The fact that you don’t understand how badly you’re misusing those terms instead of talking about prescriptivism and descriptivism is what shows how little you know.
It’s not “empicisim” you dolt, which you’d know if you had any understanding of the subject.
Now you’re trying to use the terms, but fail hard.
I never even argued there’s even a single prescriptive rule, and I never would, because unlike you, this isn’t the first time I’m hearing the terms and I thus don’t make prescriptive arguments. You can look at my comment, it’s not been edited.
Point out a single prescriptive rule I even remotely imply. Oh there isn’t one?
It’s not “empicisim” you dolt, which you’d know if you had any understanding of the subject.
I know it’s not, jackass. That’s why I said it doesn’t apply. I only brought up empiricism to address your comparison to flat earthers, which is a matter of empiricism.
But since you’re so intent on butchering what I say in order to shape it into whatever nonsense argument you find easier to counter, you’re clearly not interested in having a serious debate and thus I no longer take you seriously.
I know it’s not, jackass. That’s why I said it doesn’t apply
You’ve just no idea how ignorant you are? :D Yes, you specifically connected it to the concept. Negative or positive, doesn’t matter. It shows how you conceptualise the idea.
That’s why it’s so wrong.
Empiricism would constitute both descriptive and prescriptive language, only prescriptive language less so. What you’re trying to do is prescribe rules to language, and because you don’t even understand what youre doing, you don’t even have the words for it. Which is why you’re now pathetically trying to pretend you knew those words before I pointed this out to you.
It’s a good comparison to flat earthers, because you’re equally ignorant of your own ignorance. It’s a veery different subject, but youre still quite as unable to understand what you understand as they are.
Oh yeah “I no longer take you seriously, goodbye” as if that isn’t the mating cry of every fucking moron proved utterly incorrect and who has to run away in shame.
I didn’t “connect” empiricism to language. You compared my argument to a flat earth argument. I debunked that claim by explaining that flat earth theory can be debunked empirically, and phonology cannot because it is not within the realm of empiricism. If that sounds like a connection to you, then it’s entirely based on you connecting pronunciation to flat earth theory in the first place.
And you’re being childish for trying to twist that to make it look like I made the mistake that you did.
I understand prescriptive and descriptive language just fine, and you’re being arrogant by assuming that I don’t. You simply can’t admit that you’re wrong, so you attack me as if I don’t know what I’m talking about.
What you’re trying to do is prescribe rules to language
That’s not what I’m doing at all. That’s what you’re doing. I argued that the people who insist that “gif” with a hard g is the only correct way are wrong and arrogant. I said I pronounce it with a soft g, as in “jif.” I never said everyone must pronounce it that way, therefore I did not make a prescriptive argument
You, on the other hand, did make a prescriptive argument by saying that only the pronunciation with the hard g is the right way. So again, that’s more projection.
It’s a good comparison to flat earthers, because you’re equally ignorant of your own ignorance.
Pot, kettle, black.
I’m not “running away in shame,” I’m simply capable of recognizing when someone isn’t capable of engaging in good faith argumentation, and I have more self-respect than to waste my time on people like that.
Resurrecting a dead thread because you’re such a miserable individual that you can’t think of anything else to do but try to make others as miserable as you?
What…? My comment wasn’t that deep, but it sounds like you want it to be. You need to stop it with the unprompted toxicity/hostility.
My comment was simply a nudge to the irony contained within your statement. Apparently you couldn’t handle reflecting on that, so instead you decided to lash out about some made up nonsense. (projection about your misery?)
If this is how you typically behave in life, I can understand why you’d be miserable.
Yeah cmon buddy. Who do you think would ever believe that? You’re literally lying to yourself.
I used an analogy in which you are comparable to flat earthers because of the ignorance you both share. It’s true. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This has nothing to do with pronunciation. See because I know a bit about linguistics, I would never make a prescriptive argument, unlike you. That’s why I made sure to note that my perceptions are my own bias, and I understand that. You can see it all the way from the unedited first comment. ;>
And you’re being childish for trying to twist that to make it look like I made the mistake that you did.
