Quoting kidneystones: Really. Hope others do, too.

I found the etymology very dull and the discussion of word formation superficial, at best. Brangelina is, IMHO, an extremely poor example because it's a noun with an extremely limited use and life span, unless it acquires some special meaning, perhaps from their charity activities. But I'm speculating. "Burgoyned" might be a better example, but even that word I'd guess hasn't survived the 19th century.

The discussion of using digitalized media to date words exposed problems with the methodology that were not sufficiently addressed. The scanning and recognition software does an extremely spotty job. Dating by this method is thus extremely unreliable. Granted it's easier to download and collate the texts in digital form. But we still have to pore over the text; and that's assuming all texts exist in digital form. That's clearly not the case.

That said, some of the most interesting work done recently on the medieval period relies on this form of forensic linguistic analysis. But I digress.

For me, the power of language lies in the unquantifiable. I'm reading a history right now, btw, liberally laced with timely quotes from Byron, which really do capture the emotion of the moment. Finally, linguistics is

It was sweet to see Carl's obvious pleasure in interviewing his brother. Looking forward to the next installment.

I knew as soon as I saw who the diavloggers were going to be this week that I'd hugely enjoy this. (And of course, the sad attempt by our resident misanthropic loon to sour things for others with his opening comment only made me more certain.) Great stuff. Some specifics: I was truly thankful to hear the "Eskimos and their X words for snow" nonsense shot down once again -- there can never be enough beatings delivered to this canard. I am delighted to learn that it is not only my pet peeve. Thanks also for the reminder about snowclone -- I remember loving that when I came across it on Language Log. I'm glad the Brangelina, Bennifer, ... thing (snowclone?) died. For the record; Wiktionary's list of English interjections does not include fail. Wiktionary FAIL! (It does however include LOL.) I'd like to hear more about (1) computational linguistics and (2) access to the various corpora, so Ben, if you ever check in to this thread and have some links handy, I'd appreciate them. To the Bh.tv overlords: more diavlogs about words would be greatly appreciated, from Ben and others. Thanks to Carl for another great interview.

It was sweet to see Carl's obvious pleasure in interviewing his brother. Looking forward to the next installment.

Yes, cool sibling dynamic. I'm sure they have to watch themselves in public not to revert to 8-year-old goofing around. I also enjoyed the dialogue. I did my undergraduate work in lit and graduate work in linguistics, so I'm delighted to see a lexicographer on board at Bheads. I cringed at the question of prescritivist vs. descriptivist, which is tantamont to asking a biologist if he's a young or a physicist if she's a flat earther. But I'm sure it was just a deliberate Carl softball, and Ben answered it politely and well. Another weird question linguists get asked a lot -- thanks in part to military nomenclature (a "linguist" is somebody we gave a 90-day Arabic course to) -- is "How many languages do you speak?" Linguists are not necessarily polyglots, as in the case of Noam Chomsky who is fluent only in English.

All true wonderment, but monolingual linguists seem really be be limiting themselves. Especially monolingual formalists! After all, you can take the abstract study the rules of phonology, syntax etc. only so far. After a while, speaking (or at least comprehending) multiple languages, is really required to get a sophisticated understanding of how linguistic processes work. Not to speak of field work... It doesn't surprise me to hear that Chomsky speaks only English. His "contribution" to the field started and ended some forty years ago with the "theory" (read: unproven assertion) of Universal Grammar. Not much goin' on since then.

Quoting Wonderment: I cringed at the question of prescritivist vs. descriptivist, which is tantamont to asking a biologist if he's a young or a physicist if she's a flat earther. But I'm sure it was just a deliberate Carl softball, and Ben answered it politely and well.

I don't think it's quite that drastic. As Ben noted, while pretty much all linguists have a "living language" view, there is also a lot to be said for employing the current usage correctly, and an anathema to the attitude of "anything goes."

but monolingual linguists seem really be be limiting themselves. Especially monolingual formalists! After all, you can take the abstract study the rules of phonology, syntax etc. only so far. After a while, speaking (or at least comprehending) multiple languages, is really required to get a sophisticated understanding of how linguistic processes work. Not to speak of field work...

Right. I'm pretty sure linguistics departments all do have some kind of second (natural) language requirement. If I were the Lord of Education (or as we say in Russian, the Czar) it would be moot because I'd have kids learning languages in bi and tri lingual elementary school settings and everyone would get to college as a polyglot.

Ah Brendan, I know it's hard for you to give up being the grammar scold. Me too. I mean, I also. As our President said, "Not surprising."

"It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to prescriptive linguistics, to guns or religion, to flat-earth theory, to creationism or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Quoting Wonderment: Ah Brendan ...

ROFL! In my own defense, I'm a lot less of a word-scold than I used to be (hard as this may be to believe). I now embrace the "living language" concept, and I almost never criticize mistakes in extemporaneous speech anymore (unless they're repeated).

Quoting Wonderment: Right. I'm pretty sure linguistics departments all do have some kind of second (natural) language requirement.

If I were the Lord of Education (or as we say in Russian, the Czar) it would be moot because I'd have kids learning languages in bi and tri lingual elementary school settings and everyone would get to college as a polyglot.

I vote for you for Ed. Czar. Or support the machinations that will lead to your seizing of power, as the case may be.

Quoting bjkeefe: In my own defense, I'm a lot less of a word-scold than I used to be (hard as this may be to believe). I now embrace the "living language" concept, and I almost never criticize mistakes in extemporaneous speech anymore (unless they're repeated).

ROFL!!!

The commenter who coined "Pinkercorn" deserves some credit here. Anyone remember who it was?

Quoting bjkeefe: I now embrace the "living language" concept, and I almost never criticize mistakes in extemporaneous speech anymore (unless they're repeated).

Seems we have misunderestimated you.

That was a fun diavlog; if only they had time to tackle my favorite omniwords...DUDE and TOTALLY. With a few simple changes of tone, my sisters and I are able to carry on entire conversations using only those two words. It drives my mom crazy...

Quoting Mari Dupont: That was a fun diavlog; if only they had time to tackle my favorite omniwords...DUDE and TOTALLY. With a few simple changes of tone, my sisters and I are able to carry on entire conversations using only those two words. It drives my mom crazy...

Heh. I know exactly what you mean. The canonical sentence to me in this regard -- semantically null, yet somehow rich in meaning and perfectly comprehensible to the right audience -- has long been: "I was like, oh my god."

Quoting Simon Willard: The commenter who coined "Pinkercorn" deserves some credit here. Anyone remember who it was?

Brendan?! http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...aded#post66794

Quoting look: Brendan?!

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...aded#post66794

Wow. Did I really? I'd love to claim credit, but my gut tells me I was repeating someone else's coinage. But maybe, just maybe ... this will be my mark! Thanks for the effort, in any case.

