> > My question was poorly put. What I'm trying to
> > determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your
> > theory is wrong. > Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
IN WHOSE OPINION!
> "X happened, and Y was the case, so Z is not
> reasonably feasible in the manner you suggest,
> because of Z1, Z2 and Z3 . . . "
Right. But who is to determine what "good evidence" is?
Who is to decide whether logic is being used, and, if
so, whether or not it is relevant?
We've been through this many times. I shouldn't have brought it up, but sometimes my mind wanders and . . .
Anyway, here we are again. What it seems to me we
need is someone we both trust as neutral, and a proper judge of arguments. I would say, find
someone in any field whom you and I agree is competent
and likely neutral--someone outside Shakespeare
studies or any literary field, and ask him to decide from our presentations who between you and me has the
better argument concerning who wrote the works of Shakespeare.
I would let you offer candidates. Yes, I see that
it is unlikely to be feasible. But would you not agree that if we could get such a person to be our
judge, his opinion should at least get one of us
to agree that his case is the weaker? I doubt you
could name any possible judge that I would not accept, for I suspect that even cranks would be
on my side. How about M. L. Harper? I couldn't
accept him since he already knows you are an apostle
of his, but I would be curious what he thinks of
your Oxford theory.
> It's not mysterious nor is it rocket science. There
> has to be more of a response than Janice's
> ' claptrap '. OK. she's a bad example, since
> she is obviously incapable of any form of
> argument. But where are the Strats who are
> any better? When are YOU going to say what
> is illogical or ahistorical or a clear perversion
> of the words about my reading of Sonnet 18 ?
Your challenge here is to find ONE person who
will agree that I have never shown you why your interpretation Sonnet 18 is insane.
> The discussion on language that I tried to get
> going is an interesting parallel. A small number
> of people disagree with the overwhelming
> consensus of academic theory, that has
> prevailed for hundreds of years and is still
> dominant. You have not seen ANY rational
> response here.
But I say I have, Paul. I will even say that I have seen
one or two opinions of yours that go against the main
theory that seem to me rational. I have not yet learned
enough to be able to say whether I agree with them or not.
How can anyone argue against someone who consistently
writes his opponents views and arguments off as irrational,
AND fails to show what makes them irrational except his
assertion that they are?
> > I don't think there's any way you would. You wouldn't
> > accept any decision on the matter against you.
> 'Decision' ? What are you talking about? Who
> 'decides'? Did the earth not move because
> the Vatican decided it would be heretical to
> suggest that it did? Should rational people have
> accepted that decision?
Right, quibble with my words. What I am obviously saying is that no case against what you believe, however
presented, no matter who presented it, no matter who
swore by its logic and persuasiveness, etc., would
make you give up your beliefs.
> > I believe there is a rational way to determine whether a
> > theory is valid or not but it's too complicated to go into,
> > and you wouldn't agree with it.
> Yeah, yeah. Let's see what it says in the
> Holy Book, or let's appoint a committee of
> experts. They'd have sided with Galileo --
> wouldn't they?
Yes. They did. In his time, and they still do.
They have had almost a hundred years now to
side with Looney and haven't come close to doing
so. But, hey, you can always come up with a
name of somebody whose ideas were considered
wrong by the experts in his field who was later vindicated. Strangely, you seem not to
notice that thousands of wacks whose ideas have
been considered wrong by the experts and were never vindicated. Reich and the orgone box,
von Danikan and the pyramids, Velikovski and
astronomy (I've forgotten what his main theory was).
And so many other wacks who were too boringly wrong
or too insanely wrong to have been written up.
There are also the many wacks whose theories went
against established understanding and were accepted.
Freud, for instance. Lily and his intelligent
dolphins. Many famous scientists proved wrong
in some instances although thought to be right
at the time.
>> Nor should you. No one with any historical knowledge
>> would make such a claim. There was no such thing as
>> the 'middle class' when the Stratman would have been
>> at school (~1574) assuming that he attended one.
> Perhaps, but it adequately describes in modern terms the
> environment he grew up in and the education he had.
Yeah, yeah. It's like saying an adequate description
in Elizabethan terms of a modern nuclear power
plant would be was a domestic coal fire. Why do
you have a compulsion to describe historical
phenomena in modern terms?
>> The Stratman came from the yeomanry -- a class
>> now extinct, but then indicating respectable, hard-
>> working ILLiterate farming people.
> I looked it up. Shakespeare's father was a town alderman
He was, for a couple of years, an ILLITERATE
town alderman.
> and his mother the daughter of a rich family.
An ILLITERATE daughter of a relatively well-
off ILLITERATE yeoman.
> In his circumstances, he was entitled to a public
> education.
Every boy in the town (and neighbourhood) was
entitled to attend. About one-in-six of those so
entitled did actually attend. The Stratman may,
or may not, have been in those one-in-six.
> He was not illiterate,
His parents were illiterate, His wife was illiterate.
His daughters were illiterate. His signature was
that of an illiterate. (Literate people of that time
made their skill obvious by displaying a clear,
elegant, and often beautiful signature. The
Stratman manifestly could barely hold a pen.)
