Re: I'll bet you a ham sandwich

On Sep 20, 10:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

If taf had bothered to read my earlier post, he would have seen that I
specifically stated that Piers de Gavaston is the singular exception
to the convention employed by modern historians of treating Peter as
the correct form of Piers.

Let me get this straight. 'Modern historians' have a convention to
use the modern form (except when they don't), so that means Peter is
The Correct Form (except when it isn't). Clear (as mud).


Why don't they bother to read my posts?

One can only stomach so much.


And then misrepresent what I
say? Probably because they don't want to learn anything I suppose.

We _do_ think highly of ourselves, don't we professor? Tell me, are
you here to learn, or only to teach?


Frankly I'm tired of people lying about me.

Setting aside the whining, let me just point out that respect is not
commanded, it is earned.


Now, back to the subject at hand. This convention for the
standardization of names. When was it developed? What historians
agreed to it? Using statistics, what proportion of all modern
historians follow this convention? How about some specific examples.
Let's start with the 11th century Ealdorman, son of Eathelweard the
Historian. Does your 'convention' require this man (known to 'pre-
modern historians' as AEthelmaer) to be called Elmer? How about the
king of England after AEthelred II (sorry, Elred II)? Is he now Newt?
No, I thought not. Yet more cases of picking and choosing. If I want
to learn about name usage, I will not take this knowledge from someone
masking his personal preference in make believe conventions.



taf

.

Relevant Pages