Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [elfscript] Istan pole!

Expand Messages
  • Helge K. Fauskanger
    ... Tolkien s own words and attested grammatical constructions. ... Really? Normally CFH is extremely reluctant to recognize any post-Tolkien composition as
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 30, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I wrote:

      > > It is entirely possible to write long texts in Quenya using only
      Tolkien's own words and attested grammatical constructions.

      CFH responded:

      > And this is news to whom, exactly? This point was never at issue.

      Really? Normally CFH is extremely reluctant to recognize any post-Tolkien
      composition as genuine Quenya.

      I also wrote:

      > Beyond Tolkien's own work there is NOTHING (except post-Tolkien
      material).

      CFH responded:

      > To whom do you think this is news, other than those whom you confuse by
      insisting that "post-Tolkien" material is "genuine" and "authentic"?

      Post-Tolkien material is genuine Neo-Eldarin, to the extent it is
      well-formed according to the rules that can be inferred from Tolkien's own
      material. Of course it is not "genuine Tolkien", which simply means that
      Tolkien didn't come up with it.

      > It is _more_ than just fiction, it is _art_, art _requiring_ a history
      and a people, even if invented. Remember?

      What should be remembered is that Tolkien wrote that his languages inspired
      his authorship, NOT vice versa. Indeed one cannot infer much about
      Tolkien's invented world simply by examining the languages supposed to be
      spoken there. Also notice the ease with which Tolkien completely revised
      the internal history of his Celtic-sounding language, while keeping the
      language as such. But for a very few highly specialized vocabulary units,
      like "Silmaril", the entire Quenya-Sindarin-scenario could be fitted to
      just about ANY people and ANY history -- as long as one group was isolated
      from the other for some centuries or millennia, so that an original common
      language could split into two quite distinct branches.

      > No one has ever said that the Eldar were real (...) But _Tolkien_ was
      real, and so are his artistic creations.

      Tolkien was real, but Tolkien is also dead. Exactly how he would have
      solved any given problem facing people trying to write in Quenya or
      Sindarin is impossible to say; in many cases he probably wouldn't have a
      ready answer, but would have had to come up with something. We would have
      to do the same (except that we feel less free to introduce completely new
      roots). Again: when we move into uncharted territory in such a way, we are
      not contradicting Tolkien's work, but letting it live and grow (I
      understand this sounds overly "romantic" to CFH).

      > The Eldarin tongues were not, are not, and never will be, "living"
      languages. They were imaged by their creator to have verisimilitude as
      _having once been_ living languages (and even within the fictional image,
      Quenya ceased to "live and grow" long, long before the events of _The Lord
      of the Rings_),

      I don't think Quenya was particularly "dead" in Tolkien's mind. Whenever he
      considers his languages, his mind seems to move along the entire imagined
      period, even diving into the "pre-historic" period with its primitive roots
      and asterisked forms. The perspective is hardly that of a Third Age scholar
      "looking back" and trying to make out the history of a long-dead tongue.

      CFH wrote:

      > >> as the example of your own work and the "new texts" based on it shows,
      the desire to produce "new texts" _before_ Tolkien's own writings are
      understood actually _impedes_ understanding,

      I responded:

      > > What impedes our understanding of Tolkien's own writings more than
      anything else is their unpublished status, a problem CFH is potentially
      able to address.

      CFH is outraged:

      > This is yet another outrageous example of Helge's rhetorical
      sleight-of-hand. By ripping my words out of context, and by replying as he
      does, he wants you, the reader, to believe that the contrast I was drawing
      was between the understanding of those who have not read _all_ of Tolkien's
      own writings, published or unpublished, and those who have.

      Yeah, what a grotesque misrepresentation... Frankly this was the only sense
      _I_ could make of what CFH wrote, but luckily we now learn what "the actual
      contrast" was all about:

      > The actual contrast, as is apparent to anyone who actually reads what I
      actually wrote, is between those who rely _only_ on _Helge's_ writings and
      those who rely on _Tolkien's_ writings. The former are legion, as is
      evident from Elfling and much of the Internet-based discussion of Tolkien's
      languages.

      I believe there are quite a few people out there who rely _both_ on
      Tolkien's writings and on secondary sources like the ones I have provided,
      and are not aware of any particularly striking or important contradictions
      between the two. The Quenya course, in particular, is riddled with
      references to the primary sources and takes the reader through nearly every
      step of my reasoning.

      > My criticism is not of the conclusions you reach, per se, but of the
      methods you use to arrive at conclusions:

      Some would say that the conclusions are more important than the methods.
      The methods are a means; the conclusions are the goal.

      > for example, dismissing any evidence that doesn't conform to your
      pre-judgments as invalid;

      It is quite obvious that some "evidence" represents ideas Tolkien
      abandoned, and then I must be allowed to say so.

      > I have in fact already offered some corrections to your work, some of
      which you've adopted (without acknowledgment, I note, as for example in the
      matter of pronouns; though I don't realistically expect you to cite my name
      or my work other than in expectoration),

      If CFH can be bothered to search for his own name in my articles, he would
      find that he is cited favorably a number of times.

      > and others of which you've chosen to ignore (as for example in the matter
      of Noldorin and Sindarin past-tense forms).

      I don't seem to be aware of any "correction" offered me by CFH having to do
      with Sindarin past-tense forms. Where did it appear?

      > Indeed, as my colleagues -- esp. Bill Welden -- and I have made plain on
      numerous occasions, you continue to labor under a false assumption, that
      all questions will be answered and all debates settled once all of
      Tolkien's papers have been published; while in fact, given the
      ever-shifting nature of Tolkien's artistic creation, you will find yourself
      even _less_ certain about many things than you are now.

      Like, "Gee, there are two genitive endings here --- both -o and -n!!! How
      could Tolkien do this to us?! Which one are we to use? What a dilemma! My
      head explodes!"

      If we live to see the day when "all of Tolkien's papers have been
      published", we will know what the options are, and what remains is mainly a
      matter of selection.

      I wrote:

      > > For instance: if CFH thinks _-ch_ is a bad choice as the ending for sg.
      "you" in Sindarin, what ending(s) would in his opinion be a better
      alternative?

      > We _do_ have a 2 sg. form attested for Sindarin, as you know.

      Yes, we have _le_, but what we need is an _ending_ to be added to verbs.