He left no letters, Only one to him (apparently
not delivered) survives. Yet his house remained
in the family until around 1660 -- long after the
poet was famous.
> and your arguments once again boil down to "you can't be
> a great writer unless you had an upper-class upbringing"
Well, an education helps. I see you snipped my
request for examples of writers who grew up in
an illiterate household. Couldn't find any?
> and "you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
> historical records are correct."
What do you need historical records for, when
you know what they should say?
> And with that, I remember what Shaw said about wrestling
> with a pig.
The key thing to remember when you lose an
argument is that you must keep the faith. Don't
change your opinion under any circumstances.
>>> My question was poorly put. What I'm trying to
>>> determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your
>>> theory is wrong.
>> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
> IN WHOSE OPINION!
It's almost never an issue -- in spite of your
capitals. Note the responses that Mick Harper
and I have got here recently. What evidence
(of any sort) has been quoted? What logic
(of any kind) has been presented? If you
think some has, quote it.
> We've been through this many times. I shouldn't have
> brought it up, but sometimes my mind wanders and . . .
> Anyway, here we are again. What it seems to me we
> need is someone we both trust as neutral, and
> a proper judge of arguments. I would say, find
> someone in any field whom you and I agree is competent
> and likely neutral--someone outside Shakespeare
> studies or any literary field, and ask him to decide
> from our presentations who between you and me has the
> better argument concerning who wrote the works of
> Shakespeare.
This is, as you know, drivel. Think of someone
historical you admire, who came up with some
new idea or way of thinking. Let's imagine some
anonymous young patent clerk in Geneva around
1904 who has an interest in physics and
cosmology. He comes up with a few ideas.
Let's say he talks to some academic about them
who doesn't understand them but then proposes
something like your 'system'. Would Einstein be
sensible to agree? Or think of a 25-year-old
Newton in much the same situation. Or a
young Wittgenstein. They would not be able to
have a sensible conversation about the issues
that interested them unless their interlocutor had
spent almost as much time as them studying
the subject.l But such a person would not and
could not have done that while keeping an open
mind on the issues.
>> But where are the Strats who are
>> any better? When are YOU going to say what
>> is illogical or ahistorical or a clear perversion
>> of the words about my reading of Sonnet 18 ?
> Your challenge here is to find ONE person who
> will agree that I have never shown you why
> your interpretation Sonnet 18 is insane.
But before that you have to point to a post
or a set of posts you made here that actually
made some arguments on the topic. How
come you can't? Th'ole memory getting
filled up with dreams and fantasies?
[..]
> > My question was poorly put. What I'm trying to
> > determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your
> > theory is wrong.
> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
> "X happened, and Y was the case, so Z is not
> reasonably feasible in the manner you suggest,
> because of Z1, Z2 and Z3 . . . "
> It's not mysterious nor is it rocket science. There
> has to be more of a response than Janice's
> ' claptrap '. OK. she's a bad example, since
> she is obviously incapable of any form of
> argument. But where are the Strats who are
> any better? When are YOU going to say what
> is illogical or ahistorical or a clear perversion
> of the words about my reading of Sonnet 18 ?
Shove off, Crowley. You're like a cracked gramophone record in the
desert - constantly repeating yourself and nobody is listening.
You got totally slaughtered on sonnet 18, so get over it. I might
answer some other posts as and when I get the time and inclination but
it's hard to be inspired by your drivel.
> The discussion on language that I tried to get
> going is an interesting parallel. A small number
> of people disagree with the overwhelming
> consensus of academic theory, that has
> prevailed for hundreds of years and is still
> dominant. You have not seen ANY rational
> response here.
> > I don't think there's any way you would. You wouldn't
> > accept any decision on the matter against you.
> 'Decision' ? What are you talking about? Who
> 'decides'? Did the earth not move because
> the Vatican decided it would be heretical to
> suggest that it did? Should rational people have
> accepted that decision?
> > I believe there is a rational way to determine whether a
> > theory is valid or not but it's too complicated to go into,
> > and you wouldn't agree with it.
> Yeah, yeah. Let's see what it says in the
> Holy Book, or let's appoint a committee of
> experts. They'd have sided with Galileo --
> wouldn't they?
>>> My question was poorly put. What I'm trying to >>> determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your >>> theory is wrong.
>> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
> IN WHOSE OPINION!?
PAUL: "It's almost never an issue."
How can it not be an issue? We present what we consider logical arguments based on relevant evidence, and you reject them based on YOUR OPINION ONLY. Where else in any field concerned with determining some truth is that considered an
adequate way of operating?
***snips***
PAUL: "But before that you have to point to a post or a set of posts you made here that actually made some arguments on the topic. How come you can't? Th'ole memory getting filled up with dreams and fantasies?"
Beautiful. I propose we find someone neutral to judge which of us has the saner arguments. so you return to your doubly insane notion that I have made no arguments.
Okay, moron, I now propose that we find someone neutral to judge which of us is right about whether or not I have presented arguments against your interpretation of Sonnet 18.
>>> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
>> IN WHOSE OPINION!?
> PAUL: "It's almost never an issue."
