| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
 |
|
| Experts, by definition, spend their waking lives in the minutiae of a subject and then go on to write books that bear all the hallmarks of certainty -- it is impossible for the human brain to devote a lifetime to a task unless it is, as it were, certain. |
Okay Mick, you're certainly moving this on to areas concerning the nature of knowledge per se. I think too vigorous a pursuit of this case could lead the Applied Epistemological position open to the charge of being 'the jack of all trades and the master of none'. Knowledge and the act of knowing is fundamentally about knowing our hypotheses and being aware that they are always provisional. Our path to knowledge then involves a conscious decision to dissolve the bounds of certainty into possibility. I think our positions are not a million miles away in this sense. Nonetheless, I think that evidence is paradigm free. Knowing this we can then separate the 'certainty' from the 'data'. I think it can be helped and we don't have to allow ourselves to be overwhelmed. We must be courageous enough to risk being overwhelmed whilst focusing only on the evidence...
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Okay Mick, you're certainly moving this on to areas concerning the nature of knowledge per se. I think too vigorous a pursuit of this case could lead the Applied Epistemological position open to the charge of being 'the jack of all trades and the master of none'. |
That is indeed our proud boast. The point is, when it comes to basic paradigms, specialists are so uninterested, so ignorant, so complacent that merely by becoming "jacks" we are the kings of all we survey. .
| Knowledge and the act of knowing is fundamentally about knowing our hypotheses and being aware that they are always provisional. |
Got it, poppet! The reason that we are so successful -- and with such relatively little expertise -- is that academics never treat their own fundamental hypotheses as provisional. Sure, they love to have tremendous barneys about the latest controversy but when it comes to basic paradigms they close ranks with complete discipline (pun intended). In this context for instance, they can spend decades arguing hypotheses about whether the Anglo-Saxons exterminated or expropriated the Romano-Brits (they can even have further argy-bargies about how the expropriation was achieved) but they never, ever ask themselves whether the Anglo-Saxons replaced the Romano-Brits at all.
In a sense, it is accepted that academic disciplines cannot afford to be forever examining their own bona fides because if they did they would find themselves helplessly navel-gazing when their proper job is the expansion and teaching of their subject. Applied Epistemologists say, "That's OK so long as you have some mechanism whereby your bona fides are properly examined at decent intervals." But they don't. Ever. Not never.
| Our path to knowledge then involves a conscious decision to dissolve the bounds of certainty into possibility. I think our positions are not a million miles away in this sense. |
Sorry, at least a million. It's a question of psychology not nice forms of words that everyone can sign up to.
| Nonetheless, I think that evidence is paradigm free. |
Of course it ought to be and most of the times no doubt it is. But what happens to evidence that contradicts the paradigm? Does it not mysteriously disappear? And if so, is not the remaining evidence not really evidence at all. The evidence that convicts innocent people is nearly always theoretically "paradigm free" (and is nearly always perfectly proper in its own right) but in fact has been collected under the presumption that the accused is guilty.
| Knowing this we can then separate the 'certainty' from the 'data'. |
Again, a nice formula we can all gaily approve. But how do you proceed when people are using known areas of uncertainty (like the Dark Ages) to provide them with their paradigms?
| I think it can be helped and we don't have to allow ourselves to be overwhelmed. We must be courageous enough to risk being overwhelmed whilst focusing only on the evidence... |
Best of British! I'm an expert in this particular field and you, I think, come new to the game. I doubt that you will accept as data my "eye-witness testimony" so I guess you'll have to find out for yourself that this aspiration to be a Zen Master Of The Evidence is going to prove a tad difficile.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| Best of British! I'm an expert in this particular field and you, I think, come new to the game. I doubt that you will accept as data my "eye-witness testimony" so I guess you'll have to find out for yourself that this aspiration to be a Zen Master Of The Evidence is going to prove a tad difficile. |
Mick, your expertise is in being a generalist but as I consider myself to be the same then bon chance. It's been a pleasure and I'll keep you posted regarding my colleagues' views. Your book is now with our twenty year expert in the teaching of English language and literature.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Duncan wrote: | | Your book is now with our twenty year expert in the teaching of English language and literature. |
And a lot of good that'll do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Ah but wait, Ishmael. The expert is not in the ordinary position of being able to apply 'careful ignoral' since he/she is conscious that a colleague awaits a verdict. No, I think we can expect some other, albeit almost certainly irrational, response.
Duncan, not the least important aspect to pay attention is the time it takes for him/her to read the book. It actually takes about two hours and is ('twas so designed) a galloping read. However (for obvious AE reasons) it may take weeks if not months. Do not prompt.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Fr'instance, this was posted on Channel 4's Time Team website today about THOBR
| The blurb, the author and the tone suggest a spoof or a wind-up - an academic friend of mine was nearly apoplectic with rage and refused to finish reading it | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | And a lot of good that'll do. |
| ...and Mick wrote: | | No, I think we can expect some other, albeit almost certainly irrational, response. |
Come on boys. Some of us come into these things with open minds like we want to...er...learn new things in life.