      > Were I inclined to "use" one, I would certainly pick an _attested_ form
      over one that is not only _not_ attested, but for which there is strong
      evidence _against_.

      Is there any published evidence either way for _-ch_ as a 2nd person sg.
      marker?

      > So too would you, if you weren't motivated by a desire to see a friend's
      pet theory "vindicated" against the arguments of someone else whom you have
      set up as an enemy (precisely in order to be able to mock and thus ignore
      all those inconvenient facts he offers).

      Oh my, what sinister motives I really have...

      > There is not a _single_ pronominal suffix to be "revealed". There is not
      a _single_ answer to this question, or for most questions you have
      regarding Tolkien's languages, because they are _not_ _single_, complete,
      self-consistent entities.

      Please notice that I did write "what ending(s) would in his opinion be a
      better alternative?" Notice "ending(s)". One, or several. The way CHF is
      behaving would seem to suggest that he knows one or more endings that he
      believes would be a BETTER alternative than _-ch_ as the ending for sg.
      "you" in Sindarin proper. CFH's mantra "there is no single answer to any
      question" is all too familar by now. Very well, but it should still be
      possible to produce summaries of the main trends in (say) Tolkien's
      thinking on the pronouns, even if one is not trying to crystallize a
      "standard" system.

      > the slimy rhetorical misdirections and fallacies of a politically- and
      self-interested demagogue.

      The demagogue would be me, I guess? Carl, Carl -- only ONE of us is
      obsessively discussing the moral standards and (supposedly) sinister
      motives of the other...

      - HKF
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      My goodness, Helge, you are quite the little masochist, aren t you? Very well. ... Once again we see one of the classic Fauskangerian rhetorical bankruptcies:
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 1, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        My goodness, Helge, you are quite the little masochist, aren't you?
        Very well.

        On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 08:31 PM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:

        > I wrote:
        >
        >>> It is entirely possible to write long texts in Quenya using only
        > Tolkien's own words and attested grammatical constructions.
        >
        > CFH responded:
        >
        >> And this is news to whom, exactly? This point was never at issue.
        >
        > Really? Normally CFH is extremely reluctant to recognize any
        > post-Tolkien
        > composition as genuine Quenya.

        Once again we see one of the classic Fauskangerian rhetorical
        bankruptcies: pretend that I used a term I never did, so as to
        introduce a false contradiction. I never called such compositions
        "genuine Quenya", and I do not do so now, despite Helge's dishonest
        implication. Yes folks, he really does think you're that stupid.

        > Post-Tolkien material is genuine Neo-Eldarin, to the extent it is
        > well-formed according to the rules that can be inferred from Tolkien's
        > own material. Of course it is not "genuine Tolkien", which simply
        > means that Tolkien didn't come up with it.

        Nor is it genuine Quenya, or genuine Sindarin.

        > Indeed one cannot infer much about Tolkien's invented world simply by
        > examining the languages supposed to be spoken there.

        WHAT!? Helge, you really shouldn't let your political zeal lead you
        into making such absurd statements. It makes you look stupid.

        > But for a very few highly specialized vocabulary units, like
        > "Silmaril", the entire Quenya-Sindarin-scenario could be fitted to
        > just about ANY people and ANY history

        Sure, so long as they were a monotheistic culture of immortal spirits
        indwelling in immortal bodies inhabiting a once-flat world made round
        who lived alongside a race of angelic gods as well as a race of demonic
        creatures corrupted by an immensely powerful Dark Lord who ruled over
        them as well as dragons and fire-demons. For starters.

        > we are not contradicting Tolkien's work,

        As I said before, you _may_ be contradicting Tolkien's work in ways not
        immediately obvious, either to you or to anyone else. Complex systems
        have ways of being disrupted that are not immediately obvious.

        > but letting it live and grow (I understand this sounds overly
        > "romantic" to CFH).

        Indeed. Not to mention, false. As I have already explained.

        >>> What impedes our understanding of Tolkien's own writings more than
        > anything else is their unpublished status, a problem CFH is potentially
        > able to address.
        >
        > CFH is outraged:

        Bald-faced lies and misrepresentations do tend to bother me. Though
        they seem never to bother you, so long as you're doing the telling.

        >> This is yet another outrageous example of Helge's rhetorical
        > sleight-of-hand. By ripping my words out of context, and by replying
        > as he
        > does, he wants you, the reader, to believe that the contrast I was
        > drawing
        > was between the understanding of those who have not read _all_ of
        > Tolkien's
        > own writings, published or unpublished, and those who have.
        >
        > Yeah, what a grotesque misrepresentation... Frankly this was the only
        > sense
        > _I_ could make of what CFH wrote,

        Alas, your reason and perspective seem to have been so thoroughly
        twisted by your political agenda that I could believe this to be true.

        >> The actual contrast, as is apparent to anyone who actually reads what
        >> I actually wrote, is between those who rely _only_ on _Helge's_
        >> writings and those who rely on _Tolkien's_ writings. The former are
        >> legion, as is evident from Elfling and much of the Internet-based
        >> discussion of Tolkien's languages.
        >
        > I believe there are quite a few people out there who rely _both_ on
        > Tolkien's writings and on secondary sources like the ones I have
        > provided,

        Doubtlessly so, but this fact in no way contradicts or even has any
        bearing on what I said. Not that that ever stops you.

        >> My criticism is not of the conclusions you reach, per se, but of the
        >> methods you use to arrive at conclusions:
        >
        > Some would say that the conclusions are more important than the
        > methods. The methods are a means; the conclusions are the goal.

        Bad methods are unlikely to lead to correct conclusions, except
        incidentally. And once again, you miss the point completely: one does
        not have to be able to disprove a conclusion in order to call it into
        question, all the more so when the methods used to arrive at the
        conclusion are suspect or outright bogus.

        >> for example, dismissing any evidence that doesn't conform to your
        > pre-judgments as invalid;
        >
        > It is quite obvious that some "evidence" represents ideas Tolkien
        > abandoned, and then I must be allowed to say so.

        Absolutely, _in cases where it is in fact quite obvious_; which cases
        are far, far fewer than you believe (because you want to believe, to
        keep your conclusions tidy, compact, and "useful").

        >> I have in fact already offered some corrections to your work, some of
        >> which you've adopted (without acknowledgment, I note, as for example
        >> in the matter of pronouns; though I don't realistically expect you to
        >> cite my name or my work other than in expectoration),
        >
        > If CFH can be bothered to search for his own name in my articles, he
        > would find that he is cited favorably a number of times.