> How can it not be an issue? We present what we consider
> logical arguments based on relevant evidence, and you
> reject them based on YOUR OPINION ONLY. Where else
> in any field concerned with determining some truth is that
> considered an adequate way of operating?
QUOTE some of your "logical arguments based
on relevant evidence". If you look (although I am
sure you won't) you will see that your only "logical
arguments based on relevant evidence" are the
same old semi-Biblical re-assertions of your
Faith. The name of the Stratman appears on
the plays (not true, of course, but that's never
bothered you). There was an unambiguous
monument stating the Stratman's poetic genius
(very far from the truth, of course, but that's
never bothered you).
And that's about it. Have I forgotten a few other
Stratfordian doctrines?
> ***snips***
> PAUL: "But before that you have to point to a post
> or a set of posts you made here that actually
> made some arguments on the topic. How
> come you can't? Th'ole memory getting
> filled up with dreams and fantasies?"
> Beautiful. I propose we find someone neutral to judge
> which of us has the saner arguments. so you return to
> your doubly insane notion that I have made no
> arguments.
Even if you were to find such a person, you
would still have to call up those posts. But
you can't -- since they exist only in your
imagination.
How come that you have not merely forgotten
the dates and titles of those posts, but you have
also forgotten their content -- to the extent that
even if you were to try to repeat the arguments
that you imagine were in them, you are at a
complete loss?
Your problem isn't Alzheimer's. It a far worse
condition, called Stratfordianism.
On Sunday, 4 November 2012 03:39:22 UTC+11, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 02/11/2012 21:58, Bob Grumman wrote:
> >>> My question was poorly put. What I'm trying to
> >>> determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your
> >>> theory is wrong.
> >> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
It's astonishing to me that a man who clearly knows no language other than English is happy to make a complete dick of himself by pontificating in this manner.
Crowley is like one of those cardinals who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Alternatively, he is so ignorant (and so thick) that he doesn't understand that the following, posted by Dave Kathman, constitutes detailed evidence against his insanity, evidence that he is obliged to deal with:
DAVE: Let's take one of your examples from before, the development of modern French from Latin. To make this easier on myself, I'm going to cut and paste from the Wikipedia article on the history of French, which looks quite good.
First, here is a non-exhaustive list of the phonological changes that occurred, starting with the development of Vulgar Latin into Proto-Western-Romance, and ending with the development of modern spoken French from early modern French in the past few centuries.
******************************* From Vulgar Latin through to Proto-Western-Romance
* Introduction of prosthetic short /i/ before words beginning with /s/ + consonant, becoming closed /e/ with the Romance vowel change (e.g. Spanish 'espina', Fr. 'épine' "thorn, spine" < spīna). * Reduction of ten-vowel system of Vulgar Latin to seven vowels; diphthongs 'ae' and 'oe' reduced to /ɛ/ and /e/; maintenance of /au/ diphthong. * Loss of final /-m/ (except in monosyllables, e.g. modern rien < rem). * Loss of /h/. * /ns/ > /s/. * /rs/ > /ss/ in some words (e.g. dorsum > Modern French dos), but not others (e.g. ursus > Modern French ours). * Final /-er/ > /-re/, /-or/ > /-ro/ (cf. Spanish cuatro, sobre < quattuor, super). * Vulgar Latin unstressed vowel loss: Loss of intertonic (i.e. unstressed and in an interior syllable) vowels between /k/, /ɡ/ and /r/, /l/. * Reduction of /e/ and /i/ in hiatus to /j/, followed by palatalization. Palatalization of /k/ and /ɡ/ before front vowels. * /kj/ is apparently doubled to /kkj/ prior to palatalization. * /dʲ/ and /ɡʲ/ (from /dj/, /ɡj/, and /ɡ/ before a front vowel) become /j/.
To Proto-Gallo-Ibero-Romance
* /kʲ/ and /tʲ/ merge, becoming /tsʲ/ (still treated as a single sound). * /kt/ > /jt/. * /ks/ > /js/. * First diphthongization (only in some dialects): diphthongization of /ɛ/, /ɔ/ to /ie/, /uo/ (later, /uo/ > /ue/) in stressed, open syllables. This also happens in closed syllables before a palatal, often later absorbed: peior >> /pejro/ > /piejro/ >> 'pire' "worst"; nocte > /nojte/ > /nuojte/ >> /nujt/ 'nuit'; but tertiu > /tertsˈo/ >> 'tierz'. * First lenition (did not happen in a small area around the Pyrenees): chain shift involving intervocalic consonants: voiced stops and unvoiced fricatives become voiced fricatives (/ð/, /v/, /j/); unvoiced stops become voiced stops. NOTE: /tsʲ/ (from /k(eˌi)/, /tj/) is pronounced as a single sound and voiced to /dzʲ/, but /ttsʲ/ (from /kk(eˌi)/, /kj/) is geminate and thus not voiced. Consonants before /r/ are lenited, also, and /pl/ > /bl/. Final /t/ and /d/ when following a vowel are lenited. * /jn/, /nj/, /jl/, /ɡl/ (from Vulgar Latin /ɡn/, /nɡʲ/, /ɡl/, /kl/, respectively) become /ɲ/ and /ʎ/, respectively. * First unstressed vowel loss: Loss of intertonic (i.e. unstressed and in an interior syllable) vowels, except /a/ when pretonic. (Note: This occurred at the same time as the first lenition, and individual words inconsistently show one change before the other. Hence manica > 'manche' but granica > 'grange'. carricare becomes either 'charchier' or 'chargier' in OF.)
