Please do not follow me around in different threads and try to police my comments in different contexts, with earlier quotations taken out of context.
I am more than able to reply in a single thread to any objection you want to raise -- so that the narrative of the thread is kept intact and people can follow what each party said.
Also, you can criticise my points and disagree or totally consider them BS, but criticising my commenting, with whatever assumptions you made and didn't check with me (e.g. that I "moved the goalposts") I find rude.
My "simpler" and "less significant" refer to the same criticism. Pretending that I meant "simpler" in some "simpler syntax/tenses" way, and now I've "moved the goalposts" to "less significant" is disingenuous given what I've written in this thread.
I made it absolutely clear from the start of the thread that by "simpler" I meant less significant overall.
I was asked "by which criteria I say it's simpler", and I said "Vocabulary size for one. Applicability in different social contexts. Historical roots. Volumes of works created in it".
And I also extended that reply in follow-up comments, e.g. going on to say that standard english "is a more established language, with a longer history (literals and otherwise), written rules, plethora of books, and billions of speakers the world over. In fact, it was the AAVE that's derived from English and not the other way around. Without English there would be no AAVE. Plus it's also tied to a particular subgroup (and not even for all of its communicational needs)."
Where are those "changing goalposts"? I was talking about a language being less developed (simpler) from the beginning, and I articulated quite clearly what I meant by that, which is the same as the language's general significance, not just as a organized way of talking (syntax/etc) but as a historical/cultural artifacts.
If anything I find the opposing team playing with invisible goalposts, as if only syntax/grammar/etc counts in evaluating a language, that is, as if a language is just some formal linguistic construct, and does not have an associated culture, applications, history, literature, etc.
I guess this is part of the continental divide in thinking about culture.
Please do not follow me around in different threads and try to police my comments in different contexts, with earlier quotations taken out of context.
I am more than able to reply in a single thread to any objection you want to raise -- so that the narrative of the thread is kept intact and people can follow what each party said.
Also, you can criticise my points and disagree or totally consider them BS, but criticising my commenting, with whatever assumptions you made and didn't check with me (e.g. that I "moved the goalposts") I find rude.
My "simpler" and "less significant" refer to the same criticism. Pretending that I meant "simpler" in some "simpler syntax/tenses" way, and now I've "moved the goalposts" to "less significant" is disingenuous given what I've written in this thread.
I made it absolutely clear from the start of the thread that by "simpler" I meant less significant overall.
I was asked "by which criteria I say it's simpler", and I said "Vocabulary size for one. Applicability in different social contexts. Historical roots. Volumes of works created in it".
And I also extended that reply in follow-up comments, e.g. going on to say that standard english "is a more established language, with a longer history (literals and otherwise), written rules, plethora of books, and billions of speakers the world over. In fact, it was the AAVE that's derived from English and not the other way around. Without English there would be no AAVE. Plus it's also tied to a particular subgroup (and not even for all of its communicational needs)."
Where are those "changing goalposts"? I was talking about a language being less developed (simpler) from the beginning, and I articulated quite clearly what I meant by that, which is the same as the language's general significance, not just as a organized way of talking (syntax/etc) but as a historical/cultural artifacts.
If anything I find the opposing team playing with invisible goalposts, as if only syntax/grammar/etc counts in evaluating a language, that is, as if a language is just some formal linguistic construct, and does not have an associated culture, applications, history, literature, etc.
I guess this is part of the continental divide in thinking about culture.