BJH
I am wondering why you have a doctorate title before his name.
Steefen
Because I watched the video and took notes of wha** you do not have permission to see this link **t was said..
What video?
Aged 90, Yahuda’s curiosity for knowledge knew no bounds and he set about obtaining a PhD in Biology at King’s College.
This means he began pursuing it. I set about about obtaining a PhD in Linguistics from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki when I was 40, but I don’t put a doctorate title before my name.
The key question is, of course, why would you reference someone like Yahuda, who, as we see (Post 27), uses the “method” that he does?
I understand the video. You are mistaken for even comprehending the video to even ask the question–twice.
And I have told you once: Ammon was using a respectable methodology (manual lawn mower) that has improved (power lawn mower). Ammon possibly could benefit from using “methodology 2.0.”
Steefen said
Ammon: I have seen that expression in magical texts.
Steefen: that is why methodology 2.0 does not say the results of methodology 1.0 are invalidated.
methodology 1.0 is the sounds like methodology that the ancient grammarians used.
Ammon: science has not progressed beyond its methodological roots. Technologically yes.
Luke: methodological 1.0 was brilliant for its time period. Ammon’s point is legit; BUT, how do we know it’s connected?
Steefen: Then Luke goes off the rails saying Jesus’ Aramaic could be referring the the Saab car company. BUT that does not take away from the appearance of the sound in magical texts.
Danny: the audience can make up their minds on this. We have to move on.
Steefen: The video of the interview
In the video, Ammon said he was a doctor.
Please leave a comment on the video that you cannot confirm he pursued AND earned his doctorate.
I have no idea what video you’re talking about.
How would Ammon know if he had a doctorate?
I will say I do find it interesting that there is so little information about Yahuda available online, and much of what we find seems highly questionable. For example, what you shared with us in Post 45 says he was a professor of Hebrew linguistics.
However, what is really important is not who he was or was not but what he claimed, which is blatantly absurd.
If you don’t believe me, why not ask AI? They’ll tell you all the reasons why. They told me in conclusion:
“Yahuda’s work represents pseudolinguistics—selecting superficial resemblances while ignoring the systematic evidence that establishes how languages are actually related.”
Speaking of which, did you take a look at the link I provided for the comparative method and watch the video from Jackson Crawford on how we determine if languages are related?
BJH
Speaking of which, did you take a look at the link I provided for the comparative method and watch the video from Jackson Crawford on how we determine if languages are related?
Steefen:
I saw the comparative method link.
In what comment number did you put the Jackson Crawford link to a video?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)