THE DANELAW IN MOV III. ii. 289: 'Besides It Should Appear.'
Elizabeth Weir
Albert C. Baugh, author of the standard text on the
history of the English language notes a seemingly
illogical use of an auxillary verb in the Merchant of Venice
that is, however, perfectly consistent with the same
use in Danish. 1
. . . the rules for the use of shall and will in Middle
English are much the same as in Scandinavian; and that
some apparently illogical uses of these auxiliaries in
Shakespeare (e.g., 'besides it should appear' in the
Merchant of Venice, III. ii. 289) do not seem strange to a
Dane, who would employ the same verb.
The only two authorship candidates that would use Danish
constructions are the Renaissance genius Francis Bacon and
his cousin Oxford. While that slip of East Anglian dialect
might sound natural coming from Oxford, Nelson has shown
that Oxford could not speak the literary East Midlands dialect
of the Shakespeare works. Bacon, as a member of the
'lower aristocracy' spoke two dialects, the East Midlands and
his local dialect, which in his case was the dialect of the family
who raised him, the Cookes, the scholarly linguists from
Gildea, Essex, in the heart of the Danelaw.
1 Albert C. Baugh. A History of the English Language.
Routledge and K. Paul: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.. 1963.
Page 123.
Peter Groves
news:efbc3534.03101...@posting.google.com...
> ____________________________________________________
>
> Albert C. Baugh, author of the standard text on the
> history of the English language notes a seemingly
> illogical use of an auxillary verb in the Merchant of Venice
> that is, however, perfectly consistent with the same
> use in Danish. 1
>
"auxillary verb"? You're an idiot. Why do you persist in pontificating in
matters you don't begin to understand?
Peter G.
John W. Kennedy
Is Lizzie really so dense that she cannot perceive that her argument
only makes sense on the assumption that, by the 16th century,
Warwickshire was still speaking Old English?
Lizzie, here's an example of Old English I found on the Internet.
Thriddan Ealdres Eorthbuendra
thonne waes seo Daegung aefter thrage Guthe
Minbari maegthe ond Middangeardes
teothan geare. Se Begang Babylon
waes slaepswefn sweotol macod,
his wen: forwiernan wigniwunge,
to stathelianne stede hwaer in stilnesse cuthen
eorthmenniscas ond eltheodge
hira faehtha geseman. Hit is forhaefen,
unhamlic ham halsiendum rica,
uncystceorlum, ciepemonnum,
ond eardstapum. Ge eltheodge
ge foldmenn befongne on fif ond twentig
hundthusend tonna hwaerfiendes wecges,
eall anan on neahte. Hit can beon nithhedgu stowe,
ac us is eac se ytmaeste wen
sibbe, ond seleste. This is thaere sithemestan byrig
Babylone talu. Twa ond twentig hund
eahta ond fiftigotha thaes Frean is se gear.
Thaes byhtes nama is Babylon Fif.
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction
together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the
works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together
as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
Elizabeth Weir
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:efbc3534.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > ____________________________________________________
> >
> > Albert C. Baugh, author of the standard text on the
> > history of the English language notes a seemingly
> > illogical use of an auxillary verb in the Merchant of Venice
> > that is, however, perfectly consistent with the same
> > use in Danish. 1
> >
>
> "auxillary verb"? You're an idiot. Why do you persist in pontificating in
> matters you don't begin to understand?
Groves. 'Should' is an auxilary verb. Auxilary
verbs always appear to the left of the verb in verb
strings. The verb in this instance is 'appear.'
Appear = seem to be true, probable or apparent.
We now say 'it should be apparent (adj).'
SALERIO: Not one, my lord.
Besides, it should appear, that if he had [280]
The present money to discharge the Jew,
He would not take it.
Did you imagine that Baugh meant the preposition
'besides' to be the auxiliary verb?
It looks like the grammarian Kennedy got it right
because in the post below he's trying to cover your
ass.
Elizabeth
Peter G.
> "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<3%Pib.150504$bo1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:efbc3534.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > > ____________________________________________________
> > >
> > > Albert C. Baugh, author of the standard text on the
> > > history of the English language notes a seemingly
> > > illogical use of an auxillary verb in the Merchant of Venice
> > > that is, however, perfectly consistent with the same
> > > use in Danish. 1
> > >
> >
> > "auxillary verb"? You're an idiot. Why do you persist in pontificating in
> > matters you don't begin to understand?
>
> Groves. 'Should' is an auxilary verb.
"auxilary verb"? You're an idiot. Why do you persist in
pontificating in matters you don't begin to understand?
See if you can get the word right on your third try.
Peter G.
David L. Webb
Monti...@bigpond.com (Peter G.) wrote:
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message
> news:<efbc3534.03101...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3%Pib.150504$bo1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:efbc3534.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > > > ____________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > Albert C. Baugh, author of the standard text on the
> > > > history of the English language notes a seemingly
> > > > illogical use of an auxillary verb in the Merchant of Venice
> > > > that is, however, perfectly consistent with the same
> > > > use in Danish. 1
> > > "auxillary verb"? You're an idiot. Why do you persist in pontificating
> > > in
> > > matters you don't begin to understand?
> > Groves. 'Should' is an auxilary verb.
> "auxilary verb"? You're an idiot. Why do you persist in
> pontificating in matters you don't begin to understand?
>
> See if you can get the word right on your third try.
>
> Peter G.
It's most amusing that Elizabeth reckons that Shakespeare was
illiterate on the basis of his inability to spell something the same way
twice!
[...]
Elizabeth Weir
[...]
> > > Groves. 'Should' is an auxilary verb.
>
> > "auxilary verb"? You're an idiot. Why do you persist in
> > pontificating in matters you don't begin to understand?
> >
> > See if you can get the word right on your third try.
> >
> > Peter G.
>
> It's most amusing that Elizabeth reckons that Shakespeare was
> illiterate on the basis of his inability to spell something the same way
> twice!