Cool, I didn't know you did graduate work in linguistics. What was your area of concentration in Lit? As far as prescriptive vs. descriptive, I wasn't even familiar with those terms...I guess I'm full of FAIL.

my sisters and I are able to carry on entire conversations using only those two words. It drives my mom crazy...

Did you ever see that episode of "The Wire" where the two detectives are investigating a homicide scene and all they say throughout is "fuck" with a dozen or so shades of nuanced awe.

When I did the word search, yours was the oldest...if I did it correctly. Just think if it gets in the OED!

Oh, damn, I forgot to look at the old board...it's Joel Cairo, apparently: http://forums.bloggingheads.tv/phoru...atch_forum=ALL I apologize for dashing your hopes for immortality.

Quoting look: Oh, damn, I forgot to look at the old board...it's Joel Cairo, apparently:

http://forums.bloggingheads.tv/phoru...atch_forum=ALL

I apologize for dashing your hopes for immortality.

If I have to die forgotten, better by Joel Cairo's hand than most other's. ;^) Thanks for the follow-up, and your mad research skillz.

Quoting Wonderment: Did you ever see that episode of "The Wire" where the two detectives are investigating a homicide scene and all they say throughout is "fuck" with a dozen or so shades of nuanced awe.

I didn't see that, but I can imagine it well enough to be reminded of the scene in Donnie Brasco where Donnie is asked by his FBI associates about the meaning of fuhgedaboudit. (On watching that clip, I have to say, one needs to watch the whole movie to really grasp all the nuances of the term. Just caught it the other night -- the whole flick is as good as I remember it.)

Quoting look: As far as prescriptive vs. descriptive, I wasn't even familiar with those terms...I guess I'm full of FAIL.

Naw -- just a modern citizen. The prescriptive school went out with the death of Noah Webster, IIRC. (I would add to the essay linked to above that my ~1970 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, while not completely prescriptive, did have a Usage Panel, and many entries would feature a note saying something like "78% of the Usage Panel rejects the use of X to mean Y.")

Cool. Thanks.

Sigh.

Quoting look: Cool. Thanks.

y/w. Probably also should have confessed earlier that one of the reasons I placed so much stock in my AHDotEL was that one member of the Usage Panel was Isaac Asimov.

The banner ad currently displayed across the top of this thread is one for Sarah Palin. Google AdSense FAIL. Or maybe ... it's just that their algorithm figures that whenever people are talking about using the language properly ... maybe what we have here is what Mr. Riley likes to call "The Search for the Perfect Contraindicator." Okay, I'm becoming excessively obscure.

Cool, I didn't know you did graduate work in linguistics. What was your area of concentration in Lit?

I did a standard Old School Am Lit. It was one of those default I-wanna-be-a-writer majors. Pretty clueless. My sister had majored in English, so I did too. At the time, I thought the world was divided into cool people in the humanities and sell-out robots in every other field of studies. It was the sixties. No one had thought up a Peace and Social Justice major yet Nobody had invented environmentalism (except Rachel Carson, as it turned out) or ethnic studies. The answer, my friend, was blowing in the wind, but not a fact on the campus ground. I'm glad I went into the sciences with linguistics in grad school. I had to take statistics courses, design experiments and engage in all sorts on nonliterary stuff. Straightened me right out.

Quoting Simon Willard: Seems we have misunderestimated you.

Rarely is the question asked: Is our commenters learning? ?

Quoting bjkeefe: y/w.

Probably also should have confessed earlier that one of the reasons I placed so much stock in my AHDotEL was that one member of the Usage Panel was Isaac Asimov.

I've seen the usage panel thing before...pretty cool and scarily obsessive. But then again, my sister and I play Boggle and Scrabble with 2-3 dictionaries. We used to race to see who could find a word the fastest in separate dictionaries.

Quoting Wonderment: I did a standard Old School Am Lit. It was one of those default I-wanna-be-a-writer majors. Pretty clueless. My sister had majored in English, so I did too.

At the time, I thought the world was divided into cool people in the humanities and sell-out robots in every other field of studies. It was the sixties. No one had thought up a Peace and Social Justice major yet Nobody had invented environmentalism (except Rachel Carson, as it turned out) or ethnic studies. The answer, my friend, was blowing in the wind, but not a fact on the campus ground.

I'm glad I went into the sciences with linguistics in grad school. I had to take statistics courses, design experiments and engage in all sorts on nonliterary stuff. Straightened me right out.

Interesting path. I went into math with exactly the opposite attitude as you started with, and still count myself lucky that I somehow or another grew to appreciate the value of the humanities. [Added] Well, except for philosophy. ;^)

Quoting Wonderment: I'm glad I went into the sciences with linguistics in grad school. I had to take statistics courses, design experiments and engage in all sorts on nonliterary stuff. Straightened me right out.

Good, a happy ending.

Better?

Quoting bjkeefe: Interesting path. I went into math with exactly the opposite attitude as you started with, and still count myself lucky that I somehow or another grew to appreciate the value of the humanities.

[Added] Well, except for philosophy. ;^)

It's taken me a long time to figure out that the variance of philosophy's quality is huge. There is some very worthwhile philosophy being done. It's just not easy to find. Good thing we have blogs.

Quoting claymisher: It's taken me a long time to figure out that the variance of philosophy's quality is huge. There is some very worthwhile philosophy being done. It's just not easy to find. Good thing we have blogs.

Oh, yeah. I probably should have bold-faced the winkie. I don't at all disagree that there is worthwhile work being done in philosophy, as there always has been, and I certainly agree with you that CT is one good place to start.

Quoting look: Better?

LOL! But actually: yes. Say what you will about her reprehensibility, at least AC has her wits about her. I may violently disagree with everything she says, but at least I can parse it.

My first BH comment (ever!): As an american living in Sweden I think I might be able to shed some light on the Cronkite/swedish issue. It sounds like you are referring to the word Kronikör which would mean Chonicaler (sp?) (someone who chronicles something). It is an older expression that I think has been replaced by blogger (bloggare) because a kronikör is more like a columnist in a magazine than a newscaster. Anyway, after months of watching and reading on bloggingheads I finally registered to make this monumentous comment. Love this site!!

Quoting look: Oh, damn, I forgot to look at the old board...it's Joel Cairo, apparently:

http://forums.bloggingheads.tv/phoru...atch_forum=ALL

I apologize for dashing your hopes for immortality.

There was a diavlog recorded the previous month that used "pinkercorn" in the diavlog title. Perhaps someone from BHTV coined the term. Bloggin' Noggin's reaction suggest this was the first time he heard it.

Quoting TwinSwords: There was a diavlog recorded the previous month that used "pinkercorn" in the diavlog title. Perhaps someone from BHTV coined the term.

Bloggin' Noggin's reaction suggest this was the first time he heard it.

Ouch! But now I'm wondering if maybe Jim or David coined the phrase in a/the previous diavlog, and the person who titled this diavlog picked it up? Who was in charge of the titles back then?

