OT: Helge misdirecting the discourse (again)
- On Nov 5, 2003, at 3:32 PM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:
> Yeah, I read it and found the "corrections" to be little else thanThey are not. You, for example, claim that I said that original long
> academic hair-splitting,
vowels coming to stand in an unstressed final syllable in Sindarin
should remain long. I never said any such thing. Your false attribution
to me of an argument I never made is not mere hair-splitting, it is
misrepresentation, pure and simple. That you are content to let it
remain, and your dismissive attitude towards corrections (not
"corrections", per your condescending form) to your errors, exhibits a
contempt for truth and accuracy.
> produced by a man who is moreover obsessed with reading insults andNo, not "anything your write" (you do love the hyperboles), only your
> misrepresentations into anything I can write.
insults and misrepresentations (see above for a prime example, just one
> I wrote, in what I thought to be a conciliatory tone:Yes, which you IMMEDIATELY label and refer to as "this 'controversy'".
>> First of all, it should be noted that this "controversy" only has to
>> do with what terminology it is best to use when describing the
>> Sindarin verb system; there is not (in this case) any disagreement
>> about how the verb system actually works. Hostetter is undoubtedly
>> right that an Eldarin verb, where it occurs without pronominal
>> endings, is strictly speaking "personless" rather than belonging
>> specifically to the 3rd person.
> However, even here CFH manages to find a supposed misrepresentation;
> he wrote on the Lambengolmor list:
>> it is Helge who refers to this as a "controversy" (with quotes that
>> give the false impression that he is quoting me in that term, and
>> thus that I used it).
> Please...! The sentence in question IMMEDIATELY follows a long
> quotation from CFH,
_You_ labeled it such, not me, as I pointed out; _you_ applied the term
only so that you could belittle the point being made, without actually
having to respond to it.
> and any reader endowed with a short-term memory will know that theUtterly beside the point, since I never claimed that were saying I used
> word "controversy" did not occur there.
the word, only that your word-choice _creates an impression_ that I
considered it such. Whether deliberate or not, that _is_ the impression
created; and it seems calculated to allow you to dismiss the actual
point of my words as irrelevant -- which, in fact, is precisely how you
_did_ use it. I'm willing to believe that you are not _aware_ of your
rhetorical faults, that they really are just conditioned reflexes, not
deliberate calculations; but either way, they misrepresent that actual
situations and issues under discussion, and you should learn to avoid
them. Happily for you, I'm willing to help you learn, by correcting
your excesses when I can.
> Is it not obvious, if one reads the sentence where it occurs, that IHow is it "conciliatory" to falsely imply that there is a
> put "controversy" in quotes because I see this as a mere academic
> disagreement about what a certain verb form is best called -- hence
> not much of a real controversy at all?
"controversy", only to dismiss the issue out of hand? Moreover, as I
have already said, it is _not_ true that the issue is one only of
terminology: 3rd sg. and personless do _not_ indicate or imply the same
things, when used without qualification, and so are _not_ silently
interchangeable terms. As you would know if you had actually given my
words any thought instead of reflexively dismissing them with
belittling, fabricated labels and misdirections..
> The rest of the supposed "misrepresentations" similarly have to doUntrue. See, for instance, the example of the issue of vowel length
> with CFH reading into my words something that is not there.
> (For instance, I do NOT say that he has claimed that _dangen_ "slain"Yes I can; I was citing only the _ending_ of such forms: it is _you_
> must descend from *_ndákina_, something I hope we agree would be quite
> impossible. But he cannot deny that it was he who brought Quenya-style
> participles like _rákina_ into the discussion,
who brought "Quenya-style participles" as a whole into your response;
pointlessly as even you now seem to admit.
> and then I must be allowed to point out that the formations associatedSince that was never at issue -- until you pretended that it was --
> with the ending _-ina_ do not match the evidence from
> Noldorin/Sindarin at all
then it is pointless and misleading for you to "point out" any such
So why, then, _did_ you bring them in in a response to my observation?
What possible purpose can it serve, other than confusion, to even bring
things like *_ndákina_ up? Perhaps -- PERHAPS -- you did not _intend_
to create the impression that I had said any such thing; but that is
the effect, and I requested -- and request still -- that you correct
> CFH once told me that when I become the editor of Vinyar Tengwar, IYour little parable has _nothing_ to do with the point of this
> can publish whatever I want. Very well: When he becomes the webmaster
> of Ardalambion, he can alter the articles in any way he sees fit. Even
discussion, which is: that your revisions to your article introduce
erroneous claims and misrepresentations about my words and positions;
and yet you are unwilling to correct them.
> As for "truth and accuracy", I can only assure that I have notVery well, then, I want you to state, for the record, whether the
> deliberately misrepresented him in any way.
following statement, quoted from your article, is factual:
"Carl F. Hostetter argues that the final vowel should remain long in
the Sindarin words, since it was long at an older stage (e.g. *onúr
rather than *onur, because the older form would be *onôr-)"
I have already shown that this is false. If you are going to maintain
that it is true, then it should be very easy for you to prove it to us,
by pointing us to where I ever said any such thing. But if you are
willing to set aside your prideful obstinance and admit that it is
false, then please explain to us why you believe it acceptable to allow
known falsehoods to stand uncorrected on your web site.
