Nominations please, for the all asshole scale

[Lord Jim]

Changing the goal posts to try and make "native" the criteria is just a strawman.....

The only person "word bending" is you Andrew...

Those are just a couple of the reasons I no longer waste my energy even attempting to "debate" this man...

Some others:

No matter how many times you deal with a point he has tried to make he will keep repeating that you haven't....

No matter how many times he evades dealing with a point you have made, he will he will either insist that he has, or (more commonly) keep ignoring the points you raise and just respond with diversions, ad hominem attacks, and strawmen.... (this gets progressively worse when his ass is really nailed to the wall)

He consistently seizes on some minor point in posts making numerous and more important points, ignores the important points and pretends the trivial one is the only thing that was said . (another diversionary tactic)

There are others that I've mentioned before...

It is simply impossible to have an honest or useful debate with someone willing to consistently resort to such tactics. Indeed, the whole reason he behaves this way, is because he really has no interest whatsoever in an "honest debate." He has an entirely different agenda:

The reason he employs these intellectually dishonest, flagrantly sophistic techniques, is because his objective is to simply wear down his interlocutor and get them to "give up" trying to get any where with the discussion. At which point, he can accuse them of "running away" in the face of his brilliant and irrefutable arguments...

I have reached a point in my life, where I simply have no more patience for those sorts of shenanigans. I only have so much energy and time I can devote to this forum, and no longer choose to use it up in death spiral, merry-go-round pseudo debates with characters who have no interest in an honest exchange of points and ideas.

Now I'm going to make a prediction:

After reading this, Andrew will respond by saying :

1.That I am in fact the one who is guilty of everything I have pointed out about him, (I'll let my public record in debate behavior versus his speak for itself on that one)

2.Prove my point by mentioning some issue from some previous discussion we had that I dealt with thoroughly, and then claim I never did

3.and then probably toss in a few additional gratuitous insults for good measure.

Since I won't be reading his response, I'd appreciate it if someone would be so good as to let me know if my predictions turn out to be correct...



T

[Gob]

A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native language by a speech community.

Cornish is learned as a native language by a speech community.

The FIRST language a human being learns to speak is [her or] his native language; he [or she] is a native speaker of that language.

That does not exclude languages learned other than as a first tongue as being a native language.

The person actually running the project says that the project is teaching Cornish as "a second language". Who am I -- and who is anyone else here -- to contradict him?

That does not mean to say that in some homes it is not spoken as a first language, but again, the whole first language issue is a nonsense.

The Fact That Some People Speak Cornish Does Not Mean That Cornish Is Not Dead: If Cornish Is Not Dead, Then Neither Is Sanskrit

If Cornish is used as a living language it cannot be dead. Cornish is fluently spoken by over 300 people, how can it be dead?

But as just quoted, Bloomfield does not equate first language or native language with mother tongue or with arterial language or with L1. He equates first language with native language. Period.

and so;

na·tive
 
adjective
1. being the place or environment in which a person was born or a thing came into being: one's native land.
2.belonging to a person by birth or to a thing by nature; inherent: native ability; native grace.
3.belonging by birth to a people regarded as indigenous to a certain place, especially a preliterate people: Native guides accompanied the expedition through the rain forest.
4.of indigenous origin, growth, or production: native pottery.
5.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the indigenous inhabitants of a place or country: native customs; native dress.

But People Who Take Wikipedia As Reliable Should Consider What Else Wikipedia Says

Nice use of capitals there Andrew. You cannot have it both ways, either Wikipedia is a relevant source or it is not. You choose.

Luanne Hinton and Ken Hale, eds., The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice.

10 years old, Cornish has come a long way in the last decade.

But "would be" and "is," however, are not synonymous. Maybe someday -- and the way things are going, it might well be someday soon -- Cornish will no longer be dead; it will have been resurrected.

Cornish is a native language, alive, and resurrected and used in Cornwall.

[Sean]

I have a problem with the logic of your definitions of dead language, native and first Andrew.

Just because 1 is to 2 what 2 is to 3 it does not automatically follow that 1 is to 3 what 1 is to 2 no matter how much you want it to. Unless of course you can show that the wording of the definitions you quoted is the absolute and definitive wording of those definitions. I would imagine that other dictionaries might differ to various extents...

If I were to take your logic to absurd levels I could state that as a cricket bat is a bat and a bat is a flying mammal then a cricket bat is in fact a flying mammal. This of course would explain why English batsmen often have so much trouble hitting a ball with one.

And it's interesting to learn that the first language of your ancestors was Costanoan.