Quoting look: Ouch! But now I'm wondering if maybe Jim or David coined the phrase in a/the previous diavlog, and the person who titled this diavlog picked it up? Who was in charge of the titles back then?

Good question! I don't know. By the way, welcome back!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/jobs/23pre.html?8dpc I assume that most of the BHTV followers read or scan the NYT, but just in case somebody missed it. Personal inquiry: what would be the best way to improve my own grammar?

Quoting TwinSwords: Good question! I don't know.

By the way, welcome back!

Thanks, TS!

Quoting nikkibong: All true wonderment, but monolingual linguists seem really be be limiting themselves. Especially monolingual formalists! After all, you can take the abstract study the rules of phonology, syntax etc. only so far. After a while, speaking (or at least comprehending) multiple languages, is really required to get a sophisticated understanding of how linguistic processes work. Not to speak of field work...

It doesn't surprise me to hear that Chomsky speaks only English. His "contribution" to the field started and ended some forty years ago with the "theory" (read: unproven assertion) of Universal Grammar. Not much goin' on since then.

Personally, I was shocked to hear Chomsky admit that he is monolingual on Ali G's Show. How can you be a professional linguist, somebody that supposedly loves language, and not study multiple languages yourself? I have an issue with the notion of a language instinct. It leads to the widespread belief that adults will always struggle and take more time to learn a second language than children. But there are devoted adults who teach themselves a foreign language in a year. Well meaning parents send their kids to foreign language classes, but usually with little success.

Quoting SkepticDoc:
Personal inquiry: what would be the best way to improve my own grammar?

IMHO, reading and listening, in an active mode. Try to assume the role of editor and rephrase and reconstruct (internally) what you read and hear.

Quoting bjkeefe: I was truly thankful to hear the "Eskimos and their X words for snow" nonsense shot down once again -- there can never be enough beatings delivered to this canard. I am delighted to learn that it is not only my pet peeve.

The fact that people have this pet peeve is itself one of my pet peeves. Eskimos or Inuits (depending on where they are) do have a specialized vocabulary that makes fine distinctions that people in different environments with different concerns don't make. I don't see the controversy. I get that there's some kind of irritation with journalistic cliches at work here, but who cares about what journalists do? What's the big deal? I mean: if the 'snowclone' goes, "just as the Eskimos have x words for 'snow', so the Bedouin have x words for 'camel'," then...what? What happens? Readers will think that the Bedouin have a specialized vocabulary for things relating to camels. Well; they do.

Quoting Ray: The fact that people have this pet peeve is itself one of my pet peeves.

Eskimos or Inuits (depending on where they are) do have a specialized vocabulary that makes fine distinctions that people in different environments with different concerns don't make.

I don't see the controversy.

I get that there's some kind of irritation with journalistic cliches at work here, but who cares about what journalists do? What's the big deal?

I mean: if the 'snowclone' goes, "just as the Eskimos have x words for 'snow', so the Bedouin have x words for 'camel'," then...what? What happens?

Readers will think that the Bedouin have a specialized vocabulary for things relating to camels. Well; they do.

You are right of course. Different languages do have different specialized vocabularies (think of all the words in English for qualities of light: glimmer, shimmer, shine, glint, gleam, glow, glisten....). I think bjkeefe was referring to the so-called Edward Sapir/Benjamin Lee Whorf thesis, which asserted that different languages embody different "worldviews." Here is Sapir: "The fact of the matter is that the "real world" is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered

Quoting dieter: Personally, I was shocked to hear Chomsky admit that he is monolingual on Ali G's Show. How can you be a professional linguist, somebody that supposedly loves language, and not study multiple languages yourself?

Shocked? Really? To me, it seems to fit perfectly well with Chomsky's MO: bloviating maniacally about subjects he knows next to nothing of.

Personally, I was shocked to hear Chomsky admit that he is monolingual on Ali G's Show. How can you be a professional linguist, somebody that supposedly loves language, and not study multiple languages yourself?

He didn't say he hadn't studied multiple languages, which he has. He just said he doesn't speak any fluently.

I have an issue with the notion of a language instinct. It leads to the widespread belief that adults will always struggle and take more time to learn a second language than children.

There are critical neurological and developmental differences between langauge acquisition in adults and in children. I have never heard the "widespread belief" that adults necessarily take longer to learn a language. What adults can't do is learn it with native speaker facility. That cut-off age is around 11 (pre-pubescence). Children "absorb" languages because of our genetic dispositions (just as we learn to walk but not to fly). Post-pubescent learning requires a structural study of grammar. English-speaking adults don't "absorb" the subjunctive tense in Spanish or the gender/case system in German. They have to study it the hard way. If they're incapable of understanding the abstractions of grammar, they'll never really

Quoting nikkibong: Shocked? Really?

To me, it seems to fit perfectly well with Chomsky's MO: bloviating maniacally about subjects he knows next to nothing of.

I assume you are referring to his political opinions. Chomsky knows an awful lot and reasons extremely well, but since his premises are sometimes wrong his conclusions are often baffling. A bit like his work as a linguist: if the only language you know is English, you might begin to think that all other languages are deviations from English.

A bit like his work as a linguist: if the only language you know is English, you might begin to think that all other languages are deviations from English.

He doesn't think that, which would obviously be colossally stupid, and he is very highly regarded by linguists all over the world for his pioneering work. If linguistics had a Nobel Prize, he would undoubtedly have received one. Chomsky's political views had zero to do with his work in linguistics.

Quoting Wonderment: He doesn't think that, which would obviously be colossally stupid, and he is very highly regarded by linguists all over the world for his pioneering work. If linguistics had a Nobel Prize, he would undoubtedly have received one.

Chomsky's political views had zero to do with his work in linguistics.

He is highly regarded. His theory of an innate universal grammar has never been substantiated and probably never will be. Actually, if you took the trouble to read what I wrote, you might notice that I said exactly the opposite of what you imply in your second statement. Chomsky reasons about politics exactly as he reasons about language: from a priori and unprovable premises. In politics his premise is so simple that an idiot could understand it: all states are evil.

Quoting Ray: The fact that people have this pet peeve is itself one of my pet peeves.

Eskimos or Inuits (depending on where they are) do have a specialized vocabulary that makes fine distinctions that people in different environments with different concerns don't make.

I don't see the controversy.

I get that there's some kind of irritation with journalistic cliches at work here, but who cares about what journalists do? What's the big deal?

I mean: if the 'snowclone' goes, "just as the Eskimos have x words for 'snow', so the Bedouin have x words for 'camel'," then...what? What happens?

Readers will think that the Bedouin have a specialized vocabulary for things relating to camels. Well; they do.

