Can we understand ancient language?

Gregory

Historians are pretty confident that they understand ancient language. I want to start out by saying I am more sceptical about this than many of they. When ancient texts mean something to someone they certainly will be likely to dismiss doubts over the meanings of words and what ideas these once expressed. I don't want this directed solely towards Christians, but an example that is pertinent to this thread is the ancient Mosiac law.

This system of law has many hard and\or bizarre aspects. Permanent slavery of non-Jews is one example. If someone wants to dispute this claim by saying I don't understand what the pertinent verses mean this reinforces my general argument because the point I wanted to make about Mosiac law is that it is defended by modern Christians through the claim that we, in these times, don't understand the culture of ancient times. If we cant, however, understand the culture of ancient times, how can we understand their texts?

Most texts of the Bible which we have nowadays are not older than the 8th century. And languages change generationally. That is important; language changes every generation. So we look at texts from the Dark Ages (there was good, I know, in those times too) and have to ask "did they translate and understand what happened in the centuries before accurately and are we understanding the Dark Ages correctly?" Not only does language but culture in which it is embedded too. What did these words mean TO those people? What did it mean to write about something back then? What nuances of human expression has simply been lost to time?

Many such questions can be poised. It seems to me the further we go back in time the less we can know about the language . The more it becomes opaque. We can't read texts with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century eyes. I know ancient texts mean much to many people in various spiritual traditions. I'm saying though that it seems reasonable to say that the living only truly know their own time

Sauron

.

Gregory

↪Sauron

Good points. What counts as being "most reasonable" about ancient text and how we are to take them doesnt seem to have one simple answer however. Reading Heidegger and how he would translate and then interpret texts was eye opening to me. I think the topic I've brought up has no clear answer. I wanted to juggle things up and get us thinking in several ways about the past in this thread. I'm not saying someone can't have a certain type of certainty about the Bible or Shakespeare, but ones person's certainty is another person's doubt

Wayfarer

Believe it or not - seems hard to believe even to myself - I have actually passed undergraduate exams in both Sanskrit and Pali, the latter being the sacerdotal language of Theravada Buddhism, the former being the classical language of ancient India. I was a very poor student and can hardly remember anything from them, but I did go through a year's classes in each. They don't have any pragmatic or commercial uses, but they're aesthetically pleasing and spiritually profound languages. (In the same way Eskimos are said to have many words for snow, Sanskrit has an entire lexicon describing ideas which can't even be expressed in modern English.)

It is true that the past, especially the ancient past, is utterly remote from our own hyper-technological and post-modern culture. But part of the point of scholarship is to imaginatively try to inhabit those other worlds. Actually one of the Pali scholars I read talked of the 'Pali imaginaire' - that being the imagined world of the ancient Indian Buddhists, with its gods and daemons, heavens and hells, morality tales and stories. If you immerse yourself in those studies, you can learn something of those worlds, even if of course you remain grounded, or stuck, in your own time.

I'll always regret not having better education in the Western classical corpus, chiefly Greek and Latin (although coming to think of it, I did also pass Latin 101, about which I remember even less). But those scholars who are deeply engaged in the study of those materials likewise do sympathetically inhabit those ancient worlds, in some ways.

So - overall, I don't agree with your OP, or maybe, it's not so cut-and-dried. (Oh, and also, I think there's a move away from using the term 'Dark Ages', it is regarded as a pejorative. The period is now, I think, and I might be wrong, 'early medieval'.)