To Early Old French
In approximate order:
* Spread and dissolution of palatalization: * A protected /j/ (not preceded by a vowel), stemming from an initial /j/ or from a /dj/, /ɡj/, or /ɡ(eˌi)/ when preceded by a consonant, becomes /dʒ/. * A /j/ followed by another consonant tends to palatalize that consonant; these consonants may have been brought together by intertonic loss. (E.g. medietate > /mejetate/ > /mejtʲate/ > 'moitié'. peior > /pejro/ > /piejrʲe/ > 'pire', but impeiorare > /empejrare/ > /empejrʲare/ > /empejriɛr/ > OF 'empoirier' "to worsen".) * Palatalized sounds lose their palatal quality and eject a /j/ into the end of the preceding syllable, when open; also into the beginning of the following syllable when it is stressed, open, and front (i.e. /a/ or /e/). Hence *cugitare > /kujetare/ > /kujdare/ > /kujdʲare/ >> /kujdiɛr/ OF 'cuidier' "to think". mansionata > /mazʲonada/ > /mazʲnada/ > /majzʲnjɛðə/ > OF 'maisniée' "household". * /tʃ/ and /dʒ/ (including those from later sources, see below) eject a following /j/ normally, but do not eject any preceding /j/. * Double /ssʲ/ < /ssj/ and from various other combinations also ejects a preceding /j/. * Single /dz/ ejects such a /j/, but not double /tts/, evidently since it is a double sound and causes the previous syllable to close; see comment above, under lenition. * Actual palatal /lʲ/ and /nʲ/ (as opposed to the merely patalized varieties of the other sounds) retain their palatal nature and don't emit preceding /j/. Or rather, palatal /lʲ/ does not eject a preceding /j/ (or else, it is always absorbed, even when depalatalized); palatal /nʲ/ emits a preceding /j/ when depalatalized, even if the preceding syllable is closed, e.g. jungit > *yōnyet > /dʒoɲt/ > /dʒojnt/ 'joint'. * Palatal /rʲ/ ejects a preceding /j/ as normal, but the /j/ metathesizes when a /a/ precedes, hence operariu > /obrarʲo/ > /obrjaro/ (not */obrajro/) >> 'ouvrier' "worker". * Second diphthongization: diphthongization of /e/, /o/, /a/ to /ei/, /ou/, /ae/ in stressed, open syllables, not followed by a palatal sound (not in all Gallo-Romance). (Later on, /ei/ > /oi/, /ou/ > /eu/, /ae/ > /e/; see below.) * Second unstressed vowel loss: Loss of all vowels except /a/ in unstressed, final syllables; addition of a final, supporting /e/ when necessary, to avoid words with impermissible final clusters. * Second lenition: Same changes as in first lenition, applied again (not in all Gallo-Romance). NOTE: Losses of unstressed vowels may have blocked this change from happening. * Palatalization of /ka/ > /tʃa/, /ɡa/ > /dʒa/. * Further vocalic changes (part 1): * /ae/ > /ɛ/ (but > /jɛ/ after a palatal, and > /aj/ before nasals when not after a palatal). * /au/ > /ɔ/. * Further consonant changes: * Geminate stops become single stops. * Final stops and fricatives become devoiced. * /dz/ > /z/, when not final. * A /t/ is inserted between palatal /ɲ/, /ʎ/ and following /s/ (doles > 'duels' "you hurt" but colligis > *colyes > 'cuelz, cueuz' "you gather"; jungis > *yōnyes > 'joinz' "you join"; filius > 'filz' "son"). * Palatal /ɲ/, /ʎ/ are depalatalized to /n/, /l/ when final or following a consonant. * In first-person verb forms, they may remain palatal when final due to the influence of the palatalized subjunctives. * /ɲ/ > /jn/ when depalatalizing, but /ʎ/ > /l/, without a yod. (*veclus > /vɛlʲo/ > /viɛlʲo/ > 'viel' "old" but cuneum > /konʲo/ > 'coin'. balneum > /banjo/ > 'bain' but montanea > /montanja/ > 'montagne'.) * Further vocalic changes (part 2): * /jej/ > /i/, /woj/ > /uj/. (placere > /plajdzjejr/ > 'plaisir'; nocte > /nuojt/ > 'nuit'.) * Diphthongs are consistently rendered as falling diphthongs, i.e. the major stress is on the first element, including for /ie/, /ue/, /ui/, etc. in contrast with the normal Spanish pronunciation.
