Talk:Enochian/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Excerpts

A few quotes from Laycock, some of which should be worked into the article. He distinguishes the 'angelic' language, which appears to be glossolalia, from Enochian, which was generated from it. On btm p.43 he calls Enochian "this language with an English base".

On p.42 he gives a list of Enochian words suggestive of mostly proper names in the Bible (examples recently deleted from this article), such as angel, Babylon, Christ, Leviathan, Lucifer, Nazareth, paraclete, Paradise, Solomon. "The remaining words do not seem to have any assignable etymology."

List of numerals p. 44 (which BTW suggest that the letters could be pronounced as their English names, e.g 1 = L = EL, 2 = V = VIVI, 4 = S = ES, 9 = M = EM).

p. 33-34, on the 'angelic' language: "patterning of this nature is ... characteristally found in certain types of meaningless language (such as glossolalia), which is often produced under conditions similar to trance. In other words, Kelley may have been 'speaking in tongues'."

p. 34-35: "there is no evidence that these early invocations are any form of 'language' -- in the sense of texts bearing a translatable meaning -- at all. All the facts seem compatible with Kelley pouring out a string of gibberish while in a trance state. ... So much for the 'language' which makes up Liber Logaeth

p.39-41, the "true Enochian language": "The text of a new book is dictated ... this is the 'Enochian' language strictly so called ... The differences between this language and the former one are considerable. ... the Enochian language appears to be generated, in some way, out of the previous tables and squares of the Liber Logaeth---generated, in fact, out of the earlier 'angelic' language. ... The 'new' language is less pronounceable than the old one, and it has awkward sequences of letters, such as long strings of vowels (ooaona, mooah) and difficult consonant clusters (paombd, smnad, noncf). This is exactly the type of text produced if one generates a string of letters on some random pattern. ... But not all Enochian is of this form; many of the words are very pronounceable."

p42: "of about 250 different words in the Enochian texts, more than half occur only once, so that we have no real check on their form or meaning."

p43: "it is apparent that there is nothing strikingly non-English about the grammar ... [It] suggests English with the removal of the articles [and] prepositions -- and with a few irregularities thrown in to confuse the picture. The order of words is also strongly English."

p.53: "I think we can acquit Dee of any deliberate fraud or mystification in this matter. It is not so easy to acquit Kelley. All we know of him ... suggests that he was an occult charlatan. ... Nevertheless, there is a remarkable consistency about the whole system, which for Kelley to have invented would argue a phenomenal memory."

p58: "I think ... that there is no cipher contained in the 'angelical' language, or in the Enochian Calls."

Laycock's conclusion is on p.63, not long but a bit much to quote. — kwami (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Sounded to" =/= "pronounced by"

Quote fails verification. Skyerise (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm only going to agree to allow you to make such a claim if you put back the (per Laycock) on both columns. The quote makes no strong claim. It describes the process of reconstruction. Skyerise (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"Allow"? Knock off the silliness. I don't care if you believe this is actually from angels, we go by RS's. And according to our sources, this is the pronunciation as best we can tell -- as with any other language that's no longer spoken. So we follow WP policy, and won't distort it to fit your prejudices.

We could change "pronunciation" to "sounds like" if you like -- though I don't know what the difference would be. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"Near as we can tell" means "reconstruction": either identify it as a reconstruction or make the source visible to the casual reader. Why do you resist that simple courtesy to the reader so strongly? That's not a rhetorical question. I want an answer. You're edit-warring to keep it your way. I hope you get blocked at this time you clearly deserve it. Skyerise (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This is no different than Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Classical Arabic, Classical Chinese, Old Church Slavonic, or myriad other languages without native speakers. Why the special treatment of Enochian? We give a claim, then the citation for that claim. I'd like an answer to that, because from what you say, your objection is that Laycock didn't interview angels -- that is, that you're pushing pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm neutral. It's not neutral to disbelieve in angels and bring that disbelief into the article. It's just as wrong as strong belief in angels making one's POV non-neutral. Me, I'm a Buddhist, trained in the logical system known as Madhyamaka. I believe that spiritual practice properly directed can have positive psychological effect. I also hold vows not to denigrate any other religion's beliefs. This allows me to be extremely neutral about the existence of entities, whether they be called gods, angels, dakas, dakinis, demons, dharma protectors, or pixies. No one has disproved Dee's assertions on the matter, because it not a thing that can be proven or disproven.

Now, here's one to blow your mind: I've looked for who might say/believe Enochian is a conlang. Guess what. It's not the linguists. It's the occultists, whose views you devalue; occultists w/o linguistic training. So are you supporting their position now?

Also, anybody who knows anything about Enochian knows that 'angels' is an anagram of 'angles'. It refers to angular shapes laid out on the tablets to create the names and sigils of the "governors". How much of the angel story was meant to make their work look legitimate in a Christian society is a matter of conjecture. The sigils of the angular angels describe a 2D space-filling set of interlocking tiles (like space-filling polyhedra only in the plane, see also Synergetics (Fuller)). In this way, words become things and things become words. And the word-things combine to make five rectangular tablets intended to model the world. If you get hung up on taking angels literally - regardless of whether you come down either for or against their existence - you've fallen for the cover story.