Gregory

↪Wayfarer

Thank God someone brought in another religious tradition. This is helpful. Thanks

I would like to add by saying that it's wrong to use the "copies of copies of copies for thousands of years" argument, because we do have ancient texts themselves. However the understanding of those documents doesn't fall from the sky. The understanding comes from the generation to generation thing I mentioned, how language evokes (and culture and even biology evolve too). So there is a separateness between us and the past and (although this might be argued against) I think in have a case that the further we go back in history (testing artifacts and writings with science to determine age) the harder it should be to really have certainty over common ancient text. So ye we know Gettysburg happened, but it seems to me we know about it far more surely than about the punic wars

Metaphysician Undercover

It is true that the past, especially the ancient past, is utterly remote from our own hyper-technological and post-modern culture. But part of the point of scholarship is to imaginatively try to inhabit those other worlds. Actually one of the Pali scholars I read talked of the 'Pali imaginaire' - that being the imagined world of the ancient Indian Buddhists, with its gods and daemons, heavens and hells, morality tales and stories. If you immerse yourself in those studies, you can learn something of those worlds, even if of course you remain grounded, or stuck, in your own time. — Wayfarer

The line between the believed to be true world, and the believed to be imaginary world is not so easy to define for the outside observer of different cultures. So when your scholar spoke of "the imagined world", it could have really been a believed to be true world, which the scholar described as an imaginary world. But describing it as an imaginary world, if that culture believed it to be the real world, would show a misunderstanding, as a lack of recognizing how the culture related the apparent imaginary world, to the real world, as an assumed real representation.

We see this is commonly in atheist representations of religion in general. God for instance is represented as imaginary. But unless you can put yourself in the position of seeing God as real, you are surely not understanding the religious position. Often the atheist will refuse to recognize that God could be understood as real, because this possibility is seen as a threat to the atheist position. But this type of atheist cannot produce a valid argument against the theist position, because the proposition that God could be believed to be real cannot be accepted, so that atheist is not even getting to, and therefore incapable of arguing against, the perspective by which God is seen to be real.

Wayfarer

↪Metaphysician Undercover

When he used the term 'imaginaire', I don't think he meant what we mean when we say something is 'merely imaginary'. 'Imagination' when understood properly is much more far-reaching and subtle than entertaining a daydream or thinking of something. Einstein said '"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."

I agree with you about atheism, I too don't believe in the type of God that atheists don't believe in, but I'm not atheist.

Pantagruel

We can't read texts with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century eyes. I know ancient texts mean much to many people in various spiritual traditions. I'm saying though that it seems reasonable to say that the living only truly know their own time — Gregory

To a certain extent this is obviously true. As Ernst Cassirer describes it

In a certain sense the historian is much more of a linguist than a scientist....he tries to penetrate into the sense of all the various symbolic idioms. He finds his texts not merely in books, in annals or memoirs. He has to read hieroglyphs or cuneiform inscriptions, look at colors on a canvas, at statues in marble or bronze, at cathedrals or temples, at coins or gems, But he does not consider all these things simply with the mind of an antiquary who wishes to collect and preserve the treasures of olden times. What the historian is in search of is rather the materialization of the spirit of a former age.
(Essay on Man, Ch 10, History)

And yet this decay of meaning into history takes place by degrees. The "living cultural history" (what Cassirer calls the "materialization of the spirit of a former age") of the 1960's is much more accessible right now than it will be one hundred years from now.

Perhaps part of what culture is is creating a blueprint for its own future interpretation?

Gregory

I don't think there is any way to demonstrate that there are and only are spirits who are below humans or that there is one or several supreme ones who are infinitely above humans. I am not greatly interested in math but there may be 100 percent proof in that subject (unless psychologism is true). It seems that there just has to be something that is true even if we could never grasp it. The principle of science that seems obvious is that "identical objects act identically in identical situations". I don't know how the mind can deny this principle, however science precedes with various degrees of certainty. The same applies to historical critical studies of ancient language(s).

