I actually read Old English without much effort, as well as the languages it originated from, particularly Old Norse, French, and Germanic.
Christ man you’re such a liar lmao. GERMANIC ISN’T A LANGUAGE. And certainly not a WRITTEN one. And English didn’t “originate” from French. Old English is unintelligible to Modern English speakers because it’s a completely different language, you are straight up lying through your teeth when you say you can read it fine, much less understand it. 85% of vocabulary in Old English isn’t even present in Modern English. Even more so with Old Norse lmao. French is very clearly unintelligible with English as well. French is literally my second language, so I can very easily tell you that. Why do you feel the need to blatantly lie about being able to understand other languages, including ficticious ones?
Degradation of language: misuse of language due to lack of education, erudition, or inclination. I can forgive some misinterpretation and adaptation, but that’s my issue. “Extro” does not make sense, unless someone got it wrong that one time and then spread it around until everyone was saying it wrong. That pisses me off, not to mention it makes me question Phyllis’s judgment on Jung’s corpus of work as a whole, she clearly didn’t read much of it.
That entire take is just silly. “Language degratation” is a lie sold to you by shitty middle school English Language Arts teachers.
“All living languages are continually undergoing change. Some commentators use derogatory labels such as “corruption” to suggest that language change constitutes a degradation in the quality of a language, especially when the change originates from human error or is a prescriptively discouraged usage. Modern linguistics rejects this concept, since from a scientific point of view such innovations cannot be judged in terms of good or bad. John Lyons notes that “any standard of evaluation applied to language-change must be based upon a recognition of the various functions a language ‘is called upon’ to fulfil in the society which uses it”.”
Again, your stance is seen as completely stupid in the realm of actual linguistics science.
There is a difference between a language evolving in response to changes in the environment or the human condition, and a language degrading into “barbar” because nobody bothered to learn how to speak, and thereby write, correctly. I believe that there are no 1:1 transmutations of words in such a manner which wouldn’t remove some amount of information, and the degradation of information is kind of a massive deal to humanity right now.
There isn’t a difference. How do you think sound change and many other forms of language change occur without this ““degradation””? Do you think that the transitions between languages just happen because God willed it and everyone just accepted it? No, people back then complained about language change in the same exact way that you are now. You are speaking a “bastardized” form of language by your own logic. Every word you speak is completely different from the “educated” proscribed speak of before. Almost none of the words you’re saying are being used in their ““original”” sense.
Let me ask, what does “begging the question” mean to you?
According to your anti-scientific logic, it should mean to approach a question and start begging to it.
I want to ask you again, do you think AAVE, Scottish English, and all other large dialect groups of English are incorrect? Do you think you’re better at linguistics than a majority of professional linguists?
That’s why I wrote it in quotes. ‘Germanic’, and you can fuck off now if you want. Extrovert… lol
Edit: “actual linguistics science” 💀
Here’s something topical, why don’t you read that and get back to me when you finish high school:
Gattir allar,
aþr gangi fram,
vm scoðaz scyli,
vm scygnaz scyli;
þviat ouist er at vita,
hvar ovinir sitia
a fleti fyr.
Egredit: That was a weird flex, I’ll compose myself and write you a proper answer instead because I’m a bit cunty like this and I should really stop belittling people’s intelligence, they are also people in a way.
Ok, when I get back from the store after getting a shitfuck much more alcohol, I’ll treat you to a personal recitation and upload it to you, to calm your nerves, how about that? Would that assuage your doubts? Hey, assuage, that shit’s French too!
Maybe if you record your device on, say, chatgpt and make it generate random old english & old norse, and then attempt to translate them in real time, I’d believe you. But anyone can just pronounce a pretty consistent phonemic orthography ;)
Lmao you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve had a significant amount of formal education in linguistics, considering I was specializing in computational linguistics. I’ve spent many years of my life specifically on linguistics, even before I started my degree which is linguistics focused, and said college education has significantly added onto it.
Every modern, accredited linguistics professor would laugh at your claims. The things you say sound like jokes to anyone with actual knowledge on dialectology and historical linguistics. Even a layman linguist would think you’re insane. Unfortunately your beliefs are also the same that a large portion of the poorly educated populace has, so even though it’s a stupid belief it’s still common for those not educated in linguistics.