        OK, let's.

        A) Your treatment of the _Átaremma_ and _Aia María_:

        1) "Hostetter in his editorial observed: "Translations of the Lord's
        Prayer have enjoyed a long tradition as representative texts for use in
        side-by-side comparisons of various languages." But since Tolkien
        apparently never made any efforts to have his Quenya-language Lord's
        Prayer published, it does not seem that he intended it to be a general
        "sample" of the language."

        Looks to me like a typical Fauskangerism: create a contrast to make it
        look like I was making a claim about Tolkien's translation, which I
        never did.

        2) "We need not doubt that the primitive adjective ended in -i; this is
        evident from the past tense verb airitáne hallowed, occurring in the
        Ms. Tolkien Drawing 91, 41v, dating to ca. 1966 and now at the Bodleian
        (see Vinyar Tengwar #32, November 1993, page 7, where Carl F. Hostetter
        volunteers this information from an unpublished manuscript)."

        "Volunteers this information". Yep.

        3) "When making their own translation of the Lord's Prayer, Patrick
        Wynne and Carl F. Hostetter indeed coined precisely the word *síre to
        translate "today" (VT32:8). Yet Tolkien's manuscript definitely seems
        to read síra and not *síre (which, by the way, would clash with síre
        river: LR:385 s.v. sir-)."

        What has our coinage to do with Tolkien's creation? Why even mention
        it? Picayune.

        B) Your "Quenya Course":

        I: intro.rtf:

        1) "Throughout most of the nineties, he was sending photo-copies of his
        father's linguistic manuscripts to a group of Americans often (but
        unofficially) referred to as the Elfconners, apparently because of
        their prominence on the "cons" or conventions of ELF, the "Elvish
        Linguistic Fellowship". However, the most outspoken member of the group
        seems to have convinced himself beyond refutation that the term
        "Elfconners" was always meant to be derogatory, associating it with
        "conning" or deception. As pointed out by TolkLang moderator Julian
        Bradfield, it may be that this member of the group is inventing insults
        against himself, but currently it is politically correct to refer to
        this group simply as the Editorial Team, abbreviated ET. Whatever we
        call them, the group consists of Christopher Gilson, Carl F. Hostetter,
        Patrick Wynne and Arden R. Smith (in recent years, Bill Welden has also
        joined in). Before they started to receive Tolkien manuscripts, these
        people quite regularly published the Tolkien-linguistic journals Vinyar
        Tengwar (edited by Hostetter) and Parma Eldalamberon (edited by
        Gilson), generally maintaining a high standard. This, we must assume,
        was the reason why Christopher Tolkien wanted them to publish his
        father's linguistic manuscripts in the first place."

        2) "The journal Vinyar Tengwar (VT), edited by Carl F. Hostetter, had
        its "golden age" in the period 1988-93, when the editor managed to
        uphold continuous bimonthly publication."

        3) "When Hostetter and the other ET members in the early nineties
        started to receive original Tolkien material of the utmost interest to
        be edited and published, the rate of publication mysteriously dropped
        to about one issue a year, and this situation has continued throughout
        the latter half of the nineties and into the new decade. Not all of the
        few issues that have been published include any new Tolkien material,
        and those that do are usually devoted to very short scraps (that are
        moreover samples of very early material that is often clearly not
        LotR-compatible)."

        4) "A few issues do stand out, however, and one of them has already
        been mentioned: In issue #39, July 1998, Hostetter published the part
        of Quendi and Eldar that Christopher Tolkien left out of WJ, as well as
        the companion essay Ósanwe-kenta (the latter is not strictly linguistic
        by its subject, but Tolkien nonetheless mentioned quite a few Quenya
        words). Some useful material also appeared in issue #41, July 2000,
        filling certain annoying gaps in our vocabulary (in particular
        regarding the verb "can") and providing interesting new information
        about the formation of the present tense. In January 2002, various
        Quenya translations of the Pater Noster and the Ave Maria were
        published in issue #43; Tolkien the Catholic produced more than one
        Elvish version of these texts. The other main results of the ET's
        editing efforts for the most part consist of wordlist material"

        Hm, yes, "some _useful_ material". That speaks volumes about you, Helge.

        II: less-a.rtf:

        1) "Some of my deductions above have been criticized by VT editor Carl
        F. Hostetter. No one disputes the fact that primary verbs form their
        present or "continuous" tense by lengthening the stem-vowel and adding
        -a, but the notion that A-stems have present-tense forms in -ëa has
        proved controversial. Of course, this is based on the one example órëa
        (from ora- "impel"), and it was Hostetter himself who published this
        form and suggested that this is an example of the present/continuous
        tense."

        And my criticism is _precisely_ that you seized upon this _single_
        example and extrapolated entire verb classes and paradigms based upon
        it. Don't want to present that inconvenient _fact_, though, that would
        be too reasonable.

        III: less-b.rtf:

        1) "On the other hand, Carl F. Hostetter thinks the Quenya aorist is
        used to describe an action that is "punctual, habitual, or otherwise
        durationless" (VT41:15). This is probably correct in most cases,
        describing the typical function of the aorist. Yet some examples
        suggest that it may be better to say that whereas the present tense
        explicitly identifies an ongoing action, the Quenya aorist is simply
        unmarked as far as duration is concerned."

        Never mind that "unmarked as far as duration is concerned" _is_
        durationless; just self-servingly manipulate terms and make it _look_
        like you are drawing a distinction where none exists.

        2) "The frontispiece reproduces a manuscript page by Tolkien, including
        some brief linguistic notes. (Taum Santoski, analyzing these notes in
        the newsletter Beyond Bree, October 1985, read this form as
        "linduvanya" – but as pointed out by Carl F. Hostetter, Tolkien
        probably intended "linduvanye" instead."

        Yes, I did point that out. One neutral statement of the facts. A rare
        thing, and high praise indeed from Helge.

        IV: less-d.rtf

        1) "On the other hand, Carl F. Hostetter (who has seen nearly all of
        Tolkien's linguistic manuscripts) briefly commented on this sentence in
        VT41:18 and apparently recognized it as genuine, though he has later
        specified that it does not occur in any manuscript he knows of."