I gave my colleague the book Friday morning and he was thoroughly enjoying it when I spoke to him in the afternoon. This man is certainly going to be an interesting case for you. English Lit. MA who was taught the subject in precisely the way you outlined in THOBR. He was relishing reading about the way his specialist language could be the source of French, and yes Ishmael, that evolved form of English called Spanish. The book is going to my Historians next, then my Linguists. If they buy their own copies do I get a percentage (I'm an Economist)? As ever, I'll keep you posted...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
We have earned the right of cynicism over the years, Dunc. But it is true that we have not much experience of your excellent Trojan Horse tactics. But still the results are yet to appear....
And you owe me for improving your social life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| And you owe me for improving your social life. |
The joys of Educational leadership. Now people have got another reason to avoid me.
The C4 posting is amusing. Don't worry Mick, I'll put 'em straight...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
At last! The deal old Anglo-Saxonists have finally got round to spotting that their entire subject is under root-and-branch attack in the mass media. This exchange (honestly, the first mention) appeared on ANSAXnet (where they all hang out) today:
------------------------------
Did anyone see the Science Times (NYTimes) today? The front page article discusses genetic similarities between the Irish and English (more alike than previously thought) and also presents the ideas of Stephen Oppenheimer and Peter Forster, who claim that English "is an ancient, fourth branch of the Germanic languages tree, and was spoken in England before the Roman invasion." Forster says that Angles and Saxons were invaders, much like the later Danes, and did not bring the language to England. It was already being spoken by the Belgae, "whom Caesar describes as being present on both sides of the Channel."
Interesting to see this in a major news outlet.
Nancy
------------------------------
Stephen Oppenheimer was on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 this morning. He got about as much time as such items usually do (i.e. not much) but he was lucid and made me want to know more. It may be on the Listen Again option at the BBC website (_www.bbc.co.uk_ (http://www.bbc.co.uk) ).
Susan, in Cornwall, where his findings are fighting talk
-------------------------------
It may be of some interest to some members of this discussion list that the authors [including myself] and readers of Jeffrey Jerome Cohen's weblog, "In The Middle," have been discussing the matter of race and early medieval Britain for some time now, especially in relation to recent debates among geneticists such as Oppenheimer and others. We recently gathered in one place all of the links to this unfolding discussion, including links to the articles in the press--here and in in Britain--related to the genetics aspect:
http://jjcohen.blogspot.com/2007/03/race-again-this-time-with-genetics.html
Best, Eileen
----------------------------------
I saw it. This claim, of course, is completely at odds with the linguistic evidence. Old English shares with the continental Old Saxon and Old Frisian such phylogenetic characters as the deletion of voiceless fricatives before nasals and the fronting of *a. The Ingvaeonic grouping (OE, OS, OF) shares a number of phylogenetic characters with the Old High German dialect continuum; the grouping of Ingvaeonic with OHG into a West Germanic clade is secure.
Sean Crist
----------------------------------
It'll be interesting to see how this goes and whether anyone will link it up with a huge debate on ANSAXnet (launched by myself a coupla years ago) on roughly the same subject. Needless to say I was subsequently banned for being a Troll.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
My best assumption is that English was the language of the first human beings to occupy Britain ie at the end of the Ice Age, c12,000 BP. And that (therefore) these people just took advantage of any new set of techniques and incorporated them. [This is based on the principle 'What is is what was' ie that's what we always do today.] "Incorporation" includes being invaded by people who introduced it.
My second-best one is that since farming requires specialised techniques and transforms population numbers, that the English arrived with the Neolithic Revolution c 6000 BP. My third best one is that the English-speakers are the Beaker People c 5000 BP though I'm not sure it is truly possible to distinguish Beaker and Agriculturalists.
Forster's Belgae theory is risible. It would mean that a less ubiquitous people even than the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Danes or the Normans imposed their language on the whole of the British Isles! And his apparent evidential base -- that Caesar said the same language was spoken on both sides of the Channel -- is just plain silly since Caesar wasn't talking about the Belgae but the Gauls, and Foster (I presume) hasn't challenged the Gaulish-equals-Gaelic assumption.
I suppose the only merit to his argument is that, yes, Dutch is the closest Continental language to English but since it is also more or less the closest geographically too (and therefore would be anyway) this is a pretty slender reed.
PS This classic just in from the ANSAXnet
In the interview I heard (on BBC R4, with Oppenheimer) he had an answer to that: language changes easily, he said. The French were Celtic speakers before the Latinate invasion.
Susan, who takes no sides, being ignorant in these matters | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| Forster's Belgae theory is risible. |
Yeah, this whole concept of a small invading population causing a large linguistic shift makes no sense.