You’re just throwing out ad hominem attacks because you have been clearly caught lying out of your ass about knowing multiple things (You can easily “read Germanic”? You think Old English/Norse and French writing is mutually intelligible with English writing to any significant degree? What???). You literally just Googled a random Old Norse manuscript and copy pasted one of the first paragraphs to try to come up with something to back up your claims.
You look silly. There is no more purpose in arguing with you since you clearly refuse to learn from your nonsense drivel being clearly torn apart. You can’t even follow up on your “promises”. Lol
These are definitely good reads for people like you, just to show you what people who have actual linguistics & culture knowledge think of the likes of you:
Going through your recent comment history, you’re pathetic. Everyone is calling you out for being batshit insane lmao. I know “responsibilities” and “a job” are both foreign concepts to you, and I’m sure you think everyone can spend their time on Lemmy 24/7 just like you, but jesus christ… I consider myself an avid poster but you somehow have over 3x the comments as me. So yes, I didn’t have the time to watch the video you allegedly made (and I emphasize the allegedly).
There is literally nothing to suggest that you are any sort of expert or even trustworthy person when it comes to language, let alone whether “extravert” is “incorrect”. Based on your comments about it, the evidence all points in the opposite – you’re an expert of nothing except saying you’re totally “knowledgable”. Why do you think you’re better at language than the people who make dictionaries for christ’s sake?! Or the large amount of researchers who use the term “extrovert” in a formal setting, most of whom are experts in either 2nd language acquisition, linguistics/psycholinguistics, or psychology? How do you presume that they’re the incorrect ones for using what you deem to be the “wrong” spelling (out of two equally valid spellings), when you can’t even compare to their level of expertise? Rather than actually making these papers on psychology and linguistics, you’re LARPing as a high school English teacher online and saying stupid shit about language. I want to ask you what qualifications you have, if any at all? Do you even have any college education on linguistics? Can you even do so little as to read and write basic IPA transcriptions?
Why are you deleting half of the comments you’ve recently posted, after people respond to them with sources and actual arguments? There have been multiple in this thread. You’re obviously not very confident in them, they make you look absolutely embarassing. You do realize that on most front-ends, it doesn’t delete the entire thread below the deleted comment anymore, right? And the stupid responses are still available in the peoples’ inboxes.
What’s more likely, that almost every professional on language is wrong, or that you’re wrong? Are all the most credible dictionaries wrong?
The term prescriptivism refers to the ideology and practices in which the correct and incorrect uses of a language or specific linguistic items are laid down by explicit rules that are externally imposed on the users of that language. This ideology and its practices are now usually ascribed to nonlinguists or nonacademic linguists, whereas modern academic linguists, following Saussurean tenets, restrict themselves to the study and description of the structure of language and its natural use.
- Robert Straaijer, PhD in English Language & Literature, on Oxford Bibliographies
Christ man you’re such a liar lmao. GERMANIC ISN’T A LANGUAGE. And certainly not a WRITTEN one. And English didn’t “originate” from French. Old English is unintelligible to Modern English speakers because it’s a completely different language, you are straight up lying through your teeth when you say you can read it fine, much less understand it. 85% of vocabulary in Old English isn’t even present in Modern English. Even more so with Old Norse lmao. French is very clearly unintelligible with English as well. French is literally my second language, so I can very easily tell you that. Why do you feel the need to blatantly lie about being able to understand other languages, including ficticious ones?
I’m sorry but this is lazy. I missed the quotes, as in ‘Germanic’, denoting exactly the thing that you said- it’s a multitude of languages and dialects and ursprungs or herkünfte. Once you understand a lot of languages, a lot of languages become quite understandable.
You know, of course the story, as the Normans, who would become the ruling dynasty thenceforth until present day, were Norsemen right? Not “Norwegian” (although actual Norwegians too, this was of course before nationstates were a thing)(thing, by the way, is Old Norse for, well, “Thing”. It is what they would call a Råd, or Råth, or in German “Rat”, perhaps in France it would be ‘le tribunal’ or something gay like that- a public and intermittently recurring assembly before which one would lay various legal matters, in to what amounted to jurisprudence at the time in circa AD 800 (although in fact ridiculously much older but I digress) like who stole whom’s cow or who raped and pillaged whom’s village et cetera), but Norsemen, or Nordmen, or Northmen, or plain and simple “Vikings”, were the de facto rulers of the land at the time, not whatever the French were, apart from being murdered a lot by pillage massacres.