Enochian is a mathematical and functional language. You'd need to understand Dee first work, the Monas Hieroglyphica, to understand that. It most resembles the work of G. Spencer-Brown, the Laws of Form, on the logic and math side. Though Donald Knuth's Surreal Numbers is also relevant. Just saying.... it's not what it seems. Angels are surreal; like imaginary numbers, which clearly exist even though they don't exist. And that brings us back to the "Equations of the second degree" in Laws of Form, which describes the equivalent of imaginary number in the realm of logic. That's where you'll find those pesky "angels". Skyerise (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Every time I read something like this, I wish we had named "imaginary numbers" something like "perpendicular numbers" instead. After all, the logical leap from R to C is way less than that from Q to R. Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Overstating Laycock

Nowhere does Laycock say that "they were pronounced as in English, with all its irregularities". The strongest statement he makes on the page cited is "The resulting pronunciation makes it sound much more like English than it looks at first sight." "Much more like" cannot be summarized at "as in English, with all its irregularities." Clearly, @Kwamikagami:, you are not a student of linguistics and are misunderstanding, misinterpreting, or misrepresenting what the sources actually say due to your own beliefs. Perhaps you have some lack of objectivity with regard to the subject. Your claims are sloppy. Skyerise (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Correcting errors or misleading statements is all to the good. But you need to give weight to RS's. AFAIK we have one linguistic treatment of Enochian, so that should be our primary source. Also, what Enochian was at the time should take priority over what various ppl might do with it today. — kwami (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody, including Laycock, knows how Dee and Kelley pronounced it. Generally, theories are presented in chronological order. There is no reason to vary that here. The idea that Laycock is describing the 'original' pronunciation rather than 'his theory of the original pronunciation' is POV. Skyerise (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pls read WP:RS. You'll see that we consider the expertise of the author. We don't go in chronological order. E.g., for linguistic claims, a RS would be a linguist. Not a magician. They might be a RS for the modern magical interpretations, which the linguist wouldn't be. For the historical meaning, a RS would be a historian. Etc. So far I see one RS for the pronunciation of Enochian. If you have other linguistic or philoligical reconstructions, it would be a good thing to add them. — kwami (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You're the one who kept overstating Laycock. If you're going to misrepresent a source, it can go at the fucking end. Skyerise (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A source shouldn't be misrepresented at all. Putting it anywhere in the article is not appropriate. But after 12 years on WP, you apparently don't understan either RS or copyvio. I'm happy with your corrections of my errors, but if you think a mystic is a RS for linguistic analysis, you don't belong on WP. — kwami (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What we don't need is aggressive and sloppy editors like yourself. It's you who don't belong on WP. Why don't you go back into semi-retirement? Better yet, make it full retirement. Skyerise (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I find your comments amusing in light of the banner you have at the top of you talk page. — kwami (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

POT, KETTLE, BLACK much? Skyerise (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's an example of sloppy: the section you were edit warring over is titled 'Alphabet'. It's the next section that's entitled 'linguistic analysis'. How different users view the alphabet is fair game for the alphabet section - and there is no reason that a linguist would get precedence there. The material you added logically belongs in the next section about the linguistic analysis, which is where the linguist gets precedence. Laycock's analysis, done over a century after the Golden Dawn established it's 'pronunciation guide', belongs in its section, which belongs in historical order. It's not automatically the best or primary source outside that section, because those sections aren't about linguistic analysis. The material via DuQuette re Golden Dawn and Crowley were part of the data analysed by Laycock and should be presented before the presentation of the 21st century linguistic analysis. Your insistence on presenting it as 'how it was really pronounced by Dee' rather than a theory about 'how Laycock thinks it may have been pronounced by Dee' led you to edit war to repeatedly insert it as the predominant source in a section that wasn't even about linguistic analysis, and also led you to try to insert his table as a copyvio to 'prove your point' when.... even Laycock hasn't 'proved' a damn thing. Skyerise (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I don't claim to live by your banner :)

Look at any reasonably developed language article on WP if you want a guide as to what a language article should look like on WP. If we have only one RS, we're stuck with that source. If you can find more, great. — kwami (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Bottom line is, linguistic analysis doesn't get to take over the article outside the section covering it - which is not the alphabet section, which was never intended to be a robust 'pronunciation' guide, should present the views in historical order, mentioning Laycock at the end, then seque into the fullness of 20th century linguistic view in the section labelled as such.