        I _never_ said the sentence was genuine -- you just can't resist that
        word, can you? -- in fact, I said I had _not_ seen it in Tolkien's
        papers, right up front, which in no way contradicts or stands in any
        sort of contrast to anything I have ever said on the matter -- you just
        can't resist misrepresenting claims to serve your own purposes, can you?

        V: Your "Conjugation of Sindarin Verbs' page:

        1) "The ending for the 2nd person ("you", singular or plural) does not
        appear in published material. However, in an Elfling post of January
        22, 2002, Carl F. Hostetter wrote: "Charts can be found showing -ch as
        2nd sg." As he immediately added, this ending had other meanings in
        earlier conceptual phases, but today it is best known as the ending for
        singular "you" (so used in Movie Sindarin)."

        Yep, never mind that I didn't say those charts were for _Sindarin_;
        just take my quote out of the context of arguing _against_ your claim,
        and use it to _support_ it instead. Typical Fauskanger "scholarship".

        VI: Your "Mannish" page:

        1) "Years ago, Vinyar Tengwar reported that one of the Elfconners was
        editing the Taliskan grammar, and Carl F. Hostetter confirms that it
        will be published...one day."

        So apparently neither I nor Christopher Tolkien are to be permitted to
        judge what is the best order in which to publish material.

        VII: Your "Tolkien's Not So Secret Vice" page:

        1) "The book that provided Tolkien with the word ond was finally
        identified in Vinyar Tengwar #30: Celtic Britain by Professor John
        Rhys, that according to Carl F. Hostetter and Patrick Wynne "consists
        of over 300 densely-set pages and eschews neither etymological
        discussion, untranslated Latin passages, nor untransliterated Greek
        words". This was Tolkien's preferred reading at the age of eight.)"

        Wow, for once you quoted me accurately. A rare honor indeed.

        VIII: Your "Genesis 2" page:

        "The article is also available online, though Carl F. Hostetter has for
        his own reasons deleted the original reference to the unpublished
        manuscript and now apparently tries to make his readers believe that he
        derived this word himself."

        I corrected this lie of yours years ago, and yet you still repeat it.
        As I said long ago, I did not have _permission_ to cite the unpublished
        manuscript in web publication, _only_ in the pages of _VT_. I know that
        permission means nothing to you, but I observe it strictly.

        Etc., etc. Do you really want me to go on? Why do you issue such absurd
        challenges, when you _know_ that they're only going to prove my point
        and make you look foolish yet again? And let's not even bother looking
        at Elfling, as you know full well that won't reflect well on you, or
        help your claim, at all.

        > I don't seem to be aware of any "correction" offered me by CFH having
        > to do
        > with Sindarin past-tense forms. Where did it appear?

        If you can't be bothered to keep up with the main literature of your
        chosen field of scholarly endeavor, I fail to see how you can consider
        yourself a scholar.

        > Yes, we have _le_, but what we need is an _ending_ to be added to
        > verbs.

        And of course we have no examples or even the slightest indication of
        how pronominal endings relate to independent pronouns. Nope, not a clue.

        >
        >> Were I inclined to "use" one, I would certainly pick an _attested_
        >> form over one that is not only _not_ attested, but for which there is
        >> strong evidence _against_.
        >
        > Is there any published evidence either way for _-ch_ as a 2nd person
        > sg. marker?

        Yes.

        >> So too would you, if you weren't motivated by a desire to see a
        >> friend's pet theory "vindicated" against the arguments of someone
        >> else whom you have set up as an enemy (precisely in order to be able
        >> to mock and thus ignore all those inconvenient facts he offers).
        >
        > Oh my, what sinister motives I really have...

        At least you aren't denying it.

        > The way CHF is behaving would seem to suggest that he knows one or
        > more endings that he believes would be a BETTER alternative than _-ch_
        > as the ending for sg. "you" in Sindarin proper.

        It would suggest such a falsehood only to a self-serving demagogue.

        > The demagogue would be me, I guess?

        Indeed.

        > Carl, Carl -- only ONE of us is obsessively discussing the moral
        > standards and (supposedly) sinister motives of the other...

        Habitually and exclusively, that is indeed true.
      • Helge K. Fauskanger
        ... bankruptcies: pretend that I used a term I never did, so as to introduce a false contradiction. I never called such compositions genuine Quenya , and I
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 5, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

          > Once again we see one of the classic Fauskangerian rhetorical
          bankruptcies: pretend that I used a term I never did, so as to introduce a
          false contradiction. I never called such compositions "genuine Quenya", and
          I do not do so now, despite Helge's dishonest implication. Yes folks, he
          really does think you're that stupid.

          The man who speaks about "dishonest implication" would probably do well to
          refrain from ascribing to me such ideas about the intelligence of the
          "folks" reading this list.

          CFH is very afraid of the word "genuine", it would seem, or insists on
          using it in a highly specialized meaning. Yet what is the relevant context
          here? This whole thread started with someone asking whether a certain
          (post-Tolkien) Sindarin sentence was correct or not. Often we see people
          asking such questions (normally with some remark to the effect that "I'm
          going to have a tattoo made so it'd better be right!") Do these people
          mean, "Does this string of words happen to be directly attested in
          Tolkien's corpus?" Hardly. In many cases it is a translation they have
          made, or had made, themselves. So their question really means, "As far as
          anyone can tell without hiring a medium to contact Tolkien himself, is this
          sentence grammatically correct Quenya/Sindarin? Is it genuine in the sense
          Grelvish is NOT genuine?" Of course, they may have to provide a little more
          info about their own definitions before we can answer that. Some would
          tolerate one or a few neologisms (like _estelio_), others would insist on
          using only Tolkien's own words. Yet it is possible to provide a useful
          answer to their question.

          I wrote:

          > Post-Tolkien material is genuine Neo-Eldarin, to the extent it is
          well-formed according to the rules that can be inferred from Tolkien's own
          material. Of course it is not "genuine Tolkien", which simply means that
          Tolkien didn't come up with it.

          Predictably, CFH responded:

          > Nor is it genuine Quenya, or genuine Sindarin.

          It is genuine Neo-Quenya/Sindarin. It is not genuine Tolkien-made Q/S, of
          course, which simply means that Tolkien didn't write it.

          Incidentally, is Tolkien's _istan pole_ a genuine Quenya sentence? Genuine,
          but wrong? That's a tricky one...

          I wrote:

          > Indeed one cannot infer much about Tolkien's invented world simply by
          examining the languages supposed to be spoken there.