Francoamerican has touched on one big part of my irritation. Another part is the mindlessness with which this trope is repeated; i.e., it goes beyond just a cliché, and often sounds as though the speaker/writer thinks he or she is stating a Known Fact. Plus, if you want to hear a lot of different words for snow, in English, talk to a ski nut. As far as I am aware, there just aren't significantly more words for snow in Inuit languages than this.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Personal inquiry: what would be the best way to improve my own grammar?

Agree with graz. I'd also suggest this: get in the habit of looking up everything you're not absolutely sure about. Keep a dead trees dictionary right on your desk and/or use Google's define: function. (Note the required colon, if this is something new to you.) Get a copy of Strunk and White's The Elements of Style and read it often. It's become fashionable to diss this book lately, especially among some of the Language Log bloggers, but I still think of it as a great place to start. I can remember agreeing with some of the LLers' gripes, but they seem like nitpicks, and in any case, I think one has to be really well-spoken to be at the point where one could find fault with this little gem of a book. There are also some really good guides-to-usage sites out there. I quite like Paul Brians's site. Obviously, you can't read something like this "cover to cover" and expect to retain it all, but it's good to skim, and it's a good first place to look. Also, if you're wondering about one word versus another, you can

Quoting Francoamerican: Whorf or one of his followers went so far as to argue that the Hopi Indians were better equipped to understand the theory of relativity because of their language.... I forget exactly why.

Sure. But how many readers of the supposedly bad journalism the Brothers Zimmer decry in the diavlog are actually taking a statement about x number of words for y to point to this sort of conclusion? In fact, it's not clear to me that the reason for making this kind of claim isn't the exact opposite of linguistic determinism (at least these days): they have a lot of words for 'snow'; we have a lot of words for 'automobile'. We are both of the same nature, we're just in different circumstances. Specialized vocabularies express an essence common to all of humanity. What bugs me about the pet peeve response are 1) its literalism: "The number of words doesn't matter!" they cry. "I'll prove this point by counting their words and ours!"--???; and 2) its sanctimony: establishing differences in worldview can be a trick in the game of establishing cultural or racial superiority--therefore, debunking the Eskimo snow-words myth

The Eskimo/snow myth evolved to promote a popular understanding of a respectable line of linguistic/anthropological research originally known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis -- basically the idea that your culture and language affect your perceptions of the world. The shortest way to understand it is probably with the example of colors. Different languages have many different words for subtle differences in colors/hues. Experiments were done to determine if speakers of Language A that had 5 common words for shades of red actually had an easier time SEEING those colors than speakers of langauges who had only one word to cover those shades. Naturally, some outlandish claims were made for things like Hopi cultural understanding of time compared to "Western" understandings, but the basic idea of studying to what extent language influences culture is perfectly legitimate.

Thanks! I was watching the 5th season of "The Wire" (the one concentrating on newspapers) and was intrigued with the brief grammar comments. I regret not paying more attention to my grammar classes in elementary and High School...

Thanks Brendan! My problem is compounded further by my slow typing skills, I am dependent on my computer's spell check and try to read again my posts. My thought process is going 3-4 times faster than my typing and that prevents me from sharing most of my thoughts or opinions. Is William Safire another person to look up for advice?

Quoting SkepticDoc: Thanks Brendan!

y/w.

My problem is compounded further by my slow typing skills, I am dependent on my computer's spell check and try to read again my posts. My thought process is going 3-4 times faster than my typing and that prevents me from sharing most of my thoughts or opinions.

I have the same problem, to some degree, although it's getting better. All I can advise there is practice. Steve Yegge says anyone can learn to type well, within a month or two, by spending an hour or so a day playing Mavis Beacon or the equivalent, but I type just fast enough that I'm not motivated to verify this. Sometimes it works to type out a crude sort of outline instead of trying to compose a complicated post via straight brain-to-keyboard flow. Actually, not even anything that complicated, but just a couple of lines with just enough words to remind you of what the ideas were when you finish expanding upon the earlier ones. And there are always postscripts, as well -- no one here expects each post to be a complete and polished essay. As to the built-in spell-checker, I think it's better than

Quoting Wonderment: The Eskimo/snow myth evolved to promote a popular understanding of a respectable line of linguistic/anthropological research originally known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

Jesus. Yes; I know this. The entire world knows this. The entire world also knows that an Eskimo talks about snow with greater specificity, with more specialized vocabulary, than does a Fiji Islander. Or an Englishman. So, what, exactly, does the refutation of the Eskimo snow-word myth refute? BJ: "Plus, if you want to hear a lot of different words for snow, in English, talk to a ski nut. As far as I am aware, there just aren't significantly more words for snow in Inuit languages than this." You mean two people who spend a lot of time dealing with snow will have a more specialized vocabulary for snow and its attendant phenomena than I, who doesn't have an intense relationship with snow. They will say things about snow that I won't. They will see distinctions among snow phenomena that I won't. Okay. How is this not the same thing as the cliche?

Quoting Ray: BJ: "Plus, if you want to hear a lot of different words for snow, in English, talk to a ski nut. As far as I am aware, there just aren't significantly more words for snow in Inuit languages than this."

You mean two people who spend a lot of time dealing with snow will have a more specialized vocabulary for snow and its attendant phenomena than I, who doesn't have an intense relationship with snow. They will say things about snow that I won't. They will see distinctions among snow phenomena that I won't.

Okay. How is this not the same thing as the cliche?

Because the way you put it is a lot more precise, and does not attempt to serve as a basis for something that follows.

Question inspired by some of the links: How many Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freaks are in the forum?

Quoting SkepticDoc: Question inspired by some of the links:

How many Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freaks are in the forum?

I am a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Winger, but not a freak. ;^) Actually, I prefer regular coffee to lattes, burgers to sushi, VWs to Volvos, and I dislike most of what comes out of Hollywood. Also, I have only one piercing.

Geoffrey Pullum, who the Zimmer brothers mentioned in the dialog, debunked the Inuit snow myth in the 1980s. He published his essays as a book titled "The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax and Other Irreverent Essays." As a side note, in the discussion of FAIL, Ben "failed" to mention that the process of making a "bare infinitive" (base verb without "to") into a noun is quite common in English: He went for a run this morning. That's an interesting take he has on the subject. His wrist has a slight break that shows up in the X-ray. What make of car is that? Of course, the process works in reverse too, from noun to verb: He just parrots whatever she says. I googled him.

Quoting bjkeefe: Because the way you put it is a lot more precise, and does not attempt to serve as a basis for something that follows.

What something? This is what mystifies me about all the puffery on display in the Big Eskimo Snow-Word Myth Refutation. "Ha ha ha!" the Refuter laughs. "To believe the Eskimo has more words for snow than the Englishman is so dumb!" Everybody laughs at the idea that Eskimos have x(!!!) words for snow. But then everybody admits that the average Eskimo does have a more specialized vocabulary for snow than does the average Englishman--i.e. more words for snow. So what follows from that? What's the Big Conspiracy? Then, everybody says, "Sapir-Whorf!"--that's the Bad Thing that counting Eskimo words for snow leads to! And then everybody admits that there's probably something to linguistic determinism. Maybe it's not as strong as some have put it, but there's something there. What's all the debunking and laughing about then?