Gregory

↪Pantagruel

I love Cassirer. He never says 'this is the most reasonable way to understand this religion". Hegel incorporated Aristotle into his system, a system very different from Aquinas's religion. Every century sees new interpretations of the past, which seem novel but could for all we know be the original! Then again maybe I misunderstand Hegel and Heidegger, but thusly.. there is no infallible knowledge in historical criticism. Some people find it incredible that others don't take events from thousands of years ago seriously, but we all have different thresholds when it comes to this subject I've raised here

Olivier5

it seems reasonable to say that the living only truly know their own time — Gregory

Do they? For the fine details, yes, but their knowledge of their own times was necessarily partial, limited to their surroundings and social class (the fine details of which I agree they knew better than we can). But an historian today can access a more global view of say the middle age, more comprehensive, cutting across locales and social classes, than anyone from the middle age. He also has the benefit of hindsight.

Gregory

↪Olivier5

If, just for argument sake, the peasant understands his class with 60 percent accuracy and the modern historian knows the whole age with say 15 percent acuracy, which of the two has greater knowledge?

Olivier5

↪Gregory

Does the question matter? They are not in a competition for any job. Their views are qualitatively different, they each have their pluses and minuses. The peasant doesn't understand the politics of the age very clearly, nor the economics; and he may at least initially not be aware of certain innovations or scientific developments that may come to define an age, a posteriori.

The point is that no historical period was ever embraced in its totality by anyone, contemporaries included.

Pantagruel

The point is that no historical period was ever embraced in its totality by anyone, contemporaries included. — Olivier5

I think that living in a world constitutes "embracing it in its totality," to the extent that is possible. Whether there are a multiplicity of partially overlapping Weltanschauung or if there is some definitive Weltanschauung is another question. Perhaps some people do happen to embody the Zeitgeist of a particular time by being the right person in the right place though?

BC

I'm saying though that it seems reasonable to say that the living only truly know their own time — Gregory

Actually, one could argue that the living don't know their own time all that well. It's just damn hard to know what the hell is actually going on. Can you tell me where current events are leading us? We can guess, and we can project optimism or pessimism, but when the culmination arrives it is almost always a complete surprise. 9/11? Fukushima meltdown -- or Chernobyl? Hurricane Katrina? Covid-19?

I'm not saying someone can't have a certain type of certainty about the Bible or Shakespeare, but ones person's certainty is another person's doubt — Gregory

There is much more doubt about what the Anglo Saxons Chroniclers said than what Shakespeare wrote, or Chaucer 200 years earlier. As is the case with other ancient writings, people wrote histories using sources we no longer have access to. Did they make things up or did they copy earlier errors?

Shakespeare in particular contributed quite a bit to the shape of Modern English. There are much more recent writers that are a lot harder to understand than Shakespeare.

You brought up OT religious texts. What about the Greek and Roman philosophers, or poets and playwrights. How is it that Lysistrata is still an amusing play? Well, one reason is that a dildo is still a dildo (which Lysistrata called "her leather consolation"). How certain can we be about Plato? (Probably pretty sure.).

Before the Rosetta Stone and related scholarship, translating Egyptian hieroglyphs was just creative writing--free-association to figures of unknown meaning. Pre-Rosetta and post-Rosetta translations bear no resemblance. (Or so I've read)

Gregory

My main point is that our knowledge of past cultures passes through the shapes and forms of each generation back until you have reached the culture you wish to study. You can't skip centuries and millenia to peer into a civilization. Ergo, older cultures will be harder to correctly understand

Ciceronianus

Beware generalization. As to ancient language, sometimes it seems clear enough. Sometimes it may not be. To claim that we can never understand ancient language or culture is a bit extreme.

From the cheerful First Book of Samuel, Chapter 15:

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

This seems fairly straightforward. What reason is there to believe it doesn't mean what it says? On what basis could we claim that the destruction of the men, women, infants, etc. isn't being referred to, or ordered? Why would we have to live then in order to know that?

Leghorn

I tend to side with those in this discussion who contradict the assumption that we can know well our own time simply because we live in it.