The Føroyar islands north of England (well technically the UK/Scotland but whatever)(technically technically an autonomous and self-governing entity under the control of the state of Denmark, I felt like you would have mnjehhed that one if I didn’t explain it) have spoken their version of Old Norse mixed with local dialects and natural, organic evolution of whatever Celtic remnants remained from pre-glacial times. I can read that out of the box, because it is so ridiculously similar to modern Scandinavian languages. But this has derailed to the point I don’t know what I am schooling you on anymore.
That entire take is just silly. “Language degratation” is a lie sold to you by shitty middle school English Language Arts teachers.
By who? This is very much my 100% own opinion on the matter, I assure you. Fuck arts teachers, art is useless.
“All living languages are continually undergoing change. Some commentators use derogatory labels such as “corruption” to suggest that language change constitutes a degradation in the quality of a language, especially when the change originates from human error or is a prescriptively discouraged usage. Modern linguistics rejects this concept, since from a scientific point of view such innovations cannot be judged in terms of good or bad. John Lyons notes that “any standard of evaluation applied to language-change must be based upon a recognition of the various functions a language ‘is called upon’ to fulfil in the society which uses it”.”
Nice, but I’m more a Chomsky kind of guy. I was going to get into Derrida, but I will NOT deal with another headache right now.
Again, your stance is seen as completely stupid in the realm of actual linguistics science.
Well, in the realm of real life, you’re completely stupid!
There isn’t a difference. How do you think sound change and many other forms of language change occur without this ““degradation””? Do you think that the transitions between languages just happen because God willed it and everyone just accepted it? No, people back then complained about language change in the same exact way that you are now. You are speaking a “bastardized” form of language by your own logic. Every word you speak is completely different from the “educated” proscribed speak of before. Almost none of the words you’re saying are being used in their ““original”” sense.
If I change the course of a stream because I want it to flow in another direction, will it flow in the same direction if I simply just threw rocks at it?
And I will have you know that the extent to which I speak a bastardized form of language then that is because I am a bastard, coming from a long and illustrious line of bastards. Hey that’s a French word! But of course they would invent that, you really need words for things you see everyday.
According to your anti-scientific logic, it should mean to approach a question and start begging to it.
Antiscientific logic! 😘🤏
So you think that whatever things sound like, that’s what they mean? Words are all a guesswork that starts anew every time we speak to one another? I would presume some more structure to language than that.
Surely you understand what I mean by that? It’s only natural evolution of language.
I want to ask you again, do you think AAVE, Scottish English, and all other large dialect groups of English are incorrect? Do you think you’re better at linguistics than a majority of professional linguists?
I would love to debate you on this, but I’m literally (literally literally) in the process of composing my book on this subject, which I did out of a need to be able to point to it as a source of reference, because it takes too long explaining my position every time it comes up, and the time I would spend on discussing it with you would take time away from that effort, not that that is how I would spend that time, because that time is better spent on hookers and cocaine, and constitutes a thoroughly self-defeating proposition.
I mean all of the above tongue in cheek and with good sportsmanship just fighting you with words, no harm meant, nothing personal, you loveable French bastard. :) <3
Christ man you’re such a liar lmao. GERMANIC ISN’T A LANGUAGE. And certainly not a WRITTEN one. And English didn’t “originate” from French. Old English is unintelligible to Modern English speakers because it’s a completely different language, you are straight up lying through your teeth when you say you can read it fine, much less understand it. 85% of vocabulary in Old English isn’t even present in Modern English. Even more so with Old Norse lmao. French is very clearly unintelligible with English as well. French is literally my second language, so I can very easily tell you that. Why do you feel the need to blatantly lie about being able to understand other languages, including ficticious ones?
That entire take is just silly. “Language degratation” is a lie sold to you by shitty middle school English Language Arts teachers.
“All living languages are continually undergoing change. Some commentators use derogatory labels such as “corruption” to suggest that language change constitutes a degradation in the quality of a language, especially when the change originates from human error or is a prescriptively discouraged usage. Modern linguistics rejects this concept, since from a scientific point of view such innovations cannot be judged in terms of good or bad. John Lyons notes that “any standard of evaluation applied to language-change must be based upon a recognition of the various functions a language ‘is called upon’ to fulfil in the society which uses it”.”
