Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by Daniel on Today at 08:10:53 AM »
So, why does FlatAssembler suppose that the PIE word "yos" existed and meant "spring"?
It's a hypothesis. There are dictionaries of proposed Indo-European etymologies. Wiktionary has a number of entries and that's quick to access. There are other more comprehensive published sources.
FlatAssembler, that is a reasonable question: what is your source for 'yos'?
I'm not seeing it on a quick search. But my area of expertise/interest in this is not about lexical items in PIE. I'm not too familiar with all of the proposed roots. I assume you have a source for it, and you might be able to explain this to LinguistSkeptic.

And why do you accept that?
I haven't "accepted" anything. I've just given advice about methodology.


The alternative you seem to be proposing (by implication) is that we assume everything is wrong. If we do that, then there's very little to try to understand. Science is full of hypotheses, many of which are built on other hypotheses.

You wrote elsewhere that you don't like assuming things (e.g., hypotheses) as facts. That's fine. But there's also a big difference between that and actively rejecting everything. A reasonable approach in science is making contingent predictions (layered hypotheses). It's possible that the foundations of an argument are false, in which case the secondary argument is also false. That's how science works. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do science. That means that, yes, if "yos" isn't a relevant root for whatever reason, the hypothesis proposed here is also incorrect. But by exploring these possibilities we may learn something.

What is your goal in this conversation? Do you want to learn more about hypotheses? Or do you want to just keep suggesting that any given hypothesis might be wrong? If so, you're correct. And your point has been made. And you should probably avoid the whole field of Historical Linguistics, because it's full of this stuff. That doesn't mean we can't learn anything, but apparently you don't like uncertainty, and that's most of what there is. On the other hand, there are different levels of uncertainty, and if you have trouble believing Latin was ever a spoken language, then basically all hope is lost for you finding less documented areas of Historical Linguistics (e.g., most of it) to be insightful. In that case, I am having trouble figuring out why you're here. I'm attempting to treat your questions as genuine questions, but if your position is simply that you're skeptical, then why should I try to convince you otherwise? Am I making any progress? If not, I don't mind if you don't agree with me, but why are we still discussing it? Should we continue?
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by LinguistSkeptic on Today at 07:44:22 AM »
So, why does FlatAssembler suppose that the PIE word "yos" existed and meant "spring"? And why do you accept that?
Linguist's Lounge / Re: Introduction Thread
« Last post by LinguistSkeptic on Today at 07:42:14 AM »
So, as some of you already know, I am interested in linguistics, but I don't like it when controversial things are stated as fact.
How can you put all the conspiracy theorists in the same box? Even if I am disagreeing with the mainstream linguistics, that's a lot less wrong than disagreeing with the mainstream fluid dynamics, because linguistics is a lot softer science than physics is. You guys just aren't reasonable and nothing can change your mind.

Your parody is humorous, but misses the point almost completely.
Historical Linguistics / Re: Was Latin ever a spoken language?
« Last post by Daniel on September 21, 2017, 11:19:45 PM »
So, where is that evidence?
I'm not going to devote any substantial amount of time to proving that Latin exists. It's an absurd request.

But here's one example:

As for knowing that Latin was a spoken language, I don't have anything in mind at the moment, but I'm also not an expert on Roman grammarians. However, Aristotle, Plato and other ancient Greek philosophers wrote often about the pronunciation of words. Plato's Cratylus is a specific example that discusses whether sounds have an inherent meaning (a 'correct' meaning) or if they are (in modern terms) arbitrary. Does "dog" mean dog only by convention, or inherently in its sound? (Of course he referred to the ancient Greek words.) Latin grammarians of course made similar comments about pronunciation.

Also, you are ignoring the counter-evidence I've presented: the descriptions we have about Latin grammar are so inconsistant that it appears to be impossible to make a simple statement such as "Heroes are never forgotten." in Latin.
That isn't evidence of anything. Whether or not I can translate a sentence into German does not prove (or disprove) that German exists. That is entirely irrelevant.

Aside from skepticism, there is no reason whatsoever to reject Latin as having existed or been spoken. There are historical accounts of it. Consider any Roman play that was performed and understood. And from the perspective of linguistics, although the situation is complicated, it is clear that Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian, etc., came from some shared ancestor. (That argument applies to why we know some ancestor of many European languages, which we now refer to as Proto-Indo-European, also existed.)

