🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 5, 4:57 pm, Peter Groves <metrical...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 8:37 pm, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 9:54 am,PeterGroves <metrical...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is imbecilic. You are confusing letters and sounds in a manner
> > > that would disgrace a schoolboy.
>
> > > That is, you are not merely ignorantly opinionated, but ineducable to
> > > boot.  Makes sense you'd be an Oxfordian.
>
> > 'Letter' also meant phoneme until the end of the 19th
> > century. The Roman letters were conceived as phonemes.
> > And as for the connection between 'valiant' and 'William'
> > I quote from the reply I just wrote forPeter:
>
> > * Valiant / William is as good a rhyme as the examples
> > * given above, and the alliteration is even of a genetic sort,
> > * for William German Wilhelm is composed of will and helmet,
> > * will akin to German wollen and Latin velle 'wish', volo 'I wish',
> > * in a further meaning 'I decide, order', and valiant coming
> > * from valere 'to be strong', in a further meaning 'to have
> > * influence, power, importance'
> > *
> > *  volo 'I wish', also 'I decide, order'
> > *
> > *  valeo 'I am strong', also 'I have influence, power, importance'
>
> > Your reply is typical for a strutting Strat : reproaches and
> > ad hominems instead of answers to questions.
>
> Do try to understand that when I call your assertions ignorant and
> imbecilic I am not attempting to make any kind of argument against
> them, "ad hominem" or otherwise, since they do not deserve serious
> attention: they are beneath what has beeen called the dignity of
> refutation.  I am merely stating facts that are evident to anyone with
> normal reasoning powers and even the meanest understanding of your
> subject matter (Shakespeare, poetics, linguistics).
>
> In the academic world we have a thing called peer review; which is a
> way of filtering out errors and excesses of various kinds in published
> articles and books.  You, of course, could never aspire to
> publication, but you are getting in this group what might be termed
> review by your intellectual superiors, for which you ought to grateful
> (rather than petulant and sulky).  The most useful thing you could do
> is to pay attention to what is being explained to you by others (I
> don't have the patience for it).
>
> PeterG.

We need to learn from superiors, that's for sure.  The most superior
are the mystics.  Have you learned from them, Peter G.?  Shakespeare
was one.

Michael Martin

> You can't
>
>
>
> > make all those obscure remarks unveil their meaning,
> > you worship a demi-god veiled in fog and cloaked in clouds,
> > preferring him to an actual and apparently loveworthy human
> > being of great merit, as the real William Shakespeare
> > emerging from the play Romeo and Juliet in my reading
> > that is now one week old, since I found the telling pun
>
> >   O, where is Romeo?        O, Vere is Romeo!
>
> > last Friday, followed yesterday by
>
> >   What, Juliet!      Watch, Juliet!
>
> > and the alliteration
>
> >   valiant Paris     valiant William
>
> > Romeo -- Edward de Vere, playwright
> > Juliet -- audience personified, Muse
> > Paris -- William Shakespeare of the Globe- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show