eye of newt

things loom out of the murk and paddling cautiously towards them, we read well the warps and bends of light in the rippling data-flow, we make conscientious¬†use of the incidental lenses that bubble up past us to read the waters well, and we make our approach unerringly. we can retrieve a sense of the past that is evidence-based and credible from the old texts. but we have to admit that current models of pre-renaissance history just aren’t always evidence-based or credible, and learn which bits to keep and which to discard.

 

god and the devil

now what i’m trying to say is that it is very hard when perusing the languages in old texts from the renaissance and earlier, along with later literature and more recently recorded speech such as we find in dictionaries old and current, and place names and personal names and piecing together the whole picture from the scraps historians have inherited from those turbulent times, to not notice or even care when an infinitive has been split, and more relevantly to not notice that when you use your common sense instead of the text book methods, dieu (french for god) is totally and irrevocably a variant of di’el (english for devil). you’d think that would interest the scholars? they don’t burn heretics anymore do they? look also at dyw (cornish for god), deus (latin for god) and a great many other words that don’t have to be listed here in the languages of far western europe. now despite the textbook adherence to arguably fictitious chronology derived from or mocked up to accommodate the bible (whose antiquity is not proved – no evidence sustains claims to its being older than the renaissance) nobody seems to have noticed this. i know funding is short, but…