zompist bboard
http://www.incatena.org/

Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2
http://www.incatena.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35088
Page 33 of 33

Author:  Vijay [ Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2

Quick and dirty summary of something that's been happening on a comment thread about Romani on r/serbia:

Troll: Gypsies don't even have their own language or script; they just speak everybody else's languages.
Serbian dude: Of course they have their own language, dumbass. They just speak different varieties of it.
Troll: Well, if they have all these varieties, then how is that a language?! Do you think Serbian, German, etc. have so many varieties?
Me: Yes. (lists a few varieties of each of the other languages he mentioned)
Troll: But those are dialects! Those don't have anything to do with languages. They have to do with the weather!

Author:  mèþru [ Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jclPWidTfak

Author:  Vijay [ Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2

Oh, I know. (Well, sort of. They seem to like arguing with trolls over there until they're left tongue-tied). It's funny to me that he thinks dialects have to do with the weather, though.

Author:  Imralu [ Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2

sigh

Author:  jal [ Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2

Imralu wrote:

Though the articles title is nonsense, the article itself has little to do with quakery?


JAL

Author:  Imralu [ Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2

Dunno ...
Quote:
He discovered that some 16 languages spoken in the Himalayan state of Himachal Pradesh have 200 words for snow alone - some of them ornately descriptive like "flakes falling on water", or "falling when the moon is up".

... that sounds like utter crap. "Flakes falling on water" is hardly a word for "snow alone" any more than "light powder" is.

Author:  jal [ Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2

Imralu wrote:
that sounds like utter crap. "Flakes falling on water" is hardly a word for "snow alone" any more than "light powder" is.

It does, but that's not his own narrative. He might very well have describe the extensive vocabulary or expressiveness of certain languages with regards to their surrounding, and the writer thought "cool, more terms for snow than eskimos have!" and ran with that.


JAL

Author:  Vijay [ Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2

Imralu wrote:

OMG my brother was just telling me about that article! I didn't realize it was this well-known. I was in the kitchen with him and my dad, and while my brother was telling me about it, my dad was telling him (about me), "See, he's not impressed at all." I told him about how sometimes, languages aren't endangered when there's nobody around to threaten the language, basically (and of course I immediately laughed at this 200-words-for-snow deal).

Author:  Imralu [ Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2

jal wrote:
Imralu wrote:
that sounds like utter crap. "Flakes falling on water" is hardly a word for "snow alone" any more than "light powder" is.

It does, but that's not his own narrative. He might very well have describe the extensive vocabulary or expressiveness of certain languages with regards to their surrounding, and the writer thought "cool, more terms for snow than eskimos have!" and ran with that.

Ah, yeah, less an example of quackery and more an example of a journalist writing a piece about something they have no idea about.

Author:  Frislander [ Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2

This thing

I mean it's not really bad or anything in and of itself but man are they inconsistent with their definition of rare; their list includes everything from Welsh to Pirahã, and the have Xhosa (native speakerbase approximately 8 million) as an honourable mention! Also how they completely mince terminology like it doesn't matter.

At least it's not as bad as some of their other videos on languages.

Author:  mèþru [ Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2

WatchMojo isn't really good at talking about anything besides movies, comics and tv.

Author:  jal [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2

Frislander wrote:
I mean it's not really bad or anything in and of itself but man are they inconsistent with their definition of rare

It's more like linguistic ignorance...


JAL

Author:  Vijay [ Thu May 10, 2018 10:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Linguistic Quackery Thread, take 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXQCgtKTmzY

Page 33 of 33 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/