Linguistics

532 readers

3 users here now

Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!

Everyone is welcome here: from laymen to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.

Rules:

Stay on-topic. Specially for more divisive subjects.
Post sources whenever reasonable to do so.
Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
Have fun!

Related communities:

founded 10 months ago

MODERATORS

lvxferre@mander.xyz

Esperanto: The artificial language that aimed to unite humanity (bigthink.com)

submitted 9 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/linguistics@mander.xyz

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] senloke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Rational investigation requires criticism, like it or not.

Rational investigation requires criticism, like it or not. Yes it does. But your response and your whole argumentation is not criticism but trolling, just designed to provoke an emotional response which you can then tear down and enjoying while doing it. Like what you did earlier and also on my reply.

As I wrote disproving JBR or making any response to him is like responding to an anti-vaxxer. I don't have the damn time, nor could all my responses be trusted, because I'm not a linguist, so who cares anyway? Musing all day about the details of where JBR was right and where he talked as an English speaker out of his ass, just to piss off more people -- brings what exactly? Those people who already made up their opinions will still stick to them, those who will learn Esperanto anyway will learn it anyway. The damage has already been done, because those who are undecided will not learn it or even consider it a language at all. WELL DONE!

And reactions then like yours always boils down to the "bad Esperantist", who reacts pissed off to shitty ideas, shitty opinions thrown around by people who should shut their mouths for good.

minced words to fake some qualitative distinction between “poorly designed” and “not perfect enough” (the diff is quantitative, and arbitrary)

No it's not. A poorly designed pocket knife for example will hurt you, a not perfect knife is just lacking a feature which you would like, but which does not harm you.

First off. You’re clearly assuming that I’m arguing against Esperanto usage, when I’m mostly talking about its design demerits.

I really tried to not assume that, but the way you argumented, how you twisted my response all lead me to the conclusion that you are argumenting against the usage of Esperanto at all as most people who follow the exact argumentation chain do. Using JBR as valid source would be one point in that chain. Like as I quote some news article of Russia Today to prove that the war of Russia against the Ukraine is right, because Ukraine is full of national socialists.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 0 points 8 months ago

[Speaking as a moderator]

just designed to provoke an emotional response which you can then tear down and enjoying while doing it.

You're assuming again the intentions of another person.

As I wrote disproving JBR or making any response to him is like responding to an anti-vaxxer.

You're again drawing an association of someone with anti-vaxxers, without having grounds to do so.

And reactions then like yours always boils down to the “bad Esperantist”

Now you're simply making shit up.

You're insistently behaving in ways that you were warned against. And even without that, your overall behaviour across this thread has been uncivil and irrationally defensive right off the start; I cut you some slack because it was towards me, but it's clear by your profile that you're expected to behave the same way towards other users in this community in the future, and also to use the community to soapbox if allowed.

As such, you've been deemed unfit for this community, and hereby banned from it, accordingly to the Lemmy's code of conduct that this instance follows.

I'll keep your comments visible for the sake of transparency.