Author Topic: Croatian toponyms  (Read 2804 times)

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1581
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: Croatian toponyms
« Reply #75 on: November 14, 2017, 02:15:03 PM »
Let's put it this way:

At least FlatAssembler is enrolled in the class, while you're some random stranger throwing rocks in the window.

As for contribution, what I meant was that you could do something other than complain about the ideas others suggest.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline LinguistSkeptic

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 31
Re: Croatian toponyms
« Reply #76 on: November 25, 2017, 09:58:05 AM »
How do you mean FlatAssembler is enrolled in a class? He is an amateur who's not willing to learn why his theories may be wrong. When he faces some opposition, he runs away from the forum and makes some ugly website about his ideas.

And why do you keep insisting that the Proto-Indo-European hypothesis has the same scientific value as the theory of evolution? Social sciences don't appear to be real sciences. Trusting the mainstream social sciences has brought us things such as socialism and communism. Seems to me that I am better off thinking with my own head than trusting you guys.

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1581
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: Croatian toponyms
« Reply #77 on: November 25, 2017, 12:10:20 PM »
That was a metaphor, of course. What I am saying is clear: he is interested in and aware of general theories in Linguistics. You do not seem to be.

Compare this to learning mathematics: he seems to be trying to understand how math works (and potentially make a contribution) while you are just saying "math is stupid! I don't believe in numbers!" It's tiring, and pointless.

Even if FlatAssembler is wrong, that's like getting a math problem on homework wrong. That is: at least he's trying to learn, and he is doing it within the normal methodology of linguistics. Maybe right, maybe wrong.

Overall, you're mixing up two things:
1) Whether or not FlatAssembler is correct.
2) Whether general theories in linguistics are valid.

If FlatAssembler makes a mistake, that does not mean Proto-Indo-European is an invalid hypothesis.

It is incredibly frustrating and repetitive trying to explain this to you. We have both clearly wasted enough time on the conversation. If you say "I don't believe in numbers", then I'll tell you: "Then don't do math." And that's where things seem to be about Linguistics.

FlatAssembler is doing Linguistics. (Maybe right, maybe wrong.) You are not.

Quote
Social sciences don't appear to be real sciences. Trusting the mainstream social sciences has brought us things such as socialism and communism. Seems to me that I am better off thinking with my own head than trusting you guys.
Nonsense, but OK. Yes, please, go away.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2017, 12:13:15 PM by Daniel »
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.