggesting that the morphological basis for human speech didn't arise in Homo erectus.

Conclusion of this Creationist: Stalin had a pre-Flood, more successful predecessor.

Stalin’s ape-man Superwarriors
First published: 20 August 2007, Re-featured on homepage: 4 April 2012
by Russell Grigg
https://creation.com/stalins-ape-man-superwarriors

So, Stalin failed, thank God. Someone in pre-Flood times seems to have asked demons to use CRISPR to insert ape genes to create supersoldiers, and a side effect was the speech handicap. Orc breeding. Or, this is what happened naturally, when fallen angels tried to do what human fathers do, as a punishment.

Either way, such things would have been one of the things contributing to violence and injustice on earth, and one of the reasons for the Flood of Noah.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Epiphania Domini
6.I.2025

PS, the Hyoid bones in Sima de Huesos were human:

J Hum Evol. 2008 Jan;54(1):118-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.07.006. Epub 2007 Sep 5.
Human hyoid bones from the middle Pleistocene site of the Sima de los Huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain)
I Martínez, J L Arsuaga, R Quam, J M Carretero, A Gracia, L Rodríguez
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17804038/

The Atapuerca SH hyoids are humanlike in both their morphology and dimensions, and they clearly differ from the hyoid bones of chimpanzees and Australopithecus afarensis. Their comparison with the Neandertal specimens Kebara 2 and SDR-034 makes it possible to begin to approach the question of temporal variation and sexual dimorphism in this bone in fossil humans. The results presented here show that the degree of metric and anatomical variation in the fossil sample was similar in magnitude and kind to living humans.

Written By Ancient Sheepherders ... (aka Shepherds)

Well, King David actually was one. Moses, part time, was some kind of herder in Madian (between ages 40 and 80, after an education at the Egyptian court).

It is not untrue, technically, especially if you ignore the NT and think the books of Moses and the Psalms are the best content of the OT.

Are shepherds bad authors? Or bad politicians?

Amanda Owen, Seymour Stedman, Mills O. Burnham, Badea Cârțan, Jacques Inaudi ... they don't seem to be unintelligent. I don't think shepherding causes brain rot. Some would say cell phones do, I don't know, but please don't read this on a cell phone anyway, it shows badly, try to get at it on a real PC (like I do when writing it).

But people who make this comment about the Bible might maintain they had a poor education level. Hmmm ... not before shepherding became a distinctly underclass thing, which it became by being less well paid than farming. But people used to that might have a prejudice, and they might go after prejudice, just like people pretending I can't be a writer go by a prejudice about the homeless, which I currently am. I did however spend 7 years at university and do five years and a week worth of exams before becoming homeless. Since half time of the last integral term was Polish, people think I should be able to converse in Polish. But i returned The Magician's Nephew in Polish translation and the Polish dictionary to a library in 2004 and since then I have not been around occasions to practise Polish much. When Polish homeless criticise me when I hold up a URL at begging, I can however pick out if they say "ten sam list" (the same "leaf" or cardboard), and was actually surprised to recall that much. Listening to lively concersations at homeless shelters about subjects that bore me (like looking for building work or how many other places for homeless there are) is however not a practise inducing me to pay attention and get my Polish going.

However, even if your education level was "zero" (at least as far as booklearning is concerned), being taught by God is not a bad education. He created the mind, and having perfect omniscience, He knows whatever it will be that the shepherd (or royalty or priest or fisherman or tentmaker or whatever) will need to know and whatever his audience will have need for up to the end of time, within the scope of what He can reveal to this shepherd or that adoptive son of a Pharao or such and such a king ... not to mention the full time prophets.

I'm not going to be ashamed of a shepherd author if he was taught by God. Neither should you.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

Genre of Genesis

Dont ask me, ask an authority of the Church, like the Haydock comment:

THE BOOK OF GENESIS. INTRODUCTION. https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id326.html The Hebrews now entitle all the Five Books of Moses, from the initial words, which originally were written like one continued word or verse; but the Septuagint have preferred to give the titles the most memorable occurrences of each work. On this occasion, the Creation of all things out of nothing, strikes us with peculiar force. We find a refutation of all the heathenish mythology, and of the world's eternity, which Aristotle endeavoured to establish. We behold the short reign of innocence, and the origin of sin and misery, the dispersion of nations, and the providence of God watching over his chosen people, till the death of Joseph, about the year 2369 (Usher) 2399 (Salien and Tirinus) B.C. 1631. We shall witness the same care in the other Books of Scripture, and adore his wisdom and goodness in preserving to himself faithful witnesses, and a true Holy Catholic Church, in all ages, even when the greatest corruption seemed to overspread the land. (Haydock) This Book is so called from its treating of the Generation, that is, of the Creation and the beginning of the world. The Hebrews call it Bereshith, from the word with which it begins. It contains not only the History of the Creation of the World, but also an account of its progress during the space of 2369 years, that is, until the death of Joseph.

Father George Leo Haydock did not put it in parallel, but in opposition to pagan mythology. He takes the timespan (here given for Masoretic / Vulgate chronology, not LXX) as a literal timespan./HGL

Two quick things

• In Newer Tables Flood to Joseph in Egypt, I had to correct the html and a mismatch between real year and carbon year. I just discovered the mismatch when trying to share the tables. OK, I was finishing them in a night when I was renouncing sleep, and two mistakes is bearable.*
• Other mismatch, but not by me, is the idea that the "Evolution of language in hominins" somehow could be a parallel to language development in infants. Infants don't just develop language, unless they are surrounded by it. Not linking to the video.

* Supposing the mistakes were mine and not planted.