What's all the debunking and laughing about then?

It's not that complicated. The debunking is that the claim that the Inuit have 10 or 20 or 200 words for snow is false. They don't.

A compromise for this tempest in a teapot could be to accept that words are just tools to communicate concepts or to describe a specific reality, a Dermatologist needs to describe skin in greater detail to document a condition that needs treatment. The Eskimo or the skier need to adapt to their environment and make some changes in their equipment to handle snow with certain characteristics, so they have more words to communicate the differences. Just like Philosophers, Lawyers, Buddhist Monks and others use certain words to try to describe their ideas to others and themselves; sometimes the terms are comprehensible only to others that have studied the same texts... The value of the vocabulary would be relative to the needs of the community, I have no need to differentiate types of snow most of the time, the Eskimo has no use for ideas of relativism/objectivism, etc...

All true, but not really the issue. Everyone understands that a specialized field (like "snowology") will produce a specialized vocabulary -- in any and all natural languages. The deeper and legitimate question is to what extent language influences perception and culture. Are there differences among human beings based exclusively on native language features?

Quoting Wonderment: It's not that complicated. The debunking is that the claim that the Inuit have 10 or 20 or 200 words for snow is false. They don't.

I'm not so sure about that. Let me put it to you this way. One time, this guy pissed off my cousin. My cousin decided to take revenge. He and his best friend found this guy's automobile, popped its lock, then packed it full of snow. Now, for Americans, the word 'automobile' is unnatural here. Usually, we would specify: 'truck', 'car', 'van' or whatever. For an Eskimo hearing this story, the same thing may be true for 'snow'. That's all the assertion, "Eskimos have x words for 'snow'", really means. They may have a word to describe snow in a general sense, but in their everyday speech, they don't use it. Instead, they use myriad other, more specific terms. Count those terms, and you'll get a number. That number is the number of words Eskimos have for snow. Of course, you can argue with the method of counting. That's what can make the issue complicated. But there is no way that Esquimaux (that one's for you, Kidneystones) use fewer or the same number of words that we do to talk about snow.

Quoting kidneystones: Second, the term 'Esk$m#' is a slur similar in violence to 'dirty Ind&an'.

No; it's like the word 'Indian'. Throwing 'Inuit' around as if it means everything that 'Eskimo' does is actually something of a slur itself. Using 'Inuit' to refer to all indigenous folk above a certain parallel is like referring to all Native Americans as 'Cherokee'.

Quoting Wonderment: The deeper and legitimate question is to what extent language influences perception and culture.

Are there differences among human beings based exclusively on native language features?

As I recall from cross-cultural psychiatry, Asian cultures (Chinese at least) refer to depression and anxiety predominantly by using words that describe the physical correlates of these states. Western cultures may be able to verbalize the same emotional states in more psychological terms. But I don't know that's what you are talking about.

As I recall from cross-cultural psychiatry, Asian cultures (Chinese at least) refer to depression and anxiety predominantly by using words that describe the physical correlates of these states. Western cultures may be able to verbalize the same emotional states in more psychological terms.

But I don't know that's what you are talking about.

Could be something like that. Some theories might focus on semantics: do the languages have the concept and the vocabulary? What resources do the speakers have when talking about the mind and body, for example? Or the questions can be posed about grammar? Does the language have a conditional tense? How many different past tenses are there? What are the implications in a world view?

Quoting Wonderment: Could be something like that. Some theories might focus on semantics: do the languages have the concept and the vocabulary? What resources do the speakers have when talking about the mind and body, for example?

Or the questions can be posed about grammar? Does the language have a conditional tense? How many different past tenses are there? What are the implications in a world view?

It looks like you are talking about differences in semantics and in complexity and nuance of a particular language. Language provides structure to the thought process. Thought contents that are not expressed through language are experienced as qualitatively different. They are likely to be less accessible to conscious examination. The existence of non-verbal thought contents that are not processed as the rest of the more available language mediated ones, may change the overall perception of the world. Although I can imagine something like that happening, I certainly don't know the extent of its implication for a world view. There is so much variation from person to person regarding the balance of verbal to non-verbal processing that I don't know how it would work for an aggregate of inter-cultural differences. Interesting topic.

Quoting bjkeefe: LOL!

But actually: yes. Say what you will about her reprehensibility, at least AC has her wits about her. I may violently disagree with everything she says, but at least I can parse it.

I think the left needs to find a way to chillax about Sister Sarah. Obama even mentioned her in the same breath as his "wee-wee'd up" line. This post from Dust Bunny Queen over at you know who's sums up the situation nicely:

I like to envision that Sarah Palin is sitting in her silk jammies sipping on a really nice vintage of whatever she likes to drink and is laughing her ass off while fucking with the Dems and MSM by posting on Facebook.

LOL Facebook? you can bring down Democrats in Congress by merely posting on Facebook? Who knew?

Woah....just wait until she gets out of the jammies and puts on those cruel heels and lipstick.....watch out boys.

http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/200...kill-your.html

Quoting Wonderment: There are critical neurological and developmental differences between langauge acquisition in adults and in children. I have never heard the "widespread belief" that adults necessarily take longer to learn a language. What adults can't do is learn it with native speaker facility. That cut-off age is around 11 (pre-pubescence).

Children "absorb" languages because of our genetic dispositions (just as we learn to walk but not to fly)..

Well yes, but all this was known by experience, or empirically, long before Chomsky postulated an innate universal grammar. Aristotle defined man as an animal "possessing logos" (usually translated as "rational animal." "Genetic dispositions" is a term that means absolutely nothing unless you can specify which genes control which parts of the brain, and which parts of the brain control speech. Neuroscience is still far from understanding how the brain produces and processes speech.

Quoting Wonderment: Post-pubescent learning requires a structural study of grammar. English-speaking adults don't "absorb" the subjunctive tense in Spanish or the gender/case system in German. They have to study it the hard way. If they're incapable of understanding the abstractions of grammar, they'll never really get it right. (Chomsky, by the way, was the person who provided the

Quoting kidneystones: Third, there is ample evidence to support the notion that different societies do have different conceptions of cosmology and time. There is no evidence I know of to support the opposite view..

Mythological cosmologies....yes, there are many of those. But modern science and cosmology are independent of linguistic communities.

Quoting kidneystones: As for the literature/linguistics divide alluded to earlier, some informed grounding in both probably is a good idea. The most widely read works in English up to the mid-18th century are: the Bible, Paradise Lost, and Pilgrim's Progress. The first ten books of what we call the OT are essential. I expect most will run instead to Wikipedia.

This has always been one of my major gripes about scientific linguistics. On the other hand, literacy wasn't very widespread in Europe and America before the end of the 19th century. So I suppose linguists have always preferred to study language in its raw state as it were.

