Interpreter tries to fix one of their sharpshooter fallacies

[Flemming]

I was rather hoping we could talk about a few specific articles instead of “uh…well…just all of them, duh!”

[drumdude]

You’re right, my mistake. So we have 2 now. Drumdude said there are “many.”

No, pg said Carmack's "entire body of work." That's at least 15. Plus 1=16. That qualifies as "many," and significantly more than 5.

Bumping since Flemming must have missed this.

[Flemming]

No, pg said Carmack's "entire body of work." That's at least 15. Plus 1=16. That qualifies as "many," and significantly more than 5.

Surely we could find a piece of Carmack work that doesn’t qualify, right?

[honorentheos]

No, pg said Carmack's "entire body of work." That's at least 15. Plus 1=16. That qualifies as "many," and significantly more than 5.

Surely we could find a piece of Carmack work that doesn’t qualify, right?

A concrete example that springs to my mind for these apologetic tactics is the whole body of work by Carmack on Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon.

[honorentheos]

I was rather hoping we could talk about a few specific articles instead of “uh…well…just all of them, duh!”

Make it the three from the current issue about Book of Mormon names, Hamites in the Book of Abraham, and NHM, then? I'm not trying to cherry pick here. I haven't opened two of them and only skimmed the NHM article. Call it an experiment. Can an article in the Interpreter avoid the TSSF while attempting to place the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham into an ancient context?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

No, pg said Carmack's "entire body of work." That's at least 15. Plus 1=16. That qualifies as "many," and significantly more than 5.

Surely we could find a piece of Carmack work that doesn’t qualify, right?

Did you read the entirety of The Blocking in Georgian Verb Morphology by Stanford Carmack?

- Doc

edit: Just to give you a head start, Flemming, please demonstrate how Carmack didn’t focus on a subset of Georgian verbs that exhibit blocking behavior, while ignoring verbs that do not. Taking his work on Early Modern English and the Book of Mormon as a comparative approach to his scholarship, after reading the paper one could see an inflated estimate of the prevalence of blocking and an inaccurate understanding of its role in Georgian verb morphology.

How do you know he didn’t attribute all instances of blocking to a single underlying mechanism (his ‘equations’, for example) even if there are other plausible explanations? What if phonological constraints are instead driven by semantic factors? Heck, how would you know if misinterpreted data would be construed as further evidence for his hypothesis? For example, he might claim that exceptions to blocking rules are actually further evidence for the existence of those rules.

Please show your work in this thread.

- Doc

[Flemming]

Surely we could find a piece of Carmack work that doesn’t qualify, right?

Did you read the entirety of The Blocking in Georgian Verb Morphology by Stanford Carmack?

- Doc

edit: Just to give you a head start, Flemming, please demonstrate how Carmack didn’t focus on a subset of Georgian verbs that exhibit blocking behavior, while ignoring verbs that do not. Taking his work on Early Modern English and the Book of Mormon as a comparative approach to his scholarship, after reading the paper one could see an inflated estimate of the prevalence of blocking and an inaccurate understanding of its role in Georgian verb morphology.

How do you know he didn’t attribute all instances of blocking to a single underlying mechanism (his ‘equations’, for example) even if there are other plausible explanations? What if phonological constraints are instead driven by semantic factors? Heck, how would you know if misinterpreted data would be construed as further evidence for his hypothesis? For example, he might claim that exceptions to blocking rules are actually further evidence for the existence of those rules.

Please show your work in this thread.

- Doc

Georgian language was my specialty at the university.

But before I answer, consider what you are claiming here—that the journal Language and the Linguistic Society of America have published a peer reviewed article that suffers severe errors.

I don’t buy it, and neither should you.

დიდება საქართველოს

[Flemming]

I was rather hoping we could talk about a few specific articles instead of “uh…well…just all of them, duh!”

Make it the three from the current issue about Book of Mormon names, Hamites in the Book of Abraham, and NHM, then? I'm not trying to cherry pick here. I haven't opened two of them and only skimmed the NHM article. Call it an experiment. Can an article in the Interpreter avoid the TSSF while attempting to place the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham into an ancient context?

Alright. Let’s go with these three. Have you read them? I haven’t read them yet but I shall begin now.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Did you read the entirety of The Blocking in Georgian Verb Morphology by Stanford Carmack?

- Doc

edit: Just to give you a head start, Flemming, please demonstrate how Carmack didn’t focus on a subset of Georgian verbs that exhibit blocking behavior, while ignoring verbs that do not. Taking his work on Early Modern English and the Book of Mormon as a comparative approach to his scholarship, after reading the paper one could see an inflated estimate of the prevalence of blocking and an inaccurate understanding of its role in Georgian verb morphology.

How do you know he didn’t attribute all instances of blocking to a single underlying mechanism (his ‘equations’, for example) even if there are other plausible explanations? What if phonological constraints are instead driven by semantic factors? Heck, how would you know if misinterpreted data would be construed as further evidence for his hypothesis? For example, he might claim that exceptions to blocking rules are actually further evidence for the existence of those rules.

Please show your work in this thread.

- Doc

Georgian language was my specialty at the university.

But before I answer, consider what you are claiming here—that the journal Language and the Linguistic Society of America have published a peer reviewed article that suffers severe errors.

I don’t buy it, and neither should you.

დიდება საქართველოს

[Philo Sofee]

Thought not. So just say stuff without backing it up in any way, just like High Spy.

Saw a pig fly the other day, I did. But I won’t waste my time proving it to you!

Ok. In other news, the sun came up today, but there is no need to prove it to anyone.

I heard the rumor that water runs downhill, but I don't have the $750,000 to buy the equipment to prove it, so there is that..... I suppose all one has to do is look and observe..... kinda like Flemming with the Interpreter articles...... if he would care to....