The fact that you're off-topic, Dr. Transparency, tells
me that's you've dropped in to give Groves cover.
You, a grammarian in four or five languages, know
that Baugh is right about the auxiliary verb.
I found the disputed auxiliary verb in the OED so there is
no way that you can diaper Groves on this one, Webb.
As far as the six barbaric scrawls, no two spelled
alike are concerned, the Baconians have the Strachey letter
so the question of whether or not the Immortal Illiterate
could spell his name is a mere divertissement.
Elizabeth
Peter Groves
news:<david.l.webb-EC16...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
> > In article <6d502bef.03101...@posting.google.com>,
> > Monti...@bigpond.com (Peter G.) wrote:
> > > > > > ____________________________________________________
> [...]
> > > > Groves. 'Should' is an auxilary verb.
> >
> > > "auxilary verb"? You're an idiot. Why do you persist in
> > > pontificating in matters you don't begin to understand?
> > >
> > > See if you can get the word right on your third try.
> > >
> > > Peter G.
> >
> > It's most amusing that Elizabeth reckons that Shakespeare was
> > illiterate on the basis of his inability to spell something the same way
> > twice!
>
> The fact that you're off-topic, Dr. Transparency, tells
> me that's you've dropped in to give Groves cover.
>
> You, a grammarian in four or five languages, know
> that Baugh is right about the auxiliary verb.
>
Well done, Elizabeth: on your third try you've managed to get the word
right. Now, do you know what it means? And (more to the purpose) do you
persist in your insane belief that Shakespeare spoke some version of Old
English, or has the light of reason twinkled on the horizon (I'm not *too*
sanguine)?
Peter G.
Elizabeth Weir
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:efbc3534.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<david.l.webb-EC16...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
> > > In article <6d502bef.03101...@posting.google.com>,
> > > Monti...@bigpond.com (Peter G.) wrote:
> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________
> [...]
> > > > > Groves. 'Should' is an auxilary verb.
>
> > > > "auxilary verb"? You're an idiot. Why do you persist in
> > > > pontificating in matters you don't begin to understand?
> > > >
> > > > See if you can get the word right on your third try.
> > > >
> > > > Peter G.
> > >
> > > It's most amusing that Elizabeth reckons that Shakespeare was
> > > illiterate on the basis of his inability to spell something the same way
> > > twice!
> >
> > The fact that you're off-topic, Dr. Transparency, tells
> > me that's you've dropped in to give Groves cover.
> >
> > You, a grammarian in four or five languages, know
> > that Baugh is right about the auxiliary verb.
> >
>
> Well done, Elizabeth: on your third try you've managed to get the word
> right.
You're quibbling about the spelling? I don't believe you.
> Now, do you know what it means? And (more to the purpose)
Right, change the subject after I found 20 examples of Baugh's
'illogical should.'
> persist in your insane belief that Shakespeare spoke some version of Old
> English, or has the light of reason twinkled on the horizon (I'm not *too*
> sanguine)?
I'm sure your poodle finds that kind of nattering
riveting but I do not, Groves.
Here's a report from Somerset on the state of its
Anglo-Saxon dialect in 1971. I'll skip past the OE
words and pronunciation and get to the verbs:
The verb To Be is used in the old form, I be,
Thee bist, He be, We be, Thee 'rt, They be.
'Had I known I wouldn't have gone', is 'If I'd
a-know'd I 'ooden never a-went'; 'A' is the
old way of denoting the past tense, and went
is from the verb to wend (Anglo-Saxon wendan).
Infinitives are often formed by the addition
of y; 'I can thatch' is 'I d'thatchy'; 'I must
go and milk' is 'I must milky'.
No, I'm not finished. There will be more.
Elizabeth
Peter Groves
No, I'm suggesting that your complete unfamiliarity with its terms suggests
that you know as little about grammar as you do about nuclear physics (or
about anything else, it seems).
> > Now, do you know what it means?
I notice you don't answer this. Funny, that.
> And (more to the purpose)
>
> Right, change the subject after I found 20 examples of Baugh's
> 'illogical should.'
>
> > persist in your insane belief that Shakespeare spoke some version of Old
> > English, or has the light of reason twinkled on the horizon (I'm not
*too*
> > sanguine)?
>
> I'm sure your poodle finds that kind of nattering
> riveting but I do not, Groves.
>
> Here's a report from Somerset on the state of its
> Anglo-Saxon dialect in 1971. I'll skip past the OE
> words and pronunciation and get to the verbs:
>
> The verb To Be is used in the old form, I be,
> Thee bist, He be, We be, Thee 'rt, They be.
And you think this is Old English? You're an ignorant idiot.
> 'Had I known I wouldn't have gone', is 'If I'd
> a-know'd I 'ooden never a-went';
Ah yes: isn't there a rather similar line in <Beowulf> (or is it <The Battle
of Maldon>)?
> 'A' is the
> old way of denoting the past tense, and went
> is from the verb to wend (Anglo-Saxon wendan).
So we *all" speak Old English, do we? Or don't you use "went" as the
suppletive preterite of "go"?
> Infinitives are often formed by the addition
> of y; 'I can thatch' is 'I d'thatchy'; 'I must
> go and milk' is 'I must milky'.
Oh yes: *just* like Old English. You're an ignorant idiot.
>
> No, I'm not finished. There will be more.
>
> Elizabeth
If this means that you *do* still persist in the belief that Shakespeare
spoke some version of Old English, then I'm afraid I have to tell you that
you're an unteachable moron. Since you're insensible to facts you won't, of
course, register this.
--
Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse.
Lynne
John, do you know or do you have the translation for this? I used to
be able to read OE, but that was over thirty years ago. Of all the
things I've lost, I miss my mind the most (Make hay, people).
Lynne
Elizabeth Weir
> No, I'm suggesting that your complete unfamiliarity with its terms suggests
> that you know as little about grammar as you do about nuclear physics (or
> about anything else, it seems).
