What's your most memorable trip, and why?

[Phil8659]

Words don't have wills of their own. They change their meaning because we, that is, humans, change. Words are human constructs.

So, words mimic human behavior. How do they do that? How can any lifeless object do anything of its own accord? And how can you be a historian and not even be literate?

Words don't mimic human behaviour, they just describe it, and are themselves part of it, and they also describe everything else that we wish to describe. That's what they're for.

As for whether I'm literate or not, well, it's a question of definition, isn't it? I like to think so.

You keep changing the names, but the same anthropomorphism, the same oxymoron remains. Your own words say you are illiterate. This is like saying guns kill people.

[Maia]

So, words mimic human behavior. How do they do that? How can any lifeless object do anything of its own accord? And how can you be a historian and not even be literate?

Words don't mimic human behaviour, they just describe it, and are themselves part of it, and they also describe everything else that we wish to describe. That's what they're for.

As for whether I'm literate or not, well, it's a question of definition, isn't it? I like to think so.

You keep changing the names, but the same anthropomorphism, the same oxymoron remains. Your own words say you are illiterate. This is like saying guns kill people.

You have completely ignored all the examples I have given, world wide web, bin, and so on, examples of words that have definitely changed their meaning. Please address these examples before going any further.

Here are some more. Plane, train, car. All of these have existed for hundreds of years, but didn't mean what they do today. Explain this, if you can. Or how about "formidable" which exists in both English and French, spelt exactly the same, and from the same root, but with opposite meanings. How is this possible?

[Phil8659]

Words don't mimic human behaviour, they just describe it, and are themselves part of it, and they also describe everything else that we wish to describe. That's what they're for.

As for whether I'm literate or not, well, it's a question of definition, isn't it? I like to think so.

You keep changing the names, but the same anthropomorphism, the same oxymoron remains. Your own words say you are illiterate. This is like saying guns kill people.

You have completely ignored all the examples I have given, world wide web, bin, and so on, examples of words that have definitely changed their meaning. Please address these examples before going any further.

Here are some more. Plane, train, car. All of these have existed for hundreds of years, but didn't mean what they do today. Explain this, if you can. Or how about "formidable" which exists in both English and French, spelt exactly the same, and from the same root, but with opposite meanings. How is this possible?

Really? I have ignored them, I thought the topic was what changed what. You cannot even read.
You keep saying words change themselves. Words modify words. etc., You cannot spot an anthropomorphism when it is eating your lunch, nor an oxymoron when it is giving you the better half of its name.
Word are our tools, the tools of the mind. They do nothing unless we do it by them. Do you know the difference between they change and they are changed? In Greek terms, agent and patient.

[Maia]

You keep changing the names, but the same anthropomorphism, the same oxymoron remains. Your own words say you are illiterate. This is like saying guns kill people.

You have completely ignored all the examples I have given, world wide web, bin, and so on, examples of words that have definitely changed their meaning. Please address these examples before going any further.

Here are some more. Plane, train, car. All of these have existed for hundreds of years, but didn't mean what they do today. Explain this, if you can. Or how about "formidable" which exists in both English and French, spelt exactly the same, and from the same root, but with opposite meanings. How is this possible?

Really? I have ignored them, I thought the topic was what changed what. You cannot even read.
You keep saying words change themselves. Words modify words. etc., You cannot spot an anthropomorphism when it is eating your lunch, nor an oxymoron when it is giving you the better half of its name.
Word are our tools, the tools of the mind. They do nothing unless we do it by them. Do you know the difference between they change and they are changed? In Greek terms, agent and patient.

I have repeatedly said that words change because people change, they don't change of their own volition because they have none. If you have failed to even understand what I've been saying, then there's really no point in going any further with this. As for anthropomorphisms, they are a natural part of language, and we use them all the time.

[accelafine]

'Phil' appears to have his own definition of 'grammar' which he is unwilling to divulge on this forum. I suppose that having a direct phone line to 'god' takes up most of your time and energy

He calls everyone on here who is foolhardy enough to engage with him 'illiterate', yet his own level of literacy is poor at best.

[Phil8659]

You have completely ignored all the examples I have given, world wide web, bin, and so on, examples of words that have definitely changed their meaning. Please address these examples before going any further.

Here are some more. Plane, train, car. All of these have existed for hundreds of years, but didn't mean what they do today. Explain this, if you can. Or how about "formidable" which exists in both English and French, spelt exactly the same, and from the same root, but with opposite meanings. How is this possible?

