Hidden Meanings In English

[decode reality]

A very intriguing read!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27942022/Hidden-Meanings-in-English

[moving finger]

It's interesting, but there are so many fundamental errors within just the first few pages it makes me not wish to read the rest.

I'm not clear whether the text is just trying to make a link between the word universe and the term 'one voice', or give an exact and authoritative definition. If the latter it's a mistake. The word 'universe' is from the latin 'Universum' or 'all combined into one'.

It's a minor bit of pedantry, but it immediately casts doubt on any analysis it may have.

It claims all kinds of symbolism for letters. like 'Y' mysteriously representing the male chromosome when the letter Y was first used centuries before the chromosome was ever conceived. X & Y are used in science & algebra as variables. They are also called 'Y'' & 'X' chromosomes because that's what they look like. The writers of our early alphabet would have had no way of knowing that.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40932000/jpg/_40932759_xy_indigo_instruments203.jpg

It suggests some sort of magical attributes to the alphabet because of a link between the word 'spell' (to outline how a word is constructed' and 'spell' as in witchcraft. There is a connection, but they fail to make it: the Germanic word 'Spiel', to talk.

Likewise their analysis of the bible's role:

King James I – English was passed down by the high priests to a totally illiterate people. Before the King James Bible, it was the Geneva Bible that had all the references in the margins. Written in Old Saxon/German, like you will find in Pilgrims Progress, first edition. The KJV is an authorized version. Authorized by him to show him in the best light and give credence to his bloodline.

If the people were illiterate, how was English passed down in written form? IEnglish was passed down by parents to children and it evolved from there. It was not invented by the church. Hand written English bibles also existed in the late 14th century, long before King James, and the idea of an English bible was that people could hear (and for the lucky few read) the word of God in their own language, not Latin, and not so that a language could be dictated to the people.

History of the English Bible (http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/)

Then there is this classy piece of writing:

When Constantine held the council of Nicea to declare the books to be assembled as the bible, a Father Arius argued and opposed the selections. He was being a pain in the ass. In the end, he was poisoned. i can’t remember the name of the poison, but it was nasty. 3 You basically shit your brains out. Arius evacuated his bowels in public. He evacuated his internal organs, his liver and spleen.


Elegant prose I'm sure. No references top back things up at all, and given that the author can't be bothered to find out the name of the poison, it makes you wonder whether any other books were read at all.

Arius died at the age of 80 on the top being welcomed back to Constantine's court (he was banished by other religious leaders, not Constantine for heresy and then re-instated). His death does indeed sound unpleasant, and many suspect poisoning. It could equally have been old age as there is no definitive proof. It took no time at all to find that information, eg

here (http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism.php)

and it would have taken even less effort to write "Poisoning is suspected", rather than 'I can't remember...". If I could be bothered to check the author's fatcs, why couldn't the author?

Before you get to read anything, you first of are instructed that you have to believe it, or you are not a true scholar or seeker of the truth. It's the classic 'Emporer's new clothes' approach to stating a theory: if you don't believe it, it's because you are either too stupid or you are not special like us.

Disappointing.

[decode reality]

It's interesting, but there are so many fundamental errors within just the first few pages it makes me not wish to read the rest.

I'm not clear whether the text is just trying to make a link between the word universe and the term 'one voice', or give an exact and authoritative definition. If the latter it's a mistake. The word 'universe' is from the latin 'Universum' or 'all combined into one'.

It's a minor bit of pedantry, but it immediately casts doubt on any analysis it may have.

It claims all kinds of symbolism for letters. like 'Y' mysteriously representing the male chromosome when the letter Y was first used centuries before the chromosome was ever conceived. X & Y are used in science & algebra as variables. They are also called 'Y'' & 'X' chromosomes because that's what they look like. The writers of our early alphabet would have had no way of knowing that.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40932000/jpg/_40932759_xy_indigo_instruments203.jpg

It suggests some sort of magical attributes to the alphabet because of a link between the word 'spell' (to outline how a word is constructed' and 'spell' as in witchcraft. There is a connection, but they fail to make it: the Germanic word 'Spiel', to talk.

Likewise their analysis of the bible's role:



If the people were illiterate, how was English passed down in written form? IEnglish was passed down by parents to children and it evolved from there. It was not invented by the church. Hand written English bibles also existed in the late 14th century, long before King James, and the idea of an English bible was that people could hear (and for the lucky few read) the word of God in their own language, not Latin, and not so that a language could be dictated to the people.

History of the English Bible (http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/)

Then there is this classy piece of writing:



Elegant prose I'm sure. No references top back things up at all, and given that the author can't be bothered to find out the name of the poison, it makes you wonder whether any other books were read at all.

Arius died at the age of 80 on the top being welcomed back to Constantine's court (he was banished by other religious leaders, not Constantine for heresy and then re-instated). His death does indeed sound unpleasant, and many suspect poisoning. It could equally have been old age as there is no definitive proof. It took no time at all to find that information, eg

here (http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism.php)

and it would have taken even less effort to write "Poisoning is suspected", rather than 'I can't remember...". If I could be bothered to check the author's fatcs, why couldn't the author?

Before you get to read anything, you first of are instructed that you have to believe it, or you are not a true scholar or seeker of the truth. It's the classic 'Emporer's new clothes' approach to stating a theory: if you don't believe it, it's because you are either too stupid or you are not special like us.

Disappointing.

Yes, all good observations. I did note especially the bit I highlighted! I'd been studying language and someone sent this to me...I would say some of what's mentioned is worthy of further study...truth is though, it was one of those times when I was looking for something to validate my suspicions about English - and in my zeal, I posted it here. :o

[citywoman]

I won't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Manipulation via language is (still) a valid concept, although not in this particular expose.

A head's up, nonetheless.

[jp13]

So whats happened with scribd.com now, I used to be able to download full books but now they want to charge money, or get you/me to upload a book?
When and why did this happen? :mad: