Re: Plausibility Check


Peter T. Daniels wrote:

Oh, you "learned" that, did you? Where did you "learn" that? For so few
words, surely you have a complete list that you can share with us?

I met a Hungarian who spent 30 years in Switzerland
without speaking one single word of our dialect. He
tried for an hour to get my attention and speak with me.
There are so many ways to make oneself understood,
words are not the only element of language. All those
problems we have with you come form your narrow
narrower narrowest understanding of language.

Why not across England, all the way from London to Manchester or Leeds?

The English are more snobbish than the Americans.
The Americans we met here were always happy when
they just barely understood what we were trying to say.
And they were always helpful when we lacked a word.

Yet you don't ask me about things in my areas of specialization, you
ask me about nonsence or irrelevancies.

Why should I ask you a question when I was trying
to help D. Jensen with his novel?

In the message to which I replied stating that mentioning the Middle
Ages was irrelevant, idiot.

Another invective. I went through my messages in this
thread, and it's true, in one message I spoke of the Middle
Ages, out of sloppiness, and needing variety. What I meant
was the era of Middle English. The term Middle Ages was
not really wrong, but not precise enough, as it can be used
in different ways:

Aa) from around 500 to around 1350
Ab) from around 500 to around 1450

Ba) from around 1100 to around 1350
Bb) from around 1100 to around 1450

In my remote schooldays we used definition Bb,
implicitely if not explicitely. It goes along with the era
of Middle English from 1066 to 1475.

*** off, ***.

Invective enough for you?

No inventive wording, but yes, it will do, as you tell me
how you are feeling: I should not have accused him of
lying, I should not have spoken of facts when I can't
provide them, when I can't say how many words English
had in the time of Shakespeare, when I can't say how
many words have been created by information technology.
Now I am stuck. I should admit my mistake and apologize.
But I can't. I rather blame him. If he weren't around I would
not be in that mess.

And you called it the Middle Ages. Idiot.

Not really wrong, stoopid. See above.

Perhaps an allusion to Miller's "5 plus or minus 2."

Don't know about that.

So you claim. But you write as if you were.

Take my 57 years, add the wisdom of a 120-year-old,
calculate the average, and you get someone in his 80s.

"Quote" means reproducing the exact words used. Since what you wrote
was incorrect, either they broadcast something correct and you
misremember it in your paraphrase, or they broadcast something
incorrect and you shouldn't be relying on it. How many times do I have
to repeat this? 7?

A quote is a quote is a quote, also when I quote
a sentence from a radio program, also when I quote
that sentence from my memory, also when I translate
it from one into another language.

Your own estimate of the Middle English vocabulary, by counting entries
in the MED, was half the number you misremember from the radio program.
Or do you forget reporting your calculation?

The era of Middle English lasted from 1066 to 1475.
Did Shakespeare live in that era? No, he lived later on.
As I explained in a previous message, the end of the
era of Middle English and of the Middle Ages went along
with the Renaissance in Italy, the Renaissance opened
the door for many a new science, the new scientific
disciplines led to plenty new applications, and these
gave rise to a lot of new words. Roughly 100,000
English words in the era of Middle English and 200,000
English words in the time of Shakespeare go along
fine with me. I see no reason why I should doubt that
sentence from that radio program. And remember:
invectives are no arguments. All that counts in the
sciences are the better arguments.

Franz Gnaedinger

.