Difference between revisions 17134767 and 17138239 on enwiktionary

==''[[cane]]'' and ''[[can]]'' in [[w:consilience|consilience]] ==

{| align=center
| width=50% |
 eng:	{{l|en|cane}}
 esp:	{{l|es|caña}}
 fre:	{{l|fr|canne}}
 ita:	{{l|it|canna}}
(contracted; show full)
: [[File:Arrowred.png|15px]] Put more simply, in order to even begin to find linguistic relationships on the level of PIE <-> Chinese, you would need to look at the ''oldest attested forms'' of the languages.  -- Cheers, [[User:Eirikr|Eiríkr&nbsp;Útlendi]]&nbsp;│&nbsp;<small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">''[[User talk:Eirikr|Tala&nbsp;við&nbsp;mig]]''</small> 16:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
⏎
⏎
:: In a way, science looks like a double helix such as DNA, with empiricism and rationalism intertwined cooperatingly rather than conflictingly. The test is empiricist, and the rest is rationalist. Both are ''yang'' and ''yin'', respectively, making up the ''universe''! Nevertheless, hard-testing empiricists or positivists may blame rationalists or interpretivists for their easy-going theories or theses, which though may open up a new horizon, including new empiricist jobs.

:: Focally you seem to argue that the modern Japanese reading ''kan'' and meaning "tube" of [[管]], for example, might be too different from the ancient Chinese originality to be seriously or etymologically compared with the European counterpart, say, {{term|cane}}. 
::: The more appealing rationalist thesis of mine,
::: the more appealing empiricist antithesis of yours. 
:: This is a kind of the law of action and reaction. Explicitly, however, I am not yet appealing any etymological thesis, however appealing I may be in silence. Meanwhile, you look like appealing a positivist antithesis such that any Eurasian concert looks like a mirage. Simply, this is likely ahistoric!

:: Here we're not really caring the general "linguistic" but lexical "relationships" on the Eurasian, rather than PIE-Chinese, level. Such relationships did begin millenia ago, historically through the silk road, and as etymologically attested by such words as ''silk, china, tea,'' and so on. 

:: This Eurasian trade and confusion, whether cultural or lingual, is not a matter of rationalist theory but empiricist historicity ''including'' moral reciprocity. Nevertheless, PIE among Eurocentrism makes Indo-Europeans absolutely self-contained, likely aiming to isolate it from the Eurasian contexture in reality, for one reason or another. This is absolutely absurd! 

:: [[File:Arrowred.png|15px]] No thanks. I'm too old to take the toughest oldest tests for my favorite job. If young, you may make it yours. Cheers. --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 08:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)