Do we say "a man of many brains" or "a man of

>> >>Paul Kerswill
Department of Linguistics and English Language
Lancaster University<<

So? That does not make the positions layed out any more right, as they should be evaluated in their own terms rather than terms of whoever happens to say them, especially since they do not concern particularly specialized areas in linguistics on which in-depth knowledge would be rather limited amongst the general population (such as, say, the linguistics of Nahuatl languages). <<

True, <<That does not make the positions layed out any more right, as they should be evaluated in their own terms rather than terms of whoever happens to say them>>. I agree on this. But there is nothing wrong with M56 when he(she) identified the speaker's name. Note M56 is quotating from other scholars to support his (her) argument. He needs to document his(her) sources, regardless of whether the content of the quotation is right or wrong. I would rather think that it shows M56's responsible and serious manner towards what we have been debating here. At the same time, it clearly indicates that M56 is well read in linguistics and in close touch with serious academic works. It is precisely because so few people among the antimooners have ever bothered or think it necessary to do source documenting that makes M56's gesture noteworthy and valuable.

<<<As a passive reader, there is something fishy i have detected. M56, Pos and Bridget. Two of them are the same person and I cant figure which one is which.>>>

<<I agree myself; Pos and Bridget are trolls and I would not be surprised if they were sockpuppets (whose sockpuppets is another question), even though I do not think they are the same person as M56.>>


<<I'm not sure Bridget is a troll. I've seen Bridget ask legitimate and reasonable questions. Pos, on the other hand... well, I wouldn't say for certain that Pos is a troll, but I'm admittedly suspicious.>>

I fail to understand why you guys are so concerned with whether M56, Pos and Bridget are the same person or different persons. Whether trollery exists or not, does it reduce the force and soundness of their arguments in any slightest way? If you are concerned with who speaks rather than what they speak of, you are certainly missing the real point!
I agree with what M56 has argued for. Standard Enlish is a dialect.

The thing is, I seldom see Pos advance a real argument at all. Whether or not it's his(?) intention, the criticism he offers seems more destructive than constructive to me.

The truth is that you are the one who fails to put up a proper argument and you're projecting onto me. I really would like to know if you're really a native speaker, because almost everything you say is wrong.

<< The truth is that you are the one who fails to put up a proper argument and you're projecting onto me. >>

If I put up an improper argument, it deserved to be refuted. But comments like "I have to buy you a dictionary for Christmas" seem just plain hostile to me. THAT is what bothers me, and has nothing to do with any kind of shortcomings that I'm "projecting" onto you.

<< I really would like to know if you're really a native speaker, because almost everything you say is wrong. >>

Uh-huh. And I suppose all native speakers understand their language perfectly in a manner that agrees with your own understanding? There you go again with the "furrykef is not a native speaker even though I have no evidence" argument. Being "wrong" about these sorts of things is not a non-native type of error. It's completely normal.

The truth is that most native speakers understand their own language worse than I do. Of course, many people, apparently including M56, understand it better than I do, but most English speakers in my country couldn't even tell you what the subjunctive mood is or how to use "whom" correctly. Moreover, you don't have to be a non-native speaker to be wrong, especially about matters of terminology that are relatively unimportant to the discussion at hand.

- Kef

<< If I put up an improper argument, it deserved to be refuted. >>

I meant "deserves". This statement extends to the present and future.

Finally, let's not forget that it's one thing to expect me not to be a sloppy thinker and a sloppy poster, but it's another thing to expect me to post with an academic level of rigor. I'm not an academic linguist, nor am I cultured and well-read, nor have I ever pretended to be any of these things, and yet you guys seem to hold me to the standards of at least one of these. Why? I'm just an ordinary guy.

- Kef

<< nor am I cultured and well-read >>

That should be "or" rather than "and".

The person who made this thread is a sexist. Why does it have to be a man that's smart? Do you think that women can't be?

<As a passive reader, there is something fishy i have detected. M56, Pos and Bridget. Two of them are the same person and I cant figure which one is which. Bridget and Pos, is my near guess. If you are reading this post, please give up your haggling approach on the forum. >

Hmm, no haggling in forums, right? What an odd request.

<I have to say that I agree completely here myself.>

You agree with someone who agrees with you. That's not surprising.

<I agree with what M56 has argued for. Standard Enlish is a dialect. >

Well said!

<The thing is, I seldom see Pos advance a real argument at all. Whether or not it's his(?) intention, the criticism he offers seems more destructive than constructive to me. >

Aw, you're all upset because he/she has been picking on you. Aw!

<If I put up an improper argument, it deserved to be refuted. But comments like "I have to buy you a dictionary for Christmas" seem just plain hostile to me.>

It seems you don't like fun or a bit of teasing. Grow up! Learn from the experience.

<<<There you go again with the "furrykef is not a native speaker even though I have no evidence" argument. >>>

Again, Furry, someone is leading you up the garden path. I did not post that comment.