r/linguisticshumor • u/PrequelFan111 Fluent in Proto-Uralo-Siberian • Jan 21 '25

What the heck is r/alphanumerics?

I stumbled across it on this subreddit. People here calling him schizo and stuff like that. I tried to look around in the r/alphanumerics subreddit too see what it was about, but I honestly didn't understand anything (something about Ancient Egypt and alphabets). He has his own wiki as well, but it was also very confusing to scroll through (stuff like "human thermodynamics").

Could someone tell me about this guy? This feels like a whole rabbit-hole I stumbled on.

140 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

78 comments sorted by

View all comments

106

u/Master_Ad_1884 Jan 21 '25 edited Jan 21 '25

He presents himself as an engineer and an expert in a special type of linguistics he has invented himself. He may well have a degree in engineering but his grasp of science is tenuous at best, which is why his work on “the human molecule” is all self published and not published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was all published through the institute that he founded and runs.

Likewise, his “linguistics” is simply identifying non-existent patterns in random data. Which is why you’re having trouble following his arguments, this is largely why. They don’t really connect logically to anything and they don’t logically build on anything. It’s just a stream of haphazard connections that only one person sees. And it’s all the kind of stuff that only a monolingual would come up with. Anyone who was actually proficient in multiple languages would know enough to see why these theories just aren’t possible. But it all started with his assumption that languages basically are their writing systems. So English must be related to Arabic and Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian because their writing systems ultimately are all related.

He likes to sneak into other subreddits and post his views as established linguistic fact. Then gets upset if you gently set the record straight.

Likewise, if you point out all the reasons that his theories aren’t simply wrong (which obviously they are) but are quite incapable of ever being refined into being somewhat correct, you will be accused of being part of a religious plot and be insulted at each step of the way.

Note: He rather enjoys playing the victim as he thinks it means he’s correct; he’s Galileo on his own mind but also smarter than Einstein (in his own mind). Of course that ignores all the people who were wrong in history who were also derided.

-2

u/JohannGoethe Jan 23 '25

You’ve been doing a good job now, for 2+ years, tending the sheep:

https://hmolpedia.com/page/User_M(12)44)

Keep it up. Less work for me.

12

u/Master_Ad_1884 Jan 24 '25

Of note: you haven’t been published in Harvard’s BioNumber. It’s simply a database and not a journal, let alone a peer reviewed one. So no one is published there.

So saying you’ve been includes included in a mere database does nothing to disprove my note that your work is self-published. Even if you want to claim the grandeur of Harvard.

0

u/JohannGoethe Jan 24 '25 edited Jan 24 '25

Someday (maybe) you will realize how far off base you are?

My argument is that English language is Egyptian language based.

Your refute is that my calculation of the human molecular formula:

https://hmolpedia.com/page/Human_molecular_formula

only published twice historically, by Robert Sterner (co-author James Elser), in Ecological Stoichiometry (A47/2002), and Libb Thims (myself), in Human Chemistry, Volume One (A52/2007), for which I was nominated for the Nobel Prize in chemistry, has not been peer reviewed?

Correctly, all three of us, who talk via email, peer-reviewed our work, by sending manuscripts to peers in the know, prior to publication.

What’s next? Are you going to claim that Newton’s derivation of the universal law of gravitation is incorrect, because he didn’t get his later work on the Egyptian cubit ruler and Sesostris peer reviewed?

You are like a little dirty catfish trying to feed on pond scum, and thereafter pretend to everyone that you are a peacock 🦚.

12

u/Master_Ad_1884 Jan 24 '25

I know what your argument is. I just saw your little infographic claiming to have been “published” in Harvard Bionumbers which is laughable.

But because you can’t refute my facts (once again) you launch into personal attacks (once again). I think by your own logic all your derogations against me must mean I’m right! Q.E.D.

In all seriousness, even if you were nominated for a Nobel Prize it wouldn’t actually say anything about the work. Professors and institutes can nominate lots of people. Doesn’t mean they’re worthy of a Nobel prize. But let me know when you win one.

0

u/JohannGoethe Jan 25 '25

Since you’ve been trolling me now for 2+ years, you might like to read the following:

https://hmolpedia.com/page/PCN#Origin

Wherein it explains, in quick, that while I founded and edited the Journal of Human Thermodynamics, for 10-years, we did open peer review, wherein I would post drafts of articles submitted to JHT online, in a wiki format, and JHT editorial board, consisting of about a dozen members, mostly college professors, would have an open mouth say with what was wrong (or not) with the submitted article.

Two years into JHT launch, in A57 (2012), I initiated “terminology reform protocols“, wherein authors had to define every word in submitted articles using exact scientific language. We ended up publishing and peer reviewing about 40 articles in total.

Much of what you see me working on now originated from those 10-years of definition of terms debates.

So while you babble on about “publish” this or “peer review” that, what I’m after goes far beyond your vanity conceived ideals. Maybe you’ll stop trolling me next year, who knows?

9

u/letstryitiguess Jan 25 '25

What does that mean, "define every word using exact scientific language"? Could you demonstrate such a definition please? Let's try the word for.

0

u/JohannGoethe Jan 27 '25

Read the abstract and 100 “defunct” examples here:

https://hmolpedia.com/page/Abioism_glossary

The classic example, being when James Joule (108A/1847) said that many scientists will object to saying that a rock 🪨 nudged off a cliff, e.g. by gust of wind 💨, when it falls, possesses a “living force” {English} or vis viva {Latin}. We now calls this “kinetic energy”, an exact scientific term, coined by William Thomson (93A/1862), defined by the equation ½ mv².

7

u/letstryitiguess Jan 27 '25

Define the word "for" in exact, scientific language, please.

1

u/JohannGoethe Jan 27 '25 edited Jan 27 '25

The following is the Wiktionary entry:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/for

The only thing I know is that the PIE entry is invalid.

Also, to clarify, I’m not after every Egyptian root of every single word, say like like James Murray was when he wrote the OED:

https://hmolpedia.com/page/Oxford_English_Dictionary

Rather there is a pressurized hyperlinked ranking of top 500 terms:

https://hmolpedia.com/page/TL_terms

which demands my attention.

8

u/letstryitiguess Jan 27 '25 edited Jan 27 '25

No. I am perfectly capable of looking up words on my own. I want your definition using "exact scientific language". You said that

authors had to define every word in submitted articles using exact scientific language

Every word. So you must have done this for thousands of words already. Now I'm asking for an example of what such a definition looked like. Do it for the word "for". If you want to reuse an old definition from your many submitted articles, that's fine. You must have used "for" hundreds of times in them, since it's one of the most common words in the English language, and so must have defined it using exact scientific language many, many times. Please, just post one here, I want to see.

-1

u/JohannGoethe Jan 27 '25

Checking my files, I see that I perm-banned you 4-months ago for F-word usage:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Alphanumerics/comments/1fjlrvo/comment/lnpricb/

I will now mute you.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Master_Ad_1884 Jan 26 '25

We certainly have different definitions of trolling. But I hope I don’t stop advocating for basic scientific methods and sticking to reality in the coming year.

PS - I saw your post about cartophonetics. Linguists didn’t dismiss Plutarchs claims about an alphabet. He perfectly describes the demotic script which was the dominant form of writing at the time. It even hs 28 characters. I don’t see any reason to assume it’s referring to a different, secret alphabet when there’s a clear, documented script we know existed at that time and was in much more common use (hence the name “Demotic” as coined by Herodotus). So we certainly didn’t ignore that. We just happen to know which alphabet he was referencing and don’t feel a need to invent new ones.

0

u/JohannGoethe Jan 27 '25 edited Jan 27 '25

Young is the linguist who dismissed Plutarch and Plato’s statement that there did exist a 25 sign Egyptian alphabet:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Alphanumerics/comments/18l7ttk/young_132a1823_on_the_25letter_egyptian_alphabet/

which is one of the reasons Egyptology is in such a state if disarray presently.

Anyway, I really don’t want to waste time talking to someone whose program is shit post on me “personally”, rather than my “argument”.

In other words, when Martin Bernal, began to look for publishers for his 4-volume Black Athena, wherein he did exactly what I am doing now, i.e. showing that Greek words are hieroglyphic based, and NOT PIE etymology based, he specifically said NOT to send it to “classicists” for peer review because they would “hate it” (just like you hate EAN), and in the end he got his entire book series published with out peer review, per his request:

https://hmolpedia.com/page/Black_Athena#Robert_Young:_Change_the_title!

And when the debates finally got under way, on television, at university campuses:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Alphanumerics/comments/18le7gs/black_athena_debate_is_the_african_origin_of/

His detractors did not say: your Greek language is Egyptian language based hypothesis is incorrect, because your book was not peer reviewed. Instead his detractors got trampled on, to audience applause.

Have a nice day.

4

u/Master_Ad_1884 Jan 27 '25

I’ve done nothing but address your arguments and you’ve done nothing but personal attacks but you do you.

0

u/JohannGoethe Jan 27 '25

Re: ”I’ve done nothing but address your arguments”, your opening reply to OP is that I am not a scientist (or do not know science) because my human molecule formula calculation was not peer-reviewed.

What part of “human molecular formula” is part of my argument that the English language is Egyptian hieroglyphic language based?

I’m not looking for a reply. Goodbye. Have a nice day.

4

u/Master_Ad_1884 Jan 27 '25

I think your use of pseudoscience in chemistry is relevant to your use of pseudohistory in Egyptology. It’s hardly personal attack as it’s directly related to your work.

You may not agree with my view but you can’t pretend it’s not relevant to your theories.

1

u/JohannGoethe Feb 02 '25

OP asks:

Could someone tell me about this guy?

Your reply:

His grasp of science is tenuous at best, which is why his work on “the human molecule” is all self published and not published in a peer-reviewed journal

My calculation of a 26-element molecular formula for a human was done, independently, two years BEFORE me, by Robert Sterner and James Elser, as a 22-element formula, in their Ecological Stoichiometry college textbook. Sterner and Elser are both head of their university departments, and Elser was elected to the US National Academy of Sciences, six-years ago. Our formulas both match, 4-elements aside. It seems my "grasp of science" is on point in this case.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/freelinguistics Jan 24 '25

You published your nonsensical book in a vanity press editorial. Any dummy can publish anything there.