          CFH brings out the capitals:

          > WHAT!? Helge, you really shouldn't let your political zeal lead you into
          making such absurd statements. It makes you look stupid.

          I stand by it. I also wrote: "But for a very few highly specialized
          vocabulary units, like 'Silmaril', the entire Quenya-Sindarin-scenario
          could be fitted to just about ANY people and ANY history".

          CFH writes:

          > Sure, so long as they were a monotheistic culture of immortal spirits
          indwelling in immortal bodies

          How can this be inferred from the languages? How can you tell that a _hroa_
          is an immortal body just by looking at the word? (Indeed I would think the
          same word can also be used about mortal bodies; Tolkien placed no such
          restrictions on its meaning.) How can you tell that the speakers of the
          language must be immortal? Because the words _ilfirin_ (Q) or _alfirin_ (S)
          occurs in their lexicon? Well, duh, English also has the adjective
          "immortal", yet no speaker of English has even reached 150.

          > inhabiting a once-flat world made round

          Oh yeah? I really wonder how this can be deduced from such words as _Cemen_
          or _Ambar_?

          > who lived alongside a race of angelic gods

          "Gods"? I thought you just said they were monotheists? Indeed, if all you
          had was the word _Vala_ and the knowledge that it referred to some kind of
          powerful spirit being, how could you even tell if "angel" or "god" was the
          best translation? If you opted for the latter translation, if logically
          follows that these guys believing in several _Valar_ must be polytheists.

          > as well as a race of demonic creatures corrupted by an immensely powerful
          Dark Lord who ruled over them as well as dragons and fire-demons.

          Again, how is this deduced? Because words like _valarauco_, plus the name
          of a sinister being called Melkor/Moringotto/Morgoth, occur in the lexicon?
          English has words like "demon" and "Satan", yet the objective existence of
          these beings remains a matter of faith. Just by looking at his name in a
          dictionary, who can tell whether or not this
          "Morgoth" (let alone his fire-demons) is a purely mythological being?

          No, I'm afraid the fact remains that very little certain knowledge about
          the intended world could be extracted just by examining the grammar and
          dictionary of the languages supposedly spoken in it. One could plausibly
          conclude that the speakers of these languages must be MORTAL, for otherwise
          their languages wouldn't have diverged into two branches as distinct as
          Quenya and Sindarin. The Teachings of Pengolodh can hardly be deduced from
          any Q/S wordlist or grammar...

          CFH is warning the reader against me again:

          > By ripping my words out of context, and by replying as he does, he wants
          you, the reader, to believe that the contrast I was drawing was between
          the understanding of those who have not read _all_ of Tolkien's own
          writings, published or unpublished, and those who have.

          All right. So the "real" or intended distinction was between those who
          depend only on secondary sources like the ones I have provided, and those
          who have also (or only) read the published primary sources. I would surely
          encourage all serious students to read the primary sources, but what
          immense revelations are people supposed to experience, really? The "read
          Tolkien's books!" mantra becomes misleading if people are lead to believe
          that everything will be answered there. Say you want to know about the
          Quenya pluperfect. Maybe you have worked your way through my Quenya course
          and found nothing about it. Disappointing. Now how could the author leave
          out the pluperfect?

          Well, let's buy LotR, the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, RGEO, MC, all twelve
          volumes of HoME, every single back issue of VT and Parma... Half a year
          later, when you have absorbed all of this stuff, you would discover that
          you STILL don't know how the Quenya pluperfect is formed. And you could
          have saved yourself all the trouble and the expenses, for if such
          information had been published, it would have been in my course as well. It
          is not there because it is not _anywhere_. I don't think I have left many
          stones unturned.

          I wrote:

          > It is quite obvious that some "evidence" represents ideas Tolkien
          > abandoned, and then I must be allowed to say so.

          CFH responded:

          > Absolutely, _in cases where it is in fact quite obvious_; which cases are
          far, far fewer than you believe (because you want to believe, to keep your
          conclusions tidy, compact, and "useful").

          All right, so maybe we should expect to see the genitive ending _-n_
          suddenly come back to life for several minutes in a 1963 note Tolkien
          scribbled on the back of an envelope -- and therefore nobody must ever feel
          free to say that Tolkien dropped the ending -n in favour of -o.


          I wrote:

          > If CFH can be bothered to search for his own name in my articles, he
          would find that he is cited favorably a number of times.

          CFH wrote:

          > OK, let's.

          Yes, let's. From the list of quotations provided by CFH, the reader will
          already have inferred that there is nothing even remotely as insulting or
          condescending as "My goodness, Helge, you are quite the little masochist,
          aren't you?". CFH is not called a "demagogue", neither is he compared to
          Morgoth (as I have been by CFH on several occasions).

          It's no point in going through the entire list; CFH himself has to admit
          nothing insulting can be read into many of these quotations. Yet he tries
          his best to do just that.

          Quote from me:

          > "Hostetter in his editorial observed: "Translations of the Lord's Prayer
          have enjoyed a long tradition as representative texts for use in
          side-by-side comparisons of various languages." But since Tolkien
          apparently never made any efforts to have his Quenya-language Lord's Prayer
          published, it does not seem that he intended it to be a general "sample" of
          the language."

          CFH comments:

          > Looks to me like a typical Fauskangerism: create a contrast to make it
          look like I was making a claim about Tolkien's translation, which I never
          did.

          No artificial "contrast" is intended here. I believe it is quite clear from
          the reference that the quote does NOT come from the same VT issue as the
          one where Tolkien's Lord's Prayer versions are presented; it is much
          earlier and relates to his OWN attempt to translate this prayer. The quote
          from CFH simply presents entirely general information. In no way am I
          trying to make it look as if he is asserting anything about Tolkien's
          translation.

          Quote from me:
          > "When making their own translation of the Lord's Prayer, Patrick Wynne
          and Carl F. Hostetter indeed coined precisely the word *síre to translate
          "today" (VT32:8). Yet Tolkien's manuscript definitely seems to read síra
          and not *síre

          [CFH:] > What has our coinage to do with Tolkien's creation? Why even
          mention it?

          I am discussing the possibility that _síra_ should actually read _síre_. It
          is then relevant that other researchers also found this a plausible word
          and even came up with such a form themselves (though not in the context of
          analyzing Tolkien's own text, as I clearly state).

