Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Lugubert

I forgot peas.

Thanks. I was going to ask you to give peas a chance - you had three examples from the gourd family and two beans, but left peas out.
Long ago, Dave's solution to world famine etc. was to get some land to cultivate. From somebody unspecified who would just love to give their assets away. I never really understood where to find such donors.

Now it seems to me that this idea is resurrected. From somewhere, land is given to everybody, including instructions on how to grow their food. For a moment leaving the question of how much area, worldwide, would (or could) be donated, what about people who don't want to grow things but would prefer to for example make tools for those who enjoy cultivating? Is Dear Leader Dave going to force them to grow grass for grazers and trees for browsers? Will they even be permitted to grow vegetables?

Back to acquisition. What is the global amount of territory suitable for Dave's schemes? A question put many times but that Dave has carefully avoided to answer. Area above the tree line, bare cliffs, deserts (in their current state, without cows), and similar. How much would that yield per person? Probably less than on what Dave today can't even support one person. Will Dave's calculations account for the population increase in e.g. Africa, which some serious people seem to guess will make Nigeria the world's third most populous nation in not too many years?
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA

So, if Trump thinks there's a witch hunt, sorry WITCH HUNT, doesn't that mean that he admits to being a WITCH?
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
Hence the term cryptorchid.
And here I always thought that was part of a floral bouquet left at a mausoleum!

In a way. 'Orchids' because of the shape of their roots.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
Also, "I'll tell you about the tapes sometime in the future". Perhaps we will be hearing about those tapes right after the press conference discussing all the "bombshell things" his investigators uncovered  in Hawaii about Obama a couple of years back.
... and right after he releases those tax returns, like he has repeatedly promised to do.
There's a linguistic discussion at Languagelog, named "On the short periods of Trumpian time".

It concludes,
Quote from: Languagelog
So it seems that Trump developed the stylistic tic of saying "over the last/past short period of time," and then extended that into "over the next short period of time" for promises that he says will be fulfilled soon -- really, really soon. But when he was answering Jon Karl's question, he left out the next part, instead opting for "over a very/fairly short period of time." Phrased that way, it sounds like Trump will pick some extremely brief window of time -- say, between 1 and 1:03 p.m. on Wednesday -- to make his big reveal. Given Trump's seat-of-the-pants mode of governing, that doesn't seem so odd after all.

A commenter writes,
Quote from:  Graeme
He intends "Soon, but in my own good time."
But it comes out as "Dunno. Making it up as I go. "
Pretty much summarizes Dave:

I don't know much ... but I'm pretty sure
Seems pretty deep to me when you consider that implementing this system take your dirt from some pitiful SOM number up to something respectable like 7-10% over several years.  You DO understand the importance of SOM don't you?
Somewhere in the middle of that dubious equation, Dave, is a profound loss of biological diversity. Many plants thrive on 'poor' soil and die out in 'rich' soil. Or like acid soil or prefer alkaline soil. Or like fast-draining soil or prefer moist soil. You are fixated on grass and livestock. Fine for you, not necessarily fine for the planet.
No it's not.  Just the opposite.  Properly managing cattle INCREASES biological diversity.

Who has determined that, measuring what criteria?
Dave's good at exaggeration. I've seen old pastures full of such things as lambkill, which, knowing Dave, he'd end up encouraging lambs to eat.

But he's working with nature, so the lambkill would miraculously not harm them, Or something.
How does one "encourage" lambs to eat a specific type of plant in one's pasture?  Park their pen on top of it and leave it there?  Cut and carry it and serve it up with some nice salad dressing?  Or what?  You people really don't think about the things you post, do you?

I'd call it encouragement if you make them hungry and move their prison over pasture of nothing else but lambkill.
You really don't think about the things you post, do you?
They are about 40 years late.  There was a huge study done already.  Diet is 100% connected to cancer (and a lot of other disease)

There's obviously  a connection. 100% of cancer patients have been eating. You're welcome to be more specific.
No need to be "fair to Dave" ... he's one of THOSE people ...