As for edit warring - I was posting my concerns on the talk page as I encountered them - but rather than answer or discuss here, you just kept clobbering my attempts to logically order the alphabet section - while I was still working on it - without pausing to discuss or even acknowledge what I'd said on the talk page. You are the one in the wrong here, from beginning to end, because you reverted me over three times while ignoring pending talk page discussion. You really need to chill that out - its rude and disruptive. Skyerise (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The supernatural/esoteric/etc are non-falsifiable, ie outside the realm of science. That doesn't rule it out, it just means we can't prove or disprove it, so we can't take a scientific approach to it. However, we can document such things on WP in terms of history and culture. Therefore, while it makes sense to use Laycock's analysis, we don't have to limit ourselves to this, or consider that source supreme over all others. In this case, primary sources on the intended meaning and pronunciation of Enochian would be just as valuable as a secondary analysis done much later, if not more so. Xcalibur (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Claims that Enochian and English alphabets are 'equivalent' or a 'cipher'

For two alphabets to be 'equivalent,' they have to have the same number of symbols. Enochian could potentially be equivalent to Old Latin (21 letters) or Hebrew (22 letters), depending on how the two forms of Gom are treated, but it cannot be equivalent to English which has 26 letters.

Similarly, a 'cipher' is a reversible one-to-one correspondence, but even if you cheat and make a letter assignment for J (is it I or Y?), count K as the same as C, and count both V and W as equivalent to U (these new letters are what distinguish the English alphabet from the Latin), then the 'cipher' cannot be mechanically reversed as there is no way to determine which of the three (U, V, W), Van should map back to. Once 'enciphered' to Enochian, it cannot be exactly 'deciphered' back to English - because it is not a cipher, it is not an equivalent, it is not a one-to-one mapping - which would be necessary to make such a claim.

Please refrain from adding such obviously incorrect BS to the article. Skyerise (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand what either 'equivalent' or 'cipher' mean. But you're right that claims should be verifiable by sources. Your corrections in that regard are valuable. But your pseudoscience is not. A magician/mystic is not a linguist, can't be used as a RS for linguistic claims, and certainly shouldn't be promoted over a linguist for linguistic claims. — kwami (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I was editing the 'Alphabet' section. The very next section is the linguistic analysis section. Your additions were out of place, and mine weren't claiming to be linguistic analysis. Skyerise (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

And I know very well what 'equivalent' and 'cipher' mean when applied to alphabets and other symbols systems, having studied the mathematics behind it. 'Equivalent' is not the same as 'can be mapped to'. 'Equivalent' requires that the mapping be both unique and bidirectional, as does a 'cipher'. Further, equivalence of alphabets can be orthographic or phonetic. One might be able to make a 1-to-1 map between the orthography (letters) of an alphabet, but still not have a consistent phonetic mapping between the two alphabets. Saying that two alphabets are 'equivalent' is an extremely strong statement, which is clearly invalidated by the two alphabets having different number of letters. I took out a false statement - you returned it without citation. That's bad editing and reversing an editor's improvements - and the burden of citation lies with the editor who restores the material. And therefore your actions with respect to this article, from returning false material without citation to trying to bolster your opinion with the addition of clearly copyrighted material, has been way worse for both Wikipedia and the reader than any of my edits were - as I mostly didn't add anything but rather was trying to rearrange in chronological order and provide supporting citations for material already in the article, though expressed very poorly, while copyediting it for clarity. I wasn't done, and you tromped all over it, repeatedly changing my ordering without using the talk page and trying to give a specific source precedence outside the section where that precedence was relevant. Skyerise (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

a cipher needs to have a 1:1 correspondence for all symbols, otherwise it doesn't function properly. there is a cipher mentioned in the source, separate from Enochian, and there's speculation on whether Enochian was a cipher or not, but that's as far as it goes. transliteration to our alphabet does NOT constitute a cipher. eta: in fact, the source rules against it being a cipher. Xcalibur (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation of Asprem in linguistics section

Asprem isn't a linguist (he's an historian of religions), so his observations with respect to verb conjugations in Enochian seems a bit out of place there... Surely Laycock (or the mysterious several linguists) address this? Skyerise (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed.

BTW, we don't need to say "according to Laycock". That's what the ref is for. If there were disagreement among RS's, then we would say "according to A, X; according to B, Y;" etc. But if it's just that we have a RS that says "X is Y", then we say "X is Y" and ref that RS. — kwami (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It's actually pretty standard for tables in occult-related articles, e.g. Shem HaMephorash. Skyerise (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything comparable there. In those cases we're quoting passages. Here we're just giving a list of items, derived from Dee himself and cited to our source. The fact that the items come from that source is obvious from us citing them to that source. Or do you really want to start the article with "According to X, Enochian is an occult language ... recorded in the private journals of John Dee. According to Y, Kelley was a scryer who worked with Dee."