          The quotes relating to the publication project and its rather slow progress
          are, as far as I can see, simply factual information. I don't believe my
          wording is anywhere particularly bitter or insulting.

          > Hm, yes, "some _useful_ material". That speaks volumes about you, Helge.

          For my purposes, which are also the purposes of very many other students,
          some material is indeed more relevant and interesting than other material
          (in particularly clearly pre-classical writings). Like it or not.

          [Quote from me:] "On the other hand, Carl F. Hostetter thinks the Quenya
          aorist is used to describe an action that is "punctual, habitual, or
          otherwise durationless" (VT41:15). This is probably correct in most cases,
          describing the typical function of the aorist. Yet some examples suggest
          that it may be better to say that whereas the present tense explicitly
          identifies an ongoing action, the Quenya aorist is simply unmarked as far
          as duration is concerned."

          CFH is really eager to find some kind of manipulation here:

          > Never mind that "unmarked as far as duration is concerned" _is_
          durationless; just self-servingly manipulate terms and make it _look_ like
          you are drawing a distinction where none exists.

          One does exist. "Durationless" must mean "without duration", i.e. punctual.
          CFH himself writes "punctual...or OTHERWISE durationless". This is not the
          same as "unmarked as far as duration is concerned", which implies that the
          action in question can be _either_ punctual or ongoing. Yet when I cite CFH
          and add, "this is probably correct in most cases" (though I have some minor
          reservations), I think this can be called a favorable quote. It tells a lot
          about his mindset when he really, really tries to find some 'self-serving
          manipulation' even here.

          [Quote from me:] "Years ago, Vinyar Tengwar reported that one of the
          Elfconners was editing the Taliskan grammar, and Carl F. Hostetter confirms
          that it will be published...one day."

          [CFH:] So apparently neither I nor Christopher Tolkien are to be permitted
          to judge what is the best order in which to publish material.

          Did I say anything to this effect? Yet the confirmation I refer to came in
          a letter where CFH himself admitted to me that it had been wrong to refer
          to the editing of the Taliskan grammar in such a way as to suggest that it
          would soon be published. This forms part of a larger pattern: I think
          exactly NOTHING that was pre-announced in Vinyar Tengwar in the nineties
          has yet been published. Do judge for yourself "what is the best order in
          which to publish material", but please don't raise false hopes and then be
          very angry if someone reminds you about what you said (in some cases even
          promised), but failed to deliver.

          About Sindarin pronouns:

          [Me:] > Yes, we have _le_, but what we need is an _ending_ to be added to
          verbs.

          [CFH:] > And of course we have no examples or even the slightest indication
          of how pronominal endings relate to independent pronouns. Nope, not a clue.

          Actually we don't have very many Sindarin examples to go on. Yet I have
          discussed the possibility of *_-l_ as a 2nd person marker in Sindarin (see
          my article "Reconstructing the Sindarin Verb System" on Ardalambion.com),
          though I would expect this to be a plural "you" if it is to correspond to
          Quenya _-lle_ (this ending apparently denoting the 2nd pl. in some versions
          of the language).

          [Me:] > Oh my, what sinister motives I really have...

          [CFH:] At least you aren't denying it.

          Carl, please look up the term "irony" in one of those dictionaries you are
          so fond of quoting from...

          - HKF
        • Carl F. Hostetter
          ... The contempt with which you treat the rational capacity of your readers, as amply demonstrated by your bankrupt rhetorical methods, more than justifies
          Message 4 of 19 , Sep 5, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 04:14 AM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:

            > Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
            >
            >> Once again we see one of the classic Fauskangerian rhetorical
            >> bankruptcies: pretend that I used a term I never did, so as to
            >> introduce a false contradiction. I never called such compositions
            >> "genuine Quenya", and I do not do so now, despite Helge's dishonest
            >> implication. Yes folks, he really does think you're that stupid.
            >
            > The man who speaks about "dishonest implication" would probably do
            > well to refrain from ascribing to me such ideas about the intelligence
            > of the "folks" reading this list.

            The contempt with which you treat the rational capacity of your
            readers, as amply demonstrated by your bankrupt rhetorical methods,
            more than justifies this ascription.

            > CFH is very afraid of the word "genuine", it would seem, or insists on
            > using it in a highly specialized meaning.

            American Heritage Dictionary:

            Genuine. 2. Not spurious or counterfeit; authentic. See Synonyms at
            authentic.
            Authentic 2. Having a claimed and verifiable origin or authorship; not
            counterfeit or copied


            > Yet what is the relevant context here? This whole thread started with
            > someone asking whether a certain (post-Tolkien) Sindarin sentence was
            > correct or not.

            _No it didn't_. The question was whether the sentence was
            "grammatically correct Sindarin".

            > Do these people mean, "Does this string of words happen to be directly
            > attested in
            > Tolkien's corpus?" Hardly.

            And yet _again_ you're unable to avoid your bankrupt rhetorical
            manipulations. No one has ever claimed that people mean any such thing.
            Nor did my particular answer to this particular question make any
            reference to whether "this string of words happen to be directly
            attested in Tolkien's corpus". Instead, it examined the individual
            words and grammatical devices, and in at least three of these features
            it was _not_ "grammatically correct Sindarin", _precisely_ the terms of
            the question.


            > Some would tolerate one or a few neologisms (like _estelio_),

            I can tolerate any number of neologisms, but definitely not ones like
            _estelio_, for the reasons I've already detailed, though you somehow
            have failed to notice.

            > others would insist on using only Tolkien's own words.

            Perhaps; but despite your implication, I am not one of those. Again, as
            I've already stated, though you somehow have failed to notice.

            > Yet it is possible to provide a useful answer to their question.

            Indeed. As I did. To which you in turn responded with your usual
            bankrupt rhetoric, and lo these many off-topic posts later, here you
            are _still_ misrepresenting the original question, ignoring and/or
            misrepresenting what I actually wrote, ascribing straw-man arguments to
            people who never made them, etc., etc. Why _don't_ you provide a useful
            answer to the original question, if you disagree with mine? You have
            yet to do so. Thought I strongly doubt that the questioner will still
            be reading this thread, or even this list, given the path you have
            taken it on.

            >> Post-Tolkien material is genuine Neo-Eldarin, to the extent it is
            >> well-formed according to the rules that can be inferred from
            >> Tolkien's own material. Of course it is not "genuine Tolkien", which
            >> simply means that Tolkien didn't come up with it.
            >
            > Predictably, CFH responded:
            >
            >> Nor is it genuine Quenya, or genuine Sindarin.