> Yet it is indeed difficult for me to adjust to CFH's way of thinking.Your condescending, snide attitude here speaks volumes about your
> So if he feels he has been so grotesquely misrepresented (it must
> really mean the world to him whether the Sindarin participial ending
> -en descends from -ênâ or -inâ),
contempt for any standards of scholarly discourse.
> let him write a proper article in response to mine, setting out inThis is pure fallacy. I do not have to write an article on the entire
> some detail HIS ideas about the Sindarin verb system. Then, if he
> places the article on the web, I will consider linking to it.
Sindarin verb system in order to demonstrate that particular claims you
make about the system are false. What I have already written on the
particular subject of the Noldorin and Sindarin past-tense verb systems
are quite sufficient to show _some_ of the deficiencies of your own
treatment of the subject.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
> I'm willing to believe that you are not _aware_ of your rhetorical faults,I believe the same applies to you. If your deliberate calculation were to
> that they really are just conditioned reflexes, not deliberate calculations
miscredit Helge Fauskanger, then you're on the wrong way, since with your
posts full of rhetorics against him you're miscrediting yourself.
You seem not to be aware of the effect you posts have on people not involved
like me: On one hand I see Helge Fauskanger, a normal contributor to this
list; on the other hand I see you writing one post after the other full of
hate against him.
Of course, Helge Fauskanger uses rhetorics, but rhetorics are natural and
even very helpful as long as they're used to miscredit arguments, not
persons. Of course, he makes misinterpretations, but that's natural as well.
I wouldn't even deny that he possibly might make more misinterpretations
than other people; but if that's what you're trying to demonstrate in your
posts, then you should know that this demonstration has failed (at least on
me) because it's drowned out by your hate.
Just to make it sure: I don't want to know the reasons of your hate, and
after all I don't want to take anybody's sides. I'm just trying to show you
the effects your posts have on me because I believe they have similar
effects on other people. Yet I fear I'm trying in vain.
- On Nov 6, 2003, at 8:08 AM, mach wrote:
> Of course, Helge Fauskanger uses rhetorics, but rhetorics are naturalRhetoric is useful when it furthers the goal of finding the truth. The
> and even very helpful as long as they're used to miscredit arguments,
> not persons.
sort of rhetorics Helge employs are directed towards obscuring the
truth. That is not helpful to anyone but Helge.
> Of course, he makes misinterpretations, but that's natural as well.Nor is the mere fact of his misrepresentation the (sole) issue. The
most serious issue is that, _even when his errors are pointed out_,
Helge steadfastly refuses to correct them, because it serves his
purposes to maintain the falsehood.
> then you should know that this demonstration has failed (at least onI don't hate Helge. I don't even know him. But I do hate his
> me) because it's drowned out by your hate.
self-serving, truth-obscuring rhetoric and his unwillingness to correct
But that is _your_ error: that you can't separate criticism of methods,
claims, and deeds from hatred of a person.
- On Nov 6, 2003, at 8:08 AM, mach wrote:
> Carl F. Hostetter wrote:P.S. My goal neither is, nor ever has been, to discredit Helge. My goal
>> I'm willing to believe that you are not _aware_ of your rhetorical
>> faults, that they really are just conditioned reflexes, not
>> deliberate calculations
> I believe the same applies to you. If your deliberate calculation were
> to miscredit Helge Fauskanger, then you're on the wrong way
is simply what the goal of scholarship is, and what the goal of anyone
claiming to be a scholar should be: the search for truth.
- Since Helge seems not to have noticed it, I want to set forth these
simple questions again in plain sight.
In his article on "Reconstructing the Sindarin Verb System"
(<http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/sverb-rec.htm>), Helge writes:
"By this system we would have [past-tense] forms like *ebid "spoke"
(ped- "speak"), *ewidh "bound" (gwed[h]- "bind"), *idir "watched" (tir-
"watch"), and *onur "ran" (nor- "run")."
Note the short vowels in each form.
To this, Helge has now appended a note that begins:
"NOTE: Carl F. Hostetter argues that the final vowel should remain long
in the Sindarin words, since it was long at an older stage (e.g. *onúr
rather than *onur, because the older form would be *onôr-)."
As anyone can plainly see from what I actually wrote
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/message/2794>), and as I have
(<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/510>), this is a
complete misrepresentation of my words and position. I argued only that
original long vowels _might_ remain long _in stressed position_; I said
precisely _nothing_ about them remaining long in _unstressed_ position,
such as in the
1) Do you still maintain that your statement, quoted above, is factual?
2) If so, can you please show us where I ever made such an argument?
3) If not, will you correct your misrepresentation?
4) If you will not correct it, why not?
1) Having read the sources, do you find Helge's statement to be factual?
2) If so, can you please show us where I ever made such an argument?
3) If not, do you find it acceptable for Helge to attribute absurd
positions to me and then to leave them uncorrected when his
misrepresentations have been pointed out?
