On 5-Feb-2004, branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski) wrote:
> Path:
> be1.columbus.rr.com!news-server.columbus.rr.com!news-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!bigfeed.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!cox.net!news-xfer.cox.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
> From: branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski)
> Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.fan.uncle-davey,free.christians
> Subject: Re: A short account of the possible history of human languages
> from Babel (was Re: Evolution - Blind Heart Surgery)
> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:12:29 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 42
> Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
> Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
> Message-ID: <b9b3de8.0402050113.380e2f5a@posting.google.com>
> References: <laurieappieton-20040124035057.21792.00000635@mb-m06.aol.com>
> <Xns947AAACC86676ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.121>
> <bv0jsq$6uk$2@news.onet.pl>
> <Xns947B7CBC12A9Cericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119>
> <bv13qe$7ej$1@news.onet.pl>
> <47c45a21.0401252152.227d4c19@posting.google.com>
> <bv3eev$7lr$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>
> <slrnc1akrr.1pk.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>
> <uvdRb.64132$f97.17809@fe3.columbus.rr.com> <bvd113$k18$1@news.onet.pl>
> <lraUb.132347$f97.97599@fe3.columbus.rr.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075972349 39411 128.100.83.246 (5 Feb 2004
> 09:12:29 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:12:29 +0000 (UTC)
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.171.48.161
> X-Spam-Level: Level
> X-Spamscanner: mailbox7.ucsd.edu (v1.4 Oct 30 2003 22:20:52, 0.1/5.0
> 2.60)
> X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 66448 i159DINk085193 mailbox7.ucsd.edu)
> Xref: news-server.columbus.rr.com talk.origins:1312422
> alt.fan.uncle-davey:2052 free.christians:26035
>
> "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 are correct-I am not a linguist. And I have never claimed to be one. I
have, however, used my study of linguistics to inform my understanding of
cultural/physical anthropology and archaeology.
>
> You have taken a lot of time to study languages, but you cannot
> communicate in them, a self-defeating activity.
In my previous post I explained that "I am not particularly good at
communicating in anything other than my native tongue." You have apparently
taken this to mean, for some unknown reason, that I "cannot" communicate in
languages other than English. Your conclusion does not follow from the
statement I made and is false. I can communicate in a limited fashion in
other languages.
I see you and I have a radically different sense of what self-defeat means.
All things that I have studied in my life-whether it was a simple patch of
grass that I found beautiful, a daisy, French, Medieval water management,
trumpet, lithic artifact typology, chert sourcing, canoeing, linguistics,
the care and feeding of cats, CPR and lifeguarding, Christian history, or
how to dive a car- have enriched by life. There is no subject I have
studied that can be classed as 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.
Ah, speaking of communication...would you please untangle the above. It's
not clear to me what you mean.
> >
> > 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.
I applaud your ability to speak as many languages as you do. That is quite
a feat and would be very useful
I have already addressed why your conclusion regarding my ability to
"communicate" vs "communicate well" is wrong.
You seem to not yet understand that linguistics is not the ability to speak
multiple languages; it is the scientific study of language.
I readily acknowledge your ability to communicate more clearly than I can in
languages other than our native one. The ability to do that is a great
thing. But, given your leaps of reasoning and willingness to put forth
unsupported assertions regarding the evolution of languages, I maintain that
I know more about linguistics, and it proper application, than you.
I'm not a linguist-but it doesn't take a linguist to know that your Tower of
Babel assertions are incorrect
Skitter the Cat
|
| 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 |
|