Again, your stance is seen as completely stupid in the realm of actual linguistics science.
There isn’t a difference. How do you think sound change and many other forms of language change occur without this ““degradation””? Do you think that the transitions between languages just happen because God willed it and everyone just accepted it? No, people back then complained about language change in the same exact way that you are now. You are speaking a “bastardized” form of language by your own logic. Every word you speak is completely different from the “educated” proscribed speak of before. Almost none of the words you’re saying are being used in their ““original”” sense.
According to your anti-scientific logic, it should mean to approach a question and start begging to it.
I want to ask you again, do you think AAVE, Scottish English, and all other large dialect groups of English are incorrect? Do you think you’re better at linguistics than a majority of professional linguists?
That’s why I wrote it in quotes. ‘Germanic’, and you can fuck off now if you want. Extrovert… lol
Edit: “actual linguistics science” 💀
Here’s something topical, why don’t you read that and get back to me when you finish high school:
Gattir allar, aþr gangi fram, vm scoðaz scyli, vm scygnaz scyli; þviat ouist er at vita, hvar ovinir sitia a fleti fyr.
Egredit: That was a weird flex, I’ll compose myself and write you a proper answer instead because I’m a bit cunty like this and I should really stop belittling people’s intelligence, they are also people in a way.
It’s so funny seeing you flounder after being called out for your blatant lying lmao. “That’s why I wrote it in quotes”? What???
And it’s funny how you just looked up a random Old Norse text online and copied the first paragraph of the second chapter to try to pretend that you can back up your lies. And now your comeback is “b… but go back to high school! k-kid!”. Pathetic, you need to improve your bullshitting.
Ok, when I get back from the store after getting a shitfuck much more alcohol, I’ll treat you to a personal recitation and upload it to you, to calm your nerves, how about that? Would that assuage your doubts? Hey, assuage, that shit’s French too!
I’m gonna do it for you buddy.
Maybe if you record your device on, say, chatgpt and make it generate random old english & old norse, and then attempt to translate them in real time, I’d believe you. But anyone can just pronounce a pretty consistent phonemic orthography ;)
deleted by creator
Lmao you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve had a significant amount of formal education in linguistics, considering I was specializing in computational linguistics. I’ve spent many years of my life specifically on linguistics, even before I started my degree which is linguistics focused, and said college education has significantly added onto it.
Every modern, accredited linguistics professor would laugh at your claims. The things you say sound like jokes to anyone with actual knowledge on dialectology and historical linguistics. Even a layman linguist would think you’re insane. Unfortunately your beliefs are also the same that a large portion of the poorly educated populace has, so even though it’s a stupid belief it’s still common for those not educated in linguistics.
You’re just throwing out ad hominem attacks because you have been clearly caught lying out of your ass about knowing multiple things (You can easily “read Germanic”? You think Old English/Norse and French writing is mutually intelligible with English writing to any significant degree? What???). You literally just Googled a random Old Norse manuscript and copy pasted one of the first paragraphs to try to come up with something to back up your claims.
You look silly. There is no more purpose in arguing with you since you clearly refuse to learn from your nonsense drivel being clearly torn apart. You can’t even follow up on your “promises”. Lol
These are definitely good reads for people like you, just to show you what people who have actual linguistics & culture knowledge think of the likes of you:
https://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=node/175
https://isismagazine.org.uk/2012/06/the-problem-with-prescriptivism/
This is just pathetic. Honestly. I am going to guess you “didn’t have time” to check my video, right?
Going through your recent comment history, you’re pathetic. Everyone is calling you out for being batshit insane lmao. I know “responsibilities” and “a job” are both foreign concepts to you, and I’m sure you think everyone can spend their time on Lemmy 24/7 just like you, but jesus christ… I consider myself an avid poster but you somehow have over 3x the comments as me. So yes, I didn’t have the time to watch the video you allegedly made (and I emphasize the allegedly).