4) If so, why?
5) If not, then why are you defending Helge's practice of doing such
(instead of arguing against it, or at least remaining silent)?
I await your answers.
- Until recently, one article on my pages implied that Carl F. Hostetter
thinks older *_itîr-_ as a possible (though unlikely) past tense "watched"
would produce Noldorin/Sindarin *_idír_ rather than *_idir_. CFH himself
> this is a complete misrepresentation of my words and position. I arguedonly that original long vowels _might_ remain long _in stressed position_;
I said precisely _nothing_ about them remaining long in _unstressed_
position, such as in the
As we understand, somebody hit the SEND button a little prematurely here,
but CFH's point is still reasonably clear, especially in the light of other
posts of his.
It is hardly entirely correct that he said "precisely _nothing_" about
vowels in unstressed position. Rather he said he thought the vowel would be
_especially_ likely to remain long in stressed position, with the seeming
implication that he thinks it could very well remain long even when
When I wrote that I thought we would see *_idir_ rather than *_idír_, and
he in direct response to this states: "I see no reason why the vowel would
not remain long", then it does sound to me as if he is arguing FOR *_idír_
and AGAINST _idir_. If I misunderstood him and he only meant we would see
_idír-_ before some ending, then he was really begging to be misunderstood.
Rather than making a circus about this, as if I were deliberately
misrepresenting him to make him look stupid, it would be far better if he
could say: "I'm sorry, it seems that in the heat of the argument I didn't
express myself adequately. Please allow me to clarify this..."
Very well, let's just be happy that some sort of clarification did
materialize after all. CFH now claims he meant that the older long vowel
would remain long in the _penultimate_ syllable of suffixed forms, where a
long vowel would attract the stress. Unfortunately, there is _still_ little
evidence to support such a view, and good reasons to doubt it. With more
recent compounds as the main exception, the general tendency is to shorten
long vowels in polysyllabic words. For examples, check out the Revised Note
in my article:
(Search for "Hostetter argues that before"...)
- On Nov 10, 2003, at 6:15 PM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:
> Until recently,I.e., until _today_, after weeks and weeks of evasion...
> one article on my pages implied that Carl F. Hostetter thinks olderAnd the same page in fact _still_ claims that I argued this, which I
> *_itîr-_ as a possible (though unlikely) past tense "watched" would
> produce Noldorin/Sindarin *_idír_ rather than *_idir_.
never did. Helge has merely displaced his false, unevidenced assertion
further down in his now longer note, and replaced it with a different
set of false assertions (such as, that I "dismiss" agorech, or argued
that the stem vowel would be different in "some cases" -- in fact, I
merely pointed out that _if the sole example of past-tense formation
exhibited by _agor_ < *_akâra_ is to be applied to other verbs_, then
the _whole_ pattern needs to be applied, and not set aside silently as
Helge does; and the pattern exhibited by *_akâra_ _includes_ an
extended base with suffixed _sundóma_.
> Rather than making a circus about this, as if I were deliberatelyI expressed myself with perfect adequacy, and far more precisely than
> misrepresenting him to make him look stupid, it would be far better if
> he could say: "I'm sorry, it seems that in the heat of the argument I
> didn't express myself adequately. Please allow me to clarify this..."
you bothered to notice in your zeal to attempt to discredit one that
you view as your "opponent" (which is at least 95% of your problem as a
"scholar": that you view it as a combative sport). No clarification was
necessary beyond that provided by simply reading my words with the care
and thoughtfulness due to -- and from -- any scholar.
I reject Helge's continued falsifications of my words and of the
evidence, and I deplore his unwillingness to discuss these issues in an
open forum so that the truth can be reached and so that he can come to
understand my arguments and the evidence before he falsely attributes
claims and positions to me.
And I say again to all readers of Helge's work: do not accept
_anything_ he says as true, unless you can verify it independently.
This is true even when Helge cites evidence (as he has a disturbing
tendency to quote out of context), and _especially_ when, as
frequently, he cites no evidence at all. His failure to quote any words
of mine supporting his misrepresentations of my claims should alert any
considerate reader that things are not as he wants you to believe they
- Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:
> I expressed myself with perfect adequacy,You may have *expressed* yourself, but you obviously failed to
*communicate*, since that (like the tango) takes at least two.
"Kill Gorg)Bûn! Kill orc-folk! John Cowan
No other words please Wild Men. jcowan@...
Drive away bad air and darkness http://www.reutershealth.com
with bright iron!" --Gh)Bân-buri-Ghân http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
- The fact that _Helge_ misunderstood my words (if in fact he did),
because he couldn't be bothered to read them with any care, does _not_
mean that I failed to "communicate"; only that he failed to understand
what I wrote.
It also takes two for a mugging to occur; that doesn't mean the muggee
is at fault. Don't pin Helge's failure on me.
On Nov 10, 2003, at 9:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:
>> I expressed myself with perfect adequacy,
> You may have *expressed* yourself, but you obviously failed to
> *communicate*, since that (like the tango) takes at least two.