            I'm very glad to hear that making factual responses is a predictable
            trait of mine. Would that we could say the same about you.

            > It is genuine Neo-Quenya/Sindarin. It is not genuine Tolkien-made Q/S,
            > of
            > course, which simply means that Tolkien didn't write it.

            Yes, precisely! No wonder you found my response predictable, since you
            _agree_ with it entirely! Why then did you spend all this time on
            attacking my position, which you youself have _just restated_ in
            _agreement_?

            > Incidentally, is Tolkien's _istan pole_ a genuine Quenya sentence?

            Yes, though it (almost) certainly doesn't have the meaning Tolkien
            intended to convey, as indicated by the accompanying gloss ("I can
            speak (because I have learned (a) language)", VT41:6), the manner of
            its composition, and the context in which it occurs. Context: your
            friend and mine. (Well, OK, _my_ friend, your occasional acquaintance
            and frequent adversary.)

            > Genuine, but wrong?

            See above.

            > That's a tricky one...

            Not in the least.

            > I stand by it. I also wrote: "But for a very few highly specialized
            > vocabulary units, like 'Silmaril', the entire Quenya-Sindarin-scenario
            > could be fitted to just about ANY people and ANY history".
            >
            > CFH writes:
            >
            >> Sure, so long as they were a monotheistic culture of immortal spirits
            >> indwelling in immortal bodies
            >
            > How can this be inferred from the languages?

            From the _words_ and their _meanings_? Like _Eru_, _fíru-_, etc.?

            > How can you tell that a _hroa_ is an immortal body just by looking at
            > the word?

            That was _not_ a term of your claim. (You can't even represent _your
            own claims accurately!) _You_ claimed that "_the entire
            Quenya-Sindarin-scenario_ could be fitted to just about ANY people and
            ANY history" (emphasis mine). "The entire Quenya-Sindarin-scenario"
            includes _definitions_ of words, not just their written representation
            devoid of meaning. And those _definitions_ include nuances and
            distinctions that are derived _from the culture that defined them_
            through common usage. And as we have seen repeatedly, those definitions
            are _not_ culturally or metaphysically neutral. Thus, for example, as
            Tolkien himself says, "What the _óre_ was for Elvish thought and
            speech, and the nature of its counsels — it says, and so advises, but
            is never represented as commanding — requires for its understanding a
            brief account of Eldarin thought on the matter." (VT41:11).

            >> who lived alongside a race of angelic gods
            >
            > "Gods"? I thought you just said they were monotheists?

            Stick to the point much? Note that that is "gods", little _g_. Note
            that Tolkien himself uses the term. Note that neither to Tolkien nor to
            me nor to the vast majority of people who have ever uttered the phrase
            "Ye gods!" does that imply pantheism.

            > Indeed, if all you had was the word _Vala_ and the knowledge that it
            > referred to some kind of powerful spirit being,

            But that is _not_ all we have, again _even by the terms of your own
            claim_.

            > No, I'm afraid the fact remains that very little certain knowledge
            > about the intended world could be extracted just by examining the
            > grammar and dictionary of the languages supposedly spoken in it.

            That depends entirely on how complete and detailed the dictionary was;
            i.e., whether it conveyed fully for each word the meaning it had in
            (and was given to it by) "Elvish thought and speech", per Tolkien's
            distinction; or whether it was more like your own wordlists.

            > CFH is warning the reader against me again:
            >
            >> By ripping my words out of context, and by replying as he does, he
            >> wants you, the reader, to believe that the contrast I was drawing
            >> was between the understanding of those who have not read _all_ of
            >> Tolkien's own writings, published or unpublished, and those who have.
            >
            > All right. So the "real" or intended distinction was between those who
            > depend only on secondary sources like the ones I have provided, and
            > those who have also (or only) read the published primary sources.

            So finally you begrudgingly acknowledge the plain meaning of my words,
            instead of the straw-man position you dishonestly ascribed to me
            earlier. And it only took three posts for you to do it. Well, sadly,
            that constitutes real progress for you.

            > I would surely encourage all serious students to read the primary
            > sources, but what immense revelations are people supposed to
            > experience, really?

            (Notice once again the classic Fauskagerian technique of inserting
            hyperbole -- here, "immense revelations", which I never claimed -- in
            order to misrepresent the _actual_ point as ludicrous. He really,
            really, really does think you are _that_ stupid, folks.)

            For starters: All the context, subtly, nuance, and variability that you
            fail to convey. A chance to measure your claims and characterizations
            against Tolkien's own words and creative methods. A familiarity,
            appreciation, and understanding of _Tolkien's_ thoughts on his
            languages, and _Tolkien's_ manner and method of presenting and
            describing his languages, instead of merely mastering your own, highly
            artificial, manner, method, and presentation.

            > The "read Tolkien's books!" mantra becomes misleading if people are
            > lead to believe that everything will be answered there.

            What on Arda are you talking about? Who has _ever_ claimed or implied
            that "everything will be answered" in Tolkien's writings? Have I and my
            colleagues not, in fact, repeatedly made precisely the opposite claim?
            Well yes, we have, and as we've seen _ad nauseam_ Helge representations
            of the claims and positions of myself and my colleagues bears little or
            no relationship to reality.

            By the same token, Helge, would you say that the "read Helge's web
            site!" "mantra", which is vastly more common in these fora than the one
            you claim, is misleading because it leads people to believe that
            everything will be answered there.

            > Well, let's buy LotR, the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, RGEO, MC, all
            > twelve volumes of HoME, every single back issue of VT and Parma...
            > Half a year later, when you have absorbed all of this stuff, you would
            > discover that you STILL don't know how the Quenya pluperfect is > formed.

            And perhaps _you_ will discover that this straw-man scenario STILL has
            nothing to do with the question at hand, as no one has ever said that
            the value of reading Tolkien's works lies in discovering what the
            Quenya pluperfect is. That is entirely _your_ fiction.