Also, if this is a language, we need to categorize it as a language. If it's not a language, then we need to change the intro to s.t. like "Enochian is a collection of occult words ... recorded in the private journals of John Dee." But Laycock calls it a language, so I think that's best. — kwami (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"I don't see anything comparable there." - top of the table - (per Reuchlin), (per Rudd), (per Rudd)". In case you didn't know, Dee was an occultist. So according to you Dee wouldn't be a reliable source. Therefore, conclusions based on Dee are also not reliable. This is why we let the reader know the origin of the information in each column. We are supposed to write for the casual reader who is not looking at the footnotes and refs. It's exactly parallel to that table. Reuchlin was also an occultist (kabbalist), so as a source he needs to be noted like that, and the other two columns are Rudd interpreting him as a source, which need to be labelled because they are using Reuchlin, an unreliable source according to "science", as their source. Same with Dee and Laycock. Skyerise (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

So let's be clear here, what is your precise reason for excluding information useful to the casual reader, besides "I don't like it and think I own the article." You're not even fighting about anything significant and you seem to be on the side of censoring four words which are true, useful to the reader, and in no way inaccurate - in favor of some misguided sense of aesthetics? Could you even find a stupider hill to play king of? What are you? 15? Skyerise (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Saw this at WP:3O but it's not completely clear to me what the dispute is. Is the question whether to include the phrase "According to Laycock" in the "Linguistic evaluations" section? I think it seems reasonable to include that phrase as a transition – it clarifies that the paragraph is elaborating on the analysis from the same linguist mentioned in the previous paragraph. If the dispute is about whether to include citations in the table, of course we should include them per WP:V. If the dispute is about something else, please clarify and ping me. Thanks. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Yes, I agree that's all reasonable, but that's not the dispute. Skyerise wants to word the column header in the table as "pronunciation according to Laycock" in addition to giving the citation, because Laycock did not interview any angels and so is not a RS for the pronunciation ("not scientific", "maybe fringe"). As to why we can't call it Dee and Kelley's pronunciation, I can only guess that's because Laycock is supposedly not a RS so we can't just report the info as if we had a RS. (What Laycock did was summarize Dee's descriptions of the pronunciations in his journals.)

There's a second problem: Laycock describes several pronunciations -- the one described in Dee's journals and several later attempts, of which we list the one from Golden Dawn in the 2nd column. So the first can't just be "pronunciation". I'd be fine calling it the original pronunciation rather than Dee's and Kelley's -- in fact, that's probably best.

Another point of dispute is categorizing Enochian as a conlang. Laycock says it was created from the tables of the 'angelic' language that resembles glossolalia, though he can't reconstruct how it was done. Skyerise says that in order to cat it as a conlang, we need a source that specifically calls it a conlang, so I found one, an intro to conlangs from the LSA's 2017 Institute, that labels Enochian as a ritual/magical conlang. Skyerise's objection to that is that using it would be OR and SYNTH. So what it seems to boil down to is a matter of TRUTH and that any source that casts doubt on that truth is by definition not a RS. Or COPYVIO (that objection was rejected). Or whatever WP policy Skyerise thinks might keep the info out of the article or cast doubt on it.

The latest objection is a few threads below, under "wrong author".

From my POV, this is equivalent to guarding an article on astrology against astrologers who attempt to downplay RS's or make the topic look more reasonable than what RS's support.

That said, Skyerise has contributed to the article by catching errors and make various other improvements. I think by this point we're mostly down to watering down RS's. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Kwamikagami I found a source describing Enochian as a conlang above, and Skyerise said it's acceptable. 😁👍  Tewdar (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Here it is again: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030613 ...and Enochian, an "angelic" English-like language invented in the sixteenth century by Edward Kelly and John Dee (Laycock 2001). All three conlangs are heavily based on natural languages and consist of made-up roots embedded in the morphology and syntax of natural languages.  Tewdar (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Beautiful! Thanks. — kwami (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem. You want anything else here, let me know. The computers at my phonetics lab are running the Theopneustic Widget for Analysing Angelic Tachyphrasia (TWAAT), and there's an orbuculum out the back, so I could probably help out if there's any more disputes.  Tewdar (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's useful to signal in some way that the pronunciations given as "Dee & Kelley's pronunciation" are a reconstruction by a linguist writing centuries later. This is already indicated in prose in the paragraph before the table, though, so I don't think it needs to be restated within the table (especially since we have a footnote giving more detail about the reconstruction). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"Wrong author"

This change [1] reveals that you have no idea what is in the original manuscripts. The quotes and the table at that web page are Dee's work, not the editor's. Authors are normally listed first, editors second. The cite template does it correctly. I am not referencing the editor's notes at the end. I am referencing the Dee material included. And it's simply not right to remove one of two authors. That is the work of Dee and an editor. Very sloppy. If you'd just slow down and let my changes sit and make your objections on the talk page, I'd explain that to you. Assuming you don't have your fingers in your ears going 'nyah nyah nyah'. Skyerise (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The author of a work is the person who wrote it, not the person being quoted. Do I really need to explain that? If you want to cite Dee (a 1ary rather than 2ary source), then cite Dee, and not someone quoting Dee. Or would you agree that the pronunciation column should be "according to Dee" rather than "according to Laycock"? Come on, be serious. — kwami (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, WorldCat lists both as authors. — kwami (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Names

Are different names used in different texts, or are both 'languages' called all of them? Laycock uses 'Enochian' specifically for the language -- that is, for the primary topic of this article, and calls the non-language 'angelical'. (E.g. "there is no cipher contained in the 'angelical' language, or in the Enochian Calls.") That might just be for his own or his readers' convenience, but it would be good to have a little clarity in our lead as to which names go with which texts. — kwami (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Leitch says the 'non-language' is the same language, but that the data that confirms this never made it into the tables and sources that Laycock used, but are rather in Dee's notes in a phonetic transcription that wasn't yet deciphered when Laycock did his work. One language, which Dee called Angelical. I believe it was Casaubon who dubbed it Enochian, based on something an Angel said in the transcriptions of the workings. Skyerise (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Leitch is not a linguist and so not a RS for linguistic claims. According to Laycock, Dee had no phonetic notation apart from respelling. — kwami (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Laycock didn't review the material Leitch is referring to. Skyerise (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Then we have no RS for it. — kwami (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources needed

For classification as a "constructed language", "artistic language", and/or "spurious language" in reliable sources. Dee's journals document reception, not construction. And it seems it might be hard to get more than one linguistic opinion. Certainly it wasn't intended to be used in art or as an art project. As for spurious, again, we'd need citation. I don't believe there was ever any claim that it is an extant or even historically spoken language, so I don't see how it could be considered spurious. Spurious means that despite claims of a language's existence, it can not be found. But we know exactly when and where this language appeared and its existence as an artifact is not in doubt. Skyerise (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, this does make sense, since Enochian doesn't satisfy the definitions of those concepts on their pages. So, I've taken those classifications out. Double sharp (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers! Skyerise (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed the corresponding categories were still there and removed them. Skyerise (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"A constructed language ... is a language whose phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, instead of having developed naturally, are consciously devised." That's what we have here. Currently, it isn't categorized as any kind of language at all, which is inappropriate. In the family tree we're also missing the step of construction to make it a divine language, which means we currently claim it *is* the divine language. Whether it was devised through glossolalia or purported divine inspiration doesn't matter -- there are several other artificial languages based on glossolalia or divine revelation that we have long categorized as such. — kwami (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, "Purpose: Divine language" is clear enough. I think the box is fine. But we still need to cat it as a language, so I restored one of those. (I agree artistic language isn't quite right, but generic conlang will do.) — kwami (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

To receive is not the same as to construct. Two editors believe 'constructed languages' is not correct or appropriate, so please mind consensus. Skyerise (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a better category? Because this is the category for other "received" languages. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Okay, from the 2017 Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America:[2]

• First appearances of what modern scholars call ConLangs were for religious / magical purposes

1. Lingua Ignota, 12th c. CE

2. Balaibalan (Baleybelen), 14th c. CE

3. Enochian, 16th c. CE

4. Damin (???)

• Many consider these to be ArtLangs as well.

It's not "proto-Human language". That would be pushing pseudo-science. Rather than 'religious languages', I think it should be 'ritual languages' -- that has RS support. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That's original research and synthesis. It is required that the source you provide specifically say of Enochian something like: 'Enochian is a constructed language' or 'Enochian is a ritual language'. This is standard encyclopedia writing: editors are not allowed to draw their own conclusions; we may only report the conclusions made in reliable sources. Skyerise (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You're being purposefully obtuse, again engaging in bad faith. If RS's contradict what you believe, then they're not admissible because of (insert random WP policy here). You asked for a source, I gave you a source. A RS source. You objected to me putting it here on the talk page, saying it had to be in the article. Fine -- once the 3RR you filed is resolved, I will put it in the article, as you required, starting the lead off with "Enochian is a constructed ritual language" per the source that I found responding to your requirements. — kwami (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not. Quoting the policy: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[i] "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." This has always been Wikipedia policy. If you can't find a source that specifically makes statements about Enochian, you are dead in the water. Skyerise (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The above is the problem with all your edits that I object to. Laycock must say 'this was Dee's pronunciation' or you cannot say it either, no matter how closely he approaches the statement. You may not put categories on the article unless you provide a source that make a direct statement about Enochian on the matter. You are severely misinformed about actual Wikipedia policy and instead substitute your own fantasy policies. But there are ways to break you of that bad habit. Skyerise (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: That's good enough for me: I'm fine with restoring the conlang + artlang classifications then. Double sharp (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't cite its sources - or its authors. Skyerise (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• The Linguistics of the Voynich Manuscript (Claire L. Bowern and Luke Lindemann)

  ...and Enochian, an "angelic" English-like language invented in the sixteenth century by Edward Kelly and John Dee (Laycock 2001). All three conlangs are heavily based on natural languages and consist of made-up roots embedded in the morphology and syntax of natural languages.