Through to Old French, c. 1100 AD
* /f/, /p/, /k/ lost before final /s/, /t/. (debet > Strasbourg Oaths 'dift' /deift/ > OF 'doit'.) * /ei/ > /oi/ (blocked by nasalization; see below). * /wo/ > /we/ (blocked by nasalization; see below). * /a/ develops allophone [ɑ] before /s/. Later, this develops into a separate phoneme; see below. * Loss of /θ/ and /ð/. When this results in a hiatus of /a/ with a following vowel, the /a/ becomes a schwa /ə/. * Loss of /s/ before voiced consonant (passing first through /h/), with lengthening of preceding vowel. Produces a new set of long vowel phonemes. Described more completely in the following section. * /u/ > /y/.
To Late Old French, c. 1250–1300 AD
NOTE: Changes here affect oral and nasal vowels alike, unless otherwise indicated.
* /o/ > /u/. * /l/ before consonant becomes /w/. * /ue/ and /eu/ > /œ/. * Rising diphthongs develop when first element of diphthong is /u/, /y/ or /i/, causing the stress to shift to the second element in these cases (hence /yi/ [yj] > [ɥi]). * /oi/ > /we/. This in turn develops to /ɛ/ in some words, e.g. français; note doublet François. Much later, perhaps in the 17th century, remaining /we/ sounds > /wa/ except in "court" pronunciation. (The /wa/ pronunciation was then stigmatized as "vulgar" until the French
...
On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 08:55:51 UTC+11, metri...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 November 2012 03:39:22 UTC+11, Paul Crowley wrote:
> > On 02/11/2012 21:58, Bob Grumman wrote:
> > >>> My question was poorly put. What I'm trying to
> > >>> determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your
> > >>> theory is wrong.
> > >> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
> It's astonishing to me that a man who clearly knows no language other than English is happy to make a complete dick of himself by pontificating in this manner.
> > > IN WHOSE OPINION!
> > It's almost never an issue -- in spite of your
> > capitals. Note the responses that Mick Harper
> > and I have got here recently. What evidence
> > (of any sort) has been quoted? What logic
> > (of any kind) has been presented? If you
> > think some has, quote it.
> Crowley is like one of those cardinals who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Alternatively, he is so ignorant (and so thick) that he doesn't understand that the following, posted by Dave Kathman, constitutes detailed evidence against his insanity, evidence that he is obliged to deal with:
> DAVE: Let's take one of your examples from before, the development of modern French from Latin. To make this easier on myself, I'm going to cut and paste from the Wikipedia article on the history of French, which looks quite good.
> First, here is a non-exhaustive list of the phonological changes that occurred, starting with the development of Vulgar Latin into Proto-Western-Romance, and ending with the development of modern spoken French from early modern French in the past few centuries.
> *******************************
> From Vulgar Latin through to Proto-Western-Romance
> * Introduction of prosthetic short /i/ before words beginning with /s/ + consonant, becoming closed /e/ with the Romance vowel change (e.g. Spanish 'espina', Fr. 'épine' "thorn, spine" < spīna).
> * Reduction of ten-vowel system of Vulgar Latin to seven vowels; diphthongs 'ae' and 'oe' reduced to /ɛ/ and /e/; maintenance of /au/ diphthong.
> * Loss of final /-m/ (except in monosyllables, e.g. modern rien < rem).
> * Loss of /h/.
> * /ns/ > /s/.
> * /rs/ > /ss/ in some words (e.g. dorsum > Modern French dos), but not others (e.g. ursus > Modern French ours).
> * Final /-er/ > /-re/, /-or/ > /-ro/ (cf. Spanish cuatro, sobre < quattuor, super).
> * Vulgar Latin unstressed vowel loss: Loss of intertonic (i.e. unstressed and in an interior syllable) vowels between /k/, /ɡ/ and /r/, /l/.
> * Reduction of /e/ and /i/ in hiatus to /j/, followed by palatalization. Palatalization of /k/ and /ɡ/ before front vowels.
> * /kj/ is apparently doubled to /kkj/ prior to palatalization.
> * /dʲ/ and /ɡʲ/ (from /dj/, /ɡj/, and /ɡ/ before a front vowel) become /j/.
> To Proto-Gallo-Ibero-Romance
> * /kʲ/ and /tʲ/ merge, becoming /tsʲ/ (still treated as a single sound).
> * /kt/ > /jt/.
> * /ks/ > /js/.
> * First diphthongization (only in some dialects): diphthongization of /ɛ/, /ɔ/ to /ie/, /uo/ (later, /uo/ > /ue/) in stressed, open syllables. This also happens in closed syllables before a palatal, often later absorbed: peior >> /pejro/ > /piejro/ >> 'pire' "worst"; nocte > /nojte/ > /nuojte/ >> /nujt/ 'nuit'; but tertiu > /tertsˈo/ >> 'tierz'.
> * First lenition (did not happen in a small area around the Pyrenees): chain shift involving intervocalic consonants: voiced stops and unvoiced fricatives become voiced fricatives (/ð/, /v/, /j/); unvoiced stops become voiced stops. NOTE: /tsʲ/ (from /k(eˌi)/, /tj/) is pronounced as a single sound and voiced to /dzʲ/, but /ttsʲ/ (from /kk(eˌi)/, /kj/) is geminate and thus not voiced. Consonants before /r/ are lenited, also, and /pl/ > /bl/. Final /t/ and /d/ when following a vowel are lenited.
