To be maximally fair to their argument, I think it is good to point out (not that it's the point that was made but that it's a good point to make) that 9,100 is a distinct departure from 0 when there are other numbers in the tens and hundreds. It's worth questioning the disparity and whether it's indicative of incorrect or misinterpreted data.
Not sure why I decided to comment specifically on what you posted given the fact that there are various levels of misinformation going on in this thread, but I guess yours is the most blunt.
Anyway read the article you linked to again, you completely misread it.
The existence of a dialect continuum doesn't make them the same language. By that logic, Dutch and German are the same.
Irish and Scottish are very similar, but they are not mutually intelligible. It's very annoying when people use the word "Gaelic" because I never know which language they're referring to. Just say "Scottish"/"Scottish Gaelic", "Irish", or "The Gaelic languages".
Yeah, to a degree, my dad speaks Irish and he says the same. But it's not quite enough to be considered the same language. It's comparable to Norwegian and Swedish, or Portuguese and Spanish.
Irish speaker here who has attempted to learn some Scottish Gaelic, and currently lives in Denmark, I think the Norwegian-Swedish comparison is probably apt. Although I think Irish/Scottish Gaelic are possibly even more divergent than that.
Side note: as an Irish speaker, reading Manx Gaelic, with its Welsh/English derived spelling system feels like what I imagine having a stroke feels like.
> Side note: as an Irish speaker, reading Manx Gaelic, with its Welsh/English derived spelling system feels like what I imagine having a stroke feels like.
Ha! That's a great description for how completely unsettling reading Manx is.
> Irish and Scottish are very similar, but they are not mutually intelligible. It's very annoying when people use the word "Gaelic" because I never know which language they're referring to. Just say "Scottish"/"Scottish Gaelic", "Irish", or "The Gaelic languages".
Are they American? Then they mean Irish.
Are they Scottish? Then they mean Scottish Gaelic.
Are they Irish? Trick question, Irish people don't use the word.
Northern (Donegal) Irish is to some extent mutually intelligible with Scottish, but it is very different from the eastern and southern varieties. The notion of the dialect "continuum" is a bit misleading here since the three varieties of Irish have been separated by English speaking regions for some time, and there are no intermediate forms.
Of course, this is by no means historic evidence, it's more an example of the common notion of his appearance – and, admittedly, a rather extreme one.
(And, as already mentioned, Umberto Eco kind of made fun of the semblance.)
Regarding Ovid's name, I think, there was kind of a joy in circular evidence, more for aesthetic reasons than others. Compare, "artifex generale nomen vocatur quod artem faciat" (Isidore), or the notion that the lion indeed obscures its tracks by wiping its path by its wagging tail, because the lion is thus the example of Christianity preserving its secrets from its pagan enemies. There's a medieval joy, even satisfaction, in closures and folds, like this.
> Chesterton described Aquinas as looking quite like Chesterton.
I was unaware that Chesterton met Aquinas! He must have been quite old at that point.
I can't imagine anything that Chesterton could add to this conversation. He's reading the same texts the rest of us are. TBH this pretty much sums up his entire career.
Yes, he's an amazing writer regardless of his target. I primarily think of his christian apologetic work, though, hence why I was teasing his obsession with western (and particularly christian) text.
I love Chesterton. I was just ribbing him. It's not terribly difficult.
culture is stuck in endless remakes of optimistic 70s futurism
it's an important point: we don't have a future, a telos, that doesn't fill us with foreboding