Posted: Mar 21, 2014 6:53 am
by Agrippina
seeker wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
seeker wrote:Why not? It's a discipline that is doing some empirical research about those topics. I'm interested in empirical research.

Well, the problem is that linguistics is a descriptive discipline, and you seem to be looking for authority. Linguists aren't authoritative on what words mean.

Well, that's your assumption, and that's not what I've said. All I've said is that I'm interested in knowing the linguists's conventional usages and definitions.

You've already had it explained to you several times that that's not the work of linguists. You need to ask people who use actual bloody dictionaries, and who know how to use them. :roll:

hackenslash wrote:TBH, your entire endeavour is a lost cause, because what really defines a word is usage. If you want rigour, linguistics is the wrong place to look. You'd be better off with the philosophers, as long as you can find some that know their arses from their elbows.

I don't have your a priori trust in philosophers, nor your a priori distrust in linguists.

Good god man, why are you so suspicious of people trying to help you. He's not telling you that he doesn't trust linguists, he's telling you that a linguist can tell you where the word comes from but if you want a philosophical discussion of a word, to ask a philosopher. Jesus! :roll:

hackenslash wrote:
seeker wrote:What do you mean by "dictating terms of discourse"?

It's a fairly unambiguous phrase. When you enjoined Aggie not to 'add irrelevant noise to the thread', you were attempting to dictate the terms of discourse. This might work for you elsewhere, but when people try it here, I make it my business to ensure that your terms are not met. The terms of discourse are set by the FUA. Your opinion regarding the contributions of others is worth precisely fuck all. Should Aggie wish to respond to your posts with pictures of turds, that is her right and fuck all to do with you.
Hope that's clear.

Of course, Aggripina can do whatever she wants within the FUA. But so do I. And what I can do within the FUA includes asking whatever I want (even if Aggripina doesn't like my question) and requesting her not adding irrelevant noise to my thread (even if you don't like my request).


You can ask all you want. Asking doesn't necessarily mean that you'll get what you ask for. If you post on Ratskep, I will read your posts and if I think I can be helpful, I'll help. If you don't want my help, I don't care. There are other people reading these threads and they might appreciate my input. If you don't, not only do I not give a damn, you're also not going to stop me doing whatever the hell I want to do. You're not the boss of Ratskep (or me).

Anyway, it's not a matter of "dictating the terms of discourse". The OP determines what is on-topic and off-topic within each thread. This thread is about "how do linguists define and use these terms". The OP is clear about this. If Aggripina's posts don't engage this issue, then they will be off-topic within this thread (even if they are valuable by any other standards).

No, my replies are not off the topic. They are exactly on topic. You're looking in the wrong place. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you with that. Keep trying to get someone who is a language expert to define something for you, maybe you'll have better luck trying to get a scientist to explain philosophy to you. :roll:

Disclaimer: no offence meant to the linguists reading this thread. I'm in awe of your ability to explain the origins of words. I'm not clever enough to do that. :thumbup: I just don't see the definition of words as falling within the ambit of linguistics. :thumbup: