Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
- From: Darkstar <darkstar100@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
In sci.lang Darkstar <darkstar100@xxxxxxxx> wrote in <677f67fe-803a-4806-b1f8-44f5901e6380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
: Darkstar wrote:
:> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:> > In sci.lang Darkstar <darkstar100@xxxxxxxx> wrote in <181d9c26-f323-41d3-aa36-2a05e644c133@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
:> >
:> >
:> > : Don't call "my musing" what is a rather obvious fact.
:> >
:> > then give a reference.
:>
:> You seem to be unable to understand a basic difference between a fact,
:> logical syllagism, and opinion. Facts and syllogisms don't require a
:> reference.
: An opinion has basically no value in science. So it doesn't matter who
: it comes from. It's not religion where things that come from God have
: much relevance. It might only have any value as a preliminary hunch
: showing where to look. In many cases, pure opinions that come from
: world-famous Turkologists are essentially as worthless in
: argumentation as those coming from a drunken dog. A generally-accepted
incidentally, turkologists disagree on many things, particularly when it
comes to relationships in mongolian and other "altaic" (if they indeed
believe it is a valid family) langauges.
: opinion is even worse, because it roughly equals to something coming
: from a herd of elephants?it's merely a superposition of many, many
: possible stupidities, at best. It worst, it's an opinion from a leader
: of that herd, so in that case it's basically just a one-man's opinion,
: blindly repeated many times.
evidently you have a problem with ppuiblished scholarly material thatgets
peer reviewed.
A review from a single person is no review at all, that's simply
acceptance for publication in a paper magazine that is unable to
publish anything because of the lack of infinite source of paper. The
scientific review should begin AFTER the material got published.
That's why you publish, basically, to get a review from other experts.
But in 90% of cases no one does that, so many materials are in fact
not peer-reviewed, often they are just not worth it. (Let alone that a
radical article may in fact not get accepted plus many other
problems.)
A scientific review would be to repeat the same research many times,
until several experts would statistically come to independent
conclusions that would coincide to some significant extent. For
example, I have the right to say that I'm "reviewing" Anna Dybo's
lexicostatistics, because I'm essentially repeating the same work at
another level.
: A fact is what is immediately obvious but has to be first firmly
: established as such. For instance, I didn't establish that "emes" was
emes is post-karakahanid since the "r"of the verb er= "to be" is dropped.
emes comes from ermez ,the negative aorist of er=.
Right. "Emes" is also mentioned 2 times in MaK, but it's mostly
"ermes", which is also present in Chagatai. It should be akin to the
Turkish "olmaz", AFAIU (therefore, "ol-" is simply a historically
different Turkic verb, not the loss of b- in bul- or bulun- — this
question is also often "wondered about" in Oghuz Turkology.)
[...]
.
- References:
- Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
- From: Darkstar
- Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
- From: Darkstar
- Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
- Prev by Date: Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
- Next by Date: Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
- Previous by thread: Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
- Next by thread: Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