  Apologies if this source has already been noticed.  Tewdar (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  That works for me for constructed language; I don't believe artistic language should be added - it wasn't intended for art or as art, it was intended for prayer. Skyerise (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree about artlang: our source says that the languages in their list are considered art langs by some, but leaves an impression that they might not all be, or what the reasons would be for each one of them. So yes, we have no RS that Enochian in particular is an art lang, and it's dubious given what our other sources say. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of linguistic society presentation

I took this to WP:RSN, here. They thought it was not a reliable source due to lack of authorship, not providing sources, and not having undergone proper publication (if it was written by LS staff, then it's self-pub) or peer review, plus the complete lack of context of how it was presented in the actual lecture. Adding it as a second source when we have a reliable one simply looks weak, like we don't believe the reliable source and need to back it up with an unreliable one? Skyerise (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. — kwami (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Pending

I don't want to make any edits while the 3RR is pending, but a few points of clarification are in order:

• Both languages called "angelical" (Laycock, p. 29)
• "The phonology of Enochian is thoroughly English." (Laycock, p. 41). "There are no sounds that would give any trouble to a native speaker of English, and only a few difficult combinations (bdrios, excolphabmartbh, longamphlg, lapch)." (p.33)
• Enochian was recorded primarily in Latin script. However, "individual words written in [Enochian script] ... appear sporadically throughout the manuscripts." (Laycock p. 28)

— kwami (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You haven't established the existence of two languages. Only of material that - to one source - doesn't appear to be a language at all. How you get two from 1+0 is unfathomable. This is one of my main problems with your editing. You have your own ideas, and you try to justify them by overstating what the sources actually say. This is an example of that. The idea that their are two languages is your own original research, and should not be included or even alluded to in the article unless you can provide strong sources. Skyerise (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If we cover A+B as the topic of the article, and A is not the same language as B, then we either need to restrict the topic to A or B, or acknowledge that we're dealing with more than one thing. I'm fine with restricting the topic to B, as you've started to do, but to be consistent there are several other places where we need to disentangle the Liber material from the account of the actual language. — kwami (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Only one language to Dee

For Dee, there was only one language. Its primary name was Angelical. He had other names for it. It came to be called Enochian. Most of the names are redirects to this article, and thus should be in bold. Laycock should follow Dee in the lead because of this. One can't expect a 16th-century person to conform to a 20th-century hypothesis.

I don't believe Laycock has proven there is more than one language. In any case, to attempt to require Dee to conform with Laycock's 20th-century views is ridiculous. Therefore, I've removed the "which" tag. Historically, it has always been considered a single language, from Dee, to Casausbon, etc. Laycock is the only person to suggest there are two, and no other source suggests that. It's an anomaly. Skyerise (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's also the only RS we have, so it takes priority. I just wanted to verify that all those names were applied to both stages of the language (to the Liber Loagaeth material and to Enochian itself). It's possible that what Dee called the language changed over time, but if we exclude the Liber Loagaeth material then the point is moot. — kwami (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Leitch may not be a linguist, but he is a reliable source. Excluding sources because you think they may have actually interviewed the angels is not NPOV. Skyerise (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to review WP:RS. For linguistic claims, we need linguist sources. Leitch is not a linguist, and therefore not a RS for linguistic analysis, though they may be a RS for other things. — kwami (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, completely disagree. We're not talking about 'grammar' in linguistic sense of analysis into grammatical tree-diagram or other technical methods of composing sentences. We're talking about simple identification and description of parts-of-speech, which any English or Latin teacher is capable of doing. If Leitch were attempting to propose Chomskyan tree-structures, or production rules in Michael Brame's more molecular-bonding approach, I'd agree with you. Laycock's analysis of the phonology is fine; proper phonological reconstruction which uses the tools of the field. Leitch doesn't stray into areas where the knowledge of such tools is required; pretty much common-sense grammar in the common usage of the term 'grammar', not the more technical use with which the field overlays the term Skyerise (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say we couldn't use Leitch, only that we need to be careful using someone who's not an expert in the field. — kwami (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

If there is material which warrants it, certainly. Skyerise (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Also only one language to Laycock

Laycock never says there are two languages. He merely says that he doesn't think the Liber Loagaeth material is actually a language at all. So, we are writing about a single language. There is some additional material that Laycock thinks isn't a language and which Leitch thinks is the same language encoded. Last I checked, one language + "not a language" yields one language only. Skyerise (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. We need to be careful that we don't count the Liber Loagaeth material as Enochian, though, which we had originally. — kwami (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Leitch says it is the same language. @Scyrme: what do you think? Skyerise (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Leitch is not a RS for linguistic evaluation. — kwami (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither were early grammarians. Any scholar is able to make observations about grammar. Skyerise (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if WP were to use such observations (which we don't), that's not what you're talking about. — kwami (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Even if Liber Loagaeth does not actually record a language (and therefore does not record the Enochian language), it's still relevant to the language to the extent that:

1. (afaik) Kelley (and Dee) asserted that it does record the (untranslated) angelical language,
2. subsequent interpreters believed this to be true and interpreted the book as an (encrypted) Enochian text,
3. (afaik) it contributed the "Adamical alphabet",
4. it influenced the language of the keys.

