It's just a very stable structure to make with technology of the time. Or make up some bollix about Atlantis if you want but most of the theories are in tinfoil hat territory.
Yes it is a stable structure. And yes some of my opinions on things do put me in the tinfoil hat territory i have an open mind. And i believe there were civilization's in the ancient world that had the technology of flight. Or someone or something had to ability to observe this planet from an altitude above Earth.As from some of the shows on the ancient maps and the understanding of stars and movements. And not being locked in materialistic muddle and close mindedness of a robot like mentality.
Rivend-I'd advise you to look more deeply into those old maps beyond TV shows.They aren't very mysterious at all.People presenting these shows leave out a lot of info-look at a good copy of the famous Peri Reis (spelling bad,sorry) map,with translations of the margin notes.The showing Antarctica as a continent w/out ice has been totally debunked.It's not uncommon for me to see books on old maps in my work.They are often not as accurate as portrayed in pop culture. You can walk into the Sahara desert and find tools left there that are truly ancient and pre Homo Sapiens.If we can find these I must ask regarding supposed higher civilizations in antiquity-where's the garbage? A question I've asked for years which I note those in the field of archaeology also ask.We find everybody else's garbage.Millions of years worth. There is some thought that some people may have produced kites with which to ascend a person.That's about it as far as flying in antiquity.The cracking of the Mayan writing laid to rest finally the absurd notion that there were guys depicted in spaceships once it was possible to read the glyphs surrounding them. Astronomy doesn't require flight-Copernicus was earthbound,as were the Sumerians. It's good to have an open mind-it's also good to look at both sides of an argument and see which stacks up.Sad to say,the evidence for any high tech or pre any known civilization is nil.Been there,done that.For years. so no robot mind here. As an example of pop works,the world doesn't end in 2012 either,as any pre Columbian researcher will tell you,except one guy who wrote a book catering to a specific clientele.But now it's a big "truth" to some.That is to say,those who don't understand the cycles of Mayan calendric time. Caveat emptor.
Apologies for not reading the entire thread before posting, however, just wanted to make a suggestion: I recommend anyone interested in the history of languages to read [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Word-Language-History-World/dp/0066210860"]Empires of the Word[/ame], it's a fantastic survey book of the histories of every major language (and a bunch of minor ones as well). Probably my favorite history book I've ever read. It really puts the development of modern language in a historical, rather than technical, perspective.
Bad science and bad research being swallowed whole and propagated by no marks on the internet. That and the fact they have taken the word gullible out the dictionary.
What about them? From the above please note I have little time for racists and cultural imperialists.
Hey great videos thanks for the link.Also i have never heard of Al Fry i am going to read more about him.
What's the point of doing anything? The end reason for everything one does is eventually "because it pleases us". There are many reasons to do so, not least being the affirmation of a separate identity from Britain(which interests many nationalists) The ability to speak more than one language is much like riding a bike, it's easy to do, most people can do it, it's enjoyable, has slight health benefits and can come in very useful in certain situations, such as being in a foreign country. Personally I regard people who are only conversant in English to be majorly disadvantaged when travelling. Apart from all the normal reasons one would want to be able to speak it, it provides interesting insight into history (damn ancients never took the time to translate all their documents into English) Among others. In the case of Irish, it's much more likely to be case of having a love for the language, or else simply wanting to have a private word that you can reasonably expect no-one to understand. The problem with English is that everyone speaks it They have been updated very regularly and quite recently. Though I don't see what that has to do with anything, once it works, it works, no? Minority languages have many practical uses outside of cultural preservation. Then of course there's the argument that nothing humans do is of any ultimate pragmatic value. Would you prefer that the government shut down all museums, theatres, art galleries, cinemas, sports clubs, television broadcasters, restaurants, take-aways, pubs, parks, libraries, casinos, gyms and sweet manufacturers? People like languages, why pick on them specifically?
People like languages, but not that much or we would not be in a period of loss greater than at any previouse time, and specifically in the UK we would not need to be throwing tons of cash at fundamentally dead artifacts. Not saying that Welsh was a nearly dead language but I did find this interesting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...hannel-attracts-no-viewers-for-200-shows.html
Hey, I love language!And history.Just speaking of the pragmatic value of efforts to revive disappearing languages,which can include the co$t.I don't personally have anything against it.Then again,w/taxes as high as they are in my part of the US,and our roads and bridges in vast need of upkeep,I'm not sure if I'd want a bunch of my tax dollars going to revive an old indigenous language currently spoken by 10 people whose grandchildren could care less. Hey, I know people who read Latin and Sankrit.Not exactly languages w/a living and growing tradition.I have no problem w/that.As you said,they enjoy it. I used Irish as an example - figured if I ticked somebody off there was a chance they might at least be a distant cousin!(Grew up on the place my great-great-grandfather bought after he came to the US during the famine). Curious,if you would be so kind-so what % of people in the country -(obviously we'll leave out the north)-actually speak Irish on a daily basis?And is learning it entirely voluntary,or it forced down the throat of schoolkids for the sake of cultural heritage/identity?(I've detested French ever since it was forced on us starting in 4th or 5th grade!Not that the heritage/identity thing would apply there.)Wondering what % actually has a command of the language as opposed to just knowing which is the lady's and which is the gent's washrooms. Ok,I'm going to tune up and play Gol Na mBan San Ar and Sliabh Na mBan-please show our readers how they're pronounced! Thanks,later.