Groves. There is no way to reject Einstein on the basis of physics
because, as he admitted to Heisenberg, his theory is an aesthetic.
It's a platonistic rediscription of L-P relativity.
Dr. Commitedmarxist can't grapple with the fact that JP Hsu
has stripped Einstein's verbiage and superfluous c out of the
STR to get L-P relativity.
As far as 'anything else' is concerned, I am just smart enough
to perceive (dyslexia has an up side, Groves, and that is the
ability to visually 'map' problems) that the Virginia Company
is the key to Shakespeare authorship--I first posted on the Virginia
Company two years ago--and as a result have deprived Kathman
and Stratfordianism of the Strachey letter.
> > > Now, do you know what it means?
>
> I notice you don't answer this. Funny, that.
I cited Baugh. Isn't Baugh good enough for you?
I know what an auxiliary verb is, Groves. It's inelegantly
called a 'helping verb' where I live.
> > And (more to the purpose)
> >
> > Right, change the subject after I found 20 examples of Baugh's
> > 'illogical should.'
> >
> > > persist in your insane belief that Shakespeare spoke some version of Old
> > > English, or has the light of reason twinkled on the horizon (I'm not
> *too*
> > > sanguine)?
> >
> > I'm sure your poodle finds that kind of nattering
> > riveting but I do not, Groves.
> >
> > Here's a report from Somerset on the state of its
> > Anglo-Saxon dialect in 1971. I'll skip past the OE
> > words and pronunciation and get to the verbs:
> >
> > The verb To Be is used in the old form, I be,
> > Thee bist, He be, We be, Thee 'rt, They be.
>
> And you think this is Old English? You're an ignorant idiot.
No. I don't think it is 'Old English' per se. I stated in my second
post--after Dr. Commiemarxist pointed out that it was the first,
not the second, definition of 'inflection' that applied--that Danish
had STRIPPED the inflection from Old English.
The West and South shires are not speaking Old English ca 1065,
they are speaking *dialects of Old English* also 'Old English dialects'
as the dialectologists put it, as opposed to the Anglo-Danish dialects
of the East Midlands and North East. The original Anglian dialect
of the East Anglian kingdom was close to Danish, then got a
Danish overlay after the Danelaw. The local dialects--and they still
exist--in those areas are not influenced by Old English.
> > 'Had I known I wouldn't have gone', is 'If I'd
> > a-know'd I 'ooden never a-went';
>
> Ah yes: isn't there a rather similar line in <Beowulf> (or is it <The Battle
> of Maldon>)?
Heh.
> > 'A' is the
> > old way of denoting the past tense, and went
> > is from the verb to wend (Anglo-Saxon wendan).
>
> So we *all" speak Old English, do we?
No, Groves. Half our daily vocabulary and 62 or the 64
words of the Lord's Prayer are Old English words but
we don't 'all' speak Old English. I have no idea what
they speak in Australia.
> Or don't you use "went" as the
> suppletive preterite of "go"?
The 'ooden' above is OE.
> > Infinitives are often formed by the addition
> > of y; 'I can thatch' is 'I d'thatchy'; 'I must
> > go and milk' is 'I must milky'.
>
> Oh yes: *just* like Old English. You're an ignorant idiot.
There's no hard 'e' ending in German. That's probably from NF.
> > No, I'm not finished. There will be more.
> >
> > Elizabeth
>
> If this means that you *do* still persist in the belief that Shakespeare
> spoke some version of Old English,
Warwickshire is not in the East Midlands dialect area.
The West dialects have a much higher content of OE
words, OE syntax (in OE the word order was arbitrary
because the inflections kept the meanings intact
despite the syntax, and when the inflections were lost
the scrambled syntaxes tended to linger on) and some remnants
of the German inflections.
I never suggested that the Stratford butcher spoke
11th century Anglo-Saxon but in the realm of British
dialects, he spoke 'an OE dialect' opposed to a ME
dialect or an EME dialect.
Stop oversimplifying my argument so you can call me
an idiot. These dialects lasted into modern times. The
last speaker of pure Cornish died in 1798 (yes, I know
Cornish is Celtic but it shows the persistence of old
dialects).
> then I'm afraid I have to tell you that
> you're an unteachable moron. Since you're insensible
> to facts you won't, of course, register this.
Unteachable moron to you, owner of the Strachey letter
to Kathman.
Elizabeth
Terry Ross
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<B9Uib.26445$Eh3.9...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
[snip]
> >
> > Lizzie, here's an example of Old English I found on the Internet.
> >
> > Thriddan Ealdres Eorthbuendra
> > thonne waes seo Daegung aefter thrage Guthe
> > Minbari maegthe ond Middangeardes
> > teothan geare. Se Begang Babylon
> > waes slaepswefn sweotol macod,
> > his wen: forwiernan wigniwunge,
> > to stathelianne stede hwaer in stilnesse cuthen
> > eorthmenniscas ond eltheodge
> > hira faehtha geseman. Hit is forhaefen,
> > unhamlic ham halsiendum rica,
> > uncystceorlum, ciepemonnum,
> > ond eardstapum. Ge eltheodge
> > ge foldmenn befongne on fif ond twentig
> > hundthusend tonna hwaerfiendes wecges,
> > eall anan on neahte. Hit can beon nithhedgu stowe,
> > ac us is eac se ytmaeste wen
> > sibbe, ond seleste. This is thaere sithemestan byrig
> > Babylone talu. Twa ond twentig hund
> > eahta ond fiftigotha thaes Frean is se gear.
> > Thaes byhtes nama is Babylon Fif.
>
> John, do you know or do you have the translation for this? I used to be
> able to read OE, but that was over thirty years ago. Of all the things
> I've lost, I miss my mind the most (Make hay, people).
This appears to be rather new "old English"; I think there may be a
translation in *TV Guide*. John is a great fan of a Science Fiction show
called *Babylon Five*.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne
No vunder I coudent reed it. I seam to haf lost mor of my miynd then I thoght.
L.
