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}
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?