Speaking in Tongues

[drkitten]

Nope, you're making up descriptions to suit your case, your premise only applies if gibberish means, "repeated sound, only differing in tone and length", which unfortunately, is not what it means.

Gibberish is simply that, unintelligible garbage.

Hufred inhag durwiig affo huiel.

Is gibberish, but could equally be Tongue.

Not enough data for me to tell, unfortunately.

Alternatively, you could link to studies to back up your extraordinary statement that people can't make up gibberish which fools linguists.

Actually, most of the citations that you would want would be cryptography citations, and I don't have them to hand. But it's fairly easy to demonstrate from first principles.

Rule #1 of quantitative linguistics. To a first approximation, everything is distributed as a Zipf distribution. Phoneme frequencies, syllable lengths, word lengths, and so forth.

To a second approximation, the mutual information between two separate linguistic objects vanishes after about five intervening objects (the citation here is, IIRC, Pothos and Juola, British Journal of Psychology; I don't know if it's on-line.) So at any reasonable distance, language is independent draws from a Zipf distribution.

Humans are lousy at making up "independent" sequences; this is well known.

So unless there's a language out there that violates every norm of cognitive linguistics and pays no attention to Zipf whatsoever --- which is possible, but only in the sense that we might find a colony of living T.rex's in a hidden valley in West Virginia -- humans can't make sequences with the necessary statistical distribution.

For further study of glossolalia, check out http://www.meta-religion.com/Linguistics/Glossolalia/contemporary_linguistic_study.htm

Another early study, that of W.A. Wolfram in the year 1966, also concluded that glossolalia lacks the basic elements of human language as a system of coherent communication.

The Zipf distribution being one of those elements....

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I think I've told this tale here before... awww Hell, I'll tell it again:

Once fine day, back in college, I was in the second floor of the UW-Milwaukee Student Union walking past some conference rooms on my way to get lunch at the food court. As I walked near one of the rooms, I heard a horrific wailing and moaning from the open door. Being a conscientious citizen, I headed into the room to find out what was going on and see if I could render any necessary aid. I'll never forget what I saw:

Inside, there was about a dozen other students, many wearing crosses and Christian-themed t-shirts. Some stood alone or in small groups, others where kneeling with their arms stretched to the sky. All of them had a blank expression on their faces and were gibbering, moaning, and babbling like schizophrenics in an asylum. I heard the sporatic "amen" and lots of hallelujahs (one woman catatonically rocked back in forth repeating it over and over and over...). Confused, I glanced at the schedule posted on the door and found I was witnessing (no pun intended) a meeting of the Campus Crusade For Christ.

I remember slowly backing out of the room...

 

[Darth Rotor]

Does a vocabulary exist for Tongue?

All language is a tool for two way (or many path) communication.

The vocabulary of Tongue includes the response to the speaker, most often spoken as

"ooh, baby, ooh, yesssssssss, oh, oooh, oh, God, I'm --" well, you know the rest, of course.

Always happy to help.

 

[Wolfman]

My parents are hard-core into the charismatic, speaking in tongues stuff. I grew up with it...but never was able to do it myself.

"Tongues", in the charismatic church's opinion, can come in two forms. One is to speak in an actual language, but one that you don't know (ie. an American speaking Chinese, when they've never learned the language); this form is supposed to manifest itself primarily when you are trying to evangelize people who speak a different language than you, and the Holy Spirit gives you a linguistic boost. In this case, you also know exactly what you are saying.

The other is to speak in a "holy" language, a language that does not exist on earth. In this case, you usually don't have a clue what you are saying, either...the Holy Spirit takes over, and the words that are coming out are his, not yours. In some cases, this is accepted as-is. In other cases, people demand that there also be a translation. And, since it is a holy language that nobody knows or understands, the translator is also controlled by the Holy Spirit, who tells everyone what was said. (Don't really understand why the Holy Spirit didn't just say it in English the first time, in such a case).