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:<YA6lb.159799$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:efbc3534.03102...@posting.google.com...
> > No, I'm suggesting that your complete unfamiliarity with its terms suggests
> > that you know as little about grammar as you do about nuclear physics (or
> > about anything else, it seems).
> Groves. There is no way to reject Einstein on the basis of physics
> because, as he admitted to Heisenberg, his theory is an aesthetic.
> It's a platonistic rediscription [sic] of L-P relativity.
No, special relativity is one of the most resoundingly successful
insights in the entire history of physics, underlying as it does the
theory of quantum electrodynamics, the most successful theory of a
fundamental interaction in the history of the discipline.
> Dr. Commitedmarxist can't grapple with the fact that JP Hsu
> has stripped Einstein's verbiage and superfluous c out of the
> STR to get L-P relativity.
Here is what Professor Hsu himself says about the subject in an
e-mail to me (after I mentioned to him a few of Elizabeth's comments
upon his work), which I reproduce here with his kind permission; my
explanatory comments are in square brackets:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:12:14 -0700
From: "J. P. Hsu" <jh...@UMassD.Edu>
Subject: Re: Taiji relativity
In-reply-to: <1806...@newprancer.Dartmouth.EDU>
To: David....@Dartmouth.EDU (David L. Webb)
Cc: jh...@UMassD.Edu, Leon Hsu <lh...@umn.edu>
References: <1806...@newprancer.Dartmouth.EDU>
Professor Webb,
Thank you for letting me know about this situation. You are
absolutely correct in thinking that our work on Taiji Relativity is
not a repudiation of Einstein's work at all. As you know, abundant
experimental evidence exists showing the utility of special relativity
for predicting and explaining physical phenomena.
"Taiji relativity" is a formulation of special relativity which is
operationally equivalent to writing the Lorentz transformations using the
same units for length and time (as done by Taylor and Wheeler in
Spacetime Physics [an excellent book on special relativity]). However,
I also proposed a slightly different conceptual interpretation of
relativity (just as quantum mechanics has different conceptual
interpretations which are all operationally identical
[Note: Quantum theory is formulated in two main alternative but
equivalent ways: the "Schrödinger picture," in which the Hermitian
operators representing observables are fixed but the state vectors
undergo unitary time evolution according to Schrödinger's equation, and
the "Heisenberg picture," in which the state vectors are fixed but the
Hermitian operators undergo unitary time evolution. The two viewpoints
are completely equivalent logically, and picking which one to use is a
matter of convention, like deciding whether to measure distance in miles
or in furlongs. (In particular, declaring one viewpoint to be correct
and the other one wrong because it is "dystopian" would be as silly as
declaring furlongs to be the natural unit for measuring distance because
measurement in miles would be "dystopian.") In the same way, taiji
relativity is operationally identical to special relativity.]
), and also tried to show how this different conceptual interpretation
could extend the utility of relativity (for example, it could simplify
calculations of relativistic many-particle systems, and could be used to
write down an invariant Planck's law for the blackbody radiation).*
More recently, my work has been focused on trying to extend the
Lorentz transformations to accelerated frames. [...]
I do feel that trying to argue with cranks is hopeless task and in fact,
that arguing with them might inadvertently lend them some legitimacy in
some people's eyes, so please don't trouble yourself to post a response
from me. I can only hope that readers of her posts will take note of the
source and view her claims about the work of others in a skeptical light.
If you find anything of interest in my papers, my collaborator Leon and
I would be happy to discuss those with you further.
Again, thanks for your e-mail,
*cf. "Lorentz and Poincare Invariance--100 years of Relativity" (Hsu
and Zhang, World Scientific, 2001).
--
Jong-Ping Hsu,
Chancellor Professor of Physics
Director of Graduate Program
UMass Dartmouth,
North Dartmouth, MA 02747. FAX (508)999-9115
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is really a pity that Elizabeth is evidently ineducable, as the book
by Taylor and Wheeler mentioned by Hsu is truly beautiful, and is
accessible to anyone who knows even rudimentary single-variable
calculus. Hsu's own book is also quite fascinating, although it is
regrettably far beyond Elizabeth's level. However, here is a quotation
culled at random:
"Having said all this, Einstein is generally considered to have a more
proufound understanding of physical space, time, and relativity. In
the early years, Lorentz was probably in the best position to
appreciate and assess the works of Poincaré and Einstein. He was
particularly impressed by 'a remarkable reciprocity that has been
pointed out by Einstein' and credited Einstein for 'making us see in
the negative result of experiments like those of Michelson, Rayleigh
and Brace, not a fortuitous compensation of opposing effects, but the
manifestation of a general and fundamental principle' 15"
Hsu, _Einstein's Relativity and Beyond_, p. 74.
In summary, Hsu has developed a fascinating viewpoint in his "taiji
relativity," one that permits greater flexibility in calculations and
greater interpretive freedom. However, far from overturning or
correcting Einstein's theory, the theory of Hsu and his collaborators
reduces to Einstein's theory in the simplest case.
However, even when Elizabeth's hilarious howlers are conclusively
refuted, she is utterly impervious to such demonstrations. Apparently
she still believes that Old English was a spoken language as late the as
1800s, for example! Thus I don't expect her to abandon her irrational
animus toward Einstein, based as it is upon complete ignorance. One can
imagine several possible ways she might avoid introducing hard facts
into the hermetically sealed alternative reality that she inhabits:
(1) She might opine that Hsu has overturned Einstein's work, but that he
doesn't realize it.
(2) She might merely repeat her risible assertion that the indefinite
flat geometry of Minkowski space is "hyperbolic geometry" (which is in
fact positive-definite and nonflat).
(3) She might decide that Hsu's work is "dystopian" (since it reproduces
Einstein's theory in a special case), repudiate it, and turn her
uninformed attention to the work of some other genuine expert whom she
can farcically misconstrue.
(4) She might return to parroting the nutcase anti-Einsteinian web pages
from which she appears to have formed her preposterous anti-Einstein
prejudice in the first place.
