Do u use slang???
Yes, I think it's obvious, even to those who have little interest in linguistics, that it's impossible to perform such ongoing, empirical measurements for 400 or 500 million speakers. Brennus is unable to respond to this notion (as posed by my earlier question) because he knows he can't be objective about it.
The vague "I read some article 10 years..." and something about hairstyles, is the best one can come up with to avoid any specifics or reasoned ideas.
Kirk,
"As far as I'm aware it's a non-issue to linguists because it's not quantifiable and the conditions necessary to make truly scientifically accurate comparisons cross-dialectally do not exist."
Linguistics has many different branches as you probably know. Wikipedia lists about 21 of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics.
Slang is something that sociolinguists study and they would even be the ones researching the data and statistics relative to percentage of youth population and rate of slang. Of course, there is some overlapping of these disciplines and sociolinguists study class difference in pronunciation too (i.e. why upper middle- class pleople say 'dewk' for "duke" while lower middle-class people say 'dook') and this infringes on your area which is 'Phonetics'.
Otherwise, I agree with most of what you say. Slang can exist either on a national level or on a local level:Houston, San Francisco, Boston & Detroit. Even here though, if the theory is true, there would be more new slang cropping up in those communities that have the largest numbers of young people. In this respect, Houston would almost certainly be a better candidate than a retirement community like Sun City Arizona or even a mainstream American city like St. Louis which has been steadily loosing population since the 1960's.
Bob - I'll tell you the same thing I told Kirk: "When someone disagrees with a statement, the burden of proof is always on the person who disagreeing." This is standard procedure in academics and even debate if you took debate in high school. This is one of the reasons why law students are encouraged to take debate too.
In reading your post I have seen no attempts on your part to counter my claims with facts, examples or relevant quotes from scholars and authorities who support your viewpoint. You are simply making ad hominem attacks that any krank could make--- Brennus is unable to respond to this notion (as posed by my earlier question) because he knows he can't be objective about it.--- and trying to stab me in the back as well.
<<Yes, I think it's obvious, even to those who have little interest in linguistics, that it's impossible to perform such ongoing, empirical measurements for 400 or 500 million speakers. Brennus is unable to respond to this notion (as posed by my earlier question) because he knows he can't be objective about it.
The vague "I read some article 10 years..." and something about hairstyles, is the best one can come up with to avoid any specifics or reasoned ideas.>>
Yes, such irrelevant comments do not cut it.
<<"When someone disagrees with a statement, the burden of proof is always on the person who disagreeing.">>
So because you agree with the initial statement you are somehow not required to back it up in the same way? That's ridiculous--things don't work that way. Someone could just as easily have posted something saying "slang is not quantifiable cross-dialectally," to which I would've agreed, but that wouldn't have removed the burden from me to explain why I thought so (which I have done).
And yes, Brennus, I am well aware of the subgroups within linguistics--I've taken classes on many of them (including sociolinguistics and phonetics, which you mention). However, your comments about the existence of various subgroups of linguistics is irrelevant to the matter that for *whoever* is studying them, such things as quantifying slang usage cross-dialectally are not really feasible.
Brennus,
You're the one making claims but you have no facts, examples or relevant quotes. General reading or something you read 10 years ago is hardly a useful contribution to an objective argument.
No, there is nothing to prove for something that cannot be quantified. If one cannot substantiate something, one should not be making claims. There is nothing to counter in something null and void of no substance. It would be as senseless as someone claiming that Britons use more slang than Americans. Or as Kirk puts it: "Someone could just as easily have posted something saying "slang is not quantifiable cross-dialectally," ".
Your arguments work well against you. Take it as a back-stabbing that any krank could take, if you like.
<<"When someone disagrees with a statement, the burden of proof is always on the person who disagreeing." This is standard procedure in academics and even debate if you took debate in high school. This is one of the reasons why law students are encouraged to take debate too.>>
Um...ever heard of the presumption of innocence? Last time I checked, the burden of proof was on the prosecution, not the defense.
Sorry, I missed some of what I quoted from Kirk.
Re: "...your comments about the existence of various subgroups of linguistics is irrelevant to the matter that for *whoever* is studying them"
That's what sociolinguists do. In fact, the word "Sociolinguistics" itself is a combo of the words "sociology" and "linguistics" - the two overlap here.
Likewise someone who is a "historical linguist" can't function without knowing much of the history of the country whose language he is studying. Even some of his work will eventually overlap with 'phonetics' and 'structural linguistics' as well. So you kind of have a whole bunch of concentric circles or venn diagrams of different types of linguistics overlapping each other in varying degrees and even overlapping subjects outside linguistics: anthropology, psychology, sociology, history, demographics etc. .
<<In fact, the word "Sociolinguistics" itself is a combo of the words "sociology" and "linguistics" - the two overlap here>>
Yes, fortunately that was a connection I'd already made quite a while ago.
<<Likewise someone who is a "historical linguist" can't function without knowing much of the history of the country whose language he is studying. Even some of his work will eventually overlap with 'phonetics' and 'structural linguistics' as well. So you kind of have a whole bunch of concentric circles or venn diagrams of different types of linguistics overlapping each other in varying degrees and even overlapping subjects outside linguistics: anthropology, psychology, sociology, history, demographics etc. .>>
....Relevance???............
The sub-branches of linguistics are not what we're talking about on this thread unless they relevantly relate to the topic at hand. In mentioning their specific existences and purposes (which I am more than aware of) you haven't effectively tied them to the current topic. Let's stay on track here instead of avoiding the relevant topic at hand.
<<General reading or something you read 10 years ago is hardly a useful contribution to an objective argument. >>
Most definitely agreed. Now, I must say that while Bob and I have not produced specific research either, we have at least clearly shown why such research wouldn't even be likely *to exist* in the first place, as it's a non-issue. If you still feel the topic is debatable then it would behoove you to respond to *those* comments instead of irrelevantly citing various subfields of linguistics and their purposes.
<<Um...ever heard of the presumption of innocence? Last time I checked, the burden of proof was on the prosecution, not the defense.>>
Yes, that is correct. And once again, I'll point out that agreeing with an original statement has nothing to do with being exempt or less-required to explain something than disagreeing with the original statement, which could be anything.
I think this whole thing is GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
>.< FUCK YOU ALL!!!
ARF!!! YOU ALL SUCK BALLZ!!
>.<...HAHAHA
I'm the bigdaddy.. suck my nutz..!!
Hi, I am bonerman, and I know you would like to suck me ballz!!!!!
Yadayadayada yadayada..I have 3 balls, and they are SQUISHY!!!
Brennus : « (...) likewise French speaking Quebeckers (...) use more slang than their counterparts in France (...) »
?????????????????????
Nimportnawak ! Cékoi st'hallu ? (c'était de l'argot...)
Brennus : « Remember that when someone disagrees with a statement, the burden of proof is always on the person who disagreeing. »
Dans le cas qui nous oppose (voir plus haut : « ????????????????????? »), la charge de la preuve te revient, mon cher Brennus. Pour t'en convaincre, il te suffit de faire un petit tour dans les rues de France et de Navarre*...
*<de France et de Navarre> = une expression (non argotique) qui signifie « de toute la France », « de la France entière ».