The latter form can also be used for exorcisms, or other such ceremonies...it gives much greater power, since the words are a holy language, coming direct from god.

And please note...no, I don't believe in any of this. Stories of people speaking in a language they never learned are always anecdotal. And the "holy language" stuff is just plain nonsense.

A humorous story in this context -- back in my Christian days, I had a Kenyan friend who wanted to check out the churches. I took him to a charismatic church, and partway through people started speaking in tongues, while others "translated".

Now, back in Kenya, my friend went to a non-denomination church that had people from several different tribes, and sometimes people in that church would pray in their own language...then someone else would translate into English, so that everyone else could understand. That's what my friend thought was happening here, too. So he stood up and said a prayer in his own language.

Of course, the people in the church thought he was speaking in tongues...and when he finished, another person stood up and started to "translate", through the power of the Holy Spirit, what had just been said. As they did so, my friend turned to me and said, "What are they talking about? That's not what I said at all!"

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How do churches differentiate between "genuine" tongues and pretending to be tongues? You can't tell me that for every Tongue-speaker, the Vatican has the hundreds of interpreters required to confirm it isn't a current language.

Not to speak for my own church, but my own belief is that the gifts of tongues are genuine, but that the genuine form always takes the form of someone speaking, and being able to be understood by someone else with whom he does not share a common language. For example, I speak and understand only English; if I were to speak to someone who only understands Swahili, and that other person were to understand what I was telling him, that might be an example of the gifts of tongues in action.

It is also my belief that Satan has counterfeits that he uses to deceive people. His counterfeit of the gift of tongues consists of causing people to babble meaningless gibberish, that carries no meaning, and which communicates nothing to anyone.

 

[The Atheist]

All language is a tool for two way (or many path) communication.

The vocabulary of Tongue includes the response to the speaker, most often spoken as

"ooh, baby, ooh, yesssssssss, oh, oooh, oh, God, I'm --" well, you know the rest, of course.

Always happy to help.

Yesss. I was waiting for someone to come out with that!

Not enough data for me to tell, unfortunately.

Evasive action #1. Please define minimum amount of script to be able to tell with accuracy whether something is "language"

Actually, most of the citations that you would want would be cryptography citations, and I don't have them to hand.

Evasive action #2. Let me know when you find them.

But it's fairly easy to demonstrate from first principles.

Right, you're going to define a language, which, by its very nature, must be unidentifiable as a language. This is going to be fun!

Rule #1 of quantitative linguistics. To a first approximation, everything is distributed as a Zipf distribution. Phoneme frequencies, syllable lengths, word lengths, and so forth.

Sorry, mate, I'm not an expert in linguistics or cryptography, so you'll have to help me out:

The everything you're talking about. Does that include dolphin, elephants, simian and feline languages? Because if it doesn't, your premise is immediately baloney. Ah, in fact your own link shows this,with the following statement:

He provided a detailed list of reasons why glossolalia cannot be human language

Well, buy that man a coconut. Of course it's not a human language! Jesus, I hope they didn't pay too much for that report. You have two problems here:

1 You're claiming to know the mind of the sky-daddy, a dangerous game.

2 If a person deliberately sets out to deceive the testers and linguists, I have no doubt they could be fooled. I'd give myself better than even money to do so.

The premises are fuller of holes than Swiss cheese.

 

[autumn1971]

I went to a pentocostal church with a friend of mine once, and the inevitable speaking in tongues occured during a musical interlude. To his credit as a rational human , my church member friend leaned over and whispered that I should just ignore this part, as some of the members have an overwhelming need to be noticed.
The creepier extension was, as has been noted by others, the random pew-mate who then began to translate the speech.
I actually would be hard-pressed to decide which of the two was uttering more repetitive and substanceless gibberish.

 

[Nihilus]

Right, you're going to define a language, which, by its very nature, must be unidentifiable as a language. This is going to be fun!

