 We basically tend to get most of the time to a discussion of the problems one sees working with true texts and adopting a method of chronological reconstructions, the way they're really dealt by people that they will try to make sense out of texts, when they need to translate them. That's my experience. I basically translated the Dupodian and the Shambor texts completely and I had just to deal with the kind of choices that are made to make readable texts. How do you choose between one, the other, how you see what the prevailing strategies in the fields are, which are not always strategies that conform to best phonological, candidate's best phonological matches. So mainly I deal with these points in a sequence. What I believe are the main features of the book, of the new system, how they deal with new magic sources, but especially how scholars basically approach these sources, what are the common tools they use, what are the common problems met by scholars. Then I will focus specifically on the usage of Pallivan's dictionary in the book as a way to test some hypothesis and to see some counter example in the spirit of a very explicit in the book of falsifier big, I mean really making claims that can be tested one way or another. And specifically we look at some detail, three examples. And then I will look at some other examples relating to religious problems from excavating texts and it will offer a quick conclusion. Now, we were three of us from University of Washington and we were trained with this book and we were trained with that book because we're weighing into all the Chinese. But in a way compared to the approach taken by the 2015 books, it's a traditional approach in the sense that if you compare it with the testability of the claims and the structure of the hypothesis, this, the new book has certainly bolder hypothesis from a point of view of really epistemology. But it's not only because of epistemology, it's mostly in the good part at least because of new sources and new sources of material, manganese, I think that are brought into the system and also much more recourse to internal reconstruction, morphology of old Chinese prefixes and so on. At the same time, there is this issue of the hypothetical to that approach. And I'm intrigued by this explicitly, this approach coming this way from a piece of science, this way that you test things just like in the Einstein example, very famous that was tested by an eclipse between two claims. So the Einstein claim is a claim that basically comes not because of a slow addition of new data that brings to some more generalized hypothesis. It comes from some conceptual breakthrough that then needs to be tested. But when you test it, you find out how it compares with the established methods. At the same time, looking specific again, just to limit myself to the script, the true script, looking specifically at some usages of this, of data from the script into the book, into the system, sometimes there are issues of falsifiability. Can really these claims be tested? To which extent they can be tested? Obviously, even if they are only partially tested the way they can be tested can improve. This is also part of a normal way you build this hypothetical, productive system. Now, I want very briefly to go through the three main corpora we have for true script. Most of us are very familiar with it. A few maybe are not. And this anyway allows me to go back to the fact that the data that come out of the consecutive that constitute true script that are in by Ulan's dictionary of phonetic longs come from single texts. And these types of different features. For example, the digudian, which are basically the first that really wrote us into extended usage of true bamboo manuscripts. He comes from an archeological excavation. We are sure of the source. It has been studied for more than 20 years and this translation very simply annotated by Scott Crook. Basically, it's really a point of reference. The way we treat the data coming from Odeon are not the same as the way we treat data coming from the Shanghai Museum manuscript. The script is very, very similar to being related. And now basically you don't do, when you look at the graph in Odeon that has yet to be puzzled to be solved, you immediately use data from the Shanghai manuscripts. I mean, the two things are interrelated, they're just one field. And I particularly found that familiar with this because I went through the trouble trying to create a complete translation of them. I mean, some of them are broken in the order is unclear, some of them are more incomplete than others. Overall, most people would agree that they reflect just one kind of script. Some text overlap. We have the same text in Odeon and in Shanghai. At the same time, the problems are more extended. Sometimes when we look at one passage in one of these texts, we need to be aware that, well, the text could be really incomplete. There are even issues if the text could be forged. And then generally speaking, these texts are accepted as being authentic, but this is not the same as having text in, that come from two inner archeological settings. The third corpus that is coming into full fruition that is still just been published year by year, we're going forward with it, Addiching Pan Manuscript. Again, we are not sure about the provenance of this. I would like very briefly, basically, we will not really go into this passage, we will go into the table that comes from this passage. This is a translation by Cook of two passages from the Odeon, one that says an intro, one from the Odeon. I tried basically to do an investigation of how many of these characters are, basically can be taken as standard version of the, basically equal to the standard script of the Odeon unification and which one are either GAGA or just conjectures. So if you counted the Odeon text more or less contained around 12,000 characters. Now I did a sample of around 1500, so I could control it like that. And let's say that out of 1500 around 1,000 just stand for what is called then. So the same character, you don't need to have any interpretation, even for the Galician series, they're just the same. And instead all the ones that are followed by something into brackets are around 1,300, 500 out of 1500. Now most of them, let's say 70% of this 500, 70% of this character that require anyway a kind of re-transcription. They need to be interpreted in terms of the standard script. 