The quality of a scientific paper … A casual reposition. Reply

The quality of a scientific paper are not ZERO if citation is zero. Perhaps we need to define two parameters, quality and significance of scientific communication. Quality; a well done research in the best traditions and methods available. Significance; the outreach of the paper to bring effect into others work and others understanding toward the subject matter.

While there will always be a downside to both parameters, citation reflects the significance (and quality as much as it correlated to significance) of a paper. More…

Language connections points to an underlying beauty.. 1

Language connections are much more unbelievably simple than our day to day attitude towards them reflects. Everything evolves from a fewer set of things. The underlying beauty of the seemingly bizzare properties are only a diversion. Nature isn’t playing tricks. We are not prepared to take a route which promises us sound understanding of the inherent unity for fear of losing a dime of our ability to prove that we are capable of the immensely complex.

You got to be kidding me: (well !!)

The word for dwarfs in India is “baman” (a little variant of “wa mono”).

(There are variants of this into; Hindi: bau-na, Odia: banTu, with the T being a heavier phonetic of t, so in transLIT rules people add H’s, in Odia and other Indianic modern alphabet systems there are 1st and 2nd letters of many letters which takes care of such phenomena and the additional dots are used to address further degeneracy)

It is literally a Japanese origin word.

[I studied a long article on wikipedia which evidences various meaning of the ancient names of Japan: Wa/Wou/Wo from the original Chinese, and how this name being derogatory in sense was changed in the Asuka period of Japan’s history]

In earlier times thus Japan was called wa (or wo, wou) and mono is people.

The mono being people is also a cognate of manusya/manisa, given you understand the auxilary syllable modification, the main letters being prominent in their phonetics are retained with much higher likelihood, in today’s usage the longer forms are taken in India to be the base, the multi-syllables are a prefered usage in India today, the longer the better, but my idea/proposition/theory is there are plenty of words in Indianic usage which are merely monosyllabic and modified by it’s various use, hence in the later day usage has become multi-syllables whose mono-syllable factors can still be easily seen in some case.

I give examples and I will back-refer to this statement if&when I do. Wa is literally a word for dwarf in Japanese which is from it’s Chinese, The base has retained some forms in Chinese, while derivative (?) words such as “ai’ are also used. The name Nippon came in Asuka period, ~800 AD.

***
My analysis of people movement via immigration/exodus and them calling it nisan(g), nijan(g) is not invalidated by the above. I will post that article where I made this observation.

“I wanna kill all the scholars of Indian origin who haven’t studied Sanskrit from a Japanese perspective, what a shame.”

Well not much sanskrit has actually been studied from an asiatic perspective (China, Japan and all the other country even in our close proximity) I have one complaint to some of my readers, I have a feeling that much of what I say may not have been read carefully by a few, eg all the examples I give in Roman-translit still carry a great deal formulaic meaning. A more robust approach is to eg put the corresponding Chinese and Japanese script and make the analysis detailed, I agree. But one must understand there hasn’t been much base from where I am working. Not much analysis. I have given plenty of examples and will reproduce here and in other articles which are merely self-evident cognates given their simple day to day use.

In a blog don’t expect publication quality ideas, although I am in most of my word’s analysis confident to the limit of their validity, that the statements I made which can be claimed to be casual, can still not be proved wrong. The only exception being I have from technical carelessness or over-exhaustion may have produced a wrong example/form/misunderstanding. I recount that I have spotted only very few and immediately corrected such, so in the long run you can expect a better and better understanding of “where I pointed”.

Another point I want to make is one must see the context in which something was said and the related inference from the scope in which it was said. I do minimum edits, such as spelling and adding a word that does not invalidate my claims implicitly. When I add a point of contention as an “errata” I do so by explicit means. If I added something without literally mentioning how I differ from my copy-source be assured that I did not change anything substantial but made it more clearer what I said eg in the following sentences I put more ” ” and added space-bar space and put a hyphen here and there and put a “:” and added a fullstop somewhere and added a word “anga” without changing any meaning anywhere of what I said earlier.

