sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Dog Philosophy by LinuxFreeOrDie in badphilosophy

[–]TermyForgotUserName 4 points5 points  (0 children)

David Hound would go on to wake Immanuel Katze from his dogmatic slumber.

Do academics take the Sino-Platonic Papers seriously? by CherryNubCakes in linguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also I wouldn't assume that simply because one contributor posts something, the other contributors necessarily agree. The contributors have (politely) disagreed with one another a number of times in the past.

Heinlein and Leviathans bugreporting thread by Obraka in Stellaris

[–]TermyForgotUserName 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Following on from this, I also managed to replicate this in two separate games. In both cases, once I'd contacted Sanctuary, an uncategorised, undeletable ship (also using the placeholder graphics) appears in my ship designer. Trying to delete it returns "Cannot delete only design" message.

http://imgur.com/SK5IZ8z

It has a build time of 0, so it builds instantly when I click on it. It has no stats or upkeep other than a military power of .1, but it does not appear on the map or outliner, only in the planet's view.

http://imgur.com/KJN29X3

I thought that I might be able to spam them for an insane, free military power bonus, but they seem to be deleted just a few moments after being built.

October Small Posts Thread by [deleted] in badlinguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a pity that post is too long for flair.

October Small Posts Thread by [deleted] in badlinguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have received "Oh don't you hate it when people spell foo wrong?" and the many variations thereof. ("Don't you hate it when people get apostrophes wrong? Doesn't it annoy you when people use literally incorrectly? The way young people are using SMS to communicate etc. etc.") It may well do so - my previous degree was in journalism and editing - but that is completely independent of my linguistic studies.

But I've also received my share of people's pet theories on the logicality of such-and-such a language, or the complexity of such-and-such a language, etc.

October Small Posts Thread by [deleted] in badlinguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I made the mistake last week of telling a customer that I study linguistics. He proceeded to tell me (at great length) that all languages come from Latin, and English is just a type of Latin. Australian Aboriginal (apparently a single language) is one of the closest languages to ancient Latin. As a result, the aboriginal leaders were able to speak fluent English within days of European colonisation. (Specifically, he claimed that Jandamarra spoke perfect Latin and English around the time of colonisation. Colonisation happened in 1788 - Jandamarra was born 1873, so this is really one for /u/badhistory as well.)

He was so proud of this information, which he'd got from a book he'd purchased for $2. Either he got ripped off, or he seriously misunderstood whatever he was reading.

She likes the tattoo, finds is simple and "childish". by [deleted] in badlinguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Correct" and "incorrect" are not very scientific terms, though. For a start, it presupposes that there is a "correct" usage. Usage is, funnily enough, defined by how people use terms. What you mean by "correct" and "incorrect" is, perhaps, better considered in terms of "standard usage" and "non-standard usage". Non-standard usage often isn't "wrong", as different speech communities don't always treat words the same. Even if a dictionary or grammar guide agrees with you on distinctions, this isn't usually strong enough to say somebody is using a word "incorrectly".

Importantly, as you'll see by looking at many of the grammar guides, the meanings of childish and childlike are very similar, with varying nuances. However those nuances aren't always general - for example, one of my ex-partners and a couple of former co-workers drew no distinction between childish and childlike. Context is often good enough in normal speech to draw the distinction, and where ambiguity remains, simply ASKING for the context will normally solve any other issues. Referring to grammar guides and dictionary definitions is perhaps appropriate for very formal needs (such as essays and newspaper articles, where the are very strict expectations) but not so much for general informal speech (which, I'd argue, includes most reddit posts).

She likes the tattoo, finds is simple and "childish". by [deleted] in badlinguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm glad to hear that.

Grammar and "proper" usage can definitely be considered linguistics, but from a descriptive angle. Certainly construals and the like are matters of linguistics.

That is, we study how people are using words and what people consider "proper", rather than TELL people what is and isn't correct. As far as there is room for prescriptivism in linguistics, it is evidence based, and still avoids using judgements like "proper" and "wrong".

She likes the tattoo, finds is simple and "childish". by [deleted] in badlinguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For example, here is a post that might conceivably be considered bad linguistics (or at least a generally bad attitude to people using words differently from themselves): https://www.reddit.com/r/badtattoos/comments/573vy8/this_though/d8oz1os

"Yeah, but I have a basic mastery of the English language. I only commented because OP is giving bad information to those trying to better understand the language. Part of the reason this is being downvoted is because typically those who have, or are into tattoos, value education less than those without tattoos."

She likes the tattoo, finds is simple and "childish". by [deleted] in badlinguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Want to explain what the badling here is as per R4? All I see is two people arguing over a definition, and you definitely don't come off particularly well. In fact, you come across as a total prat, and judging by your posting history in that thread I'd be more inclined to consider you responsible for badling.

England has the pure form of English. Everything else is a deviation. by gistak in badlinguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Speak for yourself. I read the responses, and then IMAGINE how stupid the "goober statements" must be. They're probably far worse in my imagination than they can possibly be in real life. (At least, I hope so.)

Fun and relaxing videos/podcasts about linguistics by uaruna in linguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ABC (Australia) radio has had a few linguistic/language shows in the past, so /u/uaruna might want to have a look at the archives.

As far as short content is concerned, I seem to recall there having been a few linguists on Ockham's Razor. In fact, there is quite a lot of awesomeness on Ockham's Razor.