            > I wrote:
            >
            >> It is quite obvious that some "evidence" represents ideas Tolkien
            >> abandoned, and then I must be allowed to say so.
            >
            > CFH responded:
            >
            >> Absolutely, _in cases where it is in fact quite obvious_; which cases
            >> are far, far fewer than you believe (because you want to believe, to
            >> keep your conclusions tidy, compact, and "useful").
            >
            > All right, so maybe we should expect to see the genitive ending _-n_
            > suddenly come back to life for several minutes in a 1963 note Tolkien
            > scribbled on the back of an envelope -- and therefore nobody must ever
            > feel free to say that Tolkien dropped the ending -n in favour of -o.

            Helge, your contempt for any semblance of sticking to the points and
            terms of a discussion is appalling.

            > It's no point in going through the entire list; CFH himself has to
            > admit nothing insulting can be read into many of these quotations.

            No I don't. And I daresay I am far from alone. You're only fooling
            yourself (and almost certainly not even yourself).

            > Quote from me:
            >
            >> "Hostetter in his editorial observed: "Translations of the Lord's
            >> Prayer have enjoyed a long tradition as representative texts for use
            >> in side-by-side comparisons of various languages." But since Tolkien
            >> apparently never made any efforts to have his Quenya-language Lord's
            >> Prayer published, it does not seem that he intended it to be a
            >> general "sample" of the language."
            >
            > CFH comments:
            >
            >> Looks to me like a typical Fauskangerism: create a contrast to make
            >> it look like I was making a claim about Tolkien's translation, which
            >> I never did.
            >
            > No artificial "contrast" is intended here. I believe it is quite clear
            > from the reference that the quote does NOT come from the same VT issue
            > as the one where Tolkien's Lord's Prayer versions are presented; it is
            > much earlier and relates to his OWN attempt to translate this prayer.
            > The quote from CFH simply presents entirely general information. In no
            > way am I trying to make it look as if he is asserting anything about
            > Tolkien's
            > translation.

            Horse-hockey. You aren't just conveying random bits of general
            information: you set my words against your own characterization,
            thereby consciously and deliberately creating a contrast between them,
            as reinforced by your wording "_But since_ ..." etc. (emphasis mine).
            You aren't fooling anyone, Helge, not even yourself.

            > I am discussing the possibility that _síra_ should actually read
            > _síre_. It is then relevant that other researchers also found this a
            > plausible word and even came up with such a form themselves (though
            > not in the context of analyzing Tolkien's own text, as I clearly
            > state).

            I don't find that at all relevant. It is absolutely no surprise at all
            that Tolkien's own creations differ from the coinages of those who are
            not Tolkien. Nor does the judgment of those who are not Tolkien as to
            what is plausible have any bearing at all on the question of whether a
            form Tolkien wrote is accurate or not; that can be judged only on the
            basis of Tolkien's own writings and from context.

            > The quotes relating to the publication project and its rather slow
            > progress are, as far as I can see, simply factual information. I don't
            > believe my wording is anywhere particularly bitter or insulting.

            Sadly, I can almost believe that your agenda-driven self-delusions and
            rationalizations are such that you really do believe that. Almost.

            As for the rest of Helge's post, I'll trust in the intelligence of the
            reader to see that it's all just more of the same contempt-filled
            manipulation and misrepresentation. You know the drill by now.
          • John Cowan
            ... We certainly do know the drill by now: each one s foot is aimed directly at the other s knee, and though the vocabulary is adult, the emotional tone is
            Message 5 of 19 , Sep 5, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:

              > As for the rest of Helge's post, I'll trust in the intelligence of the
              > reader [...]. You know the drill by now.

              We certainly do know the drill by now: each one's foot is aimed
              directly at the other's knee, and though the vocabulary is adult,
              the emotional tone is that of an 8-year-old. I would ask the two of
              you to desist, but I've been down that road so many times there is
              no further point in it.

              Helge and Carl, we you implore
              To go away and sin no more;
              Or if that effort be too great,
              To go away, at any rate.

              (The sigmonster that chooses my .sig, though random, did rather well
              this time.)

              --
              "You know, you haven't stopped talking John Cowan
              since I came here. You must have been http://www.reutershealth.com
              vaccinated with a phonograph needle." jcowan@...
              --Rufus T. Firefly http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
            • Carl F. Hostetter
              Very clever and all, John, but once again, I will not accept being lumped in with Helge in this matter. It was Helge who began the personal attacks. It is
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 5, 2003
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Very clever and all, John, but once again, I will not accept being
                lumped in with Helge in this matter.

                It was Helge who began the personal attacks.

                It is Helge who has refused a clear invitation to continue (the
                scholarly portion of) this discussion in another forum.

                It is Helge who refuses to stick to any sort of scholarly argument, but
                instead continues his campaign of mockery, distortions and attacks.

                It is entirely up to Helge to end this, either by dropping it or by
                responding honestly and thoughtfully to the scholarly issue(s) under
                discussion, in a manner devoid of mockery, distortions and attacks.
              • John Cowan
                ... An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Either one of you can drop this, and both of you should. If you won t, you won t, but it is false to
                Message 7 of 19 , Sep 5, 2003
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:

                  > It is entirely up to Helge to end this, either by dropping it or by
                  > responding honestly and thoughtfully to the scholarly issue(s) under
                  > discussion, in a manner devoid of mockery, distortions and attacks.

                  "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Either one of you can
                  drop this, and both of you should. If you won't, you won't, but it is
                  false to claim that "it is entirely up to Helge", as if your postings
                  (but not his) were *truly* a matter of conditioned reflex rather than
                  a choice for which you stand responsible.

                  --
                  "No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan
                  useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
                  address all questions by piling on ridiculous http://www.reutershealth.com
                  internal links in forms which are hideously jcowan@...
                  over-complex." --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev
                • Carl F. Hostetter
                  This is not an eye for an eye , John; that you think it is shows how little attention you ve paid to the discussion. It is fallacious claim versus correction,
                  Message 8 of 19 , Sep 5, 2003
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    This is not "an eye for an eye", John; that you think it is shows how
                    little attention you've paid to the discussion. It is fallacious claim
                    versus correction, which is a very, very different thing.

                    I have repeatedly "dropped" this; every time I correct Helge's
                    distortions and fallacies, the matter is dropped, so far as I am
                    concerned. It is dropped right now, in fact.

                    But then Helge comes along an picks it up again, with a new and
                    increasingly desperate round of distortions and fallacies, which as I
                    have said before I will not allow to go uncorrected when they concern
                    me or my colleagues. Period.

                    So once again: the matter _is_ dropped, right now; unless Helge picks
                    it up again.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.