Therefore, Liber Loagaeth is very relevant and excluding it entirely (as suggested above under #Pending) would be a mistake. Even if we say it's non-linguistic glossolalia and not an encrypted and/or untranslated language, the relevant material would still document the development of the language from glossolalia. (It wouldn't be the only sacred language that developed from glossolalia; Wikipedia has several articles on similar constructed languages.) Discounting Liber Loagaeth material as not Enochian would contradict the emic view which goes back to Dee and Kelley and so would bias the article against it. The article already covers Laycock's view that Liber Loagaeth did not (yet) record a language, emphasising it both in the Linguistics section and the lead section; this would seem to be sufficient for presenting the alternative view to the reader. However, it may be helpful to distinguish "angelical speech" from "angelical language" as the former is more inclusive, encompassing glossolalia, and doesn't necessarily raise issues over what constitutes "language". -- Scyrme (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. I believe Leitch demonstrates that it can be decrypted using the calls as keys; that it can actually be decrypted by each call, producing different results; and finally that the vocabularies generated thereby may constitute different dialects of Angelical (this I find too speculative). And apparently there is some Dee material available now that was not available or not examined by Laycock that ties into this. I've not time right now to go through his two volumes... but I'll get to it sooner or later. Skyerise (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to exclude the Liber Loagaeth entirely, only that the topic of this article should be the actual language. I agree the Liber is relevant. Laycock summarizes what we can tell of the derivation of Enochian from the Liber, though very little of that derivation was recorded. (If I remember correctly, just the first two squares.) The Liber is therefore relevant to the history and creation of Enochian as a possible source of Enochian vocabulary. But it is not Enochian, most Liber vocab never occurs in Enochian, and we need to be careful not to confuse the two. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: You're asserting it as fact that it is not, but the problem is that not everyone agrees with that. Afaik, Dee and Kelley asserted it was Enochian and many subsequent interpreters believed them, interpreting it as encrypted or untranslated Enochian. That most Liber vocab does not occur in subsequent texts doesn't mean it's not Enochian as Dee and Kelley never produced an exhaustive glossary of its lexicon. Additionally, although Laycock may argue that Liber Loagaeth consists of pre-linguistic glossolalia, that is only one plausible interpretation. The other is that Liber Loagaeth is encrypted. Renaissance encryption algorithms often produced strings of apparent nonsense which may look like glossolalia. On top of this, the text of Loagaeth was arranged in square tables and (sometimes) written in a obscure script; these are very common in Renaissance occult literature which often features steganographic scripts and the use of squares of numbers/letters for encryption. (Such methods feature in the works of Trithemius and Cornelius Agrippa, for example.) The quotes given in the "History" section of this article suggest this interpretation was intended by Kelley and Dee. If nothing else, the text was made to look like it was encrypted. If the text is encrypted, it would make sense that most the vocabulary isn't used again in unencrypted text.

Perhaps Laycock considered all this and still found it unconvincing, idk. Regardless, there is disagreement over whether the material in Liber Loagaeth is meaningful language or not. The article should not be biased one way or the other, but should acknowledge both positions. This is why I suggested it may be helpful to distinguish angelical speech from angelical language, using the former to describe the text of Liber Loagaeth, as this would allow the same material to be discussed without running into disagreements over interpretation. -- Scyrme (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The dab wording could work. But as for not everyone agreeing, that doesn't matter. WP relies on RS's, and according to the only linguistic evaluation we have, the Liber material is not the Enochian language, though it might be a precursor to it. It's not appropriate for us to try to balance RS's with non-RS's. We can say that Dee considered them to be the same language, but not that they were the same language. — kwami (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Afaik, the linguistic evaluation does not include a cryptological evaluation so it's basically useless here. I never suggested we say that the material is or is not Enochian, and in-fact I was trying to say the opposite, that is, we "say that Dee considered them to be the same language" but that Laycock disputes this, without definitively stating that it is or is not. (Essentially, what the article already does in presenting Laycock's evaluation of the differences between the material across the corpus of texts recording angelical speech.) -- Scyrme (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Scyrme: He summarizes, "I think, therefore, it is possible to assert, with a high degree of confidence, that there is no cipher contained in the ‘angelical’ language [i.e., the Liber material], or in the Enochian Calls." He also speaks of "the first angelical language" on p. 64. We just need to be careful how we summarize, and to not put our own spin on the sources. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

So he does consider it. Good to know! May be worth using the relevant pages for material even if only for a sentence or two, since the "History" section has (primary source) material that could be read as (implicitly) supporting the encrypted-text interpretation; it could be good for balance to add some material from a secondary source that explicitly addresses the topic. I agree about being careful. I'm sure Skyerise also agrees; I noticed that they had adjusted the wording earlier to ensure it does not overstate what Laycock says.

You agreed that disambiguated wording could help. Did you have any specific lines in the article in mind that you feel need rewording in this regard? -- Scyrme (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't use that wording myself, because I wouldn't expect a reader to keep in mind a distinction between "speech" and "language", and likely read them as synonyms. However, with sufficient context for it to not be ambiguous, it may be a reasonable way to word things in some places. I don't have anything in mind, though. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Section order

The section order is longstanding and only recently changed without consensus. One may have an alphabet without a grammar, but can't have a grammar without an alphabet. Also, the alphabet was received first and forms the basis for subsequent receptions. Plus I will be adding material which will assume the alphabet has been presented first. @Bigdan201: what do you think? Skyerise (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

the alphabet is fundamental to this topic, so it should be placed early in the article, with further analysis after. that's generally how we should organize articles: basics first, then elaboration. I think a sensible order for the main text after the lede would be: 1. script, 2. history, 3. linguistics. Xcalibur (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"One may have an alphabet without a grammar, but can't have a grammar without an alphabet" -- that shows complete ignorance of what language is. If this were an article on the Enochian script, then of course the alphabet would come first. But it's not -- it's about the language, and you don't need the alphabet for the language. In fact, most of our source material is in Latin script, and we use Latin script throughout this article. So the script is secondary, and as in other language articles, should come relatively late. The consensus schema for a language article is laid out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template: the order is classification, history, distribution, sound system, grammar, vocab, script, samples. — kwami (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a degree in linguistics. You seem like an amateur to me. Skyerise (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe you. You can't possibly have a degree in linguistics if you say things like "can't have a grammar without an alphabet", or the several other whoppers that you've made, nor with your willingness to support pseudo-linguistics in another article in exchange for BigDan/Xcalibur's support of your edits here. (Though it is inline with your claim that you know more about copyright law than the people in charge of enforcing copyright on WP.) But what does that have to do with the order of sections in this article? — kwami (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter, does it, since consensus is against you. Skyerise (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

re: kwami, while what you said applies to other languages, I think Enochian is a special case. This is a constructed (or perhaps supernaturally revealed) language using a unique script, and afaik it's a curio with no community of speakers. Therefore, the norms for other language articles don't necessarily apply here. If the alphabet was revealed/constructed first, then going in chronological order is yet another reason to place it earlier. Xcalibur (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If this were an article on the script, I'd agree. But the script isn't even necessary to read the sources, which are all in Latin script. The reader has no need of it to follow the article. The only argument I see would be using it as a replacement for the phonology section. — kwami (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Two editors oppose you. Consensus is currently to put the alphabet first. Feel free to start an RfC if you disagree with that consensus, but please stop reverting the article to your preferred section order meanwhile. P.S. Consensus has only one 'c'. Skyerise (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• re: WP Languages template - A problem with applying Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template here is that the section that was called "alphabet" and is now called "script" combines phonology and writing system material. Per the template, the former goes before grammar but the latter goes after. It's therefore not entirely clear where the section should go even if it is agreed that the template is applicable here.

re: Exceptionality - I don't think it being a constructed language with a unique script makes it exceptional. The Klingon language is constructed and has a unique script but follows the template in placing the writing system material after the grammar. (However, Klingon language also deviates from the template by placing vocabulary after the writing system.) Additionally, the script follows a tradition of occult scripts like the Celestial Alphabet. I do think there is a case to be made that Enochian is exceptional, in that it's a arguably a forgery while most other constructed languages aren't, which suggests that the grammar material isn't very important and may therefore be placed in a less prominent position.

@Skyerise: Sorry Skyerise, but I don't find "one may have an alphabet without a grammar, but can't have a grammar without an alphabet" persuasive. I understand what you mean, but the problem is that the text can be transliterated allowing the grammar to be discussed independently of the writing system. In-fact, as Kwami noted, the "Linguistics" section does so and therefore doesn't require anyone to know the script before reading about the grammar. That said, I don't really object to placing "Script" above "Linguistics" on the grounds that the latter is the opinion of later analysts. -- Scyrme (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Scyrme: Note also that Dee's journals are in Latin script rather than Enochian, so there's no need to know it even for primary research. Agreed that this is somewhat ambiguous. We don't have a RS for the phonology apart from it being English, so the script kinda does double duty. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Since you agree it's ambiguous, there's no strong case for moving it. Given there are other areas of disagreement already, it's probably better to go with the simplest solution, just leaving the section where it is, especially since Skyerise has said they intend to add material that assumes the "Script" section comes first. (As a note, Enochian isn't the only conlang article to discuss phonology and orthography in an integrated way; Lojban, Babm, and Naʼvi language do the same. Deviating from the linked template seems common on conlang articles.) -- Scyrme (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the phonology that was summarized on this talk page to that section and renamed it 'phonology and script'. — kwami (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If this were an article on the script, I'd agree. But the script isn't even necessary to read the sources, which are all in Latin script. The reader has no need of it to follow the article. The only argument I see would be using it as a replacement for the phonology section.

Given that this is revealed/invented, I think the more significant creative/divine efforts should come sooner. the article should have a logical structure, going from greater to less importance. the script is very relevant to those who want to learn about Enochian, so it should take precedence. it makes sense to start with a basic historical introduction, then give the script, then delve into further details/analysis. Xcalibur (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)