Re: Plausibility Check


Peter T. Daniels wrote:

Please respond to Richard's request for identification of the radio
station, at the very least.

I did minutes ago.

What does a comment on someone's comment about a movie have to do with
Roman methods of crucifixion?

You went cocos because I mentioned the opinion of an
American pathologist and leading expert on crucifixion
who said the Romans built no crosses but hung the Jews
from olive trees, or strapped them to olive trees. I wondered
why you called this crap? and then I saw what you wrote
on this topic: Christ was "hung like a bear".

Why, does it surprise you? Your instructions were not clear. I tried
filling in various of the blanks in the search window and eventually
discovered what you were referring to.

My instructions were very clear, but maybe you must
get acquainted with the Google interface of the groups.

If the posting came from alt.nonsense, and the response is intended for
someone reading alt.nonsense, would it make sense to delete
alt.nonsense from the distribution list?

Yes, you can remove groups when replying. As you know
yourself.

I didn't find any place where it said I had posted to 374 groups.

Look out for a message you sent before July of 2006 and
click on: view profile.

And when a posting comes labeled with five different groups, how am I
to know which group the poster is reading?

The first group is the one where the message comes from.
And if you wish to know about a poster go for his or her profile.

You learned this in school? in Switzerland? Evidently your teacher was
one of those Nazi sypmathizers that Switzerland was and is so famous
for: a noted Swiss anthropologist, Alfred Drexel, published an edition
of his anthropology textbook in the mid 1950s that contained the
familiar Nazi caricature of the "Jewish type," pointing out the
distinctive characteristics of the "Jewish race."

No, not at all, he was a monk. Yes, there were Nazis in our
country. There was a percentage of Nazis in every country,
Switzerland, France, England, America. We had not only
Nazi anthropology but also Nazi psychology etc. And the
infamous J for Jew in the passport was invented and
introduced by a Swiss called Rothmund (as I recall).
Shame on us. On the other hand: the large majority of
the Swiss population was clearly against the Nazis,
many helped emigrants across the border and hid them
for years. As for America: your army could have bombed
the railways leading to Auschwitz. Your secret service
was well informed about what happaned there, among
others owing to a Swiss informer. The question why
America did not bomb the railways to Auschwitz has
never been given an answer.

Try to stop free associating. The accusation that "the lower classes"
have impoverished vocabulary is simply FALSE.

There are people with a very small vocabulary, and words
are not the only thing that counts in language. A point you
are never willing to consider, as you got such a narrow
understanding of language.

I, personally? Why would I have any such "estimate"?

You called my information about 200,000 English words
in the time of Shakespeare a lie, and then you said that
if I had mentioned 20,000 English words my mistake
would have been smaller. So you got at least a vague
idea of the number of English words in Shakey's time.
Why don't you tell us?

There are concordances of the works of Shakespeare (and Chaucer, and
every other major English author) from which that number can easily be
gotten.

So tell us.

"Shakespeare's vocabulary is sometimes estimated at c.20,000 words. For
it, he drew on Renaissance technical terms, derivations, compounds,
archaisms, polysemy, etymological meanings, and idioms." McArthur,
Oxford Companion to the English Language, p. 928, article by Whitney F.
Bolton of Rutgers University

Goethe's vocabulary was 30,000 words. Amazes me that
Shakespeare should have used less words.

Unfotunately the same contributor doesn't give an estimate of Chaucer's
(1343?-1400) vocabulary size.

Try not to free-associate.

Try not to free-associate.

(Sigh) (sighing again) Neither do I know the vocabulary
size of Chaucer, nor of Shakespeare, and what you call
free associations is actually what I would do if I had to
answer those questions: I'd ask people who are working
in that field, Ricardo Mansilla of the Free University of
Mexico (I contacted him on behalf of Homer and got
a kind reply) and the German scholar who established
a taxonomy of the Chaucer versions - I don't remember
the name of that scholar, but I could find out who he is
via an article in a magazine from around 1996 that is
kept on a micro-film in the university library of Zurich.

The Middle Ages, under an extra-broad definition, might extend from the
Fall of Rome in 476 to the lifetime of :Petrarch (first great
Renaissance figure) 1304-1374.

Did I speak of the Middle Ages? I spoke of the era of
Middle English, from 1066 to 1475. Chaucer lived in
that era.

You even lie about your own metalanguage. That is not a quote.

Are you mangos? What has English in Shakespeare's
time to do with my experimental reconstruction of
Magdalenian? Did you listen to that radio program?
No. Did I listen to that radio program? Yes. And I quoted
one sentence from that program: English in the time
of Shakespeare had 200,000 words, information
technology alone created 200,000 new English words.
A quote is a quote is a quote. Or is a Peter not a T.
and a T. not a Daniels?

That is at best a misremembrance.

I pick up information from everywhere, if - big IF -
I find the source reliable, and my memory is usually
very good. I had an avareage memory in my young
years, but I developed it with my scientific work.
The mind is like a muscle, you can train it.

I am asking you to identify this "linguistic radio program." If you
tune in every week, then you can divulge the radio station, the name of
the presenter (US: host), and his/her qualifications.

I did I did I didid, half an hour ago in my reply to Richard
Herring.

Try not to free-associate. I've recently participated in two TV
documentaries, a Canadian one on language generally and an American one
on writing. I'll let you know when they're scheduled for broadcast.

Nice to read that, congratulations.

Franz Gnaedinger

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Plausibility Check
    ... Please respond to Richard's request for identification of the radio ... one of those Nazi sypmathizers that Switzerland was and is so famous ... Nazi anthropology but also Nazi psychology etc. ... You called my information about 200,000 English words ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: ts in Tagalog
    ... >outnumber words that could be identified as Filipino (inlcuding ... >Spanish loans and/or assimilated English words. ... written according to Tagalog orthography, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Hannah Arendts Wrinkled Cunt Rides Again
    ... As for his charges relating to Arendt's use of Nazi authors and her ... imperfect command of English, apparently meant to ... Georgely, that doesn't work ... in an analytic language like English where only adjectives ...
    (rec.arts.books)
  • Re: Plausibility Check
    ... Does this radio station publish a web site where we could read the ... a charming radio program by Christian Schmid, ... minutes are called Mailbox. ... I heard the ominous sentence there: English in the time ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Vegas Monday-Wednesday DX Log
    ... 7325 CHINA RADIO INTL at 1223 Japanese, YL & OM Ancrs w/ music in Bg. ... 7365 CHINA NATIONAL RADIO at 1231 Chinese, OM Ancr. ... 7240 RADIO AUSTRALIA at 1435 English, ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
Loading