 

[The Atheist]

It is also my belief that Satan has counterfeits that he uses to deceive people. His counterfeit of the gift of tongues consists of causing people to babble meaningless gibberish, that carries no meaning, and which communicates nothing to anyone.

Correct.

This is one of the reasons why drkitten's premise falls down. His researchers have probably only recorded demonic tongues and as well know, demons are cunning and determined, but not terribly smart.

 

[ceo_esq]

According to authoritive sources like The Exorcist, speaking in tongues can be recognised as such, because it can't be recognised as something else.

Was this subject mentioned in The Exorcist? I recall it addressing the phenomenon of speaking in human languages not ordinarily known to the speaker (xenoglossy), but not glossolalia as such. I could be misremembering, or it could have been in the novel (which I've never read) rather than the film.

 

[drkitten]

Evasive action #1. Please define minimum amount of script to be able to tell with accuracy whether something is "language"

Goalpost attempt moving noted. If you don't know enough statistics to know how ill-posed that question is, you don't know enough to understand the answer. (The actual answer : I need enough text to run a proper test, probably a Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test, and to compare it against the Zipf family.)

Right, you're going to define a language, which, by its very nature, must be unidentifiable as a language.

Goalpost moving attempt #2 noted. There are a number of well-defined properties that all human languages share (recursive syntax being one of the big ones), but you didn't ask for a definition of language, just the necessary properties.

Sorry, mate, I'm not an expert in linguistics or cryptography, so you'll have to help me out:

No, I'm not going to have to. Do your own research, or ask politely. Or go to your grave ignorant.

The everything you're talking about. Does that include dolphin, elephants, simian and feline languages?

No, nor does it include leprechaun or house-elf. Would you like to know why? Because house-elves don't exist, and neither does their language.

 

[Wolfman]

No, nor does it include leprechaun or house-elf. Would you like to know why? Because house-elves don't exist, and neither does their language.

Well, technically, that's not an entirely valid argument.

Klingons don't exist, and never have. But they have a language, nevertheless

 

[Bikewer]

I seem to recall some Skeptical Inquirer articles on Glossolalia that subjected recordings of this "speech" to analysis and found it to be....Gibberish.

Much the same with individuals who speak "foreign languages" while under hypnosis as evidence of past lives. Analysis indicates that though some foreign-language words or sounds may be present, there is no syntax or sentence structure. Essentially, the individuals are remembering fragments of language heard in the past.
I well remember Sid Ceasar's psuedo German, French, and whatever, improvised on the spot. People would write in to Our Show Of Shows and claim they could understand him!

I find this sort of gibberish-speak to be quite easy, and I'm sure I could convincingly "speak in tongues". If you have some idea of what the essential sounds of a given language are, and a smattering of actual words, you can be rather convincing.

 

[jman19999]

I think I've told this tale here before... awww Hell, I'll tell it again:

Once fine day, back in college, I was in the second floor of the UW-Milwaukee Student Union walking past some conference rooms on my way to get lunch at the food court. As I walked near one of the rooms, I heard a horrific wailing and moaning from the open door. Being a conscientious citizen, I headed into the room to find out what was going on and see if I could render any necessary aid. I'll never forget what I saw:

Inside, there was about a dozen other students, many wearing crosses and Christian-themed t-shirts. Some stood alone or in small groups, others where kneeling with their arms stretched to the sky. All of them had a blank expression on their faces and were gibbering, moaning, and babbling like schizophrenics in an asylum. I heard the sporatic "amen" and lots of hallelujahs (one woman catatonically rocked back in forth repeating it over and over and over...). Confused, I glanced at the schedule posted on the door and found I was witnessing (no pun intended) a meeting of the Campus Crusade For Christ.

I remember slowly backing out of the room...

A truly frightening experience for you, Mark!

Jeff

 

[The Atheist]

Ah, the good drkitten comes back for more.

You know, you're a funny sort. Quite often you make intelligent comments.

