Re: open letter to the Google company, on the value of the scientific groups

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
On Sep 21, 7:08 pm, António Marques<m...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Don't evade the question. Your paragraph below doesn't address it.
What could evidence in favour of the accepted IE etymology look
like?

What could evidence in favor of a flat Earth look like? Judging by
the ways of sci.lang I'd say: five million ad hominems and verdicts
from above.

Don't evade the question. What is it that you would consider evidence in
favour of the accepted IE etymology?

Once again you give no responses, only endless babble. Not an idea, not
even an argument in your favour, NOTHING. You don't say how your
reconstrctutions could be disproved or what could constitute evidence
for the PIE etymologies. You merely evdade the issues, whine, go off on
tangents, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over again, but when asked simple questions that
everybody can understand you are unable to answer them.

You're like a child who won't eat what she's given and won't say what
she'd rather have. Now, we put up with children for a multitude of
reasons, none of which apply to you. Correction: one of them applies to
you, and it's that we're patient and benevolent. But all that is wasted
on you, because you just won't enter a meaningful conversation with
anyone. You live in soliloquy.

So you're basically saying that your 'reconstructions' can't be
disproved in principle, and yet you don't understand how that
makes them utterly worthless.

Bear as the furry one is a most precious etymology to me, as it
involves about every feature of my Magdalenian approach, and a
plethora of derivatives, also of the second and third order.

What's that got to do with the price of flour?

Is there NO way (you can imagine) that your 'reconstructions' can
be disproved?

And no one has yet bothered to explain you, becuase it should be
completely obvious, that the meaning of the PIE word for 'bear' is
pretty much uninteresting from a linguistic point of view. What's
important about it is the way that various words in the daughter
languages can be traced to an original root through regular
changes that also affected the rest of the vocabulary.

Pretty much uninteresting? the grapes are sour? hanging too high for
you?

Of course it's completely uninteresting. No one could care less about
it. What's interesting about PIE is HOW you get from an earlier stage to
the modern ones. Which is, of course, completely absent from your 'reconstructions'.

your pile of junk your pile of junk your pile of junk

A promising begin, but a still a very long way to go when you
consider the five million ad hominems and verdicts from above that
could eventually turn into a scientific argument.

You've again managed to ignore the whole paragraph except the part you
liked ('pile of junk'). But here, let me recover it for you, without the
parts you liked:

All that, however, has nothing to do with your ---. Because most of your
--- isn't even in a form that can be considerer to be meaninful
propositions. For instance, you don't offer any hypothesis on *how* your
--- became the various modern languages you think it did. It's just not
enough to say that your ancestors came from Antarctica - you have to say
how they made all the way to Swissland. So *that* much can be rejected
simply on the grounds that it is meaningless. Then you offer
'reconstructions' that just can't have a conceiveable path to get to the
modern forms because the modern forms differ between themselves in ways
that make them not derivable from the 'reconstruction' - those can be
rejected as well. Then there's the last part, forms that you claim are
so old that basically anything goes - those can't be proved or
disproved, since what we do know of the modern forms allows both your
forms and their opposites.

There. Have you got anything meaningul to comment?

It's as if we had a drawing by Leonardo and it had been drawn over
so many times that any trace of the original painting had been
lost. You may claim all you want that your particular idea of what
the original drawing might have been is the correct one, but
that's just whim - because all the 'evidence' you can accumulate in
favour of your hypothesis works equally well for any another
drawing.

I happen to be an expert on Leonardo

So you also missed the point that it's completely irrelevant whether it
was Leonardo, Donatello, Michelangelo or Raphael.

and had several of those cases, and no, you are wrong, because I have
a means to discern between originals and good copies and poor copies,
namely the geometry underlying most drawings and all paintings by
Leonardo.

And you've missed the part where I said any trace of the original had
been lost. How dumb can you get? You THINK you can recover something
that IS NO LONGER there?

And the case of Leonardo is shedding light on paleo-linguistics: it
is a multi-dimensional approach that can bring us further.
Iconography and infra-red pictures and pigment analysis and geometry
and and and in the case of Leonardo, sound rules and the
achievements of PIE and archaeology and, above all, the thorough
study of visual language in the case of early language. And I can
tell you that my Leonardo studies are now helping me understand cave
art and build a bridge between visual and verbal language.

Wonderful! Can it help you understand south american cave paintings?

And I am used that each and every idea and approach of mine is
denied, always in the same way. Some of my geometrical examinations
are found here: www.seshat.ch/home/gia.htm I wrote that page for a
British TV production firm, the woman who contacted me was
enthusiastic, but then a professor intervened, as usual, and
everything went dead still. Business as usual for me. And all your
verdicts and ad hominems can't touch me, they serve the purpose of
documenting mobbing techniques in a scientific group. Thanks for
participating.

You still haven't explained why your 'Magdelenian' didn't give birth to
Chakta or Tagalog.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Yet Another Roswell Thread
    ... Language where memes fit very well and where memetic markers (such as ... some kind of a transformation occured among modern ... But modern humans appear to have ... I have a particular country in mind here. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Original Macbook OS died. now no space on HD but also no way to rebuild?
    ... Modern Macs have a sluggish UI response. ... It is very easy to learn to write a program using .net or java. ... The language is much simpler, the documentation is much better, and the ... programming environment is much easier to learn compared to modern ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Go, "Western" vs. "Asian" Thinking - Not What I Had In Mind... : (
    ... Modern language clearly does not accomplish the same thing, ... and subsequently fall until the culture that gave birth to the ... In ancient Greek culture, for example, we have Attic ... As for proving that modern language conveys less information, ...
    (rec.games.go)
  • Re: Allah, CREATED THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
    ... but his ideas about language are nonsense. ... the lack of these letters is no ... of various aspects of modern Arab culture and politics, ... Arabic has phonemes that Persian and other IE doesn't have. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The lord showed him what !
    ... Assuming that's a real skull and not a fossil of a skull, ... calls civilization occurred over the past roughly 10K years and is ... with modern man - probably due to nothing more complicated than good ... My thought -- it was then they acquired a language. ...
    (soc.retirement)