Have you ever attacked someone for having a different opinion?

[Revi]

Oh... well if thats your argument then fair enough. But it doesn't stop people from sighing at the uneducated masses who misunderstood how english works and broke a word hard enough for it to have to change.

- Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s
- Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech
- George Weinberg is a Manhattan psychotherapist with a doctorate in clinical psychology from Columbia University, a Masters Degree in English from New York University, and advanced training in mathematical statistics. He has written twelve books and is published in twenty-three languages. He has also written for popular and professional journals, and for television.

Ah, silly uneducated masses....

Admittedly, he used it to mean dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals. He used it about some of his teachers who were so "phobic" about homosexuality that they judged it reasonable to torture homosexuals by treatments such as electric shock in the belief that this would cure them.

[Deleted]

The irony of this post for me right now...lol... Thanks I really needed to read this. So I can force myself out of this debate with people who would see the ruin of a language for no apparent reason but defence of the uneducated.

Irony doesn't mean what you think it means, that's a coincidence.

[Deleted]

Link to his work please so I can read how he came to the conclusion that latin suffixes have a loophole in the intended functionality of them which led him to this conclusion.

You have his name, and he's published twelve damn books.

[Deleted]

Read 12 books to find where it is he speaks on this issue and how he came to this specific conclusion about language? Whatever. It dosnt matter. In 15 years people will be speaking ebonics instead of english and the "english professors" of the world will welcome as the new standard with open arms because you know... Politics. Fuck this planet, seriously.

I like that you've such an insular view of language, it's nice to get a perspective so warped from reality.

[Kasierith]

I remember the day I impaled a doctor with an IV stand to illustrate my argument for gentamycin over levaquin.

But in all seriousness, no. Demonizing and harming others is going a bit far for someone having a different opinion than myself. If they were actively attempting to force said view upon me in some manner, like actively attempting to pass a law forcing their religious bias on me as opposed to those of the individual's faith, that's different. But people are entitled to their own miserable opinions.

[Orange Joe]

/eats popcorn


What an interesting thread.

[Kasierith]

/eats popcorn


What an interesting thread.

No! It's not an interesting thread!

/hits popcorn away

[Deleted]

I guess people who believe in the rules are an archaic dieing breed. This new feel good society you want to live in will be a blast im sure. Oh just say whatever you want dont bother to properly educate yourself on why things are the way they are. Im ok with being a relic in this area then. Sorry I belive in order and structure. The rules existed for a reason and I think that suffix/prefix was one of the greatest gifts Latin has given us. Sorry that it pains me so much to see it cheapened to this level.

Because language has only evolved recently .

By the by, the "classical" suffixes you reference do not come exclusively from Latin. They're Greek and Latin, and the rules governing their usage are not unique to Latin by any measure. I don't know why you're of the thinking that they come from Latin exclusively.

Good talking to you, hope you learned some shit.

[Deleted]

Btw you claim to know what linguists feel on this issue.

Educate your self.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innateness-language/

Its a bit long but ill give you a hint. They agree with me.

Actually, they would probably tell you that generative linguistics is an outdated school of thought and that the concept of innateness, as it pertains to modern linguistics, has largely been consigned to the history books. Fuck Chomsky.
They would also probably tell you that the semantic value of any given morphological unit tends to evolve and expand with time, and that their meaning is not necessarily readily apparent — e.g. I've seen people claim that English isn't a logical language because the prefix 'de-' can mean two entirely different things.

No! It's not an interesting thread!

/hits popcorn away

*alert*alert* Science-y person detected, better run away before Spectral comes in here to bash les humanités.

[Tziva]

I asked folks twice to stay on topic, and that didn't happen and we're pages and pages off the rails now.

Closing.