Yeah, not knowing the very basics would preclude someone from reading. Your unhinged reply was very funny though. The more "haha"s you write, the more believable and less desperate it sounds…
No. Fucking. Way. This is comedy gold and you’re genuinely making my sides hurt, as I broke a rib on the weekend and I can’t help laughing. Even though I explicitly explained your last mistake, you made it again, digging in your heels to your stupidity, when I gave you an out from that shame? ABsolutely brilliant. :D
LINGUISTICS
/lɪŋˈɡwɪstɪks/
noun
noun: linguistics
the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of grammar, syntax, and phonetics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, comparative linguistics, and structural linguistics.
as opposed to “LANGUAGE”
LANGUAGE
/ˈlaŋɡwɪdʒ/
noun
noun: language; plural noun: languages
>the principal method of human communication, consisting of words used in a structured and conventional way and conveyed by speech, writing, or gesture.
Not knowing THE LANGUAGE would preclude you from reading. Not knowing linguistics doesn’t. That’s like saying that if you haven’t studied psychology, that you can’t have emotions. Or that you can’t drive a car if you’re not a mechanic. Or that you can’t vote if you’re not a politician.
Absolutely HILARIOUS of a reply, which makes it very clear for anyone reading this just how valid your opinions on language use are. :D
Oh, so maybe you could explain how someone could read without any knowledge of even basic grammar or knowledge of the structure of the language they’re reading?
So, are you saying you reject their definition of antisemitism or not? I must have missed it in amongst all of your maturity in dealing with opposing opinions.
Perhaps you can explain how people can manage to drive cars without understanding the basics of mechanical engineering? HOW? Perhaps because driving a car and building one is different?
Just like using language and studying it? Humans have something called language acquisition. It’s a term you’d definitely hear in any sort of a beginner linguistics class, probably on the first lesson. There’s also a very strong reason why it’s not called “linguistics acquisition”. Can you perhaps already piece it together from all the things I’ve explicitly tought you? (And you don’t understand how hard you’re projecting when you write things like “maybe you should’ve googled a few things before replying”?)
See the thing I said about you being literally unable to accept mistakes? This is one of them. And you won’t be able to accept the fact that you confused “linguistics” with “language”. When it’s right there, for all to see.
You would still need to has some basic understanding of grammar and to have studied the structure, grammar and syntax to be able to read. You walked yourself into a dead end there and now you’re trying to insult your way out of it. It might work on some but that won’t work on me.
I’ve made lots of mistakes in my life. One would be engaging with someone like you, with such poor social skills. There you go, one mistake admitted. So, no only are you wrong, there’s literally no way you could ever tell if I was
literally unable to accept mistakes
It seems that, instead, you were just shame dumbing from yourself, all the while claiming that I’m projecting, without a hint of irony. I haven’t seen it to your extent in the wild for a long time.
You would still need to has some basic understanding of grammar and to have studied the structure, grammar and syntax to be able to read.
No, you do not. Again, the very basics of linguistics. That is exactly like you saying that to drive a car you need to understand the basics of mechanical engineering. Then you’d make the argument that “to understand how brakes and the accelerator work you need to understand Newton’s laws of motions, the basics of mechanical engineering”.
No-one would claim that. And you know that. You know how ridiculous you are being, and you know I know it. But again, it’s not about me. It’s about you. You can’t admit to yourself that you’ve made a mistake. You can’t accept having been wrong. And that quality in you will fuck your life over, mark my words.
Humans naturally possess language acquisition. You do not need to even understand the concept of syntax or grammar to be able to correctly utilise both. I honestly keep overestimating you with each reply. Like I said some replies ago, it would’ve been far better for you to stop replying a long time ago. Now you’ll have made so many comments that removing or editing them will seem very silly indeed, and you have dug your heels in with this asinine denial of a simple mistake.
You’re trying to avoid looking dumb, but the only thing you’re doing to do that is making you look even dumber. Highly entertaining. But not as entertaining as this HDR version of Logan, so since you won’t stop replying (because you’re obsessing over this, since you can’t accept being wrong), I’ll be back later tonight or tomorrow. See you.
edit breaks -> brakes (see how easy it is to admit to mistakes?)
And on and on and on and on they went. They even planned to carry on the next day whether anyone was reading their replies or not and they would do so without a hint of irony.
Its cute that you think ill ever think of you or this again, after this.
I used it colloquially. Whats your problem here? Are you the only person who can use colloquial terms? What, do you not understand the very basics of linguistics or something?
Anything but talk about you “not a hard N” argument huh?
So now you think “colloquial” means whatever language?
I can’t believe you keep topping this every reply. Each better than the last. Ah, brilliant.
So again, common usage defines usage. Why do you keep arguing over things you know you don’t know shit about, when you keep humiliating yourself by doing it? I genuinely don’t understand why you wouldn’t spend a while learning what these terms actually mean so that you could improve your replies?
Right now it’s like… uh, how to describe it… Well, imagine overhearing some 9-year olds talking about how “you’re supposed to pee in the butt to make a baby”. You’d know how they’re mistaken, and you’d understand that with their level of knowledge, such a silly and childish assumption isn’t too unreasonable to make.
But now I’ve treated you like an adult for several comments, as have others, carefully and still respectfully detailing to you what you’ve got so wrong with your pretentious language use, but you won’t hear any of it. It’s incredible, truly. :D
NO-ONE uses “linguistics” synonymously with “language”, just like no-one uses “driving” as a a synonym for “car”, unless they’re so inexperienced with the language that they haven’t had time for language acquisition.
You said: "If I didn’t understand “the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.”