Quoting look: I think the left needs to find a way to chillax about Sister Sarah. Obama even mentioned her in the same breath as his "wee-wee'd up" line. This post from Dust Bunny Queen over at you know who's sums up the situation nicely:

http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/200...kill-your.html

Funny post, look (I'm glad you're back, btw) but I think DBQ imagines a far more coherent intentionality to Palin than the data suggests. She has power, in that there's a slice of the Republican Party willing to attribute almost magical power to her utterances - but the implication that her actions are strategic (coherently so) seems unsupported by facts. When Sarah moves, things shake - her problem seems to be that much of the time that just seems to create chaos in her wake. (The exegesis of true believers notwithstanding.)

Quoting kidneystones: The history of the word 'Esk&mo' or 'raw-meat eater' carries an implicit negative value.

Ha ha ha! You mean to say that meaning of the word 'Eskimo' is pejorative. History! Implicit negative value! Laughable!

Quoting kidneystones: If we hope to understand how that word is heard and used among natives

We need to ask natives. All of them. Even the ones who live in Alaska and Siberia.

Quoting kidneystones: How about some links to some linguistics? Lawrence Kaplan at the University of Alaska asserts that many northern indigenous peoples do not want to be described as 'esk$mo'.

How about we quote Lawrence Kaplan who refutes both your etymological claim and your prescription: Inuit or Eskimo: Which names to use? by Lawrence Kaplan Although the name "Eskimo" is commonly used in Alaska to refer to all Inuit and Yupik people of the world, this name is considered derogatory in many other places because it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean "eater of raw meat." Linguists now believe that "Eskimo" is derived from an Ojibwa word meaning "to net snowshoes." However, the people of Canada and Greenland prefer other names. "Inuit," meaning "people," is used in most of Canada, and the

Quoting kidneystones: Thanks...I'm not sure how much of Kaplan's arguments you actually read or understood, so I'll try to explain and provide a little context.

Yo, Kidneystones! For a really interesting take on this subject, you should check out the work of Lawrence Kaplan! Lawrence Kaplan is a Big Time Professor at the University of Alaska! (Alaska is where the Eskimos live, fyi) Lawrence Kaplan refutes your claim that 'Eskimo' means 'raw-meat eater'. Remember when you said that?

Quoting kidneystones: The history of the word 'Esk&mo' or 'raw-meat eater'

Lawrence Kaplan says you're wrong! Yeah! And remember how you said Lawrence Kaplan said the word 'Eskimo' is, like, a totally huge insult to "folks we're describing"??? Lawrence Kaplan didn't say that! But I know you want to show that you really care about our indigenous brothers and sisters, so I recommend that you read the work of one Professor Lawrence Kaplan at the University of Alaska!

Quoting AemJeff: Funny post, look (I'm glad you're back, btw) but I think DBQ imagines a far more coherent intentionality to Palin than the data suggests. She has power, in that there's a slice of the Republican Party willing to attribute almost magical power to her utterances - but the implication that her actions are strategic (coherently so) seems unsupported by facts. When Sarah moves, things shake - her problem seems to be that much of the time that just seems to create chaos in her wake. (The exegesis of true believers notwithstanding.)

^ Behold, the power of clarity and concision.

Quoting look: I think the left needs to find a way to chillax about Sister Sarah. [...]

What Jeff said. Also, I think for a lot of people, it's less about Palin herself than what she symbolizes. She, more than any other Republican politician who gets anywhere near the same amount of attention, epitomizes everything distasteful about what the GOP has become dominated by: an incredible smugness about her (their) own ignorance, lack of worldliness, and lack of intellectual curiosity; the willingness to utter any half-, quarter-, or non-truth as long as it revs up the fears of her audience; and the desire to dismiss as "not real Americans" pretty much everyone who isn't white, fundamentalist Christian, and living in some imaginary perfect small town at least a thousand miles away from New York or California. She is the poster child for intolerance and being bitter and clinging to God and guns. It is also true, I think, that from the point of view of wanting to keep the Republicans out of power until they smarten up, many on the left like nothing finer than her being identified as the face of the Republican Party. To this end, attention is paid to

Quoting bjkeefe: What Jeff said.

Also, I think for a lot of people, it's less about Palin herself than what she symbolizes. She, more than any other Republican politician who gets anywhere near the same amount of attention, epitomizes everything distasteful about what the GOP has become dominated by: an incredible smugness about her (their) own ignorance, lack of worldliness, and lack of intellectual curiosity; the willingness to utter any half-, quarter-, or non-truth as long as it revs up the fears of her audience; and the desire to dismiss as "not real Americans" pretty much everyone who isn't white, fundamentalist Christian, and living in some imaginary perfect small town. She is the poster child for intolerance, and being bitter and clinging to God and guns.

It is also true, I think, that from the point of view of wanting to keep the Republicans out of power until they smarten up, many on the left like nothing finer than her being identified as the face of the Republican Party. To this end, attention is paid to every Palin antic or utterance because it's a good way to show how bereft of ideas are the Republicans and what a mistake it

The theory has always been controversial. To present it as if it were the final scientific truth is simply untrue.

But of course I have not done that, which "if you read my posts," you'd know. I was only responding to two claims: 1) Chomsky is an idiot because he has left-wing political opinions and 2) Adults learn languages as easily or more easily than children. I'm sure you can see that both of those claims are false and silly.

Would it be possible to have Louisa Gilder on every week on Science Saturday. I am deeply in love with her and hope my old age, ugliness, poverty, lack of intelligence, distance and belief her father is rather a fool does not prevent our eventual marriage. Thank you.

Quoting rapier: Would it be possible to have Louisa Gilder on every week on Science Saturday. I am deeply in love with her and hope my old age, ugliness, poverty, lack of intelligence, distance and belief her father is rather a fool does not prevent our eventual marriage.

Thank you.

Well, she wrote a hell of a book, in any case.

Agreed. But Brendan, didn't you mean "secession" not "succession?"

Quoting AemJeff: Funny post, look (I'm glad you're back, btw) but I think DBQ imagines a far more coherent intentionality to Palin than the data suggests. She has power, in that there's a slice of the Republican Party willing to attribute almost magical power to her utterances - but the implication that her actions are strategic (coherently so) seems unsupported by facts. When Sarah moves, things shake - her problem seems to be that much of the time that just seems to create chaos in her wake. (The exegesis of true believers notwithstanding.)

Thanks so much, Jeff, glad to be back. I think DBQ's post indicates the exact opposite, that Palin is simply on a lark and seeing what will stick.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Agreed. But Brendan, didn't you mean "secession" not "succession?"

Nice.

Quoting bjkeefe: What Jeff said.

