(03-05-2021, 03:30 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as I remember I have posted all this before in this thread, but why the hell should anybody read them posts if he has his own theory based on no knowledge. As I have said before, if you don't believe me, get someone qualified to judge (and I mean qualified). And Rene is not the only one regretting to have entered the 116v discussion again
There's a serious methodological flaw here, and as soon as it is expressed by more than one person in this thread, I think I should elaborate in more detail that which I already briefly wrote before. Scientific discussion is not a matter of belief. Period. There's good room for trust, as when an expert in the field expresses his or her opinion to the general public, then s/he is trusted based on his or her reputation in the assumption that s/he is not engaging in tomfoolery (unfortunately, that is also too often the case in "sensitive" fields such as economics or history). But trust is not belief, these are two different things. When the said expert is asked to substantiate his or her opinion, s/he would do that based on argument that could be independently assessed. If a mathematician brings forward a theorem, everybody can follow the proof for himself. If a physicist brings forward a law, everybody can perform experiment to see if the law holds. And so on. Linguistics and paleography are not exceptions.
But it is somehow strangely different in this thread where the (pseudo)-argument is one's "qualification", and on that grounds one should be believed or not.
It is quite, quite strange to tell me that "gas" is not MHD, while Lexer says exactly the opposite. Should I "believe" Mathias Lexer or Helmut Winkler? I'm really dubious.
It's strange to tell me that it is
written "geis", not "gas", when I can see with my own eyes - and everybody can, - that this is not "ei", but the most typical "a" of this whole folio. One needs not be "qualified" to be able to compare different letters on the same sheet, one just does not have to be blind. If you consider that this is "ei" then please show me how it is. I took the trouble a couple of days ago and showed how, in my opinion, this entire word is written.
One says this "gasmich" (indeed, it is written so) means "geismilch". On what grounds is this assertion? Where's the comparative analysis that would allow to insist that this is true? Maybe there are examples indeed, and that is just great, then they should be referenced. I asked the question on RG a year ago and got none. Nobody else has asked, I think.
One says, this is "probiren". Where's the argument? Are there any examples where probiren is abbreviated as pbren? Maybe there are, and that would be just excellent, but they should be referenced.
The difference is that one brings forwards an idea for discussion, elaborately describing its pros and cons and seeking for critique, the other one brings forward an idea as a matter of proved fact, turning a blind eye on any critique on the pretext that others are not "qualified".
Argument must go first and foremost.