Oh no. You just don’t understand and that’s why you’re wrong. You couldn’t even name what mistake you mean which I’m supposedly projecting onto you, because I’m not. <3
I understand prescriptive and descriptive language just fine,
Yes, everyone with language can. But you didn’t even know the terms before I mentioned them. ;<
That’s not what I’m doing at all. That’s what you’re doing. I argued that the people who insist that “gif” with a hard
Where, pray tell?
Oh, can’t point at a single line even remotely implying such? Awww. :(
Pot, kettle, black
Ignorance of what? What “descriptive” and “prescriptive” mean to the point I misuse “empiricism” to describe prescriptive language? :Dd
“I have more self respect than”
No you don’t. You have a tiny ego that’s just furious about me pointing out how dumb it was of you to use “empiricism” in this context
You’re insufferable. You’re making up scenarios in your mind that make me look like an easy target, but the truth is you’re just so disconnected from reality that you’re not even arguing against what I say. You’re arguing in a mirror, against a reflection of your own ignorance.
When you said you’ve never heard anyone who pronounces it “jif,” you were giving implicit agreement to the comment before me who claimed in no uncertain terms that gif is pronounced with a hard g, simply because of some abstract appeal to popularity.
Thus, you were affirming the prescriptive argument that that commenter made. Otherwise we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
And I knew what prescriptive and descriptive arguments were before you mentioned them, but since you’re arguing against a figment of your imagination, you’ve conveniently made up this little detail that I somehow didn’t.
No you don’t. You have a tiny ego that’s just furious about me pointing out how dumb it was of you to use “empiricism” in this context
Saying someone’s ego is small is not an insult. Your ego is over-inflated. And I’ll only say this one more time, but I only mentioned empiricism to debunk your flat earther comparison. The fact that you’re fixated on it so much is kind of pathetic.
Thats why it’s so easy for you to explain why you were talking about “empiricism” in regards to language.
Bla bla bla bla bla you’re just ashamed of having been dumb.
implicit agreement
If it weren’t for the explicit acknowledgement in every single sentence I wrote asserting the opposite of that, you might be able to weasel out. As it stands, you’re not.
And I knew what prescriptive and descriptive arguments were before you mentioned them, b
Ofc. Thats why you use “empiricism” instead of them, despite your argument talking about prescriptive language and you not understanding empirical use of language is mostly descriptive. You can pretend all you want. You’re just lying to yourself and eveyone who knows anything about linguistics can see what a pathetic lie that is.
Saying someone’s ego is small is not an insult.
To you. It’s not an insult to you, because you associate a big ego with an uncontrollable ego, because you don’t actually understand the origin of the concepts. Hmm… feel like I’m repeating myself a tad? :D£DD
“I’m not angry, I’m not I’m not I’m not. I’m done with you I’m so done i won’t waste my time being angry at you I won’t won’t I won’t” - you three comments ago
I already told you for the last time, that I specifically said empiricism doesn’t apply to language. I brought it up to counter your comparison to flat earthers.
And now I’m repeating myself, because you keep saying the same stupid shit over and over again. You’re clearly being disingenuous, because there’s no way a real person could be that dense.
Yeah. That’s like saying left doesn’t apply to baking. It has no meaning because it doesn’t mean what you thought it did because you’re just pretending to be an intellectual.
You can lie to yourself that you definitely knew what “prescriptive” and “descriptive” meant, even though anyone who does can see you don’t. It also explains why you think “empiricism doesn’t apply to language”. Ofc it does. You can study language empirically. You’d only say you can’t if you didn’t understand the word. Empirical findings of language use would fall under descriptive or prescriptive based on the findings. You just don’t seem to understand the meaning of the words. :DD
“You’re being disingenuous for mocking me for being pretentious”
Sure I am buddy, sure I am. Because people have exactly what reason to believe that you aren’t the dummy you demonstrate yourself to be?