I'm sure you've had a look at Win Scutt's website where he talks about the archaeological evidence for English being spoken before the Romans arrived.
All of this is certainly shaking things up. What do you make of this from the ANSAX.net?
| This claim, of course, is completely at odds with the linguistic evidence. Old English shares with the continental Old Saxon and Old Frisian such phylogenetic characters as the deletion of voiceless fricatives before nasals and the fronting of *a. The Ingvaeonic grouping (OE, OS, OF) shares a number of phylogenetic characters with the Old High German dialect continuum; the grouping of Ingvaeonic with OHG into a West Germanic clade is secure. |
Now I've tried to give their case some consideration. The view of Treharne and the academics is this: something like a third of the modern English vocab can be traced to written Anglo-Saxon. One third is latinate, one third is modernish creation like 'internet' and the rest. This simplistic case belies the core words for everyday tasks which are, supposedly, almost entirely Anglo-Saxon:
Verbs
eat - etan
drink - drincan
make - macian
be - beon
sing - singan
write - awritan
steal - forstelan
live - libban
listen - hieran
Nouns
sky - lyft
earth - grund
sun - sonne
moon - mon
chicken - cicen
pork - pig etc. etc.
You'll love this one 'Harper' - 'Hearper'. There's certainly a similarity. Would you say that the Anglo-Saxon language evolved from English like German and French did and was simply re-imported?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
One of the techniques of Applied Epistemology is The Ju-jitsu Principle -- using the weight of orthodoxy to trip itself up. Here, and cutting across Duncan's last post, are a couple of good examples from the ANSAXnet.
"Dr. Forster's analysis shows English is not an offshoot of West Germanic, as usually assumed, but is a branch independent of the other three, which also implies a greater antiquity."
This is the claim which I was objecting to. English is "assumed" to be West Germanic on the basis of overwhelming evidence. Old English shares important innovations with Old Saxon and Old Frisian which securely group the three.
Sean Crist |
Because our 'expert' here cannot conceive that Old English may not be English at all, he blithely loads us up with ammunition by proving to his own satisfaction that Old English (ie Anglo-Saxon) is inextricably linked with Old Saxon (essentially German) and Old Frisian (essentially Dutch). Thanks, Sean, that's exactly what we are saying!
Now someone else weighs in to deal with Susan's incautious intervention
In the interview I heard (on BBC R4, with Oppenheimer) he had an answer to that: language changes easily, he said. The French were Celtic speakers before the Latinate invasion.
Uh, before the "Latinate invasion" there were no "French" per se, but the Gaulish Celts, so of course they were Celtic speakers. But we're talking about a language change here that took centuries. Language doesn't change easily; it changes slowly. Language is inherently conservative--just witness modern English and the linguistic fossils inherent therein that serve no purpose yet still exist (final -e word endings being a good example).
Ted Sherman |
In order to fight on one front Dr Sherman inadvertently sells the pass on all the other fronts.
1. He accepts without thinking that the Gauls switched completely from Celtic to Latin in the few centuries that Gaul was under Latin domination (50 BC - 400 AD) but forgets that Britain was under Latin domination for the same length of time (50 AD to 500 AD) without it having any effect on its language situation.
2. But then he has to believe that Britain switched from Celtic to Anglo-Saxon in roughly the same time-frame 500 AD to 950 AD)
3. But of course Anglo-Saxon has itself to change internally very fast indeed to get from Anglo-Saxon to even 'Middle' English (1150 to 1300) but then
4. Has to become very conservative indeed because it hardly changes at all 1450 to the present day.
And notice also that despite a lifetime (he's an A/S luminary) of service in the cause, this twit has still not grasped that there is nothing 'fossil' about the -e ending in English. When you are trying to distinguish the vowel difference between
hat and hate
cop and cope
shit and shite
and you have only the Latin vowels to play with, it is a reasonable scribal convention to add an e. I doubt that he would refer to the Anglo-Saxon habit of dipthonging vowels or the modern German habit of umlauting them to achieve the same effect as 'fossil'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| My best assumption is that English was the language of the first human beings to occupy Britain ie at the end of the Ice Age, c12,000 BP. And that (therefore) these people just took advantage of any new set of techniques and incorporated them. |
Oppenheimer argues that the first people to populate Britain after the Ice Age are by far and away the most genetically dominant. They would then have adopted any new techniques in precisely the ways Francis Pryor explains in Britain BC/AD. Celts and north Europeans have only added a small gentic input. However, Oppenheimer argues that the Germanics brought in the English language. It is then possible that they were the Beaker folk. We know from Archaeological evidence, such as the change from burial in Long barrows to Round barrows, the growth of a more individualised warrior culture as evidenced by burial with weapons, and of course the Beakers themselves; that the Beaker People's arrival marked quite a hiatus. Nonetheless we have the problem that their language would be very different from the Spaniards who, in Oppenheimer's view, were here before them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
