No, words have usage. They do not have an inherent meaning.
And how soon you forget. You lost the right to demand evidence.
Sorry, but you can't do that either. And you know nothing of languages so why even bring them up?
Words have usages. Often more than one. Dictionaries can tell you the current usages, but knowing which one is correct to use comes from understanding context.
The problem is that cladking don’t any other language, except English.
Plus, he has been claiming that “observation” and “evidence” are all
“INTERPRETATIONS” and not real science, that sciences are those that have “experiments”.
Except that “experiments” are “observations” and they are “evidence”.
All I see is that cladking is misrepresenting these words, taking the words out-of-context, and redefining them only to suit & justify his wishful fantasies.
Among his fantasies, is that some Stone Age symbols, 40,000 years old, that appeared around some sites around the world, are some writing of single language, spoken and written.
PLUS, this language is untranslatable to any modern languages, and yet he know that these symbols are a metaphysical language, and 40,000 years ago this language was language of true scientists, those Paleolithic people were scientists.
But 4000 years ago, an imaginary Tower of Babel, which he borrowed from Genesis 11, caused confusion among multiple languages and, no after this, including today, don’t know real science.
Before the Tower of Babel, one language was spoken and written, then magically many languages were in used, and these the Homo sapiens became extinct, in its place is his invented “homo omnisciencis”.
All of these claims, cladking’s narrative, are merely fantasies, wishful belief.
If cladking don’t know how to read any other languages than English, then how could be know that the 40,000 years old symbols say? If he can’t translate those symbols, then how could cladking possibly know what they say, and that symbols are language of science?
Saying that these symbols contain scientific knowledge, would require people being able to translate and read what those symbols mean.
But no one were able translate and read them, and he admitted that they are impossible to translate, AND YET, he already know what they mean. To him, these cave-inscribed symbols point to a single metaphysical language, containing true science.
This is nothing more than interpretation as to what those symbols mean. He is not thinking logically, and he know squat as to understanding how any language can be understood without translation.
He basically shot himself in the foot, and not realizing that his claims and interpretations have no logic.
He also ignore that the 3rd millennium BCE before his 4000 years ago Tower of Babel, there were already multiple languages spoken in the Near East - Egypt (eg Egyptian), the Levant (eg the Semitic Amorite, spoken in northern Syria, southeast Turkey and northwest Iraq), 2 languages in south and central Iraq (eg Sumerian, and later the Semitic Akkadian) and western Iran (eg Elamite).
There were also 2 written languages in Egypt, the earliest hieroglyphs discovered 3300 years ago, and the cursive hieratic 3100 years ago.
While the earliest form of proto-Sumerian cuneiform inscriptions were discovered on a building dated to 3400 BCE. More refined and recognizably “Sumerian” cuneiform was developed around 3100 BCE, were discovered on hundreds of clay tablets at town of Jemdet Nasr.
The Akkadian and Elamite didn’t have their own “written” language, so they have adopted the Sumerian cuneiform.
Likewise, the Amorites who migrated to southern Iraq, had also adopted Akkadian as spoken language and Sumerian cuneiform as written language in the late 3rd millennium BCE and early 2nd millennium BCE. The Amorite conquered Babylon in the 19th century BCE, made the city its capital, and adopted not only Sumerian-Akkadian cultures & customs, and their predecessors’ form of government, the Akkadian language they adopted developed into a dialect of Akkadian, known by today’s historians and archaeologists as Old Babylonian, just as the Assyrians have Old Assyrian (another Akkadian dialect).
The point being there were already multiple languages by different people of different cultures, and several written languages PRIOR TO CLADKING’S LANDMARK OF 4000 YEARS AGO.
These 3rd millennium (3000 to 2000 BCE) languages, spoken and written, before 4000 years ago, actually refuted there being only one language being used by everyone as cladking claimed.
And let’s not forget the Indian subcontinent (Indus Valley Civilization, c 3300 - 1300 BCE, the pre-Vedic period) and China were developing their own languages in the mid to late 3rd millennium BCE, which also refuting a single language being spoken and written.
Cladking clearly have no understanding how languages are developed, be they spoken or written.
In the early Bronze Age (3100 - 2000 BCE), there were already multitudes of spoken languages, but only few developed their own systems. Like I said, the Elamites and Akkadians didn’t have their own individual writing systems, so they adopted cuneiform from their contemporary Sumerians.
It like the Celtic languages, the Germanic languages and the Romance languages, they have all adopted the Latin alphabets of the ancient Romans. The Romance languages, eg Italian, Spanish, French, etc, were all developed from the Vulgar Latin, which in turn, was derived from Late Latin, and Late Latin from Classical Latin.
Languages evolved over time and in different regions, but the spoken languages changes or varied far more than the written languages.
Cladking don’t understand this.
Cladking also don’t understand that he cannot possibly know what those 40,000 years old symbols mean, if it isn’t untranslatable, because it isn’t a writing system. If that being the case, then cladking possibly know that the language is metaphysical or containing scientific knowledge.
He foolishly making up claims without evidence to support his ideas. That’s why he so against scientific evidence and against Peer Review, developing his crap conspiracy theories against modern science and and against modern scientific techniques. He produced no experiments of his own.
I’d say let him bury his head in the sand.
