Names of places in Croatia

[FlatAssembler]

I don't understand what you are asking. Nor am I too familiar with Peter Unger's philosophy. I know about his thought experiment about accidental knowledge only because it was in our philosophy textbook.

You don't understand things, in general... and your knowledge of peter unger is wholly accidental?  All of this, all of it, because you needed to deflect from the embarrassment of having asked whether other people would be more wrong than you, if they didn't even attempt to do whatever wrong thing you may have done.

My friend, can you explain to me, how could I be wrong? I have been thinking about that for more than a year, and I can think of two ways I can be wrong, none of which seem likely.
1. Using collision entropy, although it seems like a very natural choice, is inappropriate here. Markovnikov Chains, or some more appropriate model of the language, would perhaps provide a very different result from using collision entropy with birthday calculations. Which seems unlikely as two PhD informaticians (Anđelko Lišnjić and Franjo Jović) have reviewed my paper and have not noticed that.
2. Some phonosemantic hypothesis is true. In that case, the entire historical linguistics is, well, not based on good principles. If some phonosemantic hypothesis is true, looking for regular sound correspondences to establish that two languages share a common ancestor is also unreliable, and not just the method of analyzing toponyms I came up with.

In either case, how is the mainstream methodology less wrong?

[arewethereyet]

I swear I want to post 'This is the Song That Never Ends' but there's no reason to punish others.

smh

[FlatAssembler]

To be clear, I made many minor assumptions in my paper which could be wrong, without significantly affecting my conclusion. Perhaps the ancient name for Đakovo should really be reconstructed as *Certissa rather than the epigraphically attested Certissia, and the ancient name for Omiš was indeed Almissa rather than *Almissia (and the change from 's' to 'š' is... irregular, I guess), in which case there is no basis for reconstructing the Illyrian suffix -issia, so that the ancient name for Karašica could really be something like *Kurrurrussia rather than *Kurrurrissia. Perhaps there is an Indo-European root like *ker (rather than *kjer) from which a river name could plausibly be derived, in which case my claim that Illyrian was a centum language is baseless. But those things do not affect the main conclusion of my paper.

[arewethereyet]

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't understand things, in general... and your knowledge of peter unger is wholly accidental?  All of this, all of it, because you needed to deflect from the embarrassment of having asked whether other people would be more wrong than you, if they didn't even attempt to do whatever wrong thing you may have done.

My friend, can you explain to me, how could I be wrong? I have been thinking about that for more than a year, and I can think of two ways I can be wrong, none of which seem likely.
1. Using collision entropy, although it seems like a very natural choice, is inappropriate here. Markovnikov Chains, or some more appropriate model of the language, would perhaps provide a very different result from using collision entropy with birthday calculations. Which seems unlikely as two PhD informaticians (Anđelko Lišnjić and Franjo Jović) have reviewed my paper and have not noticed that.
2. Some phonosemantic hypothesis is true. In that case, the entire historical linguistics is, well, not based on good principles. If some phonosemantic hypothesis is true, looking for regular sound correspondences to establish that two languages share a common ancestor is also unreliable, and not just the method of analyzing toponyms I came up with.

In either case, how is the mainstream methodology less wrong?

B mine...and, exactly. There's nothing to explain to you which hasn't already been explained, from specifics to principals to generalities, and yet you remain wholly and completely oblivious.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

To be clear, I made many minor assumptions in my paper which could be wrong, without significantly affecting my conclusion. Perhaps the ancient name for Đakovo should really be reconstructed as *Certissa rather than the epigraphically attested Certissia, and the ancient name for Omiš was indeed Almissa rather than *Almissia (and the change from 's' to 'š' is... irregular, I guess), in which case there is no basis for reconstructing the Illyrian suffix -issia, so that the ancient name for Karašica could really be something like *Kurrurrussia rather than *Kurrurrissia. Perhaps there is an Indo-European root like *ker (rather than *kjer) from which a river name could plausibly be derived, in which case my claim that Illyrian was a centum language is baseless. But those things do not affect the main conclusion of my paper.