70% are trivial. I mean they're basically at the same phonetic component, so they're the same decision series. Around 20% are less trivial, but in most cases we can get the phonological reason if we're going to one character to the other. Now we use character in a pretty informal way as representing a word that we not always have the full thing, but obviously there are graphs that stands for another, for a word that is normally written now with a standard graph, for example, wall. Now some cases this kind of equivalence could be basically due to some special phonological environments. For example, this one with a glottal sock corresponds to the initial nasal. It often comes to the kind of sounding environment when a preceding word is followed, is ending in N, which basically also reminds us of the fact that it's not really the two characters that stands for each other in general. I mean a single text, there is a single instance that's countable of a certain character standing for what would turn it to be. And these are the problematic ones. They are around, in the good, they are around 10%, 10% of this one third that are in general not fancy. And this one in some cases are just conjectural. I mean they're just seen from the context with either a known, or it can be broken into known parts. Sometimes the fact that we break it into known parts doesn't help, it is still basically unknown entities, but they often, they decide, for example, they decide books that have a related version from that matching word or character in that environment. We assume that this unknown thing should match with a known character in that received passage and sometimes just from the context. In other cases, it's basically just a very continuous, consistent way to write one character as another in Ren, in the magic, is written with Shen Radical and the heart, which is also, okay, phonological, by the way, but this is kind of a, it's still a special case, where you see more complex than this, but at the same time, it's a straightforward equivalent. It holds both the time. Most of these others are really like blank boxes, in a certain sense, we don't know them very well. The way we deal with these graphs is first of all we try to locate them into a dictionary of graphs, and this is still being the reference, but basically the state of the field, the fact that the field is basically just really starting to give us tools, is clear from the fact that this dictionary has been conceived before all these discoveries, I mean before the discoveries of the body and it doesn't really have data from the body and the shadow and the shape of it, but it's still the best we have. We integrate it with other things. We integrate it basically with data from databases, academia, cinema, Wuhan, Chinese view, you enter form and they give you all the variant form. So obviously it's according to their interpretation of what that form already is. You cannot just have an unknown character and try to find it out. You can just, through these searches, see how a given known character is represented in different texts, according to each editor. Obviously each one of these is an editorial decision that this is indeed this character. In many cases this is trivial. In other cases it's potentially problematic. The source I'm focusing here is Bayerian's dictionary. I did it because it allows me at a very small scale to test some claims put forward in the book, which use Bayerian in sixth and seventh occasions is never for very major things. I'm not trying to have an overall outlook on the reconstruction as such, just to see basically two things. How the two-spread is used to build this theory and eventually if this system can lead to better practice in ideography, it can help a lot of first-rate texts. Now this is the version of the text cited in the book 2008. This is the one, the latest, 2012. It's three times larger than most of them. Partly it reflects the fact that really there's a normal amount of work going on in this field. But partly also basically it makes more explicit what is already here. And here it's really called the dictionary. It's really a collection of glosses. Bayerian is really basically a collection of... I mean, just problematic characters or more or less problematic that would be treated if the sources were not manuscript sources in a normal Jiajie dictionary are treated by Bayerian in this dictionary because when they come from manuscript sources and at the same time, quite clearly each one of them reflects the specific editor's view on a specific problem. Now we look basically at three claims. Three claims that are made in the book and kind of test how the usage of Bayerian is related to this issue of testing the system. Because the fact that the claims are based on this version and there is an expanded version which is basically 250% more data that basically allows you to check if how things have been going in the past only a few years, but just the material is much more. So there are three claims that I'm looking at. And one of them is about what I call split of gong and gong, which means I kind of use the terminology that Baxter Langton used basically when he was looking at evidence of having one rhyme category that was traditionally treated as a single one, splitting them into two. If basically there is no inter rhyming between the subset that is really split the category. In a certain sense, this is something similar, meaning these two words have the same middle Chinese transcription. And they were in general reconstructed also with the same old Chinese construction. So one of the rationales for this different reconstruction here, one with a meter, the other with a eucalyptus is that in BYL by Yudan, there are pages and pages listing words that are in JG Connection