"Skitter The Cat" <Skitter_the_Cat@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<lraUb.132347$f97.97599@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> On 30-Jan-2004, "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote:
>
> The fact that I am fluent (as a native speaker) in American English, and
> have taken: French (7 years at the middle and high school levels), Spanish
> (two years at the college level), and German (one quarter at the college
> level), as well as a smattering of Esperanto, Latin and Japanese (just a bit
> of personal reading for those) is utterly irrelevant to my study and
> knowledge of linguistics. For the record, I'm not particularly good at
> communicating in anything other than my native tongue.
Then obviously you are not a linguist.
You have taken a lot of time to study languages, but you cannot
communicate in them, a self-defeating activity.
> The number of languages one knows or the ability of someone to learn to
> speak their non-native language is, however and of course, irrelevant to
> their ability to do (or understand) the science of language(s).
>
> Or didn't you know that learning "foreign" languages is quite different from
> studying linguistics?
I do know enough linguistics to enable my study of languages
themselves to enable me to communicate. That in fact is what language
is about.
>
> Generally, I think that is one of the first lessons taught in Intro
> Linguistics.
>
> Did you skip that particular course of study, or are you just trying a
> diversion and implied insult as a rhetorical tricks again?
>
> Skitter the Cat
I can communicate in over eight languages, you can communicate, by
your own confession, in one. You tell me who has a more applied
understanding of linguistics.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |
|