Whatever she does, she will not have learned anything, even from
Professor Hsu himself, of whose work she plainly has not read a word,
and of which she has understood even less. Arguing with cranks is
indeed a hopeless task, but at least I hope that this incident will
induce Elizabeth to refrain from citing Hsu and other genuine scientists
as unwilling supporting witnesses for Elizabeth's own pure crankery.
> As far as 'anything else' is concerned, I am just smart enough
> to perceive (dyslexia has an up side, Groves, and that is the
> ability to visually 'map' problems) that the Virginia Company
> is the key to Shakespeare authorship--
I thought that the Elizabeth said that the Strachey letter was the
key.
> I first posted on the Virginia
> Company two years ago--and as a result have deprived Kathman
> and Stratfordianism of the Strachey letter.
> > > > Now, do you know what it means?
> > I notice you don't answer this. Funny, that.
> I cited Baugh. Isn't Baugh good enough for you?
> I know what an auxiliary verb is, Groves. It's inelegantly
> called a 'helping verb' where I live.
> > > And (more to the purpose)
> > >
> > > Right, change the subject after I found 20 examples of Baugh's
> > > 'illogical should.'
> > > > persist in your insane belief that Shakespeare spoke some version of
> > > > Old
> > > > English, or has the light of reason twinkled on the horizon (I'm not
> > *too*
> > > > sanguine)?
> > > I'm sure your poodle finds that kind of nattering
> > > riveting but I do not, Groves.
That may be because Peter's poodle can distinguish Old English from
Modern English, a distinction that it is becoming increasingly clear is
well beyond Elizabeth's capacity.
> > > Here's a report from Somerset on the state of its
> > > Anglo-Saxon dialect in 1971. I'll skip past the OE
> > > words and pronunciation and get to the verbs:
> > >
> > > The verb To Be is used in the old form, I be,
> > > Thee bist, He be, We be, Thee 'rt, They be.
> > And you think this is Old English? You're an ignorant idiot.
> No. I don't think it is 'Old English' per se. I stated in my second
> post--after Dr. Commiemarxist
"Commiemarxist"?! One hesitates to explain a joke, but in the case
of someone as slow on the uptake as Elizabeth, it cannot be helped.
Groucho Marx famously declared "I donšt care to belong to any club that
will have me as a member." Likewise, I noted that I could not in good
conscience speak at a Shakespeare conference that would permit an
ignoramus like myself to speak. Thus I am a Marxist in the trivial and
jocular sense of a follower of Groucho, not Karl, Marx. However, I
doubt that even this explanation will enlighten Elizabeth -- she
probably thinks that Karl Marx was just one of the brethren, along with
Groucho, Harpo, Chico, etc.
> pointed out that it was the first,
> not the second, definition of 'inflection' that applied--that Danish
> had STRIPPED the inflection from Old English.
In other words, Elizabeth had not the remotest clue what she was
talking about -- as usual.
> The West and South shires are not speaking Old English ca 1065,
> they are speaking *dialects of Old English* also 'Old English dialects'
> as the dialectologists put it, as opposed to the Anglo-Danish dialects
> of the East Midlands and North East. The original Anglian dialect
> of the East Anglian kingdom was close to Danish, then got a
> Danish overlay after the Danelaw. The local dialects--and they still
> exist--in those areas are not influenced by Old English.
Then why did Elizabeth opine that Old English was spoken as late the
1800s? This is even funnier than her glosses of "Verulam" and
"shake-scene"!
> > > 'Had I known I wouldn't have gone', is 'If I'd
> > > a-know'd I 'ooden never a-went';
> > Ah yes: isn't there a rather similar line in <Beowulf> (or is it <The
> > Battle
> > of Maldon>)?
> Heh.
> > > 'A' is the
> > > old way of denoting the past tense, and went
> > > is from the verb to wend (Anglo-Saxon wendan).
> > So we *all" speak Old English, do we?
> No, Groves. Half our daily vocabulary and 62 or the 64
> words of the Lord's Prayer are Old English words but
> we don't 'all' speak Old English. I have no idea what
> they speak in Australia.
Elizabeth evidently doesn't even recognize the tongue in which Peter
is writing, which explains a great deal.
> > Or don't you use "went" as the
> > suppletive preterite of "go"?
> The 'ooden' above is OE.
> > > Infinitives are often formed by the addition
> > > of y; 'I can thatch' is 'I d'thatchy'; 'I must
> > > go and milk' is 'I must milky'.
> > Oh yes: *just* like Old English. You're an ignorant idiot.
> There's no hard 'e' ending in German. That's probably from NF.
And the relevance of this to Peter's comment is...?
> > > No, I'm not finished. There will be more.
> > >
> > > Elizabeth
> > If this means that you *do* still persist in the belief that Shakespeare
> > spoke some version of Old English,
> Warwickshire is not in the East Midlands dialect area.
> The West dialects have a much higher content of OE
> words, OE syntax (in OE the word order was arbitrary
> because the inflections kept the meanings intact
> despite the syntax, and when the inflections were lost
> the scrambled syntaxes tended to linger on) and some remnants
> of the German inflections.
>
> I never suggested that the Stratford butcher spoke
> 11th century Anglo-Saxon but in the realm of British
> dialects, he spoke 'an OE dialect' opposed to a ME
> dialect or an EME dialect.
>
> Stop oversimplifying my argument
WHAT "argument"?
> so you can call me
> an idiot.
Elizabeth's earlier posts on relativity, on "shake-scene," on
"Verulam," etc. would have already sufficed for that end long ago had
that been Peter's goal.
> These dialects lasted into modern times. The
> last speaker of pure Cornish died in 1798 (yes, I know
> Cornish is Celtic
Now that someone has pointed it out....
> but it shows the persistence of old
> dialects).
> > then I'm afraid I have to tell you that
> > you're an unteachable moron. Since you're insensible
> > to facts you won't, of course, register this.
