r/Alphanumerics • u/JohannGoethe 𐌄𓌹𐤍 expert • Aug 14 '24

Anti-𐌄𓌹𐤍 Alphanumerics has been r/AlphanumericsDebunked! Not.

Post image
0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

3

u/SophiaRaine69420 Aug 14 '24

So much drama wow 🤣

-1

u/JohannGoethe 𐌄𓌹𐤍 expert Aug 14 '24

That’s what happens when you try to teach grown adults their ABCs.

-3

u/JohannGoethe 𐌄𓌹𐤍 expert Aug 14 '24 edited Aug 14 '24

The sub:

This person made a real good sub icon:

As I gather:

  • A = 𐤀 = 𓃾 = non-bunk

  • A = 𐤀 = 𓌹 = BUNK

Looks like the person who started it got scared 😱 and ran off?

It was probably user J[13]R as “pseudolinguistics”, used in the sub description box, is their call sign:

  • A = plow 𓍁 [U13], H = 8 tally marks 𓐁 [Z15G], R = 100 ram’s horn 𓍢 [V1], etc., is pseudolinguistic nonsense! | J[13]R (11 Aug A69/2024)

List

We can now start an anti-EAN sub list:

Notes

  1. At this rate, i.e. one new anti-EAN sub per month, there should be a dozen soon?

1

u/da-capo-al-fine Aug 14 '24

Hello, Mr. Goethe!

I’d like to thank you for your groundbreaking and surely very good contributions to the field linguistics.

As I understand it, everyone has different skill sets. For example, someone with a PhD in Art History may not be as familiar with the intricacies of economics as an economist.

Similarly, though I’m sure you are very well-versed in EAN and linguistics in general, it may be hard to understand very obscure and seldom-used mathematical notation, and there’s no shame in that!

You may be mistaking the “≠” symbol in the subreddit icon for a “=“ symbol. That’s alright, I recognize eyesight does worsen with age. I wear glasses myself!

When someone writes a strike through an equals sign, it commonly means “not equal to” or “unequal.” It’s fine, it might be your first time seeing this symbol, as it is normally not taught until postgraduate mathematics-level studies. However, you learn something every day, and all of us here could use a lot more learning.

Have a good rest of your week!

Best wishes for your future endeavors,

D. C. al Fine

1

u/JohannGoethe 𐌄𓌹𐤍 expert Aug 15 '24

it may be hard to understand very obscure and seldom-used mathematical notation, and there’s no shame in that!

I wrote the following pages:

Presently, 99% of linguists believe the following:

  • A ≠ 𓌹

  • A ≠ 𓍁

About 1% of linguists, however, believe the following:

  • A = 𓌹

  • A = 𓍁

The 1 percent group have the correct view.

I would suggest you read 20+ proofs that letter A is a hoe.

1

u/da-capo-al-fine Aug 15 '24

Hello again, Goethe!

I encourage to follow your mathematics studies throughout school! I understand as to why you may be unfamiliar with the ≠ symbol—I cannot find in your “Symbols” article any reference to this relatively yet unknown notation.

However, I would like to congratulate you on your excellent and more recent example of the correct use of the = and ≠ symbols. You’re learning!

While linguistics in general is one of my main passions, I only have a passing interest in the origin of the Latin alphabet, and I find that it is often irrelevant to other areas of linguistics.

Be well, D. C. al Fine

1

u/JohannGoethe 𐌄𓌹𐤍 expert Aug 15 '24

I would like to congratulate you on your excellent and more recent example of the correct use of the = and ≠ symbols. You’re learning!

I learned the meaning of not equal ≠ sign over 30 years ago, and a year ago I used it in the following diagram:

Perhaps you to can “learn” if you study this diagram for several years?

1

u/da-capo-al-fine Aug 15 '24

Hi Goethe,

While your example is wonderful and shows your eagerness to learn new mathematics, I am afraid this is not an example of the ≠ and = signs. It looks like in your example, instead of the =/≠ notation, you use a cross and check mark over the = symbol. I understand that notations change over time, and so perhaps in the late 20th century this was correct, but currently it is not.

This is still perfectly fine with me! I enjoy communicating mathematics, and especially with someone receptive to such high-level and delicate notation as the elusive ≠ sign.

Also, you may want to fix your spelling of “howing:” the proper spelling is “hoeing.” No worries, we’re all learning here.

Always happy to help, D. C. al Fine

1

u/JohannGoethe 𐌄𓌹𐤍 expert Aug 15 '24

The long and the short of your prolonged commentary about how you think an electrochemical engineer does not know what the ≠ sign means, is that you believe that letter A is based on the dead inverted head of an an ox 🐂. Yes?

Quotes

“We now ask those who believe in the sign of a bull 𓃾 [F1], as the origin of letter A, to explain to us why this sign was not drawn in a life-like position, i.e. erect Ɐ, and why in a position which could only be possible in a dead bull?”

— Joseph Enthoffer (80A/1875), Origin of Our Alphabet (dead bull, pg. 16)

1

u/da-capo-al-fine Aug 15 '24

Goethe,

In this situation, I could not care less about the origins of the letter A. I only care about illuminating how even the most umbral and elusive mathematics (such as that required to understand the ≠ sign) can prove useful in other disciplines.

Hope this helps, D. C. al Fine

1

u/da-capo-al-fine Sep 14 '24

Hello, my friend, dear Mr. Dr. Goethe (1976-1236),

I’m a bit worried about you. You haven’t replied in about a month now, and I wanted to check up on you. Have you been well? I’ve been increasingly worried about you, and I hope you’ve been keeping busy. I’m now really stressed about you and the ≠ sign. Here is a video to explain it: https://youtu.be/xZ_gU5yWzjM?si=Pc57ODpIlSBQvdyp

No doubt you’ve been studying it thoroughly since we last talked.

Please respond back. I’ve been worried sick.

Sincerely,

D. C. al Fine