Tell me again Superhoop, Voxrat, Lizzie and the rest of you people that are posting anything BUT constructive comments ...

What is YOUR interest in Sustainable Agriculture? In other words, why are you here? And not in some other thread or forum where you have an actual interest in advancing science in some way?
Dave, you might have noticed from my questions to you on for example what is needed to what price to start growing things your way, that I'm interested in producing sufficiently healthy foodstuffs in a smart way. I follow this thread, because there are so many people posting who know farming and nutrition and generally how Nature works and should be treated, and I feel that I learn quite a lot from their responses to your fantasies.
The Voyage of the Beagle is also seriously good. I definitely recommend it if you haven't read it.

Humboldt was also supposed to be an excellent author but I've not read anything of his.

Interesting guys, the von Humboldt brothers. You refer to Alexander, I'm more acquainted with Wilhelm's work on comparative philology.
Dave, if I've understood you correctly, you think that the number 3 in the quoted version of a Hindu creation myth supports your three sons etc. theory. Please enlighten me:

Do you mean that the three Hindu gods are equivalent to Noah's son? Or do you mean that the sole flood survivor Manu is equivalent to Noah's family?

Where in the myth does it even say that three distinct races and language families emerged?
Mosaic version ... Adam / Cain / Abel / Seth in the beginning ... Noah / Shem / Ham Japheth after the Flood. 

Hindu version ... Brahm / Brahma / Vishnu / Siva in the beginning ... Menu and his three sons after the Flood.

Why do I think these two accounts are referring to the same thing?  Because all authors I've read state this ... Jones is the most recent one I've read that states this ... p. 7, Vol 1
I see the parallelism. Obviously, Cain was born from Abel's navel, right? And the brothers were gods, and Adam is the ultimate metaphysical reality and cosmic soul. But how is one flood survivor anything like a complete family surviving?
Dave, if I've understood you correctly, you think that the number 3 in the quoted version of a Hindu creation myth supports your three sons etc. theory. Please enlighten me:

Do you mean that the three Hindu gods are equivalent to Noah's son? Or do you mean that the sole flood survivor Manu is equivalent to Noah's family?

Where in the myth does it even say that three distinct races and language families emerged?
FFS. That's the most twisted, garbled and absurd piece of mythoplastic nonsense I've read, and I've read lots.

Where do you find this crap, dave?
Crap, but illustrative of how myths influence each other. This of course suggests that they are all made up without too much connection with reality.
Though, his count methodology is a little weird as Arabic root letters are mostly just consonants. The notable exception is alef which, though it is a vowel, is used in roots.

Of course, written and spoken language are built differently, so its probably better to distinguish phonemes from letters, though this is obviously difficult with ancient texts.
Alef is tricky. 'Alef' has several forms in writing, and is sometimes derived from the letter waw or the letter ya. When you see the most common form of alef in a list of letters, the consonant is the little squiggle above a supporting stroke. That support can be used as a sign for a long 'a'.

Not very interesting for Portuguese, though, but might throw some light on some Spanish Geographical names.
Personally, I find how languages integrate foreign words/concepts to be far more interesting. French aversion to loan words, korean maintaining 2 distinct number systems, Japan maintaining 3 alphabets. That stuff is weird and cool.
In some cases, Japanese use borrowed Chinese numbers. To say ´2´, you must know what you're referring to. Also, I'd rather say that Japanese regularly uses four scripts: Two indigenous ones, Katakana and Hiragana, and Chinese characters ('Kanji'), not always with the same meaning as in Chinese, AND Roman ('Western') letters ('Romaji') and 'Arabic' numerals.

Like this.

What do these lines mean to you, in your own words?

Never mind, I don't think they help your idea that Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French.
Here's a thought...
Maybe Jones took the bible seriously, but not literally.
For another maybe, he might have thought it wise not to challenge the Church's prevailing views.