> Unteachable moron to you, owner of the Strachey letter
> to Kathman.
I really doubt that Dave Kathman is losing much sleep over
Elizabeth's supposed ownership of the Strachey letter.
> Elizabeth
Bob Grumman
> only makes sense on the assumption that, by the 16th century,
> Warwickshire was still speaking Old English?
Hey, at least she seems to accept that Will Shaksprghnk could speak
SOME language--even though we have no evidence that he could.
--Bob G.
Richie Miller
Richie
Richie Miller
R
Elizabeth Weir
> In article <efbc3534.03102...@posting.google.com>,
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:<YA6lb.159799$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:efbc3534.03102...@posting.google.com...
I've glanced through your post, Webb.
What's missing is your admission to Hsu that you're a
head case who has stalked me through thread after thead of
this forum demanding that I show evidence that 'Southampton
was not a cross-dresser, that shake-scene doesn't mean
'scenery mover,' and what was it -- 140 posts that you wrote
to Art on 'Agnes a gob'
You wrote a mere -- 4 9 -- posts on the Minkowski nag.
Searched Groups for minkowski group:humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
author:david author:webb. Results 1 - 10 of about 49.
You're lucky that I'm protective of you, Webb, because
if I didn't feel that I need to take care of your professional
standing I would send Hsu an e-mail with exhibits of your
ravings.
Elizabeth
Dave Kathman
Just when I think Elizabeth's posts can't get any funnier, she goes
and tops herself. This is an absolute classic.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
David L. Webb
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<david.l.webb-ECF8...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
> > In article <efbc3534.03102...@posting.google.com>,
> > elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > > "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<YA6lb.159799$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:efbc3534.03102...@posting.google.com...
> I've glanced through your post, Webb.
>
> What's missing is your admission to Hsu that you're a
> head case
It is rather ironic being called a "head case" by someone who has
written complete nonsense like
"Prof. JP Hsu at UMass spent his entire professional career--
close to 40 years--'agonizing over whether the basic principles
of special relativity are correct' and found them wanting."
and
"You don't want to talk about it because if JP Hsu is right,
you're wrong and I'm right. I argued essentially what Hsu
proved--that L-P relativity underlies Einstein's rhetorical
shell, that the speed of light is local and that there is an
ether, something that Einstein had to start backing into as
soon as he made his unscientific announcement that it didn't
exist."
and
"Einstein's STR never had a full minute of peer review except
for the editorial board at Annalen Der Physik which later
signaled its regret by reprinting Gerber's calculations for
the parahelion [sic] of Mercury which were supiciously [sic]
identical to Einstein's."
and
"You're trying to obscure the substance of the
debate by reciting textbook rote on tensors and
zero metrics [sic! There are no "zero metrics" in relativity, as
the metric tensor is nondegenerate] but but [sic] tensors and
zero metrics are not in dispute."
and
"As far as Einstein is concerned, Webb can't answer to the fact
that his Dartmouth colleague [sic! Elizabeth cannot distinguish
U. Mass. Dartmouth, a branch campus of the public U. Mass system
located, as the name strongy suggests, in Massachussets, from
Dartmouth College, a private, Ivy League institution in another
state entirely] physics Professor J.P. Hsu can throw out Einstein's
superflous Second Postulate and still have a complete working
relativity theory that is consistent with quantum physics [sic!
As Professor Hsu himself points out, his taiji relativity INCLUDES
Einstein's theory as a special case, so any incompatibility or
inconsistency in special relativity would perforce be present in
taiji relativity as well], because, Laila, to admit to Lorenzian
relativity would prove that Einstein was a plagiarist. And a
pathological liar. And a fool because Hsu [and others] demonstrate
that Einstein's equations were not 'derived' from Einstein's
'thought experiments' but were swiped from physics journals
that landed on his desk at the Berne Patent Office [sic!! Hsu
says nothing of the kind; plainly, Elizabeth has not read Hsu].
All of the various parts that Einstein plagiarized were in print
before Einstein mailed his paper to the Annalen der Physik and
Einstein would have seen all the papers while checking priority
on patents [sic!]."
and
"Einsteinian relativity is on the wane and Neo-Lorentzian theory is
replacing it.
Your Darthmouth colleague [sic AGAIN!], Professor J.P. Hsu is a
Neo-Lorentzian. There are many more out there."
and
"Space is space and it can be described by any geometry. As a
mathematician you should know that."
and
"Contrary to Webb's claim I've read the latest paper at the
bottom of Hsu's list 'General-Linear-Accelerated Transformations
of Spacetime" [Where did Elizabeth read that?]
and
"Not a coincidence that Minkowski's spacetime is hyperbolic
geometry [sic] and uses Poincare's equasion [sic]."
and
"Minkowski did not publish his paper until 1908. That means that
Einstein plagerized [sic] the equasion [sic] from Poincare before
Minkowski plagerized [sic] it from Poincare."
and
"The Princeton physicist Dr. Arthur Young [a physical physicist
not a metaphysical physicist like The Plagiarist] observed that
three rotating Lorentz' transformations leave no room for
Minkowski's fourth dimension. I believe I pointed out earlier
that Minkowski's theories don't respond to experimental verification."
and
"Einstein was not utilizing a tool. He was stealing equasions [sic].
If they had been copywrighted [sic] Poincare could have sued."
-- not to mention the classic
"OE was still spoken in some shires until the 1800s."
> who has stalked me through thread after thead of
> this forum
That's odd -- I thought that h.l.a.s. was an unmoderated forum in
which anyone was free to post followups. In any case, unlike you, I
have refrained from calling my interlocutor a sexist, a racist, and a
Nazi -- all without the slightest jusitifcation or evidence, of course.
> demanding that I show evidence that 'Southampton
> was not a cross-dresser,
You are manifestly confused here. What I asked you to post was
evidence for your comic pronouncment that
"Southampton was overly fond of drag and used to hang about the
theatres hoping to play female roles. He was given a few parts
and was apparently very convincing as a girl."