There is literally nothing to suggest that you are any sort of expert or even trustworthy person when it comes to language, let alone whether “extravert” is “incorrect”. Based on your comments about it, the evidence all points in the opposite – you’re an expert of nothing except saying you’re totally “knowledgable”. Why do you think you’re better at language than the people who make dictionaries for christ’s sake?! Or the large amount of researchers who use the term “extrovert” in a formal setting, most of whom are experts in either 2nd language acquisition, linguistics/psycholinguistics, or psychology? How do you presume that they’re the incorrect ones for using what you deem to be the “wrong” spelling (out of two equally valid spellings), when you can’t even compare to their level of expertise? Rather than actually making these papers on psychology and linguistics, you’re LARPing as a high school English teacher online and saying stupid shit about language. I want to ask you what qualifications you have, if any at all? Do you even have any college education on linguistics? Can you even do so little as to read and write basic IPA transcriptions?
Why are you deleting half of the comments you’ve recently posted, after people respond to them with sources and actual arguments? There have been multiple in this thread. You’re obviously not very confident in them, they make you look absolutely embarassing. You do realize that on most front-ends, it doesn’t delete the entire thread below the deleted comment anymore, right? And the stupid responses are still available in the peoples’ inboxes.
What’s more likely, that almost every professional on language is wrong, or that you’re wrong? Are all the most credible dictionaries wrong?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extrovert
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095806455
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/extrovert
- Robert Straaijer, PhD in English Language & Literature, on Oxford Bibliographies
Answer it. Do you think a majority of linguistics professors and people with linguistics PhDs are wrong, and you’re somehow right?
deleted by creator
I’m sorry but this is lazy. I missed the quotes, as in ‘Germanic’, denoting exactly the thing that you said- it’s a multitude of languages and dialects and ursprungs or herkünfte. Once you understand a lot of languages, a lot of languages become quite understandable.
English, hahaha, I’m sorry to offend your nationalistic sensibilities, but this is the Bayeux Tapestry: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bayeux_Tapestry
You know, of course the story, as the Normans, who would become the ruling dynasty thenceforth until present day, were Norsemen right? Not “Norwegian” (although actual Norwegians too, this was of course before nationstates were a thing)(thing, by the way, is Old Norse for, well, “Thing”. It is what they would call a Råd, or Råth, or in German “Rat”, perhaps in France it would be ‘le tribunal’ or something gay like that- a public and intermittently recurring assembly before which one would lay various legal matters, in to what amounted to jurisprudence at the time in circa AD 800 (although in fact ridiculously much older but I digress) like who stole whom’s cow or who raped and pillaged whom’s village et cetera), but Norsemen, or Nordmen, or Northmen, or plain and simple “Vikings”, were the de facto rulers of the land at the time, not whatever the French were, apart from being murdered a lot by pillage massacres.
The Føroyar islands north of England (well technically the UK/Scotland but whatever)(technically technically an autonomous and self-governing entity under the control of the state of Denmark, I felt like you would have mnjehhed that one if I didn’t explain it) have spoken their version of Old Norse mixed with local dialects and natural, organic evolution of whatever Celtic remnants remained from pre-glacial times. I can read that out of the box, because it is so ridiculously similar to modern Scandinavian languages. But this has derailed to the point I don’t know what I am schooling you on anymore.
By who? This is very much my 100% own opinion on the matter, I assure you. Fuck arts teachers, art is useless.
Nice, but I’m more a Chomsky kind of guy. I was going to get into Derrida, but I will NOT deal with another headache right now.
Well, in the realm of real life, you’re completely stupid!
If I change the course of a stream because I want it to flow in another direction, will it flow in the same direction if I simply just threw rocks at it?
And I will have you know that the extent to which I speak a bastardized form of language then that is because I am a bastard, coming from a long and illustrious line of bastards. Hey that’s a French word! But of course they would invent that, you really need words for things you see everyday.
Antiscientific logic! 😘🤏
So you think that whatever things sound like, that’s what they mean? Words are all a guesswork that starts anew every time we speak to one another? I would presume some more structure to language than that.
Also consider this:
“BARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBARBAR”.
Surely you understand what I mean by that? It’s only natural evolution of language.
I would love to debate you on this, but I’m literally (literally literally) in the process of composing my book on this subject, which I did out of a need to be able to point to it as a source of reference, because it takes too long explaining my position every time it comes up, and the time I would spend on discussing it with you would take time away from that effort, not that that is how I would spend that time, because that time is better spent on hookers and cocaine, and constitutes a thoroughly self-defeating proposition.
I mean all of the above tongue in cheek and with good sportsmanship just fighting you with words, no harm meant, nothing personal, you loveable French bastard. :) <3