Philosophical Vegan Forum

Hey, guys!
So, I would be interested, what are you taught about linguistics in the schools where you live? I am asking this because I got rather surprised to find out that Red is unaware of what the term "sound law" even approximately means.
In Croatia, we are taught about what a sound law is in our 5th-grade Croatian language classes. It's exemplified by describing the sound laws that operate currently or have recently operated (but still having clear traces in declensions and conjugations) in Croatian (of course, what we are taught then is either false or incredibly simplistic). In our 6th-grade Croatian language classes, we are taught a little about morphosyntax (again, what we are taught then is either incredibly simplistic or false). I think we are not taught anything about linguistics in our 7th-grade and 8th-grade Croatian language classes. We are again taught a little about historical linguistics, phonetics and phonology in our 9th-grade Croatian language classes (of course, nothing in an overly scientific manner, we were barely mentioned it's possible to make experiments in phonetics), we were explained why phonosematic hypotheses are rejected by mainstream linguistics. We were also taught a little about phonetics and phonology in our 9th-grade Latin classes (more like explaining the original Latin pronunciation of words using the phonetic terminology), and, of course, we were taught a few things about morphosyntax in our 9th-grade and 10th-grade Latin classes. We were also taught some things about morphosyntax in our 10th-grade and 11th-grade Croatian language classes (in more detail than in the 6th grade, but still in quite a simplistic manner). And in our 12th-grade Croatian language classes, we were taught a bit about etymology (again, what we were told was either false or incredibly simplistic).

I can't edit the above post for some reason.
I just wanted to mention that in our 9th-grade Croatian language classes, we were told a few things about how various writing systems work.

@Red, I'd especially be interested in what you have to say about this. And perhaps what @brimstoneSalad has to say about this.

I would suspect less is taught in English speaking countries, since there's less reason to learn other languages and English is (to put it nicely) quite a mess. It probably makes more sense in more consistent languages.

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:04 pm Hey, guys!
So, I would be interested, what are you taught about linguistics in the schools where you live? I am asking this because I got rather surprised to find out that Red is unaware of what the term "sound law" even approximately means.

Screw off, asshole. I've already explained my mistake like 3 times.

teo123 wrote:@Red, I'd especially be interested in what you have to say about this.

I doubt it, I think you're more concerned with berating me for things I haven't done.

Red wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:31 pm

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:04 pm Hey, guys!
So, I would be interested, what are you taught about linguistics in the schools where you live? I am asking this because I got rather surprised to find out that Red is unaware of what the term "sound law" even approximately means.

Screw off, asshole. I've already explained my mistake like 3 times.

Yeah, @teo123 if that had been covered in another thread it seems unusual to bring it up here. Could have just asked without mentioning Red specifically.
I hope this isn't an attempt at provocation disguised as starting a conversation.

I will mention the fact that you thought the Earth was flat by way of example sometimes, but now that you no longer believe that I wouldn't start a thread on it like "teo actually thought the Earth was flat, haha, who else believes that?"
Kind of a low blow.

No, linguistics is not broadly studied, and there are good reasons for that *particularly* in English speaking countries. Unlike Mathematics it's probably not going to be useful for most day to day life or job choices. We should probably teach the average student less math too, but that's another issue of Public School's reach exceeding grasp (I'm a proponent of teaching fewer and more practical things, but doing it very well and leaving further education up to secondary school vs. a superficial job at a huge breadth that most students will just forget).

Yeah, because taking what I said out of context and inventing the meanings of phrases in order to make my position look silly is easily explicable as a mistake caused by ignorance of linguistics...

teo123 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:23 pm Yeah, because taking what I said out of context and inventing the meanings of phrases in order to make my position look silly is easily explicable as a mistake caused by ignorance of linguistics...

You're projecting again. You remind me of this guy.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I will mention the fact that you thought the Earth was flat by way of example sometimes, but now that you no longer believe that I wouldn't start a thread on it like "teo actually thought the Earth was flat, haha, who else believes that?"
Kind of a low blow.

I think it's worse than that, since I just misunderstood what he said, and he's still acting like I knew exactly what he was talking about, despite being told otherwise. I find his actions quite rude, and I don't appreciate it too much. It's would be more like if you kept saying that teo still believed the Earth is flat. Would teo like that?

I think teo is just being a provocative asshole, not really interested in discussion.

"I wouldn't be so sure sound laws can be called falsifiable. If you speak with a different accent than one dictated by the sound laws, linguists simply say you have bad accent, they don't change the sound laws because of that."
"Your theory seems to assume the words that are used today as toponyms have always been used as toponyms. I don't think that's a good assumption. 'Yucatan' comes from a Mayan phrase meaning 'What are you saying?', 'kangaroo' comes from a Nyungan phrase meaning 'I don't understand.', and 'indri' comes from Malagasy for 'behold'."

THAT, @Red, would be easily explicable as ignorance of linguistics: making arguments that rely on widely believed myths and common misconceptions about linguistics. Taking what I said out of context, inventing the meanings of phrases in order to make my position look silly, and then responding to me correcting you with "I'm sorry, but you simply suck at English!" is best explicable as a dishonest tactic. You've led me to believe you are dishonest.

And, @brimstoneSalad, why do you think English is a bad language for teaching linguistics? I think it's an excellent language for teaching linguistics, you can see regular sound laws just by comparing the way words are spelled with the way they are pronounced. It's also easy to find materials for studying languages closely related to English (German...), to see how relationships betweeen languages work. Speakers of English also tend to be very good at pronouncing sounds that are rare across languages (good luck explaining to a Croatian how to pronounce the 'th' sound or the 'a' sound as in 'cat', I struggle with those even after studying English for 12 years).

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:38 pm Taking what I said out of context, inventing the meanings of phrases in order to make my position look silly,

Fuck off asshole, I've done no such thing (and neither has brimstone).

I keep inviting you to make posts in GOOD FAITH to discuss these things in a CIVIL manner. You resorting to insults is frustrating and provocation has driven me to the brink, and I've tried to be as nice and understanding to you as much as possible. You don't seem to be interested in discussion, more just asserting why you think you're correct.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:38 pmand then responding to me correcting you with "I'm sorry, but you simply suck at English!" is best explicable as a dishonest tactic. You've led me to believe you are dishonest.

Fuck you then.
You keep accusing me of something when I explained otherwise numerous times, so either:
1) You're too stupid to comprehend what I am telling you
2) You're being deliberately dishonest
3) Your English sucks

I have good reason to believe you're English is relatively poor: There have been other cases, not just between you and I, but other members here, that have shown your English skills are not up to snuff. Other members may agree with me on this, as you've had to had concepts explained to you several times because you weren't able to understand it (kind of like what we're doing right now, eh?).

I've told you this, but just for reference:

The fucking rules wrote: Post in English (it's OK if it's a second language), and please try to use mostly proper grammar and spelling (we're not grammar nazis, but it needs to be readable). If it becomes clear your English ability is not proficient enough to understand the posts of others written in clear English, and your behavior is one of arrogance and impatience rather than humility and a willingness to improve your English level to avoid the problem in the future, you may be warned or banned.

Me pointing out your incompetence at the English language is not as prevalent as you are making it out to be, a lot of my arguments have been more detailed than you make it out to be (though of course, you reduce it to such).

You're too arrogant to even humor the possibility that your English is poor, and you are in direct violation of the rules.
This is a warning. If you aren't more MODEST, I'm going to talk to the Mods about this. Sorry to be so fucking cranky here, but this behavior is getting out of hand. Are you beyond being able to learn from your mistakes?