GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-07 > 1122057421
From: "CED" <>
Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
Date: 22 Jul 2005 11:37:01 -0700
References: <email@example.com> <CPZDe.14897$N91.4246@trnddc08> <000f01c58e71$92b76bb0$0300a8c0@Toshiba>
Almost certainly Mr. Richardson does not understand the meaning to the
term "systematic study." I post to you because you have a wide
acquaintance with members of the group and their various qualifictions
as medieval genealogists and experts on medieval documents, Mr.
Richardson's peers. Since M. Richardson has made claims in those
areas, those claims should be examined by his peers.
I have no expertise in these areas and would not attempt a description
of the making of an expert in either of those areas.
However, I do have an understanding of gaining such qualification both
in history and in languages. If Mr. Richardson should have a desire,
which I think he would since already he claims expertise, to become an
(1) SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE. He should conduct a survey of the
literature on the subject of the Latin used in England during the 13th
Century, including specialized dictionaries (inspite of his open
distaste for them). Since the subject matter is narrow, the literature
might not be so vast as to constitute a major problem. However, a
large part of the documentation for the Latin used in England at that
time should be found in France. Therefore, the Latin used by persons
sometimes resident in France but generally in England consitutes a part
of the area to be studied. The same can be said of the Crusaders,
Norman Italy, and the papal archives. Has Mr. Richardson conducted a
survey of the literature? He offers no evidence.
(2) SURVEY OF THE EVIDENCE. Once the literature has been gathered and
evaluated, that which deals with specific words (in this instance
"cognatus" and related Latin words, such as cognates and derivatives
and their accidents, i.e. their declined and conjugated forms) can be
sorted out and a determination is to made as to whether the meaning of
the word and the related words is in dispute in the literature. If so,
has there been a dinfinitive resolution. If not, all of the documents
in which the word is used, should be gathered and collated as to time,
geography, and variation in use. Those instances most likely to have
relevance should be set apart for analysis. Has Mr. Richardson
examined all the documents and set apart all examples of the use of the
word "cognatus" (and its cognates) for analysis? He offers no
(3) ANAYSIS. Once each instance of the use of the word "cognatus" (as
well as its most important cognates) has been exmained to determine
patterns and variations of meaning and usage, then the stage has been
set for the completion of the process. Has Mr. Richardson even begun
the preliminary work for a systematic study of the word "cognatus" as
it was used in Thirteenth Century England (and presumably by English
clerics and crusaders abroad)? He offers no evidence.
Mr. Richardson has not done any of the preliminary work for a
systematic study of the word "cognatus." It appears that Mr.
Richardson does not even have a clue as to how to start a scholarly
work, as would any first year post graduate candidate, or for that
matter, any person who reads scholarly publications.
A review of the archives reveals that he has little if any knowledge,
let alone undestanding, of Latin. If he wants to claim expertise, as
he did in his post of 10 Feb 2005, let him begin properly or remain
silent on the subject.
A hint about Mr. Richardson: those who care might want to examine the
archives. He is are widely spread in more than one group and is easily
shown to be weak on scholarship.
> Solitaire seems to overlook that it is medieval genealogical methodology is
> being discussed. The reliability of the people concerned is very important
> as only with that knowledge people can decide who to trust. And some people
> just cannot ask from others they themselves are unwilling or unable to give.
> And this does seem to apply to Richardson, he demands respect but is unable
> or unwilling to give it.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "solitaire" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 1:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges
> > CED wrote:
> >> Dear Mr. Richardson:
> >> I wish to remind you of my promise to keep you honest with respect to
> >> language, logic, and argumentation.
> >> Note the following excerpt of my message of 18 July 2005:
> >> "Evidence from the archives indicates that you twist arguments to avoid
> > Look, if you idiots want to bitch at each other about manners, take it
> > somewhere else -- you're a waste of bandwidth in the newsgroup.
|Re: Mr. Richardson's Unfounded Charges by "CED" <>|