Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
12
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by Daniel on October 12, 2021, 08:36:15 AM »
Quote
Don't you think I have shown enough familiarity with existing research?
Absolutely not, because you did not cite any sources.

Quote
Like what etymologies for the river name Karašica are usually cited and what arguments are used to argue Illyrian is a satem language?
Your paper is about the etymology of one specific word, so these points are not directly relevant. It's like saying "You're hungry, therefore you must like to eat broccoli." One does not follow directly from the other, and this is similar to feedback you've been given multiple times here: obscure etymologies are hard to defend.

Quote
Quote
Part of the publishing process is getting feedback.
And I am...
Soliciting responses that agree with you is not the same as getting feedback in academic research/publishing. "Am I right?" is not the question you should be asking. Instead, it is "Who will agree to publish this as generally relevant and reliable to the scientific community?" It is crucial to understand that the reason papers are published is not because someone agrees with you, but because of scientific rigor in the submitted article. Having an idea is not the same thing as doing scientific research: your paper should closely resemble the format and methodology of other articles in the journal where you submit it. If it does, it may be published. If it does not, it probably won't be.

Also, if your research has scientific merit, then it should stand on its own, without any need to argue about whether or not you have a political agenda. Scientific research is objective, and is presented objectively, in relatively standard ways.

Regardless, what I say here doesn't really matter. What matters is whether it will be accepted or rejected by a journal. I've given you feedback, but if you think you're ready to submit it, go ahead, and assuming the editor is generally interested in the paper, it will be sent out for peer review, and you will get feedback and suggested revisions (along with a decision to accept or reject). But note that this is the least efficient way to get feedback on your work, because it will be a slow process, and if the decision is to reject the paper, then you probably can't submit it again to that same journal, so it's best to have already gone through this process yourself.

Seek feedback, and be prepared to revise your work. Don't just seek agreement.

Beyond that, I don't think I can offer any more advice. Trying to convince me or others here that your paper is already good enough is not a useful or relevant approach. You might also search online for advice about how to write research papers for publication, including standard practices, like citing sources, but also formatting, acceptable forms of argumentation, how to present your methodology, etc.
13
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by FlatAssembler on October 12, 2021, 05:29:04 AM »
Quote from: Daniel
Part of the publishing process is getting feedback.
And I am: https://flatassembler.github.io/toponyms#hear_both_sides
14
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by FlatAssembler on October 12, 2021, 05:01:40 AM »
Quote from: Daniel
4. The fundamental problem with this paper is that it is not research by strict definition: you don't cite any sources!
Don't you think I have shown enough familiarity with existing research? Like what etymologies for the river name Karašica are usually cited and what arguments are used to argue Illyrian is a satem language?
15
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by Daniel on October 06, 2021, 08:54:53 AM »
You're not going to get much feedback here about a paper written in Croatian, and we can't answer whether a journal will accept it or not, but here are some thoughts:

1. This is shorter than most journal articles. Some short notes about etymology might be accepted, but I don't know if that applies here. And usually those would be a relatively standard format and argument, which this is not.
2. The paper is trying to do two different things at once. In academic publishing, a focused paper is usually obligatory. On the one hand, you discuss the details of this etymology. On the other, the middle of the paper is a long tangent about probability of etymological relationships, which would belong in a different paper. You might be able to split this into two papers, or expand on this to organize it better and address these points in detail and somehow bring them together a single purpose, but right now for that reason I don't this would be published. (In general, you should not be developing a new methodology and also proposing a specific analysis in the same paper. Neither will be well supported, or well received.)
3. Part of the publishing process is getting feedback. If you haven't published before, then you should seek feedback from experts, not from people you don't know online (even if they know about linguistics in general). Find a mentor (for a graduate student, this would be your advisor, so you might look for someone who could be like that for you). Or as a first step, you should present this at a conference. Conferences are generally much easier to access than publication, and they're a great way to get feedback, and also to see what other people are working on, so you'll learn a lot. Right now, given the pandemic, many conferences are online (and many are free), so they've never been more accessible in a practical sense. If you have not yet presented at a conference, you should try that before trying to publish. That may open some doors to publication, also, either directly through a proceedings volume, or by feedback and networking.
4. The fundamental problem with this paper is that it is not research by strict definition: you don't cite any sources! You have some footnotes referring to your own work. But you don't have a bibliography or cite anything published. That is immediately a reason that most journals would reject this. And to be clear: I'm not suggesting you throw a few references into this now. Good scholarship is built around the literature review, and informed by it, not tangentially connected. That will also help you to understand whether your paper is similar (in quality and method) to those that you are citing: if it is, then it is publishable. If not, it probably is not.
5. Be prepared for a months- or even years-long process for publishing. You will submit a draft, wait several months, get feedback from one or two reviewers, probably receive suggestions for revisions (probably substantial if you are just starting out, and especially if you are not very closely following standard methodologies), and then rewrite, possibly then going through several rounds of revisions, and after around a year the paper might be published. (If it is rejected, you could submit it elsewhere. Note also that a fast rejection would suggest they are not interested in seriously evaluating the paper, while a slow rejection or acceptance would mean reviewers took their time to look over it and decide.)