![[SMBC] JPEG](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/2f500de2-cd40-4b23-ba8d-96b95aa34ec2.png){kind=link}
The fact that you don’t understand how badly you’re misusing those terms instead of talking about prescriptivism and descriptivism is what shows how little you know.
It’s not “empicisim” you dolt, which you’d know if you had any understanding of the subject.
Now you’re trying to use the terms, but fail hard.
I never even argued there’s even a single prescriptive rule, and I never would, because unlike you, this isn’t the first time I’m hearing the terms and I thus don’t make prescriptive arguments. You can look at my comment, it’s not been edited.
Point out a single prescriptive rule I even remotely imply. Oh there isn’t one?
How odd.
I know it’s not, jackass. That’s why I said it doesn’t apply. I only brought up empiricism to address your comparison to flat earthers, which is a matter of empiricism.
But since you’re so intent on butchering what I say in order to shape it into whatever nonsense argument you find easier to counter, you’re clearly not interested in having a serious debate and thus I no longer take you seriously.
Goodbye.
You’ve just no idea how ignorant you are? :D Yes, you specifically connected it to the concept. Negative or positive, doesn’t matter. It shows how you conceptualise the idea.
That’s why it’s so wrong.
Empiricism would constitute both descriptive and prescriptive language, only prescriptive language less so. What you’re trying to do is prescribe rules to language, and because you don’t even understand what youre doing, you don’t even have the words for it. Which is why you’re now pathetically trying to pretend you knew those words before I pointed this out to you.
It’s a good comparison to flat earthers, because you’re equally ignorant of your own ignorance. It’s a veery different subject, but youre still quite as unable to understand what you understand as they are.
Oh yeah “I no longer take you seriously, goodbye” as if that isn’t the mating cry of every fucking moron proved utterly incorrect and who has to run away in shame.
Everything you’re saying is projection.
I didn’t “connect” empiricism to language. You compared my argument to a flat earth argument. I debunked that claim by explaining that flat earth theory can be debunked empirically, and phonology cannot because it is not within the realm of empiricism. If that sounds like a connection to you, then it’s entirely based on you connecting pronunciation to flat earth theory in the first place.
And you’re being childish for trying to twist that to make it look like I made the mistake that you did.
I understand prescriptive and descriptive language just fine, and you’re being arrogant by assuming that I don’t. You simply can’t admit that you’re wrong, so you attack me as if I don’t know what I’m talking about.
That’s not what I’m doing at all. That’s what you’re doing. I argued that the people who insist that “gif” with a hard g is the only correct way are wrong and arrogant. I said I pronounce it with a soft g, as in “jif.” I never said everyone must pronounce it that way, therefore I did not make a prescriptive argument
You, on the other hand, did make a prescriptive argument by saying that only the pronunciation with the hard g is the right way. So again, that’s more projection.
Pot, kettle, black.
I’m not “running away in shame,” I’m simply capable of recognizing when someone isn’t capable of engaging in good faith argumentation, and I have more self-respect than to waste my time on people like that.
uhhhh
no u don’t :(
Resurrecting a dead thread because you’re such a miserable individual that you can’t think of anything else to do but try to make others as miserable as you?
You’re pathetic.
What…? My comment wasn’t that deep, but it sounds like you want it to be. You need to stop it with the unprompted toxicity/hostility.
My comment was simply a nudge to the irony contained within your statement. Apparently you couldn’t handle reflecting on that, so instead you decided to lash out about some made up nonsense. (projection about your misery?)
If this is how you typically behave in life, I can understand why you’d be miserable.
“Empiricism doesn’t work for…”
“I didn’t connect empiricism to…”
Yeah cmon buddy. Who do you think would ever believe that? You’re literally lying to yourself.