But you can keep a score to check with my copy-source and it’s your problem how you do that. I just expect a little virility even from women.
***

“note that” (henceforth NT**)
The ancient Chinese people called the Japanese of those times >> “Dongyi” (eastern nomads) but this is what I also said: “Dong” in chinese comes from Da (ksh-i-na) = “right of” in “sanskrit”. In the latter usage right hand points to east. anga is a name of a place/body part. and it is actually a cognate of ansha they are used with same meaning but their scopes are not necessarily intersecting. Also I have recently pointd out how “dakhinatya” is wrongly taken to be a south-lying region given that “dakshina” in present day usage refers to south. But if we had done a little syllable and conjugation research before taking every historian’s words for it, we would have seen that “dakshinatya” comes from “dakshina-hastya” The right-hand regions. There is more meaning here eg how the Hasta may be a cognate of Chinese word for hand “shou” the latter being a monosyllable, hasta is at-least a tri-syllable with the H being a “bisarga” (one very soft H sound by definition) which later became so prominent that it formed a syllable itself. The sta just gives two more syllables 1. shou and 2. t or ta. So in essence the word that actually denotes “hand” may be the same monosyllable base “S” or “shou” (given that the shou is prominently only S, the h is just present may be as a soft phonetic, the latter part is just a practical elongation) Also the T, Ta, Te (a and e being auxillary phoentics liable to be varied) has given to the “hand” in Japanese and in Odia. Note that in Odia from an original “big belly” “Hasta” we now have “hata” and in various usage the “te” form is also used eg “ban hate, dan hate”. For my Odia readers note that, the “dahana hate” is merely an elongated form or a sentencification; it literally says: “cut to the right side” han being cut or kill. The same te is used in the handedness sense in Japanese; migi-te = right-side, hidari-te = left-side. If you live enough in various places and deeply understand what is being said you will see the exactness of the use. Language is not Physics. It’s Universal subjective to your personal experience. It’s a disadvantage of human community that we do not have a way to go above every limit we have. This language difference etc is manipulated politically by it’s proponents and frequently I observe how scientifc ideas are a mute spectator.

|||||——————-|||||
Altaf Writes, writes: “thanks for these lovely information…”

Manmohan Dash, writes: I have been time and again “shocked” in pleasure myself. What connections, nobody explored using basic rules..
|||||——————-|||||

By basic rules above I meant prominently used words such as hands/legs/directions and so on. We have a mythical perception of what science is, we often go for complexity by this attitude. But smartness or clever understanding or common sense is not prohibited by science. It is upto us how to see things and formulate them so that the end result is clearer and adds to our fundamental understanding, perhaps creates method and rules somewhere, for me that is science.

NT**
Lets see how I go from hypothesis to confirmation.
(if there is a difference in result you are welcome to point out)
Bei in chinese is north so bei-jing is upastha-anga (upper region, northern region) a more ready cognate is “upai-s-ang=beijing. Note that Chinese is readily amenable to sanskrit. SO in Odia I would say “upai” for north of chinese “bei” which are merely cognates of each other. (these are self-evident cognates, you notice when you speak these and note then that the meaning is upper or north in both cases) Also apply here my earlier excavated formula of s/j alternations. These alternations have come because of how we have grown to speak in real terms, contrasting to what a rule says what it must be.

Until the present day China uses “digu” as region/state which is used as “direction”, in India. They have the same origin therefore. If you remember my analysis of “manchurian diguo” you can readily see that this is the same digu/diga/digo… The multisyllable diguo breaks into di and guo and guo or kuo is used for the same meaning. Note also (it’s most worth while here) that this diguo may have cognatized itself into desha = country/nation of Indianic usage. In totality I am saying that analysis of a few words in 100 comparison isn’t as robust as analysis of a few words by taking their meaning and trying to see how precisely they fit into each other as per their usage. Here you can develop smart ways to derive meaning, hypothesize or prove but trying to derive a statistical likelihood as my mentor Brian suggested is not really a paradigm we’ll ever reach in the language studies. I therefore have reservations in calling these studies a language science, scientfic understanding is used, YES but teh conclusions are as subjective as someone’s whims. What is useful is if someone understands what your idea is, he can take this for the face-value use else where and prove a fact or two, or disprove a firmly held position on certain things and create a furore. A despicable tendency of general educated people is they think everyone has a equal right on science. The truth is that’s a democratically acceptable standpoint. But one must say” No one has a vetoed right on matters of science, recall Feynman’s “No one is a pope in science” Go backwards you will see that no matte how correct we are we are helpless in matters of science because such a character is liable to be misused.

The rest of the recent stuff I said on face-book I will divert into another essay, if your interest has grown, I promise an equally interesting presentation in my future articles. But I am a man driven by nature’s laws.

Language connections points to an underlying beauty… (blog moved to another place) Reply

Language connections are much more unbelievably simple than our day to day attitude towards them reflects. Everything evolves from a fewer set of things. The underlying beauty of the seemingly bizzare properties are only a diversion. Nature isn’t playing tricks. We are not prepared to take a route which promises us sound understanding of the inherent unity for fear of losing a dime of our ability to prove that we are capable of the immensely complex. More…