Re: Are "semi-creoles" widespread?

Darkstar wrote:
On Aug 30, 8:12 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:02:48 -0700, Darkstar
<darkstar...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:1188457368.390504.5300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:

[...]

You seem to be very interested in arguing about minutiae
and looking for other people's faults.
There's nothing to argue about: I'm simply pointing out your
errors.

No you're not. To point out an error is to correct it and offer a
certain (often very complex) argumentation to support your view. It
take CONSTRUCTIVE position from both sides. While you're just stupidly
repeating wrong-wrong-wrong-error-error-error.

If you said a dog was a cat, you would be wrong. There wouldn't be anything to argue about. That's the way it generally goes with defined terms, particularly terms of art.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are "semi-creoles" widespread?
    ... and looking for other people's faults. ... There's nothing to argue about: I'm simply pointing out your ... teach your students or something. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Are "semi-creoles" widespread?
    ... and looking for other people's faults. ... There's nothing to argue about: I'm simply pointing out your ... I know the basics. ...
    (sci.lang)