--- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> *****GK: And of course, the term "Catholicus"is a
> staple of mediaeval Anglo-Latin texts, of which, pace
> Fomenko and co., there are plenty of datable and dated
> pre-16th c. manuscripts. Latin and Norman French
> (after 1066) were official languages of the English
> realm prior to 1362, and Latin was the principal
> language of English "Catholic" academics (pardon my
> mentioning the obvious. I know everyone knows this
> (except Fomenko? (:=))******
> >
Yes, of course, George. But their point is that, eg., Latin and
Classical Greek are a Humanists' invention, while Old and Middle
Englishes are not, by some twisted logic: they, as all the other IE
languages (but not Classical Greek and Latin) are direct descendants
of Russian (though there is nothing deliberately ethnocentric about
the movement), a split being dating ca. 15th c. (most other Eurasian
languages, including the Turkic ones, being direct descendants of
Arabic). Thus, the Latin sources are irrelevant for them.
It would be ridiculous if the movement were not very widespread and
strong (mostly among matematicians and other representatives of exact
sciences), enjoyed official and private support (Fomenko was barely
prevented from being elected a fellow member of the Russian Academy
of Sciences) and forced many Russian scholars (mostly historians, but
also physicists, as new chronologists deny carbon dating) to expend a
lot of time and energy (including dedicated periodicals and books) to
prevent this pseudoscience from diffusing into schools (some
universities seem to have fallen at least partly already).
Sergei