Can Someone Contribute With No Formal Training on the Subject?

Mathematics may give you an answer here:

A Hobbyist Just Solved a 50-Year-Old Math Problem (Einstein Tile)
Up and Atom, 3 sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1BhOVW8qZU

When I pretend to give a good list of carbon dates related to real dates between the Flood and the Fall of Troy, I do not pretend to have professional training in carbon dating.

I claim I know what a calibration is, and I claim as a Christian I have a right to think the Biblical history (or history in general) is a better calibrator than tree rings.

When I claim to identify certain carbon dated objects with certain Biblical and therefore dated events, I do not claim to be an expert in archaeology, or on the Bible. I claim to profit from archaeology in ways that Biblical scholars have missed out on, and to profit from the Bible in ways that often atheist or non-literalist archaeologists miss out on.

When I make a claim like "man has a language, which could never have evolved from the communication system of apes" I claim to know some universals about human language. I claim to have learned them, not by knowing all languages, but from people who have studied language after language and never found an exception.

Is "verb second" (V-2)* a universal? No, it's pretty unique to Germanic, and English and Dutch tend to go a bit looser with it, through influence from Romance, specifically mostly from French.

Is "nominative contrasts with accusative" a universal? No, it's common, but a huge minority of languages instead has "ergative contrasts with absolutive"** - Basque is one.

So, how can I confidently say that this is a universal? Here:

A PHRASE IS MADE UP OF MORPHEMES

There seem to be lots and lots of exceptions to any rule, right? Any rule of any language can contrast with any different rule from any different language. Yes, but "verb 1" in Arabic and "verb 2" in German, "nominative contrasts with accusative" in both, "ergative contrasts with absolutive" in Basque, all of these are about how phrases are made up of morphemes. None of these rules with these known exceptions are THAT a phrase is made up of morphemes.

But there is more to it. Human verbal communication, invariably found at work anywhere in any remote corner of the world, as long as there is a human population, requires phrases with complete meanings to be made of morphemes with incomplete meanings, and morphemes to be made up of very few, small, recogniseable things called phonemes, that have no meaning, but within morphemes code for its meaning.*** Because this is how human communication is able to convey an infinity of different content on topics of interest. Apes communicate on very restricted grounds, a bit like smileys and traffic signs.

I know this, because it was a topic of conversation between me and my Latin professor, more than once.°

If you read French, you have already seen me make this answer in another form.°°

Nothing in my activity as writer involves a claim of being the accredited expert that I am not. Nothing in the laws surrounding writing and publication require someone to publish only what experts say. I have not made any claim to being what I am not. If anyone thinks I have, he is not looking at my situation from the point of view of Western culture in which it belongs, but more like from sth like an Oriental custom and honour based society. I am willing to be a good neighbour to Orientals who have immigrated here, I am not willing to have them make themselves the judges of whatever I try to do between us Westerners. And even less by traitors among Westerners, who sacrifice Western liberties to the viewpoint of Orientals.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Philip of Alexandria, martyr
13.IX.2023

Alexandriae natalis beati Philippi, patris sanctae Eugeniae Virginis. Hic, dignitatem Praefecturae Aegypti deserens, Baptismatis gratiam assecutus est; quem, in oratione constitutum, jussit Terentius Praefectus, ejus successor, gladio jugulari.

* Except in question sentences.
** They are not the same thing. Both at transitive verbs denote the role of "doer" and "done to" BUT they have a different relation to intransitive verbs. A subject of an intransitive verb is nominative in the one type, absolutive in the other type. Ergative differs from nominative, in being absent from intransitive verbs. Accusative differs from absolutive in being absent from intransitive verbs. Think of transitive verbs like tangos, with two people involved to them, facing each other, and intransitive verbs like breakdance with one dancer involved (or several parallel ones).
*** A phoneme is often designated with a letter or letter combination, sometimes with more than one letter or letter combination. S and J are letters, SJ are letter combinations in the Swedish alphabet, but SJ is not the only way to write the phoneme called SJE-ljud. Just as in Greek, the letter ιώτα is not the only way to write short I. That's why I say "phoneme" and not "letter" ... the reason I say "morpheme" and not "word" is, partly, "word" can sometimes refer to phrase, in Spanish "tengo", as one word, is a complete phrase, partly and related, even when it isn't, "tengo" is more than one morpheme, but one word, even so.
° He was a fan of linguistics, not just of Latin and of Medieval Latin texts.
°° Un non-expert, peut-il raisonner ?