Evidently you've forgotten that you claimed that Southampton WAS a
cross-dresser, not that he was not.
> that shake-scene doesn't mean
> 'scenery mover,'
Well, why DON'T you exhibit the source for that gem? Because you
just made it up? That's what I thought.
As for Professor Hsu, he is a distinguished scientist who has
contributed to several very interesting areas in theoretical physics; as
such he is quite capable of making up his own mind that you are
grotesquely misrepresenting his work, work which you quite plainly have
not read, and which you manifestly would not understand even if you did.
> and what was it -- 140 posts that you wrote
> to Art on 'Agnes a gob'
>
> You wrote a mere -- 4 9 -- posts on the Minkowski nag.
Many of those posts were sincere attempts to inform. For instance,
the first on the list contains the following:
--------------------------------------
"I have already mentioned the Minkowski model of hyperbolic space as
the most probable source for Weir's ridiculous misconception that
Minkowski space is hyperbolic geometry. Indeed, when Weir earlier wrote
"Minkowski's spacetime is hyperbolic geometry," I explained:
"For the fifth time, the Minkowski spacetime of Special Relativity
is *NOT* "hyperbolic geometry": Minkowksi space has an *indefinite*
(semi-Riemannian) metric tensor, while hyperbolic geometry has a
*definite* (Riemannian) metric tensor; moreover, the Minkowski
spacetime of Special Relativity is *flat*, i.e., *not curved at
all*, while the hyperbolic metric has constant curvature -1....
I have *no idea* where you got the absurd notion that a flat,
indefinite space is "hyperbolic"; my best guess is that you are
confusing this issue with the fact that hyperbolic 2-space (the
"Poincaré disk") can be isometrically embedded in Minkowski 3-space."
The well-known isometric embedding of hyperbolic 2-space into Minkowski
3-space mentioned in my last sentence above is *precisely* the
so-called Minkowski model of hyperbolic space whose definition Weir has
so completely misunderstood, exactly as I suspected.
However, the geometry on hyperbolic space inherited from this
enbedding is *NOT* Minkowski geometry. To furnish an analogy which
everyone (except Weir) should be able to understand, an ordinary
2-dimensional sphere embeds isometrically into ordinary Euclidean
3-space. Yet the geometry on the sphere inherited from its ambient
3-space is *NOT* Euclidean geometry. If Weir doubts this, she should
consider the geodesic triangle on the earth whose edges are the
Greenwich meridian (from the north pole to the equator), the 90-degree
longitude meridian (from pole to equator), and the segment of the
equator from the Greenwich meridian to the 90-degree longitude
meridian. This triangle has right angles at all three of its vertices,
yet the sum of the angles of any Euclidean triangle must add up to 180
degrees. Thus the geometry of the sphere is *not* Euclidean (since it
has a triangle whose angle sum exceeds 180 degrees), despite the fact
that the sphere is isometrically embedded in a flat Euclidean 3-space.
(Indeed, this example exhibits in rudimentary form the celebrated
Gauss-Bonnet theorem which relates curvature with the phenomon of
holonomy -- one is detecting the sphere's positive curvature.) In a
similar way, the Poincaré model of hyperbolic geometry embeds
isometrically into Minkowski 3-space, yet its geometry is emphatically
*not* that of its ambient Minkowski space; indeed, the hyperboloid with
the induced metric has a *definite* metric tensor of constant curvature
-1, while Minkowski space itself (the geometry of special relativity)
has an *indefinite*, *flat* metric tensor. This means, for example,
that geodesics on the hyperboloid are *not* straight lines in 3-space,
as they are in the ambient Minkowski 3-space.
In fact, hyperbolic geometry has been known since Gauss; Minkowski
geometry is a comparatively recent geometry, devised by Minkowski for
the pupose of "geometrizing" special relativity. Minkowski geometry is
*not* hyperbolic geometry, nor is it Euclidean (although it shares the
property of flatness with Euclidean geometry).
------------------------------------------------
Here's an excerpt from the second hit for "Minkowski" authored by me:
--------------------------------------
In any case, you are *still* hopelessly confused and utterly
clueless about a very fundamental point: while the causal isometries of
the Minkowski plane are called "hyperbolic rotations" because they
involve the hyperbolic functions, the geometry of the Minkowski plane
*is NOT(!)* hyperbolic geometry! The hyperbolic plane (also called the
Poincaré plane, which serves as the venue of Poincaré's celebrated work
in what is now called hyperbolic geometry) has a *positive-definite*,
*nonflat* metric tensor, while the Minkowski plane has an *indefinite*,
*flat* metric tensor. The two spaces are vastly different, and it is
the Minkowski geometry, *not* the hyperbolic geometry investigated by
Poincaré in his work on Fuschsian groups, that plays a crucial role in
relativity theory (Poincaré's contribution to the theory of relativity
was quite different, and his theory was formulated *dynamically*, *not*
geometrically, as you could have learned from the quotation I posted if
you understood even the rudiments of either French or of mathematics).
In short, you are being misled by terminology of which you have not
the faintest understanding. Try to understand, lest you continue to
make a complete ass of yourself, as you've been doing for months:
"hyperbolic rotations" are *not* the geometric transformations that
arise in hyperbolic geometry, but rather in *Minkowski geometry*; the
group of geometric transformations of *hyperbolic geometry* is what is
called SL2, the group of linear fractional transformations, *not* the
hyperbolic rotations. Poincaré investigated the geometry of the
*hyperbolic plane*, *not* the Minkowski plane; it is the latter that
would prove crucial in modern formulations of special relativity, hence
in the myriad quantum field theories devised during the last century.
------------------------------------------------------
Here is the third in its entirety:
----------------------------------------
Special relativity makes use of the Lorentz geometry on Minkowski
space (an inner product which is not positive-definite), so in the
sense that the geometry of Minkowski space is not even Riemannian, it's
also not Euclidean (vectors can have negative length, or they can be
perpendicular to themselves, etc.). Indeed, the resulting causal
structure of Minkowski space is a crucial aspect of its geometry. The
geometry underlying special relativity is "Euclidean" only if you
interpret the term "Euclidean" to include flat *pseudo-Riemannian*
geometry as well as flat Riemannian geometry, as you apparently do.
Indeed, this point is the reason that I distinguished two uses of the
term "non-Euclidean":
(1) Any geometry that is *not* the familiar flat Riemannian geometry
of ordinary Euclidean n-space (this would include the flat Lorentz
geometry of special relativity as a non-Euclidean geometry), or
(2) A nonflat constant-curvature Riemannian geometry (this is the
"classical" non-Euclidean geometry of Bolyai, Gauss, etc., and is the
sense used in many popularizations that recount the discovery of
hyperbolic geometry).
It is quite true that what distinguishes special relativity from
general relativity is that spacetime in the former case has zero
curvature (the spacetime is a linear space with a Lorentz inner
product) while the spacetime in the latter case can have nonvanishing
curvature (it is a Lorentz *manifold* rather than a linear space).
It's also true that mass-energy equivalence is a special relativistic
notion. However, practically nobody these days would call the geometry
of special relativity "Euclidean"; rather, one expresses the point
you're raising by saying that Minkowski space is flat. In that sense,
John Kennedy is right that non-Euclidean geometry already arises in the
special theory.
----------------------------------------
Here are the mentions of Minkowski in the fourth of the 49 hits:
---------------------------------------
I've both read and quoted Poincaré; Weir seems unable even to read
the text, perhaps because it's in French. I noted explicitly that
Poincaré's paper concerns *dynamics*, *not* kinematics (in contrast to
Einstein's celebrated 1905 paper, whose very first section is entitled
"Kinematischer Teil") or geometry (the geometrization of relativity
came later, with Minkowski's insight concerning the importance of the
invariance of the interval and its geometric formulation, and in
Einstein's formulation of General Relativity, a theory couched almost
entirely in terms of semi-Riemannian geometry).
[...]
What *on earth* can Weir be gibbering about? Weir wrote: "Minkowski
said that 'the credit for the development of the general principle
belongs to Einstein, Poincare and Plank [sic]. . .'" Of course, Weir's
*own "quotation"* of Minkowski shows Minkowski clearly assigning
primary credit for the discovery to Einstein.
-----------------------------------------
And there are many more mentions of Minkowski of the same sort. None of
these is a "nag"; rather, all are sincere attempts to explain genuine
mathematical, physical, and historical content. If there were the
slightest hope of your understanding a word of it, I would exhort to
read them again. I also enjoined you to read Taylor and Wheeler so as
to have at least some idea what you were talking about before making a
fool of yourself. That you are evidently incapable of comprehending any
of it is very sad; I would probably have had better luck trying to
enlighten Peter's poodle.
> Searched Groups for minkowski group:humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
> author:david author:webb. Results 1 - 10 of about 49.
Once again, you demonstrate conclusively that you cannot even use a
search engine competently.
David L. Webb
dj...@ix.netcom.com (Dave Kathman) wrote:
I don't know how she can possibly surpass this, but somehow she
always manages to do so every time I think that she has reached the
pinnacle of comedic genius. I don't know whether you've been following
her recent effusions or not, Dave; here are some highlights that I
suspect that you might find especially amusing:
"I wonder if Seymour wasn't Oxford's father. The minatures of
Seymour--one of them is very fine--look like Oxford. The
discription [sic] of his personality is very much like Oxford's--
he had great physical energy, was violent, ambitious,
impetutous [sic]. Seymour was definitely in the sack with Elizabeth
according to eye witness accounts. Surrey isn't that far from
Suffolk only Middlesex separates the two. I think a new born might
survive the trip. Speaking of the Danelaw."
"The Standard Dialect can be read and written by people who, for
example, speak an Elizabethan West Virginian dialect at home."
"O[ld] E[nglish] was still spoken in some shires until the 1800s."
"The Shakespeare plays are about the evolution of political
institutions but the record of the conduct of the Stratford Menace
in his home shire proves that there is no way in hell, Grumman,
that sucn an Immoral Beast could have written the Shakespeare works
which, as Yamada stated, form republics where they are translated."
[Evidently Elizabeth is unaware of Chinese translations of Shakespeare's
works.]
"So after looking for a week, this is about all I can find on the
Immortal Pest's Warwickshire dialect which tells me that the Pest's
Warwickshire dialect is a dirty little secret kept hidden the way
these things are when nobody wants to be the first to puncture the
paradigm."
"...the Virginia Company is the key to Shakespeare authorship--I
first posted on the Virginia Company two years ago--and as a result
have deprived Kathman and Stratfordianism of the Strachey letter."
"Unteachable moron to you, owner of the Strachey letter to Kathman."
"The only reason you get away with the Big Fat Lie is that only a
handful of scholars have dared to investigate 'four layers of
metaphor' in any of Bacon's phrases. When you're the victim of
discrimination by scholars enrolled in RACIST IDEOLOGY things
move very slowly indeed."
"No. I've got the quote somewhere. It was a Strat who said it.
I'll see if I can find in my thousands of files with Bill Gates'
totally crappy one word at a time search engine. Why can't we own
a copy of Google to search our HD's Grumman. Why? Why is life so
unfair?"
"East Midland dialect (also called East Anglian-Oxford-
Cambridge-Chancery-London-Chaucerian-Shakespearean [sic!]
English) developed inside the Danelaw but unfortunately for
Strats, your guy spoke a Saxon (Wessex, West Midland)
dialogue [sic! Elizabeth evidently doesn't know a dialect
from a dialogue. Perhaps that's why she was carrying on a
dialogue with herself in a recent thread]. Stratford was well
outside the Danelaw."
Elizabeth has been in such fine form recently that I've begun reading
her posts first. I don't think that even Faker at his best could top
this.