Re: Cannibal revisited; invitation to Ray Martinez

On Jan 9, 9:53 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 9, 3:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Jan 8, 11:51 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


SNIP material addressed in a previous message to Steven J....


Why do the dictionary definitions
making "cannibal" a corruption of "Carib" even exist, if Dr. Scott's
view is the recognized fact of the matter?


Because English words have more than one valid meaning and origin.

Dr. Scott provided one. The earliest one I have seen.

Comment ignores everything already argued in my first post in this
topic. Comment presupposes disagreement when none exists. Comment also
presupposes that English words and their origins to only have one
meaning and origin. Even dumb people know that English words have more
than one valid meaning and origin.

Certainly English words often have more than one valid meaning
(although "cannibal," in fact, seems to have a very restricted range
of meanings).  And there are English words that have, in a sense,
multiple origins (e.g. "jubilee" comes from the Hebrew _yabal_ =
"ram's horn", influenced by folk-etymology with the Latin _jubilare_ =
"to rejoice").  There are also cases where multiple, independently
originating English words have converged on the same spelling and
pronunciation (e.g. "ear" = organ of hearing and "ear" = cluster of
grain kernels).  But none of these cases seems to be relevant to
"cannibal," a word with one meaning, an appearance at a particular
point in time, and no evidence of any cognates in any Semitic
language.


Commentary conclusion presupposes rejection of my scholarly source.
Since the conclusion is based on bias against source and not on
evidence: it is illegitimate.

I have provided the motive for this rejection: Dr. Scott refuted
evolution and Steven J is an evolutionist who refuses to accept.

I think it relevant to point out the objectivity of Dr. Scott: he said
that I. Velikovsky was "the greatest scholar of the 20th century....he
refuted them all....that is why he is SO hated" (emphasis added).
Velikovsky was, of course, an Atheist-evolutionist. Concerning his
major prof at Stanford, Dr. Larry Thomas, at the time the "leading
voice of experimentalism on the West Coast," a man who was, of course,
also an Atheist-evolutionist: "Larry had more integrity in the tip of
his little finger than any Christian I have ever known." Dr. Scott
related on several occasions that Thomas, after listening to a private
one-on-one presentation of the evidence of the Resurrection began to
seriously doubt his Atheism. Dr. Scott says, years later, that he was
told that Thomas died a Catholic.

Even dumb people, at this point, will suspect that you're bluffing.

Conversely, if Dr. Scott's expertise is unrecognized (at least on this
point), then how do you know he's right?  

The same way you accept a dictionary source, which is another Ph.D.
speaking.

I don't normally assume that the author of a dictionary entry is the
world's leading scholar on the language from which the word in
question is derived.  I don't even assume that the author has a PhD.
I suppose I trust that the author knows what he's talking about, but
I'm willing to listen respectfully to arguments that he's wrong.

Incidentally, I've found dictionary entries that were in error: one
listed the word "therapsid" as perhaps derived from the Greek
_therapon_ = "helper."  It is in fact a combination of the words
_therios_ = "hairy beast" and the word for "arch" or
"opening" (referring to the holes in the skull, the position of which
is often used in classifying ancient amniotes).


We all have run into dictionary errors. They are for-profit
enterprises and thrown together.

But mostly, I assume the dictionary is right, until evidence
accumulates that it is in error.  But we're not talking about why you
provisionally and tentatively assumed that Dr. Scott was right about
various things, we're talking about how you derived the conclusion
that he was the world's leading expert on ancient languages.


It is the opinion of many. Apparently you have never listened to Dr.
Scott.

You, I presume, are not an
expert in ancient languages, or the etymology and history of English
words.   How would you evaluate Dr. Scott's linguistic abilities, if
you have no equivalent abilities of your own, or tell the difference
between a brilliant scholar and a clever bull artist?

Since you have no language expertise of your own how do you know that
a common dictionary source has not published bull***?

I don't, actually.  But then, I'm not the one claiming that my source
is the world's leading authority on ancient Chaldean (or 15th-century
Carib or Spanish, for that matter).   Surely the more interesting
question is how *you* know that Dr. Scott wasn't just making up crap
as he went along.


Dr. Scott always encouraged his audience to check him out. I have the
experience of never having discovered him wrong about anything. That
is why we hold him to be the greatest scholar of all time.

How do you know John Harshman to be a valid source? You have no
expertise in evolution.

I know enough to catch obvious blunders and errors.  And, of course,
if he says something that seems utterly outrageous, I can check it
against other experts.  All I'm asking is that you extend the same
method to Dr. Scott: find an expert who actually agrees with his
etymologies.


You need to find one who disagrees. I am sure there are many since his
etymologies support Biblical facts.

Harshman spends all of his time competing with anonymous howlers on
the Internet, acting as their captain, typing endless bonehead posts
consisting of many one or two liners. Based on these facts we would
not know he has a doctorate. We only know he has one because he told
us. This is why John Wilkins, in his signature seen at the end of his
posts, lists his educational credentials. No one would know unless he
told us because he too posts endless stupid one-liners and ridiculous
assertions, content that does not correspond to his level of
education. Did you know that Wilkins is now claiming that Charles
Darwin *was never* a Creationist? This is why Wilkins is viewed as a
bonehead too.

Unnecessary use of the passive voice is a literary vice, Ray.  You
mean that *you* view Wilkins as a bonehead.  You view Dr. Scott as a
genius.  This suggests a systematic irrationality in your evaluation
of expertise.