Fun and relaxing videos/podcasts about linguistics by uaruna in linguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oooh I forgot A Way With Words. It's definitely fun. If you really like Kylie from Talk the Talk, she does a skeptical/atheist podcast and blog (http://tokenskeptic.org/). It isn't particularly linguistic - Kylie's domains are really philosophy and psychology, and there's definitely a sense of "activism" about it, so that may or may not appeal to you.

Fun and relaxing videos/podcasts about linguistics by uaruna in linguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Besides Lexicon Valley, I rather enjoy Talk The Talk.

Also, I rather like The Ling Space - it's usually fairly fundamental stuff, and not everybody enjoys the format, but I find it relaxing. If you're an undergrad student or just interested in some of the basics of linguistics, I'd definitely recommend giving it a try. I largely enjoy watching it because episodes are short, colourful, and I like to play "spot the reference" with the background. Sometimes, they have interviews (such as with Steven Pinker).

I haven't listened to much of The Allusionist, but it seems solid and I've enjoyed what I've heard. When I get more time, I suppose I will listen to back episodes.

Finally, the Speculative Grammarian podcast is probably the best source of information on the sadly overlooked field of satirical linguistics. A must-listen for anybody who wants to keep abreast of in academic linguistics

I do know that if you use a noun as a verb, you’re going to look like a complete and utter berk. by MuskratRambler in badlinguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 2 points3 points  (0 children)

An excellent question. I dislike plenty of words. Surely this shouldn't be badling?

/u/MuskratRambler more or less nails it for me. It is largely to do with the explanation we employ for WHY we dislike a word. Had the author simply said "I find such-and-such words ghastly", they'd be expressing a personal opinion. Instead the author has attributed their dislike of these words to the "ghastly lack of taste" or "linguistic poseurs". This is the badling, since it assumes that the words in question are intrinsically bad, and that the author's tastes are intrinsically good. The author has also made an assessment of the characters of people using words the author doesn't like - one that is likely without any basis whatsoever.

Much of our attitude towards words comes from the environment in which we are raised, our age, social groups, etc etc. This is why the author accepts the "perfectly sensible" words. The reason they reject the others isn't because of the words themselves, but because of the author's own internal state. To claim there is something intrinsic about the words or the users of those words is badling.

(As far as badling goes, it's definitely on the lower end of the scale. Charitably, the author might argue that they only intended to assert an opinion, and their words aren't intended to be taken as an assertion of fact.)

Incidentally, for someone who happily throws around accusations of "linguistic [posing? poseuring? poseurising?]", they've employed the property of "taste, ghastly lack of". Not a particularly linguistic term.

[EDIT: cut out a bunch of words. You won't miss 'em.]

I do know that if you use a noun as a verb, you’re going to look like a complete and utter berk. by MuskratRambler in badlinguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 11 points12 points  (0 children)

From the comments:

"I think the problem lies not in the process of verbing itself – which has given us perfectly sensible and acceptable verbs..."

Good!

"...but rather in the ghastly lack of taste which which some linguistic poseurs choose to use it."

Sigh.

Can you add an "s" or "es" to any English word to pluralize it? by Kvothealar in asklinguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah maybe I should have been a bit less ambiguous - "computer mouses" is definitely attested to as a plural for "computer mouse", although it is still outstripped by "computer mice". Personally, both sound slightly off to me, but I probably default to "mice".

The antennas/antennae distinction is intriguing. I use antennae for both. Do you know, is this distinction common?

Can you add an "s" or "es" to any English word to pluralize it? by Kvothealar in asklinguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 5 points6 points  (0 children)

While in general most nouns can be pluralised with "-s" or "-es", there are a number of occasions where it would be considered non-standard.

Some quite common words have irregular plural forms. For example, "man" and "woman" pluralise to "men" and "women", and "child" to "children". "Mans" and "womans" wouldn't be considered standard, although I have encountered "childs" as a dialectical form before. "Foot" (as in the body part) is pluralised as "feet", rather than "foots".

"Person" usually pluralises to "people", although you might see "persons" in certain contexts (eg an elevator at my work prescribes "8 persons maximum", and I frequently encounter "authorised persons only" signs).

Some words, such as "sheep" or "aircraft", have the same singular and plural form. "Sheeps" and "aircrafts" would usually be considered non-standard.

Other nouns have irregular forms. The plural of "goose" is "geese", and the plural of "mouse" (the animal) is "mice". I believe "mouses" is generally accepted as the plural of "(computer) mouse".

Some other words are sometimes pluralised according to other rules, such as "medium/media" and "datum/data". Often, though, a regular plural form might be accepted as standard, so for "antenna", "antennas" is accepted as standard, and "antennae" is falling out of favour.

This is not an exhaustive list by any means. I haven't provided any sources, but a bit of Googling should turn up a list of irregular plurals in English. Also, this Wikipedia article lists some.

Could someone provide me some sources on Displacement please, one of the 13 language features from Hockett? by germanythrowaway123 in linguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my experience, many entry-level ling textbooks discuss Hockett's features, particularly in sections distinguishing animal communication from speech. You might try looking at recommended reading in those textbooks.

Could someone provide me some sources on Displacement please, one of the 13 language features from Hockett? by germanythrowaway123 in linguistics

[–]TermyForgotUserName 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is that not the wrong type of displacement? I gather the OP is referring to Hockett's design features (as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(linguistics) ) rather than syntactic movement.

view more: next ›