> * /jn/, /nj/, /jl/, /ɡl/ (from Vulgar Latin /ɡn/, /nɡʲ/, /ɡl/, /kl/, respectively) become /ɲ/ and /ʎ/, respectively.
> * First unstressed vowel loss: Loss of intertonic (i.e. unstressed and in an interior syllable) vowels, except /a/ when pretonic. (Note: This occurred at the same time as the first lenition, and individual words inconsistently show one change before the other. Hence manica > 'manche' but granica > 'grange'. carricare becomes either 'charchier' or 'chargier' in OF.)
> To Early Old French
> In approximate order:
> * Spread and dissolution of palatalization:
> * A protected /j/ (not preceded by a vowel), stemming from an initial /j/ or from a /dj/, /ɡj/, or /ɡ(eˌi)/ when preceded by a consonant, becomes /dʒ/.
> * A /j/ followed by another consonant tends to palatalize that consonant; these consonants may have been brought together by intertonic loss. (E.g. medietate > /mejetate/ > /mejtʲate/ > 'moitié'. peior > /pejro/ > /piejrʲe/ > 'pire', but impeiorare > /empejrare/ > /empejrʲare/ > /empejriɛr/ > OF 'empoirier' "to worsen".)
> * Palatalized sounds lose their palatal quality and eject a /j/ into the end of the preceding syllable, when open; also into the beginning of the following syllable when it is stressed, open, and front (i.e. /a/ or /e/). Hence *cugitare > /kujetare/ > /kujdare/ > /kujdʲare/ >> /kujdiɛr/ OF 'cuidier' "to think". mansionata > /mazʲonada/ > /mazʲnada/ > /majzʲnjɛðə/ > OF 'maisniée' "household".
> * /tʃ/ and /dʒ/ (including those from later sources, see below) eject a following /j/ normally, but do not eject any preceding /j/.
> * Double /ssʲ/ < /ssj/ and from various other combinations also ejects a preceding /j/.
> * Single /dz/ ejects such a /j/, but not double /tts/, evidently since it is a double sound and causes the previous syllable to close; see comment above, under lenition.
> * Actual palatal /lʲ/ and /nʲ/ (as opposed to the merely patalized varieties of the other sounds) retain their palatal nature and don't emit preceding /j/. Or rather, palatal /lʲ/ does not eject a preceding /j/ (or else, it is always absorbed, even when depalatalized); palatal /nʲ/ emits a preceding /j/ when depalatalized, even if the preceding syllable is closed, e.g. jungit > *yōnyet > /dʒoɲt/ > /dʒojnt/ 'joint'.
> * Palatal /rʲ/ ejects a preceding /j/ as normal, but the /j/ metathesizes when a /a/ precedes, hence operariu > /obrarʲo/ > /obrjaro/ (not */obrajro/) >> 'ouvrier' "worker".
> * Second diphthongization: diphthongization of /e/, /o/, /a/ to /ei/, /ou/, /ae/ in stressed, open syllables, not followed by a palatal sound (not in all Gallo-Romance). (Later on, /ei/ > /oi/, /ou/ > /eu/, /ae/ > /e/; see below.)
> * Second unstressed vowel loss: Loss of all vowels except /a/ in unstressed, final syllables; addition of a final, supporting /e/ when necessary, to avoid words with impermissible final clusters.
> * Second lenition: Same changes as in first lenition, applied again (not in all Gallo-Romance). NOTE: Losses of unstressed vowels may have blocked this change from happening.
> * Palatalization of /ka/ > /tʃa/, /ɡa/ > /dʒa/.
> * Further vocalic changes (part 1):
> * /ae/ > /ɛ/ (but > /jɛ/ after a palatal, and > /aj/ before nasals when not after a palatal).
> * /au/ > /ɔ/.
> * Further consonant changes:
> * Geminate stops become single stops.
> * Final stops and fricatives become devoiced.
> * /dz/ > /z/, when not final.
> * A /t/ is inserted between palatal /ɲ/, /ʎ/ and following /s/ (doles > 'duels' "you hurt" but colligis > *colyes > 'cuelz, cueuz' "you gather"; jungis > *yōnyes > 'joinz' "you join"; filius > 'filz' "son").
> * Palatal /ɲ/, /ʎ/ are depalatalized to /n/, /l/ when final or following a consonant.
> * In first-person verb forms, they may remain palatal when final due to the influence of the palatalized subjunctives.
> * /ɲ/ > /jn/ when depalatalizing, but /ʎ/ > /l/, without a yod. (*veclus > /vɛlʲo/ > /viɛlʲo/ > 'viel' "old" but cuneum > /konʲo/ > 'coin'. balneum > /banjo/ > 'bain' but montanea > /montanja/ > 'montagne'.)
> * Diphthongs are consistently rendered as falling diphthongs, i.e. the major stress is on the first element, including for /ie/, /ue/, /ui/, etc. in contrast with the normal Spanish pronunciation.
> Through to Old French, c. 1100 AD
> * /f/, /p/, /k/ lost before final /s/, /t/. (debet > Strasbourg Oaths 'dift' /deift/ > OF 'doit'.)
