moloch-hai
moloch-hai on Hacker News
Apparently the real problem is the Firewire hardware in the scanner fails.
If you read back in the thread you will see that you have tried to change the subject at every point, and I have each time steered it back to the actual topic.
I do not know why you insist on arguing against something no one has suggested, or what so terrifies you about the simple idea I wrote that you are motivated to vicious accusations of "edenism", but I no longer care. You have revealed all we need to know.
Now we learn that to suggest comparing new runes against semitic script is
all of flat-earthing, noah-flooding, and both anti-Chinese
and anti-Finn racism. (Next we will doubtless discover it is also Nazi commie-symp propaganda.)
I am forced to admit I was wrong. Nothing is beneath you.
That, anyway, is not a mystery.
Heinlein had a medical condition that progressively blocked blood flow in his brain. He increasingly needed themes that would increase his blood pressure to be able to write at all. He finally got surgery.
>
entire world, up to the top of the tallest mountain, was covered by water ... wanted to bar them from entry under the Asian Exclusion Act. So, yes, just making shit up. Good day, sir.
Maybe read up just a bit? It is the biggest open question.
Comparing scripts is the only way to identify similarities and differences. We can be confident Korean is not an influence just on geographic grounds, but all Mediterranean scripts are in play, because whoever started using runes could have been exposed to any or all of them.
You may say nobody can prove a negative, but cocksure deniers are fairly swarming out of the woodwork, here.
There is plenty of old evidence. We call them runestones. The glyphs on them have disputed origin. Nobody seems to imagine they were made up from whole cloth. But they don't resemble any other alphabet closely enough to nail down how they did develop.
Older examples would generally be expected to more closely resemble whatever they came from. Is this unfamiliar reasoning?
It is right there at the top of the window you are looking at right now. They call it TFA around here.
At issue is that there is now
new evidence. It should be obvious that conclusions reached in its absence do not incorporate any evaluation of the new evidence.
The conclusion might be strengthened, unaffected, weaker, or even reversed. That is the point. There is no value in new evidence other than that it might make a difference. Is this difficult?
The origins of the runic script are not established. If they resembled something else strongly enough to say there was just the one, we would not be discussing this.
Denmark is at the threshold of the Baltic sea. Anyone who, like the Carthaginians, could have sailed to the Baltic sea would get there via the North Sea (or down the Oder River). Such quibbling is beneath you.
Carthaginian influence might or might not be more relevant than Tartessian. It depends on the facts. Explorers are much less likely to affect origins of a script than settlers or refugees who were there at the formative time. Has anyone suggested a Tartessian influence, or are you just making shit up?
Hostility to revisiting old conclusions in the face of new facts is anti-science, but common, maybe moreso in history than in other fields.
That work was all done without this new evidence. New evidence might reinforce old conclusions, or undermine them. Nobody knows without the work having been done.
It is new evidence. Previous conclusions formed in its absence are obsolete. The new conclusion might be the same, or not, but not without checking first.
I read most it in lockdown after finding it on my mother-in-law's shelf. The article is a fair assessment. Read it to see just how fanatical devotion and violence may share a mind, however uncomfortably, with intelligence and sensitivity.
Nothing is stopping them from checking.
Publishing, maybe, if the results come out pointing the "wrong" way.
Equating the possibility of literate Carthaginians having sailed to the Baltic Sea and maybe settling and affecting development of writing there with "flat earth" is frankly beneath you. Either it happened or it didn't, and the evidence supports it or doesn't. If it is inconclusive, which is the surest you can ever be that it didn't happen (unless some show up from before Carthage), you don't know what new evidence will indicate.
The only legitimate opinions are based on the evidence available to date. Whenever older runes show up, the picture might change. Whose ox is gored by talking about it?
If you are certain that comparing the oldest runes to semitic glyphs won't show up a closer match than more recent runes do, what is wrong with comparing them, or talking about comparing them? The only possible objection is that you don't like what might come from it.
Then what are you worried about?
Yet, in just a few years all the French reactors will be mothballed because they cost several times as much to operate as buying off the grid.
Apparently, assuming it was "influenced by" only one "older writing system". But there is no basis for any such assumption. It appears to be purely a matter of their own convenience, wholly disconnected from anything in the script.
Are you aware of the article your post is attached to?
And it would start to come online in 2035. They would burn coal the whole time until then, while renewables cost continued on down below $10/MWh.
Either new evidence changes the picture, or it doesn't. Objecting to checking is not science.
Either the physical evidence suggests a connection or it doesn't. It is obviously fallacious to insist there could be no contact between Carthaginian and Germanic populations: boats sail between the Baltic and Mediterranean seas all the damn time.
It was only a little time ago that many historians insisted bronze-age tin could not possibly have come from England. ("There's no solid evidence for it!") Then isotope analysis showed that it definitely did. The only correct statement at the time would be that we didn't know whether the tin was coming from England. Accepting the isotopic evidence does not absolve anybody from insisting they knew what they were fully aware they did not know.
Carthage is much, much closer to Denmark, by sea, than Tyre. That matters because theirs was a maritime empire. If there are any differences between letterforms used in Tyre and later in Carthage, the ones from Carthage are the natural choice to check. You could check the others, too, if you liked.
Nothing whatsoever to do with edenics, or any notion of "original" language. Suggesting it is hostile and divisive.
If runes can be derived from italic or greek letterforms, they can also be derived from any others that could plausibly have reached there. (Thus, not Korean.) Carthaginians famously sailed far and wide. So it is a legitimate question to ask--what evidence is there?--for each, with no legitimate reason to exclude any plausible possibility from consideration. Refusing to include semitic alphabets among candidates (why?) is the crackpot position.
If you insist (why?) that semitic alphabets can have made no contribution, and you are correct, then the evidence will show that, and you have nothing to fear. So the only reason to object is that you fear the evidence will contradict your belief. But that is the best reason to check.
No, I just want to know about what the evidence says about it.
Thanks. I tried to build it, and had to give up.
Stuck on "import as" in its scons-local/ .. /gas.py. Debian-packaged scons complains, instead, about syntax "except OSError , (errnum, strerror)" in top-level SConstruct, which I expect is a python3 complaint.
Also, Debian doesn't have gtk-2. Doubt it works with gtk-3.
Sad when software rots.