The most important thing you can do is to seek feedback, and then continue to develop and change your ideas based on that feedback. Research doesn't have an endpoint, just incremental improvements.
16
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by FlatAssembler on October 06, 2021, 08:25:26 AM »
OK, this "Fonoloska evolucija jezika" paper is, as far as I can tell, unlikely to ever get published in a peer-reviewed journal. So, I have written a rather different one this time: https://flatassembler.github.io/Karasica.doc What do you think, will I be able to publish it?
17
Language-specific analysis / Re: Slavic: False Friends
« Last post by Rock100 on September 13, 2021, 09:38:16 AM »
Here go several more Czech-->Russian examples from Internet (there are zillions of them and Czech sounds pretty rude to a Russian ear indeed). The structure of the examples is as following:
Czech word/phrase [Russian transcription, probably a little bit adopted] – Russian meaning in English – Czech meaning in English
English translation is mine and I am not a native English speaker. Let us go.
Nevěstka [невестка] -- daughter-in-law – whore
Úžasný [ужасный] – terrible – astonishing
Tvář [тварь] – scum – face
Mzda [мзда] – bribe – salary
Chalupa [халупа] – peasant house (derogative) – cottage
Vypuknout [выпукнуть] – fart out – crash out, burst out
Divky darom (at a club entrance) [девки даром] – dirt-cheap wenches (or wenches for nothing) – free entrance for women
Pozor, policie varuje! [Позор, полиция ворует!] – It is a shame, the police steals! – Attention, the police warns!
18
> "... Although the Chinese characters are difficult to learn, once they are learned
> and mastered, they make a most rapid reading possible, because they convey the
> meaning directly to the eyes without resorting to the "sound".
> ..."
> p. 169, Japanese in Thirty Hours, Eiichi Kiyooka
Hm… One can easily teach himself treating, say, English words as separate hieroglyphs so there will be no difference in the way of reading and comprehension at all. And I bet that all more or less advanced readers of a language do such a trick. And an alphabetical reading/writing looks even more fault-tolerant than a hieroglyphic one. You can check it yourself. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

I agree. Both a hieroglyph and a written word are two things. They are both a sign for the sounds of the spoken word (which itself is a sign) and so a sign of a sign, but also a direct sign for what the spoken word is a sign for. Accordingly, whether you are reading Chinese or English, the brain is taking up meaning directly just as it does when you hear speech.
19
Language-specific analysis / Re: What Language is this word from?
« Last post by Rock100 on September 03, 2021, 04:58:00 PM »
> My ethnic background is Kurdish and from what I have learned from my parents
> the original name of our ancestry was "Kalpatin".
> I have searched Google to find out what this word means or where its from but I
> could not find any information about it.
> Does anyone know what the word "Kalpatin" is and where its from?
https://sciencecentrum.pl/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/POLISH%20SCIENCE%20JOURNAL%20%E2%84%969%20%28web%29.pdf claims it is Hemşinlı adoption of Russian word for pliers. This is exactly one mentioning in Google indeed.
P.S. I am expert in googling and not in linguistics.
P.P.S. Modification -- sorry, I have forgotten to mention the meaning of the word.
20
> "... Although the Chinese characters are difficult to learn, once they are learned
> and mastered, they make a most rapid reading possible, because they convey the
> meaning directly to the eyes without resorting to the "sound".
> ..."
> p. 169, Japanese in Thirty Hours, Eiichi Kiyooka
Hm… One can easily teach himself treating, say, English words as separate hieroglyphs so there will be no difference in the way of reading and comprehension at all. And I bet that all more or less advanced readers of a language do such a trick. And an alphabetical reading/writing looks even more fault-tolerant than a hieroglyphic one. You can check it yourself. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10