> * /ei/ > /oi/ (blocked by nasalization; see below).
> * /wo/ > /we/ (blocked by nasalization; see below).
> * /a/ develops allophone [ɑ] before /s/. Later, this develops into a separate phoneme; see below.
> * Loss of /θ/ and /ð/. When this results in a hiatus of /a/ with a following vowel, the /a/ becomes a schwa /ə/.
> * Loss of /s/ before voiced consonant (passing first through /h/), with lengthening of preceding vowel. Produces a new set of long vowel phonemes. Described more completely in the
> > It's astonishing to me that a man who clearly knows no language other than > > English
...and he doesn't even know English very well -- certainly not Early Modern English, at any rate -- as the glaring error in verb conjugation in the "Ray Mignot" sonnet (totally lost upon Crowley, of course) clearly showed.
> > is happy to make a complete dick of himself by pontificating in > > this manner.
It *is* amazing!
> > Crowley is like one of those cardinals who refused to look through > > Galileo's telescope. Alternatively, he is so ignorant (and so thick) that > > he doesn't understand that the following, posted by Dave Kathman, > > constitutes detailed evidence against his insanity, evidence that he is > > obliged to deal with:
[Snip of Dave's patient, careful explanation of significant phonetic shifts]
Much the same could be done in the case of Spanish.
> > This doesn't even get into all the other changes that resulted from the > > influence of the Celtic language Gaulish (which coexisted with the > > descendants of Latin at least through the early Middle Ages) and with the > > Germanic languages of the Franks (from whom France got its name) and other > > related peoples. Those changes are more haphazard, and can't necessarily be > > codified into rules like the many sound changes listed above, but the > > Wikipedia article has a nice list of them.
> > I suppose I could type in some examples of Old French and Middle French, > > and show how they differed from Latin and modern French, but I suspect that > > you and Crowley are the only people here who would need to see such > > evidence, and it won't change your mind in any case.
> > Dave Kathman
> No response from Crowley. What a surprise.
Indeed. But the surest way by far to get Crowley to clam up is to mention the "Ray Mignot" sonnet, and to quote generously from Crowley's pontifications in that case.
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 7:32:04 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 23:06, Bob Grumman wrote:
> >>> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
> >> IN WHOSE OPINION!?
> > PAUL: "It's almost never an issue."
> > How can it not be an issue? We present what we consider
> > logical arguments based on relevant evidence, and you
> > reject them based on YOUR OPINION ONLY. Where else
> > in any field concerned with determining some truth is that
> > considered an adequate way of operating?
> QUOTE some of your "logical arguments based
> on relevant evidence". If you look (although I am
> sure you won't) you will see that your only "logical
> arguments based on relevant evidence" are the
> same old semi-Biblical re-assertions of your
> Faith. The name of the Stratman appears on
> the plays (not true, of course, but that's never
> bothered you). There was an unambiguous
> monument stating the Stratman's poetic genius
> (very far from the truth, of course, but that's
> never bothered you).
> And that's about it. Have I forgotten a few other
> Stratfordian doctrines?
> > ***snips***
> > PAUL: "But before that you have to point to a post
> > or a set of posts you made here that actually
> > made some arguments on the topic. How
> > come you can't? Th'ole memory getting
> > filled up with dreams and fantasies?"
> > Beautiful. I propose we find someone neutral to judge
> > which of us has the saner arguments. so you return to
> > your doubly insane notion that I have made no
> > arguments.
> Even if you were to find such a person, you
> would still have to call up those posts. But
> you can't -- since they exist only in your
> imagination.
> How come that you have not merely forgotten
> the dates and titles of those posts, but you have
> also forgotten their content -- to the extent that
> even if you were to try to repeat the arguments
> that you imagine were in them, you are at a
> complete loss?
> Your problem isn't Alzheimer's. It a far worse
> condition, called Stratfordianism.
Again, I ask, in whose opinion?
And how can it not be an issue? We present what we consider logical arguments based on relevant evidence, and you
reject them based on YOUR OPINION ONLY. Where else
in any field concerned with determining some truth is that
considered an adequate way of operating?
>>>>> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
>>>> IN WHOSE OPINION!?
>>> PAUL: "It's almost never an issue."
>>> How can it not be an issue? We present what we consider
>>> logical arguments based on relevant evidence, and you
>>> reject them based on YOUR OPINION ONLY. Where else
>>> in any field concerned with determining some truth is that
>>> considered an adequate way of operating?
>> QUOTE some of your "logical arguments based
>> on relevant evidence". If you look (although I am
>> sure you won't) you will see that your only "logical
>> arguments based on relevant evidence" are the
>> same old semi-Biblical re-assertions of your
>> Faith. The name of the Stratman appears on
>> the plays (not true, of course, but that's never
>> bothered you). There was an unambiguous
>> monument stating the Stratman's poetic genius
>> (very far from the truth, of course, but that's
>> never bothered you).
>> And that's about it. Have I forgotten a few other
>> Stratfordian doctrines?
>>> PAUL: "But before that you have to point to a post
>>> or a set of posts you made here that actually
>>> made some arguments on the topic. How
>>> come you can't? Th'ole memory getting
>>> filled up with dreams and fantasies?"