I believe one can “live” in a prior age by reading the writings that emanated from it, and I think the proof of this are the innumerable men who have done just this—despite the barriers of language and culture. Furthermore, I would predict that these men would attest that they came to know their own peculiar place and time infinitely better by having read those antique writings, and I think this is further proof that only through being inspired by literature in the grand style can we understand our own time and place...much less Elizabethan England or Machiavelli’s Florence, etc.

These old writings, in all their variety of language and context of culture, survived the ravages of the centuries, nay millenia, outlasting monuments and cities, for a reason: they taught men something about themselves they could never have gleaned merely from the study of their own constricted time and place.

Gregory

↪Ciceronianus the White

It could be argued that "sucklings" could refer to children over 7 who were in the eyes of Jews "sinners". If one is open to seeing it, the ways of interpreting these texts is almost limitless. We can't cross examine the writers. Here's another example: maybsubjext idea of "reality" as we modern people speak of it was unknown to former eras. They may have spoken as if they thought in that category yet there philosophy and religion might have been entirely epistemic and existential. We have no way to know.

The relationship between culture (and thought) and how biology has evolved over the thousands of centuries leading to us would be an interesting subject, although again there might be little we can discover with clarity

Ciceronianus

↪Gregory

If what evidence we have indicates that "sucklings" was defined in a particular way at the time, that's part of the information we have available in understanding the sentence in question. Presumably there's no confusion over what men, women, infants, camels, etc. were or meant at the time.

The best information we have (including archaeological evidence) indicates that certain of the ancient American civilizations practiced human sacrifice. We may not be able to understand, fully, why they thought it was necessary or proper, but it wouldn't be correct to say we can't know they engaged in the ritualistic killing of captives and others because we didn't live and weren't part of their society at the time, any more than it would be correct to claim we can't know that people were burned at the stake centuries ago in Europe. We have a reasonable basis on which to make claims regarding history in many cases, though sometimes there is no such basis and we can only speculate.

Gregory

↪Ciceronianus the White

A lot of Christians do take the old Testament to mean God can and does demand the killing of completely innocent individuals by his followers. These Christians are not different from radical muslims. In a Christian society will they have a "God commanded it" defense in the law for murderers? What if in that society someone claimed God ordered an abortion? I don't find these ancient religions appealing, logical, or meaningful.

Benj96

↪Gregory

we try to comprehend ancient language with a modern mind. Culture and language are inextricably linked. So our language is shaped by our modern world perspective and this is our basis for trying to understand ancient languages which lived in the pretext of vastly different cultures/ ideologies.

So no, our interpretation of ancient languages will always be biased because of our mindset (established by our modern language). What we value these days is distorted from the values of ancient civilisations. The only way to really appreciate and ancient language is to first embody their way of life because that is the focus Or central point around which their linguistics revolve.

For example the connection between astronomy and agriculture which was highly important back then is more or less irrelevant today as agriculture can be performed at any time of the year due to artificial growing environments. So that would biased our mind toward interpreting their astronomical language as being of spiritual importance or as a ritualistic thing rather than Simply pragmatic and connected to the seasons and when to plant crops.

I believe we romanticise the ancients as mystical mysterious and spiritual when in a survival situation with no modern aids it is likely most of their language was strongly tied to what was earthly and directly benefited their survival.

In summary we cannot appreciate ancient languages fully when we don’t even know clearly what their social values were

Ciceronianus

The only way to really appreciate and ancient language is to first embody their way of life because that is the focus Or central point around which their linguistics revolve. — Benj96

Well, it's a good thing I'm not interested in understanding Maya or Nahuatl, then, as it seems I'd have to practice or at least witness ritual human sacrifice to do so.

Benj96

↪Ciceronianus the White

Sadly this is most likely the case. There are many things in history that simply baffle us for the reason that we did not live at that time when it was the pinnacle of normality. Perhaps 1000 years from now our Descendants will look back on us with the same bewilderment.