Some variety of Latin we can refer to as Vulgar Latin existed and was spoken in Rome. Questioning that is just silly. Asking exactly what Vulgar Latin was like is a very good academic question, one that many articles and books have been written about, and a continued topic of interest for future research as well. You can read about it here:

I'm ready to be done debating this, especially before the conversation devolves further. I've already wasted enough time trying to convince you that water is wet. Believe what you wish.


FlatAssembler, please don't extend or incite the argument more.
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by Daniel on September 21, 2017, 11:09:57 PM »
Proto-Indo-European is a widely accepted linguistic hypothesis (by the vast majority of linguists, who know something about the subject). You can read about it here:

There's nothing more to discuss on the topic, unless you have questions about it.
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by FlatAssembler on September 21, 2017, 08:45:33 PM »
Just because you have no idea how it works doesn't mean it doesn't work at all. Get educated, and then return to this forum. Otherwise, THIS is how you sound now:'s-lounge/airplanes-don't-exist-(a-parody-of-the-conspiracy-theorists)/
Historical Linguistics / Re: Was Latin ever a spoken language?
« Last post by FlatAssembler on September 21, 2017, 08:37:27 PM »
Outside of the box / Airplanes don't exist. (A parody of the conspiracy theorists)
« Last post by FlatAssembler on September 21, 2017, 08:35:19 PM »
Our culture makes us hold many irrational beliefs. One of them is demonstrably the belief that airplanes exist. It's told us by our parents, told by our teachers, and most of us never really investigate it. And there is not much evidence of that.
Most of the arguments we use to prove airplanes exist can be used to prove that dragons exist as well. We sometimes see white lines in the sky and we say they are evidence of jet airplanes. But saying they are the evidence of dragons is just as valid. There are people who say they have flown on an airplane, and use it as a proof that airplanes exist. But they could just as easily say it for dragons. And history tells us that before people claimed to have flown on a dragon just as often as people say today they have been on an airplane.
In reality, what we usually mean when we say airplane is so called jet airplane, and they can be disproven with some basic physics. Jet airplanes are supposed to work by having water (or some other liquid) as a fuel and engines forcing that water to go out, so that that water accelerates and, by the Newton's third law, makes the airplane accelerate also. But remember the Torricelli's law? Most of the people have learned it school, they just have never really thought about it. If they have, they would realize that it makes  the airplanes impossible.
One of the well-known formulations of the Torricelli's law is that, when a liquid goes through a small hole (an outlet), its speed is determined by the formula:
Code: [Select]
v=sqrt(2*g*h)But there is a pretty obvious implication here. That is:
Code: [Select]
a=0The Newton's second law tells us:
Code: [Select]
Code: [Select]
F=m*a=m*0=0So, by the Newton's third law:
Code: [Select]
So, the force acting on an airplane itself is zero, so by the Newton's first law:
Code: [Select]
So, how can jet airplanes work in reality if they don't even work on paper? You may give me some counter-example to the Torricelli's law. But do the counter-examples matter? They don't. The Torricelli's law is derived from the Bernoulli's equation, and it's derived right from the Newton's three axioms.
Also, the burden of proof is definitely on you. You can't prove for anything that doesn't exist that it doesn't exist, but, in general, if something exists, you are able to prove it. And Occam's razor always favors more an explanation that involves someone lying or hallucinating than an explanation that involves something as complicated and as crazy sounding as airplanes.
And you might ask me what if I am wrong. So what if I am wrong? At least I am thinking about whether airplanes exist, and other people aren't thinking about that at all, they just accept what most people believe as fact. And you are way more likely to be wrong if you aren't thinking than if you are thinking.
(This is my parody of the conspiracy theorists! I've posted it on several forums now, and I think it will also be useful here.)
Historical Linguistics / Re: Was Latin ever a spoken language?
« Last post by LinguistSkeptic on September 21, 2017, 08:10:58 PM »
WTF are you smoking?
You are trying to emotionally abuse me, right? Well, that's because you have no rational arguments supporting your belief.
There's evidence, and if you simply ignore it, there's nothing more to discuss.
So, where is that evidence? You saying there is some direct historical evidence of Latin having been spoken in Rome doesn't prove it any more than me saying there is evidence of Fifteeny being spoken in Dragonland proves it is so. Also, you are ignoring the counter-evidence I've presented: the descriptions we have about Latin grammar are so inconsistant that it appears to be impossible to make a simple statement such as "Heroes are never forgotten." in Latin.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10