with Gung and in JG Connection with Gung and the two series don't overlap. Which basically means that at least in the mainstream in represented in the book, the two sets really seem to be more than just separated by chance. They seem to be a systematic way in which the sets are distinguished. Plus, Gung reconstructed with an eucalyptus serves as phonetic for Keras as it is also reconstructed with an eucalyptus. So it's consistent. It's basically an hypothesis is made then it is defended on the basis of new evidence from the manuscripts. And then additional reasons are given. Now, in BYL by 2012, there is one counter example. So the counter example is slightly indirect. It's not exactly from Gung, which is basically still with a velar and which interchanged with an eucalyptus here. So Gung writes one. Now, we saw first that one was reconstructed with an eucalyptus according to the pattern which he should not have interchanged with a velar. What I want to point out here I have my own advertisement of my own translation of the passage, but it's also that it's basically one solution to one specific textual problem. The graph is this. At least this is the way it's transcribed. There is Gung here, there is Gung, then there is the vessel part, so here. So these three parts. So it's quite clear, it seems quite clear that the phonetic is Gung. Now, the story is about a dude that basically has understand how things really are. He's a good ruler. And a younger ruler that is supposed to take over but doesn't understand at all how things are in the world. So the story is that he goes around in the countryside, looks at peasants' family and look at how you cook pickled sauce and he understands that you need to do it in a special way. I mean, he knows how to do even this kind of very small minutiae, so he's a good ruler. His son doesn't even know how to recognize him in a field, doesn't have a clue. So that's the way you kind of understand what is going on in the text. And this is the point where we make the decision where this Gung and we decide it should be Earth and Jar. So it should be an Earth and Jar that should not be covered in the process of cooking. Where does this come from? It comes from Chantiel, which, I mean, if you know how it proceeds in an excellent way however, not too careful about the phonological details in most cases. But this is, at the same time, a typical entry from Balmina. This is an entry. And what I want to point out in the spirit of this falsifiabilit is that basically when Bai Yulan has his five pages of borrowings from Gung and then for the other, Gung and then they don't cover that, his sources for putting together all this list is basically textual glosses like the one Chantiel put there in this case. So there are two different issues. The fact that if Chantiel is justified here in having that a glossic which would consider this and stay for just phonologically unsound, and the fact that in the book, the fact that Gung and Gung consistently do not intertwine in this two Jar Jar system is considered a fact. It's not problematized as a set of hypotheses of different scholars taken and put together by Balmina. It's basically the fact of the language. And I'm basically emphasizing that often often there are actual reasons to choose one, one reading against another. And these reasons might not be controllable, but at the same time they end up in the pool of data that is treated as a fact. So sometimes there are issues of falsifiability, meaning are you, is the data like this just going to be taken out as problematic? But then what about all the other data? They've been tested the same way to check that we were not conditioned by similar contextual reason or with possibly problematic phonological reasons. This is one example. The other example is actually a kind of confirmation. It is not a counter example. There are two series, Yang and Yang, similar homophones in little Chinese. Reconstructed with an eubolars for Yang because of connection with the session series, eubolars items. This other item has connection that basically lead to reconstructed with the liquid because in itself there is a certain consensus that you reconstruct middle Chinese yue wine as we're having these two sources. At the same time, but you know, it can neatly provides these two known overlapping sets. The new edition has one exception, but this is not a real exception because we know the two merged. They only merge after the bamboo manuscript. So this manuscript, by now it's not only bamboo manuscript, this is Han Dynasty manuscript. So the only example where the two interchange is from the Han Dynasty. This is actually something that comes as the same testable new evidence and the evidence is in favor of what is represented in the form. So it can go both ways. Wu and Wu also homophones in middle Chinese reconstructed in different ways. Now, one of the reasons to reconstruct Wu as having eubolars is that there are contents. There are session contents and there are word-families relationship with eubolars. So this is again the hypothesis. On this kind of hypothesis, we just think that, sure, the two series should be separated. But here the counter-example are very numerous, actually. In fact, they are treated in a separate note in the book because it's the case where really counter-example are in large number. Now, what is considered a genuine counter-example in the novel, meaning a counter-example that is simply not explained the way. A counter-example is simply recognized as an exception, is this one. This one, because there is a matching passage, I think I'm shooting one, that basically makes extremely unlikely that here we should have anything else by eubolars resistance. So this is recognized. But this one is cited and not recognized. I mean, by Ilan gives this blocks, but it is possible to get these other blocks. Now, how is it possible? This table will basically give an idea of why I consider the system, if it is not out of control, but is a system that is still very problematic to deal with. The alternative explanation of this word, as bien, which obviously cannot be