Really? I have ignored them, I thought the topic was what changed what. You cannot even read.
You keep saying words change themselves. Words modify words. etc., You cannot spot an anthropomorphism when it is eating your lunch, nor an oxymoron when it is giving you the better half of its name.
Word are our tools, the tools of the mind. They do nothing unless we do it by them. Do you know the difference between they change and they are changed? In Greek terms, agent and patient.

I have repeatedly said that words change because people change, they don't change of their own volition because they have none. If you have failed to even understand what I've been saying, then there's really no point in going any further with this. As for anthropomorphisms, they are a natural part of language, and we use them all the time.

Again, deflection. How is it then, we were actually saying the same thing, but you said you disagreed? Really, I know you lie to yourself, but do you really think you can lie to me? I have spent my whole life learning how to be true.

[Maia]

'Phil' appears to have his own definition of 'grammar' which he is unwilling to divulge on this forum. I suppose that having a direct phone line to 'god' takes up most of your time and energy

He calls everyone on here who is foolhardy enough to engage with him 'illiterate', yet his own level of literacy is poor at best.

It's a bit like arguing with a jellyfish.

[Maia]

Really? I have ignored them, I thought the topic was what changed what. You cannot even read.
You keep saying words change themselves. Words modify words. etc., You cannot spot an anthropomorphism when it is eating your lunch, nor an oxymoron when it is giving you the better half of its name.
Word are our tools, the tools of the mind. They do nothing unless we do it by them. Do you know the difference between they change and they are changed? In Greek terms, agent and patient.

I have repeatedly said that words change because people change, they don't change of their own volition because they have none. If you have failed to even understand what I've been saying, then there's really no point in going any further with this. As for anthropomorphisms, they are a natural part of language, and we use them all the time.

Again, deflection. How is it then, we were actually saying the same thing, but you said you disagreed? Really, I know you lie to yourself, but do you really think you can lie to me? I have spent my whole life learning how to be true.

You said that words never changed their meaning, which is not only obviously false, but shows, dare I say it, a pretty high level of illiteracy.

[accelafine]

'Phil' appears to have his own definition of 'grammar' which he is unwilling to divulge on this forum. I suppose that having a direct phone line to 'god' takes up most of your time and energy

He calls everyone on here who is foolhardy enough to engage with him 'illiterate', yet his own level of literacy is poor at best.

It's a bit like arguing with a jellyfish.

[Phil8659]

I have repeatedly said that words change because people change, they don't change of their own volition because they have none. If you have failed to even understand what I've been saying, then there's really no point in going any further with this. As for anthropomorphisms, they are a natural part of language, and we use them all the time.

Again, deflection. How is it then, we were actually saying the same thing, but you said you disagreed? Really, I know you lie to yourself, but do you really think you can lie to me? I have spent my whole life learning how to be true.

You said that words never changed their meaning, which is not only obviously false, but shows, dare I say it, a pretty high level of illiteracy.

Well, look below, you have the full support of another sociopath. You are in great company.

[accelafine]

It's uncanny. Everyone who responds to Phil on the forum is a 'sociopath' and 'illiterate'. What are the chances?

[Phil8659]

It's uncanny. Everyone who responds to Phil on the forum is a 'sociopath' and 'illiterate'. What are the chances?

Try this, there is another book with a very long historical foundation, which says the same thing, so you cannot claim it is an invention of mine. Do you know what that book is?
A book which tells that at a certain point in human history, mankind will start to learn to read?
So, put your question to that author, see if the answer is different.

See if you can read metaphor, Revelation 5. How many beast accompany the lamb? They are mentioned in several places of the Book.

Do you suppose, that a book written about judgment would use principles of grammar, by which we can effect judgment to test the truth of the book or the reader's comprehension?
Mankind claims the Book is about religion, but what does the Author say? It is about Doctrine, whose doctrine will stand in the end?

[accelafine]

Ugh. Too much insanity to take in one sitting

[Phil8659]

Ugh. Too much insanity to take in one sitting

Any stress on the old brain is too much for a sociopath, you are excused.
However, if you need a hint on how to read metaphor, the Book itself tries to teach you using simple arithmetic.
Intelligence is the ability to see the common idea in the many examples. The Book is there, Concordance is on line,

Trace out the metaphors. see the various ways the same thing is stated, see if you can reach the common idea in them all.

The book starts with the making of man, for the purpose of tending the Garden of Life, and to do that is to become like God, knowing judgment. How is that different from the end of the book, where it says the purpose the prophets are sent is to destroy those who destroy the earth? Same thing, one looks good, one looks bad, Yet the goal is one and the same.

Every prophet in history, brought advancements in grammar processing for the sole purpose of learning to do our own work.