There are as yet undiscovered tribes in the Amazon basin who care about this more than I do.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

My friend, can you explain to me, how could I be wrong? I have been thinking about that for more than a year, and I can think of two ways I can be wrong, none of which seem likely.
1. Using collision entropy, although it seems like a very natural choice, is inappropriate here. Markovnikov Chains, or some more appropriate model of the language, would perhaps provide a very different result from using collision entropy with birthday calculations. Which seems unlikely as two PhD informaticians (Anđelko Lišnjić and Franjo Jović) have reviewed my paper and have not noticed that.
2. Some phonosemantic hypothesis is true. In that case, the entire historical linguistics is, well, not based on good principles. If some phonosemantic hypothesis is true, looking for regular sound correspondences to establish that two languages share a common ancestor is also unreliable, and not just the method of analyzing toponyms I came up with.

In either case, how is the mainstream methodology less wrong?

B mine...and, exactly. There's nothing to explain to you which hasn't already been explained, from specifics to principals to generalities, and yet you remain wholly and completely oblivious.

I don't understand, if my paper about applying informatics to the names of places is so obviously wrong that even you can see that, why did it get published in two peer-reviewed journals? Why did a PhD linguist ask me to send her a copy? Why didn't two PhD informaticians whom I sent a manuscript of my paper find an error in my reasoning? Why did quite a few people who know something about informatics, including a PhD statistician teaching computer science, also say my arguments seem good to them? Why did my communicology professor tell me my arguments look good to him? It's clearly not Flat-Earth level wrongness, that anybody who is remotely related to the field can explain you why it's wrong.

[arewethereyet]

B mine...and, exactly.  There's nothing to explain to you which hasn't already been explained, from specifics to principals to generalities, and yet you remain wholly and completely oblivious.

I don't understand, if my paper about applying informatics to the names of places is so obviously wrong that even you can see that, why did it get published in two peer-reviewed journals? Why did a PhD linguist ask me to send her a copy? Why didn't two PhD informaticians whom I sent a manuscript of my paper find an error in my reasoning? Why did quite a few people who know something about informatics, including a PhD statistician teaching computer science, also say my arguments seem good to them? Why did my communicology professor tell me my arguments look good to him? It's clearly not Flat-Earth level wrongness, that anybody who is remotely related to the field can explain you why it's wrong.

The better question is why are you here asking these things?

This is not your personal forum for whatever thoughts bounce around your head.  You are the only one interested in the things you go on and on about.

Find a forum that is geared towards the topics you want to obsess over...if such a thing exists.

[Anomalocaris]

To be clear, I made many minor assumptions in my paper which could be wrong, without significantly affecting my conclusion. Perhaps the ancient name for Đakovo should really be reconstructed as *Certissa rather than the epigraphically attested Certissia, and the ancient name for Omiš was indeed Almissa rather than *Almissia (and the change from 's' to 'š' is... irregular, I guess), in which case there is no basis for reconstructing the Illyrian suffix -issia, so that the ancient name for Karašica could really be something like *Kurrurrussia rather than *Kurrurrissia. Perhaps there is an Indo-European root like *ker (rather than *kjer) from which a river name could plausibly be derived, in which case my claim that Illyrian was a centum language is baseless. But those things do not affect the main conclusion of my paper.

There are as yet undiscovered tribes in the Amazon basin who care about this more than I do.

Boru

Nah, they looked at this thread, said “I have to hear about this if I talk to the white men with beads and trinkets?   Fuck that!”, and went back deeper into the jungle.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There are as yet undiscovered tribes in the Amazon basin who care about this more than I do.

Boru

Nah, they looked at this thread, said “I have to hear about this if I talk to the white men with beads and trinkets?   Fuck that!”, and went back deeper into the jungle.

Which still qualifies their interest as both broader and deeper than mine.

Boru