Do you deny saying that, or do you just deny that it’s in any way wrong? Because it’s either or. I guess you deny there’s anything wrong with it. When there is. Very clearly. Almost as if you had some sort of inability to admit when you’re wrong. ;)
No. Fucking. Way. This is comedy gold and you’re genuinely making my sides hurt, as I broke a rib on the weekend and I can’t help laughing. Even though I explicitly explained your last mistake, you made it again, digging in your heels to your stupidity, when I gave you an out from that shame? ABsolutely brilliant. :D
as opposed to “LANGUAGE”
Not knowing THE LANGUAGE would preclude you from reading. Not knowing linguistics doesn’t. That’s like saying that if you haven’t studied psychology, that you can’t have emotions. Or that you can’t drive a car if you’re not a mechanic. Or that you can’t vote if you’re not a politician.
Absolutely HILARIOUS of a reply, which makes it very clear for anyone reading this just how valid your opinions on language use are. :D
Oh, so maybe you could explain how someone could read without any knowledge of even basic grammar or knowledge of the structure of the language they’re reading?
So, are you saying you reject their definition of antisemitism or not? I must have missed it in amongst all of your maturity in dealing with opposing opinions.
Perhaps you can explain how people can manage to drive cars without understanding the basics of mechanical engineering? HOW? Perhaps because driving a car and building one is different?
Just like using language and studying it? Humans have something called language acquisition. It’s a term you’d definitely hear in any sort of a beginner linguistics class, probably on the first lesson. There’s also a very strong reason why it’s not called “linguistics acquisition”. Can you perhaps already piece it together from all the things I’ve explicitly tought you? (And you don’t understand how hard you’re projecting when you write things like “maybe you should’ve googled a few things before replying”?)
See the thing I said about you being literally unable to accept mistakes? This is one of them. And you won’t be able to accept the fact that you confused “linguistics” with “language”. When it’s right there, for all to see.
#HI-LA-RI-OUS
You would still need to has some basic understanding of grammar and to have studied the structure, grammar and syntax to be able to read. You walked yourself into a dead end there and now you’re trying to insult your way out of it. It might work on some but that won’t work on me.
I’ve made lots of mistakes in my life. One would be engaging with someone like you, with such poor social skills. There you go, one mistake admitted. So, no only are you wrong, there’s literally no way you could ever tell if I was
It seems that, instead, you were just shame dumbing from yourself, all the while claiming that I’m projecting, without a hint of irony. I haven’t seen it to your extent in the wild for a long time.
No, you do not. Again, the very basics of linguistics. That is exactly like you saying that to drive a car you need to understand the basics of mechanical engineering. Then you’d make the argument that “to understand how brakes and the accelerator work you need to understand Newton’s laws of motions, the basics of mechanical engineering”.
No-one would claim that. And you know that. You know how ridiculous you are being, and you know I know it. But again, it’s not about me. It’s about you. You can’t admit to yourself that you’ve made a mistake. You can’t accept having been wrong. And that quality in you will fuck your life over, mark my words.
Humans naturally possess language acquisition. You do not need to even understand the concept of syntax or grammar to be able to correctly utilise both. I honestly keep overestimating you with each reply. Like I said some replies ago, it would’ve been far better for you to stop replying a long time ago. Now you’ll have made so many comments that removing or editing them will seem very silly indeed, and you have dug your heels in with this asinine denial of a simple mistake.
You’re trying to avoid looking dumb, but the only thing you’re doing to do that is making you look even dumber. Highly entertaining. But not as entertaining as this HDR version of Logan, so since you won’t stop replying (because you’re obsessing over this, since you can’t accept being wrong), I’ll be back later tonight or tomorrow. See you.
edit breaks -> brakes (see how easy it is to admit to mistakes?)
And on and on and on and on they went. They even planned to carry on the next day whether anyone was reading their replies or not and they would do so without a hint of irony.
Oh it’s not about people reading the replies.
It’s about you, writing replies that you’ll later feel ashamed of. :)
You said that. You keep pretending to understand things you don’t have the faintest grasp over. You have the internet. Why don’t you just… check?
Come on now. Check before you write.
Its cute that you think ill ever think of you or this again, after this.
I used it colloquially. Whats your problem here? Are you the only person who can use colloquial terms? What, do you not understand the very basics of linguistics or something?
Anything but talk about you “not a hard N” argument huh?
So now you think “colloquial” means whatever language?
I can’t believe you keep topping this every reply. Each better than the last. Ah, brilliant.
So again, common usage defines usage. Why do you keep arguing over things you know you don’t know shit about, when you keep humiliating yourself by doing it? I genuinely don’t understand why you wouldn’t spend a while learning what these terms actually mean so that you could improve your replies?
Right now it’s like… uh, how to describe it… Well, imagine overhearing some 9-year olds talking about how “you’re supposed to pee in the butt to make a baby”. You’d know how they’re mistaken, and you’d understand that with their level of knowledge, such a silly and childish assumption isn’t too unreasonable to make.
But now I’ve treated you like an adult for several comments, as have others, carefully and still respectfully detailing to you what you’ve got so wrong with your pretentious language use, but you won’t hear any of it. It’s incredible, truly. :D
NO-ONE uses “linguistics” synonymously with “language”, just like no-one uses “driving” as a a synonym for “car”, unless they’re so inexperienced with the language that they haven’t had time for language acquisition.
You said: "If I didn’t understand “the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.”
Do you deny saying that, or do you just deny that it’s in any way wrong? Because it’s either or. I guess you deny there’s anything wrong with it. When there is. Very clearly. Almost as if you had some sort of inability to admit when you’re wrong. ;)