>>> Beautiful. I propose we find someone neutral to judge
>>> which of us has the saner arguments. so you return to
>>> your doubly insane notion that I have made no
>>> arguments.
>> Even if you were to find such a person, you
>> would still have to call up those posts. But
>> you can't -- since they exist only in your
>> imagination.
>> How come that you have not merely forgotten
>> the dates and titles of those posts, but you have
>> also forgotten their content -- to the extent that
>> even if you were to try to repeat the arguments
>> that you imagine were in them, you are at a
>> complete loss?
>> Your problem isn't Alzheimer's. It a far worse
>> condition, called Stratfordianism.
> Again, I ask, in whose opinion?
The Grumman Gambit is the epitome of
intellectual dishonesty. You should market
it, much like a snake-oil salesman . . .
". . Lost your argument? Nothing to say?
You've no evidence, and you've forgotten
whatever logic you thought you once had?
Don't worry . . . you can always rely on
the Grumman Gambit . . . . only $10 per
use each time . . ."
jaelsheargold <jaelshearg...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 12:31 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> > On 30/10/2012 21:31, Bob Grumman wrote:
> > > My question was poorly put. What I'm trying to
> > > determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your
> > > theory is wrong.
> > Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
> > "X happened, and Y was the case, so Z is not
> > reasonably feasible in the manner you suggest,
> > because of Z1, Z2 and Z3 . . . "
> > It's not mysterious nor is it rocket science. There
> > has to be more of a response than Janice's
> > ' claptrap '. OK. she's a bad example, since
> > she is obviously incapable of any form of
> > argument. But where are the Strats who are
> > any better? When are YOU going to say what
> > is illogical or ahistorical or a clear perversion
> > of the words about my reading of Sonnet 18 ?
> Shove off, Crowley. You're like a cracked gramophone record in the
> desert - constantly repeating yourself and nobody is listening.
> You got totally slaughtered on sonnet 18,
And on the "Ray Mignot" sonnet as well, of course. If you want to end up in Crowley's killfile (or if you want him to pretend that you are, at any rate), just remind him of that amusing incident -- for some odd reason, he dislikes recalling it.
> so get over it. I might
> answer some other posts as and when I get the time and inclination but
> it's hard to be inspired by your drivel.
But, like Art's drivel, it's hard *not* to be amused by it -- in small doses, at any rate. Where else can learn that English has been spoken nearly unchanged for nearly a millennium, that the Romance languages did not descend from Latin (which is at best a simplified form of Italian), that Sonnet 103 memorializes a royal crapping competition, that Latin America has produced no worthwhile literature for most of its history, etc.? It's a pretty remarkable performance.
> Walk away Bob, walk awaaay. Ee's jus' not worf it.
You don't understand, Tom! Paul represents an opportunity never before afforded psychologists: the opportunity to record for posterity the first human being ever to be Totally Impervious to Reason. And perhaps even make a start toward a theory accounting for his achievement, although that may be asking too much. I'm Captain Ahab and he's my white whale! I MUST pursue him to the death!!!
>>>>Paul: no one can present a argument against any belief of mine.
> > Again, I ask, in whose opinion?
> The Grumman Gambit is the epitome of
> intellectual dishonesty. You should market
> it, much like a snake-oil salesman . . .
> ". . Lost your argument? Nothing to say?
> You've no evidence, and you've forgotten
> whatever logic you thought you once had?
> Don't worry . . . you can always rely on
> the Grumman Gambit . . . . only $10 per
> use each time . . ."
> Paul.
Why would anyone buy it? It is only effective against
someone who believes that his assertions are valid if
no one can say anything against it that he accepts as
a valid argument. Is there anyone else in the world more
incapable of doing anything but that to justify his insanity than you?
If you go to http://poeticks.com/2012/11/17/entry-925, Paul, you'll see more garbage that proves how stupid I am, but--to a sane person--would indicate that I'm no sheep. At the bottom is a note in which I try to further your fame. You can comment on it there, if you want. It'd be great if you did, but I'm sure you won't. My entries eventually often draw a hundred or so "unique visitors" according to my counter, but they are nuts, so one of them may actually agree with you!
PAUL: "I argue no such thing. There is a huge amount
of evidence against the Stratman and more in
favour of Oxford. Of course, the latter does not
consist of explicit written statements made at
the time -- which seem to be your only criteria
for 'evidence'".
That's because that is the only kind of evidence that exists for the period.
there are no audio/video recordings. There is no "huge amount of evidence against
the Stratman", there is only a huge amount of conjecture about the Stratman, and
conjecture is not evidence. The same goes for "evidence" "in favour of Oxford";
thee is none, simply more conjecture. Even if all you had was a single document
of some kind in which someone, anyone said "This continual fronting of Oxford by
Shakespeare is a tiresome game" (or the equivalent), you would have at least
4.72 x 10^34 more evidence than you do now. That's an approximation of course,
setting the amount of current evidence for Oxford at 1 instead of zero, as 1 is approximately zero compared with very large numbers.
Dr. Benigrew Dimplestad
15 De Surmontstratt
Amstelveen, Netherlands