But equally-often you just write stuff down as it appears out of your orifice and are pathetically wrong. This is such an occasion.

Goalpost attempt moving noted. If you don't know enough statistics to know how ill-posed that question is, you don't know enough to understand the answer. (The actual answer : I need enough text to run a proper test, probably a Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test, and to compare it against the Zipf family.)

Where have I shifted goalposts?

You claimed that it was easy to identify whether something was gibberish or an actual language. I gave you an example of some script and you told me it was insufficient. I ask "how much more" and you accuse me of moving the goalposts.

Genius.

Goalpost moving attempt #2 noted. There are a number of well-defined properties that all human languages share (recursive syntax being one of the big ones), but you didn't ask for a definition of language, just the necessary properties.

Again, no goalposts moved.

You've already described what constitutes human language.

God - in the context of this discussion meaning the christian one - is clearly not human.

No, I'm not going to have to. Do your own research, or ask politely. Or go to your grave ignorant.

Classic!

I asked you whether dolphin, elephant and other animalian languages conform to the same pattern as human language.

The above is your answer. Nice.

What the hell do you think you are? Are you a schoolteacher by chance? You certainly act like one - "ask politely" my backside. You come into a thread, armed to the teeth with bollocks and misconceptions, I'll tell you anytime to put up or shut up.

Nice of you to take the third option of trying desperately to CYA.

Drkitten, sweetie, are animalian communications identifiable as "language" under the rules you've so delightfully helped us out with?

(please do include display behaviour, etc as part of the "language" concept - cheers)

No, nor does it include leprechaun or house-elf. Would you like to know why? Because house-elves don't exist, and neither does their language.

Sure. You see, here, we have no argument, which is what makes you sillier than dirt. You and I are both very confident that Tongue is a figment of the imagination. That you missed that startling and obvious point is all your problem.

 

[The Atheist]

Was this subject mentioned in The Exorcist? I recall it addressing the phenomenon of speaking in human languages not ordinarily known to the speaker (xenoglossy), but not glossolalia as such. I could be misremembering, or it could have been in the novel (which I've never read) rather than the film.

That sounds right and fits what I'm sure Blatty meant.

 

[Dr H]

Cheers. Do you know if there are other mechanisms which produce similar results? Has anyone ever bothered checking?

Backmasking and reverse speech, perhaps.

 

[Autolite]

I remember the first and only time that I had actually witnessed someone speaking in tongues and it creeped me out. I was about seven or eight years old and it happened during a Pentecostal church service that I had been dragged to by my grandparents.

Towards the end of the service, Grandma started bellowing loud gibberish that was heard by the whole congregation. I couldn't quite figure out what was going on, but even as a little kid the whole thing seemed somewhat bogus, creepy and a little embarrassing.

After the service, Grandad explained to me what had occurred. On the surface I had accepted the explanation but the whole ordeal had left me somewhat disconcerted. I now had to concede that both my grandparents were nuts...

 

[AkuManiMani]

No, unfortunately. For this, we must refer back to the fount of all [divine] truth, the Roman Catholic Church.

Tongues, as one of the charismata, must be identifiable. Doesn't say how, but I'm sure the RCC has an arbiter of Tongue somewhere. Maybe it's a nun!

Ah, well I was speaking from the tongue talkin' Pentecostal perspective. According to them the catholic church is in violation of biblical truth

 

[The Atheist]

Backmasking and reverse speech, perhaps.

Yeah, it was reversed speech used in the exorcist. I imagine the Tongue used by demons is a different form of xenoglossy. I might have to go and ask a Catholic priest.

On the surface I had accepted the explanation but the whole ordeal had left me somewhat disconcerted. I now had to concede that both my grandparents were nuts...

Pity they act it when the kids are around.

Ah, well I was speaking from the tongue talkin' Pentecostal perspective. According to them the catholic church is in violation of biblical truth

Well, to be fair, the RCC thinks the Pentecostals are demonic.