I wote several times that I imagine only two possible ways to prove deictic shift: psychoanalysis of a writer and analyzing the context. Deictic shifts I mentioned are contextually plausible. ...Peter, you need to read something on logic and scientific methods.
Every hypothesis can be proved false. It is especially easy with mine: just bring any examples where the use of yiqtol is meaningless if we read it either as future tense (with deictic shift, if it is contextually clear) or in idiomatic meaning.
No, your hypothesis cannot be proved false if you answer every counter-example by proposing a deictic shift for which there is zero evidence, or else that every attested sense of a word like "would" has an "idiomatic meaning" and the word in fact means something for which it is never used.
... As for the idiomatic meaning, I adduce Russian and, where possible, close English examples that show such idioms plausible.
No, I don't. We agree that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be properly scientific. What we disagree on is whether this particular hypothesis is falsifiable.
You really need to learn about scientific methods.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.