Also, I think for a lot of people, it's less about Palin herself than what she symbolizes. She, more than any other Republican politician who gets anywhere near the same amount of attention, epitomizes everything distasteful about what the GOP has become dominated by: an incredible smugness about her (their) own ignorance, lack of worldliness, and lack of intellectual curiosity; the willingness to utter any half-, quarter-, or non-truth as long as it revs up the fears of her audience; and the desire to dismiss as "not real Americans" pretty much everyone who isn't white, fundamentalist Christian, and living in some imaginary perfect small town at least a thousand miles away from New York or California. She is the poster child for intolerance and being bitter and clinging to God and guns.

It is also true, I think, that from the point of view of wanting to keep the Republicans out of power until they smarten up, many on the left like nothing finer than her being identified as the face of the Republican Party. To this end, attention is paid to every Palin antic or utterance because it's a good way to show

Do you think that

Quoting look: ...
Palin is simply on a lark and seeing what will stick.

is consistent with having thrown away a governorship?

Here I was about to triumphantly cheer: Mark this date. Uncle Eb corrects BJK on grammar!! It will live in infamy. Then I saw the "of" in "succession OF teabaggers", that I missed the first time around. Drat, foiled again.

Quoting AemJeff: Do you think that

is consistent with having thrown away a governorship?

That's the lark part.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Here I was about to triumphantly cheer: Mark this date. Uncle Eb corrects BJK on grammar!! It will live in infamy.

Then I saw the "of" in "succession OF teabaggers", that I missed the first time around. Drat, foiled again.

OIC. I thought you were making a joke about collective nouns, like a pride of lions or a murder of crows. I like "a secession of teabaggers" almost as much as "a frothing of wingnuts." P.S. First!

Quoting bjkeefe: I like "a secession of teabaggers" almost as much as "a frothing of wingnuts."

Did you say, "Please let me have a visual aid?" Betty Cracker is happy to oblige!

Quoting Wonderment: But of course I have not done that, which "if you read my posts," you'd know.

I was only responding to two claims: 1) Chomsky is an idiot because he has left-wing political opinions and 2) Adults learn languages as easily or more easily than children.

I'm sure you can see that both of those claims are false and silly.

Clearly neither of us reads the other's posts! Both claims, of course, are false and silly. But Chomsky was hardly the first to notice that children learn languages more easily than adults. And, unless I have forgotten a lot since I read him, his theory of an innate universal grammar doesn't really tell us why this is so. It purports to explain why a child can learn any natural language at birth: because all languages select out of a continuum of possible rules, grammatical patterns, phonemes etc which are part of our inherited mental equipment. There is only one problem with this idea: natural languages had to be invented first...

I think the thread that runs through Chomsky's politics and his linguistics is that he's figured out the underlying nature of the complete reality of each. Or at least he thinks he does. I know two former linguists who dropped out in the 1970s because Chomsky ruined linguistics -- apparently you used to be able to just go off and study an obscure language, but after the Chomsky took over the actual details of real language didn't matter anymore. Since Chomsky had proven all languages where the same you could just study English. (It's as if after Darwin biologists had decided to stop studying actual animals. Come to think of, that's what happened in economics ...) I have to imagine the mania for the universal grammar deal has subsided and things are back to normal by now. His politics has the same unrelenting sameness to it -- governments are always and everywhere evil (possibly true) and that's all there is to say about it (absolutely not true). Anyway, I dug up an article on Chomsky from the New Yorker if anybody's interested.

To read Chomsky's recent political writing at

I know two former linguists who dropped out in the 1970s because Chomsky ruined linguistics -- apparently you used to be able to just go off and study an obscure language, but after the Chomsky took over the actual details of real language didn't matter anymore. Since Chomsky had proven all languages where the same you could just study English.

That's ridiculous, Clay. Chomsky neither "ruined" nor "took over" linguistics. Saying "the actual details of real languages" didn't matter after Chomsky is like saying the actual human body didn't matter to medical science after viruses were discovered. There are dozens of specializations within linguistics and almost none of them have anything to do with Chomsky. Branches of linguistics:

Anthropological linguistics, Semiotics, Philology, Discourse, Structuralism, Post-structuralism, Cognitive linguistics, Cognitive science, Comparative linguistics, Sociolinguistics, Varieties, Developmental linguistics, Discourse Analysis, Descriptive linguistics, Ecolinguistics, Embodied cognition, Endangered languages.

History of linguistics, Historical linguistics, Intercultural competence, Lexicography/Lexicology, Linguistic typology, Evolutionary linguistics.

Articulatory phonology, Biolinguistics, Computational linguistics, Biosemiotics, Articulatory synthesis, Machine translation, Natural language processing, Speaker recognition (authentication), Speech processing, Speech recognition, Speech synthesis, Concept Mining, Corpus linguistics, Critical discourse analysis, Cryptanalysis, Decipherment, Asemic writing, Grammar Writing.

Forensic linguistics, Global language system, Glottometrics, Integrational linguistics, Language acquisition, Language attrition, Language engineering, Language geography, Metacommunicative competence, Microlinguistics, Natural Language Processing, Neurolinguistics, Orthography, Reading, Second language acquisition, Sociocultural linguistics, Stratificational linguistics, Text linguistics, Writing systems, Xenolinguistics.

Quoting Wonderment: That's ridiculous, Clay. Chomsky neither "ruined" nor "took over" linguistics.

Saying "the actual details of real languages" didn't matter after Chomsky is like saying the actual human body didn't matter to medical science after viruses were discovered.

There are dozens of specializations within linguistics and almost none of them have anything to do with Chomsky.

Branches of linguistics:

I was talking about the 1970s. Like I said "I have to imagine the mania for the universal grammar deal has subsided and things are back to normal by now." Anyway, one of the guys became an anthropologist and kept studying Native American languages. The other guy left academia. I think both had been at Berkeley.

Manufacturing Consent is an awesome book

Quoting popcorn_karate: Manufacturing Consent is an awesome book

Indeed it is. Also highly recommended: — Year 501: The Conquest Continues
— Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies
— Profit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global Order
— Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance

Quoting SkepticDoc: Is William Safire another person to look up for advice?

Continuing from my previous answer, Jan Freeman is another columnist worth reading for thoughts on language.

Yes, Chomsky's political views have been bashed and trashed in this thread. I didn't get involved because I just wanted to defend his status as a linguist. My opinion is that his political views are completely distinct from his scientific accomplishments (as they should be). I do agree, however, with most of his views on politics, and he has been a leading light of progressive thought for decades.

Well said. I'm rather surprised by the vitriol directed at him in this thread, but I shouldn't be. He's earned it by being a relentless and effective critic of Israel and US foreign policy over a span of many decades. He's obviously had an effect. But more than that, and as you say, he has long been a towering figure in the sciences and dissident politics. The biggest concern now is "who can possibly replace him?"

Sweet. I'll have to start reading her anymore. ;-) I gotta say, as a child who moved to New England in 3rd grade and spent the next 13 years there, I never did get over my annoyance with the use of "so don't I."