It is probably true, by the way, that Charles Darwin never insisted
that the biblical text trumped all possible evidence in favor of
contrary views.

And you are known to support both of these *guys.*

I doubt that either much needs my support, but yes, I have agreed with
both on occasion.


All of the time. Atheists agree unanimously with one another in this
context.

***Of course I have no problem with accepting either John as a source
because of their credentials. It is our system.***

Really?  I have, on occasion, seen people with credentials make
blithering fools of themselves.  

Me too, this does not harm the system.

It is always helpful to check some of
their claims against other sources of information and to check their
logic.  Of course, Dr. Scott didn't actually have credentials in
ancient languages, so even if I granted his expertise, how does it
support his opinion on a matter where there is no reason to regard him
as an expert?


We have no reason to regard Richard Dawkins an expert in biology or
genetics yet he has published extensively in these subjects; he is
considered by many to be the number one evolutionary authority in the
world. IIRC, a poll at Pandas Thumb asked: which view of evolution do
you accept; Dawkins or Gould? The zoologist won in a landslide, that
is, the guy with no degree in biology or genetics.

The real point is that your commentary is nothing but a pretext to
grind an anti-evolutionist (= Dr. Scott) axe; its content in its
entirety is intelligence insulting ad hoc rhetoric, very predictable.

You are arguing for an exemption or suspension of our system in behalf
of Dr. Scott. When we remember that Dr. Scott is a Stanford Ph.D., and
that he refuted evolution, and when we remember that you are an angry
evolutionist, unable and unwilling to accept the refutation,
everything you say about Dr. Scott is explained rather instantly.

Again, Ray, the issue is the things *you* say about Dr. Scott, for
which you should be able to provide evidence, but for which you have
not provided anything except your own subjective (and angrily voiced)
opinions.


Again, these comments defend a double standard....all because the
evolutionists have opened their mouths and said dictionary sources are
relating "one and only." Any reasonable person with no affiliation
with the Creation-Evolution debate would simply look at the evidence
posted and conclude that the dictionaries provide a meaning and origin
and the scholar provides another. Issue closed.

English words have more than one valid meaning and origin. The
totality of scholarly input forms a complete chain of origin.
Resistance here is caused solely by an ulterior motive against an anti-
evolution scholar. I have voiced my displeasure with persons like John
Harshman and John Wilkins but I do not cross the line: I have said
their credentials grant them scholar status. Still, I do point out
when these persons engage in dishonesty; like Wilkins calling himself
an Agnostic while arguing Atheism 100 percent of the time; and like
when Harshman stands by in silence while the howler element flings
self-evident lies and misrepresentations.

-- [snip of pretended dispute over pre-modern anthropophagy]

By the way, "anthropophagy" is, as an English word, apparently about
the same age as "cannibal," but it is from a Greek word
_anthropophagos_, meaning "eater of human beings," or "cannibal,"
which is ancient.

I didn't know that. Guess what? I have no problem accepting your
assertions here to be generally true BECAUSE previous facts I accept
exist in general support. 

So those who say any given dictionary source to be relating the origin
of the concept to not exist in practice before the 15th century AD is
error? This is what I have been saying. But the dictionary sources are
not claiming origin of concept per se.

We were talking about the origin of the *word* "cannibal," not the
concept.  If Dr. Scott's etymology is correct, "cannibal" ought, I
would think, to have cognates in Hebrew, Latin, or Greek (after all,
if he's right, we had to get the word from somewhere, and the Anglo-
Saxons didn't have much contact with the ancient Middle East, so the
word was presumably a borrowing from some classical language of faith
or philosophy).


Speculation.

There are words for "person who eats other people"
throughout history, and several in different periods of English, but
it is relevant that "Cannibal" does not surface until Europeans had
encountered the Carib Indians (who may or may not actually have eaten
people: you can't always trust wartime propaganda, and  both the
Tainos who fought them and the Spanish who exterminated them had
reasons to defame the Caribs).  It seems very odd that older English
words for "man-eater" should be displaced at this time by a word from
Ancient Chaldean.

*All* the facts form a complete chain of origin.

Well, they do if Gene Scott is blowing smoke out his posterior and
doesn't really have a clue, and "cannibal" is derived simply and
exclusively from "Carib."  If, on the other hand, Gene Scott is right,
then you really need to show that there actually was a word _cana_
meaning "priest" in ancient Akkadian, and that at least one classical
language from which English could have borrowed the word "cannibal"
had a cognate of "cannibal."

Conclusions: Dictionary sources provide first known use of the English
word. Dr. Scott provides the *meaning* of each contraction and an
ancient origin (not necessarily *the* earliest origin) in heathen
religious customs for the concept. No scholarly source has been
presented claiming these two renderings by Dr.Scott to be error or
false. The "bal" contraction it self-evidently true, having direct
correspondence to "Baal."

Now, I propose that "cannibal" is in fact from the medieval Latin word
for "baseball player," from _canon_ ("stick" or "bat") and
"bolus" ("lump" or "ball").  As in your etymology, the truth of this
one is self-evident, and there's just as much evidence for man-eating
medieval baseball players as for man-eating Chaldean priests.  No
doubt dozens of equally self-evident etymologies could be proposed.

Your explanation of facts is self-evidently crafted to be ridiculous.

Yes, it was.  The trouble is, yours achieves the same end, even though
you don't seem to have been trying to be ridiculous.

(I cannot provide proper attribution for Dr. Scott's quote. I am
quoting him by memory.)

-- Steven J.

No it doesn't.

Ray

.

Loading