I used an analogy in which you are comparable to flat earthers because of the ignorance you both share. It’s true. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This has nothing to do with pronunciation. See because I know a bit about linguistics, I would never make a prescriptive argument, unlike you. That’s why I made sure to note that my perceptions are my own bias, and I understand that. You can see it all the way from the unedited first comment. ;>
Oh no. You just don’t understand and that’s why you’re wrong. You couldn’t even name what mistake you mean which I’m supposedly projecting onto you, because I’m not. <3
Yes, everyone with language can. But you didn’t even know the terms before I mentioned them. ;<
Where, pray tell?
Oh, can’t point at a single line even remotely implying such? Awww. :(
Ignorance of what? What “descriptive” and “prescriptive” mean to the point I misuse “empiricism” to describe prescriptive language? :Dd
“I have more self respect than”
No you don’t. You have a tiny ego that’s just furious about me pointing out how dumb it was of you to use “empiricism” in this context
You’re insufferable. You’re making up scenarios in your mind that make me look like an easy target, but the truth is you’re just so disconnected from reality that you’re not even arguing against what I say. You’re arguing in a mirror, against a reflection of your own ignorance.
When you said you’ve never heard anyone who pronounces it “jif,” you were giving implicit agreement to the comment before me who claimed in no uncertain terms that gif is pronounced with a hard g, simply because of some abstract appeal to popularity.
Thus, you were affirming the prescriptive argument that that commenter made. Otherwise we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
And I knew what prescriptive and descriptive arguments were before you mentioned them, but since you’re arguing against a figment of your imagination, you’ve conveniently made up this little detail that I somehow didn’t.
Saying someone’s ego is small is not an insult. Your ego is over-inflated. And I’ll only say this one more time, but I only mentioned empiricism to debunk your flat earther comparison. The fact that you’re fixated on it so much is kind of pathetic.
I’m not furious, you’re just annoying.
Definitely yeah.
Thats why it’s so easy for you to explain why you were talking about “empiricism” in regards to language.
Bla bla bla bla bla you’re just ashamed of having been dumb.
If it weren’t for the explicit acknowledgement in every single sentence I wrote asserting the opposite of that, you might be able to weasel out. As it stands, you’re not.
Ofc. Thats why you use “empiricism” instead of them, despite your argument talking about prescriptive language and you not understanding empirical use of language is mostly descriptive. You can pretend all you want. You’re just lying to yourself and eveyone who knows anything about linguistics can see what a pathetic lie that is.
To you. It’s not an insult to you, because you associate a big ego with an uncontrollable ego, because you don’t actually understand the origin of the concepts. Hmm… feel like I’m repeating myself a tad? :D£DD
“I’m not angry, I’m not I’m not I’m not. I’m done with you I’m so done i won’t waste my time being angry at you I won’t won’t I won’t” - you three comments ago
I already told you for the last time, that I specifically said empiricism doesn’t apply to language. I brought it up to counter your comparison to flat earthers.
And now I’m repeating myself, because you keep saying the same stupid shit over and over again. You’re clearly being disingenuous, because there’s no way a real person could be that dense.
Yeah. That’s like saying left doesn’t apply to baking. It has no meaning because it doesn’t mean what you thought it did because you’re just pretending to be an intellectual.
You can lie to yourself that you definitely knew what “prescriptive” and “descriptive” meant, even though anyone who does can see you don’t. It also explains why you think “empiricism doesn’t apply to language”. Ofc it does. You can study language empirically. You’d only say you can’t if you didn’t understand the word. Empirical findings of language use would fall under descriptive or prescriptive based on the findings. You just don’t seem to understand the meaning of the words. :DD
“You’re being disingenuous for mocking me for being pretentious”
Sure I am buddy, sure I am. Because people have exactly what reason to believe that you aren’t the dummy you demonstrate yourself to be?