Re: Breton, Cornish & French

Sir, what I am asking is 'how we know', and if that knowledge is 
inferential - you say nothing else below - then let it be so! Let it be on

an inferential basis, all things considered, and so on. Did you understand

this as the nature of my inquiry? Or are you content to not notice that as

if I proposed he was a Spaceman walk-in, and besides, I am some
moon-landing 
denier? Even raising the question is somehow to be a nutter? A kook?

Did you understand the nature of my question, which, for the 100th time,
is 
to qualify the /means/ by which anything is known? This exampling of 
Shakespeare being an exercise for this group [!]

Phil Innes

"Westprog" <westprog@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:fpmev5$s24$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> John Cartmell wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Obviously there's plenty of evidence. If we choose to redefine Jonson's 
> poem
> about Shakespeare as not being evidence, what does constitute evidence?
We
> don't have evidence that anyone wrote anything ever, in that case.
>
> I would contend that not only do we have ample evidence that a man
called
> William Shakespeare wrote the plays, we have proof beyond all reasonable
> doubt. Put it this way - if I were on a jury, and the critical point of
> evidence turned on whether Shakespeare wrote the plays, I'd convict 
> without
> a second thought.
>
> If we don't accept the obvious evidence that Shakespeare wrote the
plays,
> then we've no evidence that Salman Rushdie wrote the Satanic Verses.
>
> -- 
>
>
> J/
>
> SOTW: "O'Malley's Bar" - Nick Cave
>
>