MAYAEL

This reminds me of a short story I made to try to explain to my Christian friend why he probably had no idea how to interpret the Bible and I think it goes perfect with what you're saying. Here it is
I have this boner that I love and love to show it to all my friends especially my dog and when my dog showed my boner to his dog he thought it was so funny he just had to show it to his pup (hes just a little pup about 6yrs old) and of course you know how pup's can get when shown a really good boner.

Now that story probably sounds a bit perverted at first glance but I promise you there is a valid reason for the unusual choice of words .
this little story is to prove a point about how the meaning of words change over time and how even if your talking in your native language you can still get lost and confused as to the meaning of a word or phrase depending on if its from a time period before or after yours.

So in this example I used different meanings ranging from the 1920's all the way to today
As well as a variety of cultural influences

See the name for a cartoon comedy back in the 1920's was called a "boner" because it would make you laugh so much your bones would hurt and only got its sexual meaning after the popularity of playboy in the 1950's

and obviously dogs don't know how to read comics but bestfriends do and so a "dog" is when your in the hood referring to your close buddie/friend.

So with that information I think it should completely change the interpretation of the story as well as shed a new understanding on how the original meaning of words will always change to fit the culture and the times they're in

TheMadFool

Idioms and our comprehension of ancient languages.

"Hit the nail on the head" doesn't mean there's a nail or that someone hit that nail on its head. It means to be exactly on point.

"Take the cake" doesn't mean that there's a cake or someone took it. It means to be the most remarkable.

"Swallow something hook, line, and sinker" doesn't mean there's hook or line or sinker or that someone swallowed all three. It means to be fooled/deceived completely.

"Bought the farm" doesn't mean there's a farm and someone bought it. It means to die.

Please note, my point hopefully covers all ancient languages, not just the history of the Jews.

Idioms have two layers of meaning:

1. The literal one which isn't the meaning that's intended to be conveyed.

2. The subtext which is the true meaning.

We shouldn't always take ancient texts literally is the takeaway.

javi2541997

↪TheMadFool

I know another one:

"How the tables have turned" it doesn't mean that literally a table has turned their side but how a situation changed so drastically in comparison to it was before.

TheMadFool

↪javi2541997

That went over her head. How quickly the tables had turned. She went off the deep end and her opponent knew this was a cold day in July. :smile:

Fine Doubter

The point is that no historical period was ever embraced in its totality by anyone, contemporaries included. — Olivier5

This is profound. But huge amounts of research has been done, then unjustly forgotten. Every now and again a new researcher cites older research - exactly like you should - and is decried for it.

Tillers of soil moved inland with some of their bards, and tradespeople / administrators sailed off with other bards. For their survival. There are and were no master races, ever. Masters sometimes, ad hoc and de facto only, often with bad practices.

We should understand why elements of subculture or "philosophies" reappear, in variants, in so many places. Some countries have had guilds and clans.

Theoretical linguists should handle historical and comparative linguistics more because this is their raw material.

Etymology should be traced across language "families" more. Every language is a mixed language. Language "families" do not correspond to essences or peoples. They have helped in aspects of research but mustn't be reified.

I think Sumerian is best pronounced (from transcription) with a mixed Dutch / Polish accent, with hints from Greek spelling? Samuel Noah Kramer is an entertaining writer about Sumeria.

One can minimise one's personal intensity with human sacrifice (say) while remembering the philosophical horror of it, and delve in detail into other aspects of cultures. And many almost forgotten researche(r)s have done and we need to work hard to retain the benefit of their work.

The Ice Ages are a historical as well as a geographical fact.

Critical thinking grasps multiple causes (unlike Bacon and Mill) so it is still bad of bad commerce to pollute and wreck and unbalance climates.

TheMadFool

Irony

Any definition of irony—though hundreds might be given, and very few of them would be accepted—must include this, that the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same. — Henry Watson Fowler

Agent Smith

Wriggle finger — Cratylus

Can we understand ancient language?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions