Here is what Bill Brown wrote in the earlier CARM.
Still your claim?
If it were true, why not make the claim in your “Internal Support” paper?
It's on page 22.
Did you not actually read this thesis, either?
So you were not really trying to do a scholarly paper,
Hey wait, I responded and refuted Frederick Nolan whom you said - and I QUOTE you directly - " A very learned scholar named Frederick Nolan".
This false "one audience" dichotomy exists only in your polemics.
you were only concerned with countering some AV defenders from c. 2000.
And guess what folks?
I was limited to 17,000 words and had to make an appeal to get some added - and still had to cut out 2,000 words and yet make THREE basic points via thesis structure. If I had spent all my time on Bulgaris, he'd complain about "but you didn't mention this" and "you didn't mention that."
This. Is. Not. How. Academics. Works.
This is the "guilty before tried" fallacy, which I thoroughly expected from Mr. Spencer, but the attempt to put words in my mouth fails, too.
This omission (looking at Nolan and Dabney rather without Eugenius) was fixed by our posting the Eugenius text.
Who is "our"?
Any actual language scholars who are fluent in the language in that group or did you just cram it into Google Translate?
I retierate: I have to work within the limits of what I can do personally. That's how this works.I don't get to be a phony Internet scholar who PRETENDS I know a language I do not or that I have a source I do not, and I'm on time limitations as well. I don't have the 20-plus years you've spent regurgitating the same misinformation over and over.
You could simply acknowledge that when you wrote that OVERTHROW piece you simply did not understand the grammatical argument.
This is being written by a guy who doesn't understand Greek grammar, folks.
This might be related to an unfamiliarity with Eugenius.
If I was unfamiliar with him - why is his name in my thesis? Huh?
I mean, even YOU (hardly a bastion of objectivity) said this in response to my pointing out I DID mention Eugenius
So you're whining about nothing here.
I responded to Nolan's claims about Bulgaris. Not my fault he was an idiot, who was refuted soundly when he was alive. Not my fault the average KJVO moron in the pew doesn't have a clue what he's parroting, eiter.
Here is where Eugenius shows the solecism question applies to masculine or feminine grammar, with neuter nouns.
3) "That it is certainly a peculiar virtue of our language that masculine and feminine nouns, in reference to τὰ πράγματα [ta pragmata], are constructed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, is well known to all who are practised in the language. But no one would say that conversely neuter nouns substantive are also indicated by masculine and feminine adjectives or pronouns."
He made a claim.
A claim refuted by literally thousands of years, hundreds of scholars, and the fact you can't produce all these manuscript copyists saying, "Wait a minute, this is IMPOSSIBLE! Something is missing!"
What's funny is this:
The actual people who HAVE LEARNED Greek? They know this argument is nonsense.
You - who by your own admission cannot read it? You're taking in by this argument.
And yet you call the people who have done the legwork and know the language "dupes."
As a reminder: I must have missed that part of your life where you miraculously obtained some sort of academic credential to decide how a thesis is supposed to be structured. Did this happen like when the Millennium Falcon was in hyper-drive sometime last night between say 10 and midinight?