Re: Breton, Cornish & French

Chess One wrote:
> "John Cartmell" <john@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:4f77454d68john@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <B9WdnbGhMJh4klnanZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Chess One
>> <OneChess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> "John Cartmell" <john@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:4f750ada8ejohn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> In article <YNKdnT3BNrwXjiPanZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Chess
>>>>   One <OneChess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> There is no evidence whatever that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.
>>>>
>>>> In your terms: what would constitute 'evidence'. In common parlance
>>>> (and
>>>> academic research) there is plenty of evidence - but you are
>>>> clearly more
>>>> picky.
>>
>>> Perhaps I should re-emphasise that I am not speculating on
>>> Shakespearean author****p - but on methodology - and somewhere at
>>> the head of these posts
>>> remarked that there is not /written/ evidence [which I dare call
>>> 'normative' for academic] in his own hand of that to inform us.
>>
>>> Therefore the 'plentiful' evidence is not any form of primary
>>> material - and is indeed a somewhat mixed bag of second sourcing,
>>> suppositions [rightly to whatever degree].
>>
>> There is plenty of primary material.
>
> 'Plenty'. You continue to make vague assertions and then...
>
>>> So the 'how we know what we know' question is answered in the
>>> instance of Shakespeare by saying 'second sourcing of literary
>>> material from contem****aneous sources'. There are additional
>>> materials which contest the
>>> degree that Shakespeare wrote anything at all, or to what degree he
>>> did. It
>>> is not necessary to believe anything about this subject in order to
>>> note that varieties of opinion exist.
>>
>> What would *you* call primary material as to the author****p of the
>> plays?
>
> ...ask me to define your terms  <grin>
>
> Please try to understand the /nature/ of the inquiry. If you assert
> something, // how // do you know it?
>
> When I have asked people here they have become [mildly] abusive,
> dismissive, vague and evasive! Yet ontology has to do with the nature
> of things, including our investigation of them. It is not an attack
> or challenge to any particular knowledge, as much as to *****s the
> means we come to resolve on the process of investigation.

Ontology?  Make up your mind: you were wittering about "epistemology" a 
while back.
-- 
John Briggs