Much like Linnaeus, who was warned not to go on with his idea that new species could emerge, outside of for example the established kinds of plants. So he dropped further investigations on the Peloria form of Linaria vulgaris.

I dunno.  Just speculating.

Me too.
I think that old Akkadian would classify under "Arabian" in Jones' scheme.

Why? Akkadian was extinct at the time Arabic emerged. Also, you will find it difficult to explain how some proto-Semitic phonemes vanished in Akkadian but re-emerged in Arabic. There are more correspondences between Akkadian and Hebrew sounds. Hebrew overlapped in time with Akkadian.
You yourself said he took biblical literalism as his "starting point".
Yes of course, as a source of hypotheses.  But a source of hypotheses is not evidence FOR those hypotheses.  In Jones' work, the actual words, written and spoken by the people groups under investigation are what constitutes the evidence.

Look, if you can't even get your head around these most basic concepts then I'm going to get bored here soon.  I shouldn't have to instruct you on this basic stuff.
Speaking of basic stuff, Dave, why do you keep quoting Jones' "The Arabic language, therefore, is almost wholly in our power;   And, as it is unquestionably one of the most ancient in the world "? To embarrass him?

Among languages discovered and deciphered after Jones' days, we have Old Akkadian, to take a ME example, which is some 1700 years older than Old Arabic, and there are several other Semitic languages between those two: Babylonian, Assyrian, Eblaitic, Amoritic, Ugaritic...

And Hittite and Hurrian, to name a few others from the region of today's Turkey and Mesopotamia, are also much older than any Arabic. The earliest traces of Egyptian are dated to ca. 2690 BCE.
One question from Dave that I think hasn't been addressed so far is what were the documents that Jones used to arrive at his conclusions.

He had any number of them around. His native languages were English and Welsh. At an early age, he studied for example Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic and Hebrew. Also, while in India, Persian still was much of an official bureaucratic language. And just guess at the amount of Sanskrit literature he must have had at his fingertips.

Quote from: Wiki
By the end of his life he knew thirteen languages thoroughly and another twenty-eight reasonably well

So, not a few individual documents for support, but a rather massive background of language learning.


and china
There are some Chinese carvings that are really really old, but it's questioned if it is script or "just" symbols or mnemonics or whatever. Proven writing is as young as ca. 1200 BCE. Still difficult for Dave's theories, though.
"The Bible would be falsified, right?"


That's like saying that "every English author from 1000 A.D. to 2000 A.D. is falsified right?"

But I know what you're trying to say.  And yes if there were written records in multiple languages prior to 2500 BC or thereabouts, then that portion of scripture where it says the whole earth was of one speech  prior to Babel  would be falsified, yes.

 But I've already checked. :wave:
Does that emoji mean that you just wave the evidence away, or, if you have done some checking, what's your opinion of the writings of Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus valley?
I'm still trying to digest the information on pp. 42-44 of Jones ...

This is a discussion of the enormous differences between Ancient Sanskrit and Ancient Arabic, 2 of the 3 "original" (Babel?) languages given by Jones.
Wow. Arabic and Sanskrit are different. Who knew?

Anyway, even in those two pages, there are numerous facts that Jones got wrong, but would have had difficulties in investigating at that time. For example, there are numerous Semitic languages that are older than Arabic.
Lugubert from Sweden, the Authority on Ancient Languages Who is Smarter Than Jones!
Lol. Lugubert, do you by chance have a PhD?
I don't even own a hat - of any shape. My highest diploma is a Master's in Chemical Engineering.

I don't see myself as an authority on ancient languages, but I have probably studied quite a few that Dave hasn't even heard of.

By the way, read Dave's post. It's he, not me, who claims that I'm smarter than Jones.  I'm fairly sure that I'm not smarter than Jones was, but I know a thing or two about languages that hadn't been realized yet in his times.