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Sweet. I'll have to start reading her anymore. ;-)

I gotta say, as a child who moved to New England in 3rd grade and spent the next 13 years there, I never did get over my annoyance with the use of "so don't I."

Heh. That was one of the few things I disliked about western Massachusetts. It seemed to have died out between the first few times I was there and recently -- span of a few decades. But maybe it was always restricted to usage by kids?

Quoting claymisher: I think the thread that runs through Chomsky's politics and his linguistics is that he's figured out the underlying nature of the complete reality of each. Or at least he thinks he does. I know two former linguists who dropped out in the 1970s because Chomsky ruined linguistics -- apparently you used to be able to just go off and study an obscure language, but after the Chomsky took over the actual details of real language didn't matter anymore.

I'm not a linguist; my fields are computer science and sociology. So I am not going to weigh in on Chomsky's importance to the field of linguistics. But I will admit my surprise to learn in reading this thread that despite being widely regarded as one of the leading figures in the field, Chomsky really "ruined linguistics," and his only scientific achievement, "if you can call it that," was to observe something that even the stupidest pre-literate caveman understood: children rapidly learn language.

Quoting claymisher: His politics has the same unrelenting sameness to it - governments are always and everywhere evil

If this caricature were accurate, Chomsky would be in good company, to include most

Quoting TwinSwords: Chomsky is despised by a great many people because of his relentless and effective criticism of both Israel and US foreign policy. It's the price an effective radical dissident pays in this society. But his contributions as a social critic and political thinker, and his contributions in the sciences, sociology, history, and journalism have been enormous and probably unparalleled in modern times.

So I take it you're a fan.

Quoting TwinSwords: Well said. I'm rather surprised by the vitriol directed at him in this thread, but I shouldn't be. He's earned it by being a relentless and effective critic of Israel and US foreign policy over a span of many decades. He's obviously had an effect. But more than that, and as you say, he has long been a towering figure in the sciences and dissident politics. The biggest concern now is "who can possibly replace him?"

Vitriol? All I said is that his theory of transformational grammar is controversial and, imho, just wrong-headed. It has no scientific basis, but has given birth to a whole school of thought that postulates---without any proof---that grammar is genetically hardwired into the brain (the idea has been extended to other fields of study---for example, to cognitive psychology according to which morality is hardwired into the brain). I agree with claymisher that his influence in the US probably did discourage the study of actual languages. As for Chomsky's politics, I have learned much from reading him, but the article quoted by claymisher does capture something of his relentless manicheanism. Towering figures sometimes shrink in the eyes of posterity.

Quoting Francoamerican: Vitriol?

I did not really have you or your remarks in mind when I made the observation.

Ha ha! I am going to humiliate kidneystones again! What a great day!

Quoting kidneystones: -Irrespective of the origin of the term 'eskim#', the word has been used to mean: 'raw-meat eater'. Usage trumps etymology.

Then, 'eskimo' doesn't mean "eater of raw meat"!!! You tried to make an argument from etymology. You tried to argue that etymology trumps usage, but it turned out that the etymology you presented was wrong! How embarrassing! You must be so embarrassed!

Quoting kidneystones: Among many of these peoples 'eskim#' is a slur and does indeed carry all the negative baggage I've described.

That's not your argument! Your argument is that 'eskimo' is everywhere and always a slur and that this is true, because Kaplan says so! Ha! Now, you have to back off your claim, because the authority you cited to back up your argument disagrees with you! You didn't read your own reference!

Quoting kidneystones: I've postulated

Your postulation doesn't mean shit! You don't speak for anybody!

Quoting kidneystones: you clearly don't know much about the use of sources in academic discussions

Clearly, I do! I know that if you present a source as evidence that supports your claim and that source turns out to refute your claim, then you have revealed yourself as a fucking idiot!!! Bummer!

Quoting kidneystones: Part

It has no scientific basis, but has given birth to a whole school of thought that postulates---without any proof---that grammar is genetically hardwired into the brain (the idea has been extended to other fields of study---for example, to cognitive psychology according to which morality is hardwired into the brain).

The theory provides the best model to explain the ease and rapidity with which homo sapiens children learn natural languages. To challenge Chomsky you need a better alternative theory. So to say "without any proof" is misleading. No competing theory has any "proof" either. There is plenty of proof that human beings are "designed" for natural langauge, however. Just like birds are designed for flight and fish for swimming. All people everywhere exhibit grammar.

I agree with claymisher that his influence in the US probably did discourage the study of actual languages.

That is actually the most ridiculous claim on this entire thread. First of all, Chomsky's influence was worldwide, so to limit it to the US is wrong. Second, although there are plenty of problems with getting Americans to study languages, Chomsky ain't one of them. Language learning is simply not a priority of public

Quoting Wonderment: All people everywhere exhibit grammar.

True.

Quoting Wonderment: That is actually the most ridiculous claim on this entire thread. First of all, Chomsky's influence was worldwide, so to limit it to the US is wrong. Second, although there are plenty of problems with getting Americans to study languages, Chomsky ain't one of them. ."

Maybe. But he did nothing to encourage the study of foreign languages either.

Quoting Wonderment: Language learning is simply not a priority of public schools in the USA. I have no explanation for this other than narrow-minded Anglocentricism and xenophobia.

On the other hand, language study is encouraged and rewarded in undergraduate and graduate programs in lit, languages, linguistics, international law, diplomacy, education, international business, anthropology, etc., etc., etc.."

That must be why only 5% of American college graduates study a foreign language.

Quoting Wonderment: The idea that a student was dissuaded from pursuing other languages because of a purported (and entirely false) disdain of them by Chomsky is the academic version of calling him a Nazi. Talk about "no evidence!" Please present the student who said, "Chomsky made me do it."

My only objection to Chomsky is that his theory is false.

Quoting Wonderment: The theory provides the best model to explain the ease and rapidity with which homo sapiens children learn natural languages. To challenge Chomsky you need a better alternative theory. So to say "without any proof" is misleading. No competing theory has any "proof" either. There is plenty of proof that human beings are "designed" for natural langauge, however. Just like birds are designed for flight and fish for swimming. All people everywhere exhibit grammar.

That is actually the most ridiculous claim on this entire thread. First of all, Chomsky's influence was worldwide, so to limit it to the US is wrong. Second, although there are plenty of problems with getting Americans to study languages, Chomsky ain't one of them.

Language learning is simply not a priority of public schools in the USA. I have no explanation for this other than narrow-minded Anglocentricism and xenophobia.

On the other hand, language study is encouraged and rewarded in undergraduate and graduate programs in lit, languages, linguistics, international law, diplomacy, education, international business, anthropology, etc., etc., etc.

The idea that a student was dissuaded from pursuing other languages because of a purported (and entirely false) disdain of them by Chomsky is the academic version of calling him a Nazi. Talk