on phonological ground or something, is this graphic element here. It's one of the graphic element cracks, the most ubiquitous, mysterious graphic element in the book, yeah, because it really seems to serve for, well, widely different, bien, bien, bien. It stands for all this in different contexts, and so it's a kind of jolly element that can serve different purposes. I mean, it probably just didn't crack it the right way. I mean, there are at least two subsets. But what I mean is that the alternative hypothesis of having bien here comes from the fact that the graph involved is this graph. So, well, this unknown, basically, graph that can stand for so many other graphs, which also means it's perhaps an easy way to get away from a textual problem. If equally, it would have been equally possible to choose one of the other candidates. And at this point, how do we choose which should have words and which should have debates? Well, in good part, from the context, and plus on the phonographical ground, that this is a dialogue between Cautius and Zsusia, and Zsusia is saying, basically, that the words Confucian are beautiful. Perhaps it's preferable to keep words instead of, like, debate there, but again, it's a textual issue. I have one more example. This example is based on a graph. Again, that is quite interesting. It's interesting because, quite clearly, it doesn't match with the phonology. The N-final gene would not serve for something that is pronounced with I and G. So, it has been surmised for a long time, but actually, if I think it's the N-final gene. And furthermore, Ling and Ming, these are just very important, but they are basically almost interchangeable. So, here I might seem a bit fussy in going over these minor details, but I'm basically just trying to see what can be justified, what can be tested, what is very difficult to test in this subset. So, this is straight from our text, and it says that also, taking into consideration the fact that Jing and Ming are, Ling and Ming are related, so perhaps we should actually split Jing or Chinese cream into, it's two meanings, because we know it has to be one is both small and the other one is pity. So, the proposal here is that probably the both small meaning come from Ming, not from Ming, and the pity meaning come from Ling, to be compassionate, to pity. Now, this is all possible, but how do we test something? Obviously, sometimes if you don't make even, I mean, the issue maybe is if you should have this in a note or in the text, I mean, it's like in a sign, it's a possible way to think about some future problem. At the same time, it's all presented in a text that will be a reference for years and present itself as a kind of careful, hypothetical, deductive text. So, I'm just taking some small issues with this, just showing some inconsistencies that we have with the true strength, particularly, because it's a delicate thing. Similar thing is this. Joe is general, recognized by everybody, but is generally recognized as being the original character standing for an order. So, how do we reconcile the different initials, T and K? Now, it is difficult, obviously, there are two kind of supporting pieces of evidence. One is that there is a kind of a couple. I mean, there are two cognitive words in one in Tibet and one in their own related, where basically we see that there is a, I suspect it would be prefix or what we in Chinese would consider this. So, there is a term, crew, that could give us the crew, complex image. And also, there is, again, a type of that come for internal reconstruction, that the T prefix could account for this. Again, I am wondering also, because I have special knowledge in sign of Tibetan or Tibetan or Burmese, but how and how is having this prefix? I mean, it's not based only, I know it doesn't come only from that, from that relationship between Joe and Joe, but are there only five? I mean, it just seems to be, as a supporting evidence, if there are only five or six and one is problematic, almost 15, 20% of the evidence is problematic. The last example, maybe I was right, more or less I'm dead, comes from an example in the Shambhal that I, something that it bound into. So, this is a place name. Place names are particularly unreliable. You don't know exactly how they are written, but from the context it's in the only way we can make sense of this, which is skin, is that a certain king has lands in a certain territory. It's not that he, although initially people, the Boombu script are such that sometimes people thought it was about a skin problem. I mean, sometimes you need to reconstruct the full, sometimes you really understand the single passage based on a single word and go around it. But now that we have a decent understanding of the text, we have no doubt that this should be a place name. And once we know it's a place name, we know from the chronicle, this is a two king, we know which time it fits that he actually had this new territory contract. It fits for the rhyming, but what about the initial? I mean, the initial, people accept it because it seems to make the better sense in the context. But again, can we, how do we justify it? Maybe we cannot or maybe we can. I mean, can we test it? Obviously, there is no prefix P, but it's just another example of thing that are problematic, but editor state make these decisions. I mean, most of the time, the text we read, the text that by Ulaan will have as his entry, has this Georgian relationship. The conclusion is that the evidence from the show speak is open problematic that sometimes, at least in this case, it's not clear how you test certain hypothesis. And especially, it's not clear what is given as a normal suitable way to test these hypothesis. Maybe there is no general suitable way. I also, as a basically practitioner in the field that uses reconstructions to make decision about the idea, I'm still using Schusler, basically. That one, because it's more systematized, but it's based on Baxter-92. I don't think it's yet. I mean, it's really a task for the future to make the old Chinese new reconstruction a tool to make day-to-day decisions.