I just made an observation that his arguments make the most sense to a layman.
Why should that be important for a
technical question? It would be like me walking into an advanced graduate course in biochemistry and giving my uninformed opinion after the lecture.
I didn't mean to respond
too harshly, but without something more substantive in a response (as you have now written), how else should I reply?
FlatAssembler argues that:
A) The mainstream etymology of the Croatian toponyms is very flawed. His arguments make some sense.
The current proposals are somewhat weak in supporting evidence. (My early comments here to FlatAssembler warned that it will be hard to provide more compelling evidence for competing theories as well though!)
B) Many Croatian toponyms are explicable using an ancient language called PIE. Most of his arguments are not even comprehensible (to me, nor to LinguistSkeptic and apparently also not to Daniel).
Proto-Indo-European is not a fringe theory in any sense. It's been an accepted hypothesis that every linguist knows about, since the late 1700s. The
details (like exactly where or when it was spoken) are up for debate, but its existence and some of its general properties are not. In fact, only fringe theories would deny that PIE existed!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_languageWithout knowing that, I can understand how this thread would read oddly. But that's the fault of history classes not teaching about PIE, not the fault of us talking about shared technical knowledge.
Read the quote below from William Jones in 1786--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jones_(philologist)
The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.
All of that turned out to be correct, and is accepted in modern Linguistics.
---
C) PIE is, contrary to the mainstream linguistics, related to another ancient language, called PAN. Most of his arguments make no sense (for example, he supposes the the words like "ser" and "qalur" are related), but some do (like that "danu" and "danaw" are related).
1. Proto-Austronesian is another widely accepted hypothesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Austronesian_language2. However, there is NO widely accepted theory that PIE and PAN are directly related in any sense. That's implausible (how would people move between central Eurasia to/from Taiwan many thousands of years ago, before the invention of the wheel, etc.), and just not supported by any substantial evidence. The proposed related words are just coincidence. I told FlatAssembler this at the time (in contrast to LinguistSkeptic constantly repeating that I unquestioningly support everything FlatAssembler has said).
3. Regardless, a potential relationship between PIE and PAN is irrelevant to the rest of this discussion. That was a tangent.
A) FlatAssembler's etymologies are possibly true, but not much more likely than the mainstream Croatian etymology is. Daniel defends mainstream Croatian etymology with arguments that don't really make sense to a layman, nor to FlatAssembler. Nevertheless, he encourages FlatAssembler to continue his work.
I'm simply saying we don't have enough clear evidence to be able to make an informed decision about which proposal is correct. I don't know enough to decide between the two hypotheses. This is a data question, not a methodology question. The main warnings I gave FlatAssembler were about reading too much into little data and that there may be some coincidences. Yes, I did encourage the continued pursuit of these hypotheses (if that interests FlatAssembler, and it seems to), because maybe some clearer evidence will pop up. The best way to pursue them would be to find evidence against the other proposals, that can falsify those. I have no idea if such data exists, but if so, that is a strong argument that some other proposal (such as FlatAssembler's) should be taken seriously. I have also suggested FlatAssembler look into the norms of publication on topology because that isn't my area so I'm not sure what counts as 'sufficient evidence' to take a new proposal seriously. That allow some concrete goals to be set (or to know when continuing to pursue the question is no longer productive).
B) FlatAssembler's idea that PIE and PAN are related is implausible, and his arguments are fallacious. Daniel's counter-arguments don't really make sense to a layman either.
Correct, but as I said above, that was a tangent and not related to the main question here. I did point out that if data is being misinterpreted in that case, it's worth double-checking it in other cases though!
Simplified explanation of that: sometimes words in unrelated languages sound similar. For example, Japanese "namae" means "name", and it seems like those words could be related, but there is no historical/linguistic reason at all to believe they actually are. When languages actually are related, there are many more (and more systematic) similarities.
LinguistSkeptic argues that:
A) FlatAssembler's methodology is extremely flawed, and would lead to outright absurdities if applied to modern languages. His arguments are fairly convincing to a layman. FlatAssembler and Daniel claim that LinguistSkeptic has misunderstood what FlatAssembler was doing, but apparently don't bother too much to explain how.
To put it bluntly, LinguistSkeptic's apparent counter-argument are as uninformed and transparently irrelevant as a creationist's arguments against evolution. He might as well be saying "dinosaurs are still alive in Africa!".
I wouldn't be able to explain the entire theory of evolution here, nor everything about historical linguistics. Even if I tried, you would probably find it to be "technical for the layman", which is fair, and which is why I'm not trying to write a book here explaining the established methodologies of the field. But none of it is a secret. See these Wikipedia articles for example, which do a reasonable job of explaining it "to a layman":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguisticshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_reconstructionI have taught classes on exactly this, and would invite you to take one of them if that was practical. Other than that, I could recommend a textbook.
People who read this thread probably want to inform themselves about Croatian toponyms, and other things discussed here, and make some conclusions by themselves. So, why do you think people shouldn't choose the LinguistSkeptic's position?
Because from the beginning, this was not a
teaching thread. This was a technical question about a proposed theory. That's like saying every scientific advance should be made with the needs of an introductory class in mind, in case any first year undergrads happen to be listening. Those are just two completely unrelated things, and this thread has never been meant to be accessible to someone without a background. There are dozens or hundreds of threads here that are. There's no reason we can't have both on a forum.
If there were two astrologers arguing about something about astrology, and there comes a skeptic who argues that the methods they use are highly flawed, shouldn't people take the skeptic's position?
Really? Let's say gravity, black holes, evolution, and nuclear weapons all seem weird to some skeptic. So, should we all be skeptical of that? To be clear, the skeptic has no informed reasons, and in fact the main reasons for the confusion are due to ignorance (and I guess skepticism).
I'd be interested to hear a bit more about your practical epistemological philosophy.
Evidence, and citations. And having a general grasp of at least the basic data (as well as any theories you want to argue against).
Sorry, but "I don't get it" isn't a valid counter-argument.
The only thing I agree with is that you are correct in pointing out that a layman's brain probably shuts off somewhere a few paragraphs into the technical details of this argument, and they might walk away thinking it was just too technical, so they weren't convinced. And that's fine. Remember, this thread isn't about convincing anyone. It's
about discussing technical details. If you'd like to be convinced, we can start a new thread about that and talk about something with much less sketchy data than ancient Croatian toponyms.
---
Sincerely, I really wish we could move on from discussing how confusing and technical the proposed explanation for Croatian toponyms is. I agree with you! (That doesn't mean FlatAssembler is wrong: the proposal here is about as confusing and technical as I would expect for explaining ancient toponyms with limited data!)
So, anyone want to start a thread about a new or more general topic, say in the Historical Linguistics forum? This thread is meant for FlatAssembler to express ideas about a particular theory, and that is the entire purpose of this subform, "outside of the box"-- that's why it was added to the forum! (Read the rules in the sticky thread here if you'd like to know more. It was completely appropriate for FlatAssembler to post this type of thread here because this is for new and controversial ideas to be expressed/discussed.)
And to be clear, FlatAssembler should be welcome to continue discussing this theory here (again, that's the point of this sub-forum). But this thread has been dragged so far on a tangent at this point I don't know if FlatAssembler will continue to do so. (It makes me think I should revise the rules for the sub-forum so that any replies going too far off topic will simply be removed in order to let the original poster actually have a conversation about their proposal, regardless of how implausible it may seem to some. Again, that's the point of this sub-forum!)