"Don't Say Gay"

[Ron butters]

Rather than answer my argument, VS merely misinterprets a sentence adverbial and then reverts to nsmr-calling. I have no idea of what his second sputtering paragraph even means, but he says nothing about black boxes or the rules of grammar or how we are able to build bridges or communicate (from time to time, obviously) with one another.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Two comments--the second one first.
>
> I fundamentally object to the use of "obviously" here. There is
> absolutely (yes, I know, exaggeration) nothing obvious about it at all.
> In normal scientific--and, especially, quasi-scientific--discourse, it
> is common to see "obviously" and "obvious" and "clearly" as placeholders
> for something like, "I have no idea how it actually works, but this is
> the way, I think, things should be, so, if you have any questions or
> objections, keep them to yourself." But maybe it's just MIT talking...
>
> As for the other part, I am puzzled how someone who thinks dismissing
> "folk taxonomy" is pedantic can simply dismiss a category of uses of
> "question" as "issue", which is far more common (and accepted) than the
> use of "bee" to mean "wasp". From my perspective, saying, "there is not
> even a question here" in response to "this question has not been
> resolved" is far more pedantic--and, in fact, unjustifiably so. Now, if
> you were going for the "It's not even wrong" effect, you missed the
> boat, but, at least, I can understand the attempt at humor.
>
> But, thanks for playing "Who's the bigger pedant", Ron.
>
> Entertaining, as always.
>
>    VS-)
>
> On 2/17/2012 4:12 PM, Ronald Butters wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Benjamin Barrett wrote:
>>> Linguistics is subject to scrutiny just as any natural and social science is.
>>>
>> Yes, of course.
>>
>>> Mathematicians wonder whether math is a human invention or a natural phenomenon, a puzzle that might be solved if we encounter exomathematics. Whether linguists are seeing grammar rules in patterns that are in fact only patterns, or whether grammar rules are something that come out of a syntactic black box is a question that has surely not been resolved yet.
>> There is not even a question here, so I have to agree that it has not been "resolved."
>>
>> Math is obviously a human invention AND a natural phenomenon (if those two phrases have any meaning whatsoever). If "math" were somehow unnatural, the bridges would fall down. If there were no people around to (e.g.) build bridges, "math" would not exist.=20
>>
>> Qualifying the word "pattern" with the word "only" makes no distinction whatever. If no "patterns" were meaningful then we would not be able to learn language and speak to each other. (Well, maybe I am deluded in thinking that even some of us do.)=20
>>
>> The phrase "grammar rules are something that come [sic] out of a black box" makes no sense whatever. Where is this "black box"? What are "grammar rules"? What does "come out" mean?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org