Re: I need help explaining basic linguistic concepts to a lay person


><jayne.kulikauskas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:1138059039.407470.137320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
(snip)

>Jayne wrote:
> But, in this case, you clearly don't have enough background knowledge
> to assess the relative merits of what people are saying.

I can look at the justifications they are using to support their ideas.
This gives me a "quick study" as to their thinking about whatever topic is
at hand, especially if they're using a language that I can actually
understand. For example, I won't involve myself in a physics debate, nor
will I involve myself in computer programming debates. However, if I can
understand the lingo, I'll get involved. You'll also note that I'm not
involving myself in some of the other threads within sci.lang. There is a
reason for that. I know when I can involve myself and when not to.

>Using what
> makes sense to you as your criterion is not working. You are making a
> fool of yourself.

Jayne, you can think of me as that fool however much you want. You're
hardly the kind of person I would go out of my way to impress. What is
important to me is how I think about myself. And I don't think of myself as
a fool. So, that ad hominen is wasted on me. Why do you even bother?

As for sci.ling members, I have read *some* foolishness on the part of
*some* linguists participating in this forum. I don't have this pressing
need to point out those fools and neither do I have this pressing need to
shame them. I can leave fools alone.


>
> In order to get a PhD one must be an authority on something.

Yes, some have earned a PhD in bullsh*t, while others who have PhD's may
indeed be considered bright and enlightened ones, experts in their fields.
There are very precious few of those around.

Heidi



.

Relevant Pages