[Milton-L] 'Myth' of "Unfallen" language

[James Rovira]

Michael.  That's a good question I'd never considered.  The Aramaic
Christ spoke originated from fallen people living in a fallen
environment so, by extension, would be fallen language, even if Christ
himself was not fallen.  I don't think there's any way to identify a
grammar of unfallen language following this thinking as no current
examples could possibly exist.  Carrol Cox's question therefore misses
the point.

The better way to critique the ideas I've suggested is to ask about
the significance of the Tower of Babel story, then.  It appears that
language didn't fall until Babel, unless the division of language is
an event separate from the fall of language.

Erick Ramalho's post does, however, get right to the point.  I would
say that in this tradition the corruption goes even deeper than just
the inability to exactly correspond word with thing, but is a quality
of the mind itself in all its relations, language being just one of
them.

I'm trying to describe a way of thinking about language common to many
strains of Christian belief to help us understand these issues in
Milton, however, not trying to proselytize for my own beliefs.

Jim R