You've come out with all guns, without a declaration of war, so to speak.Alan Bunning wrote:No, I really don't want to develop any kind of theory, because I don't want to do any such thing. What I would like is for people to state why the apparent support for splitting those words is invalid, so I can go on my merry way. I have 2 pretty good reasons to not split them, and would like the reasons for splitting them to be refuted or at least marginalized.Stephen Hughes wrote:I agree that you need a theoretical basis for your approach. The observations do not lead to a self-evident conclusion. It needs to be lead somewhere.
...
It is not enough to take a few views of people on a public forum and synthesise them into a viewpoint of your own. Your actions might be right and your decisions good, but they need to be defensible academically.
I understand that you want to be as right as possible in what you are publishing, but practically speaking, as right as possible = to the limits of current (mediaeval) scholarship. If you want to use different scholarship, you'll need to prove it (or at least lay it out theoretically) then use it.