> > "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."
>
OK.
> > > 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.
>
What I mean is clear enough.
Quite obviously I am rejecting the acceptance of the disgreement with regard
to my having learned languages being an aid vis-a-vis communication to none
effect.
I think that's cleared that up.
Or do you want me to put it into Esperanto?
> > >
> > > 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.
So you say. I call that 'pure linguistics', and the actual mastering of
languages I call 'applied linguistics'
as in pure and applied mathematics.
>
> 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
>
So why don't you tell me what the correct explanation for the rise of the
language families is, then, instead of being so negative?
Uncle Davey
--
To my mind, Davey, you are the most mischievous and dangerous kind of
Creationist. Guys like Nowhere Man and John McCoy are just ignorant liars,
and not in possession of any meaningful amount of knowledge. You, on the
other hand, do have some knowledge of linguistics. You even know the holes
in the knowledge of the study of language, and you can use the terminology
to great effect. People who are not aquainted with linguistics at all and
shared your religious beliefs, seeing your essay, would likely fall for it
hook, line and sinker. Because it mixes fact and myth so very well, you
give it an air of plausibility.
Aaron Clausen (02/02/2004)
|
| 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 |
|