[Gob]

If I were to take your logic to absurd levels I could state that as a cricket bat is a bat and a bat is a flying mammal then a cricket bat is in fact a flying mammal. This of course would explain why English batsmen often have so much trouble hitting a ball with one.

Not as much as Punter has recently!

[Sean]

After reading this, Andrew will respond by saying :

1.That I am in fact the one who is guilty of everything I have pointed out about him, (I'll let my public record in debate behavior versus his speak for itself on that one)

2.Prove my point by mentioning some issue from some previous discussion we had that I dealt with thoroughly, and then claim I never did

3.and then probably toss in a few additional gratuitous insults for good measure.

Since I won't be reading his response, I'd appreciate it if someone would be so good as to let me know if my predictions turn out to be correct...



T

You forgot one Jim...

4. Challenge you to debate him on a couple of very specific topics.

[Andrew D]

If I were to take your logic to absurd levels I could state that as a cricket bat is a bat and a bat is a flying mammal then a cricket bat is in fact a flying mammal. This of course would explain why English batsmen often have so much trouble hitting a ball with one.

Taking the contrary logic where it's going:

I was born in San Francisco.

San Francisco is in America.

Therefore, I am a Native American.

[Gob]

Taking the contrary logic where it's going:

I was born in San Francisco.

San Francisco is in America.

Therefore, I am a Native American.

That is actually true though;

na·tive
   
adjective
1. being the place or environment in which a person was born or a thing came into being: one's native land.
2. belonging to a person by birth or to a thing by nature; inherent: native ability; native grace.
3. belonging by birth to a people regarded as indigenous to a certain place, especially a preliterate people: Native guides accompanied the expedition through the rain forest.
4. of indigenous origin, growth, or production: native pottery.
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the indigenous

[Andrew D]

I see no demonstration that Cornish is being learned as a first language by anyone.

For the umpteenth time, if being learned as a first language is not required for a living language, then Sanskrit is a living language. Nobody learns it as a first language, but many people are fluent in it -- way, way,way more people than are fluent in Cornish.

So which is it?

Is Cornish dead? Or is Sanskrit alive?

[Sean]

If I were to take your logic to absurd levels I could state that as a cricket bat is a bat and a bat is a flying mammal then a cricket bat is in fact a flying mammal. This of course would explain why English batsmen often have so much trouble hitting a ball with one.

Taking the contrary logic where it's going:

I was born in San Francisco.

San Francisco is in America.

Therefore, I am a Native American.

And yet you have no rebuttal to my actual point.

I'm thinking that you may not in fact be the intellectual collossus you claim to be...

[Andrew D]

Lord Jim left out the main reason why he will no longer debate me:

He is tired of having his arguments eviscerated.

[Lord Jim]

That is actually true though;

That is absolutely true;

Either every person who is born in America is a "native American" or no person is, since homo sapiens did not originally evolve here....

Everyone's ancestors, regardless of race or ethnicity, came from somewhere else....

[Sean]

I see no demonstration that Cornish is being learned as a first language by anyone.

I've already torn a great big hole in this logical fallacy Andrew. Repeating bullshit often enough only makes it true in your own mind, not in the real world.

[quaddriver]

I have a problem with the logic of your definitions of dead language, ...Just because 1 is to 2 what 2 is to 3 it does not automatically follow that 1 is to 3 what 1 is to 2 no matter how much you want it to..

um, you might wanna rephrase that example. Or better yet, use another one.

If A then B
If B then C
therefore if A then C

IS a valid logic construct.

[Andrew D]

I see no demonstration that Cornish is being learned as a first language by anyone.

I've already torn a great big hole in this logical fallacy Andrew. Repeating bullshit often enough only makes it true in your own mind, not in the real world.

If you really believe that, set out your "great big hole" argument in syllogistic form.

Meanwhile, when did "freak" become synonymous with "collossus [sic]"?

[quaddriver]

If I were to take your logic to absurd levels I could state that as a cricket bat is a bat and a bat is a flying mammal then a cricket bat is in fact a flying mammal. .

actually his logic was spot on, using this as an example was bad. There is no connection.

But you should comment on the research, when asked, the source stated that cornish is *not* being taught as a native language but rather a second language. Since the words do have the meaning Andrew researched...Im not seeing much wiggle room here.

Saying it is so, does not make it so. Id like to see your research refuting Andrew.

[Lord Jim]

You forgot one Jim...

4. Challenge you to debate him on a couple of very specific topics.

Well, as George W. Bush so eloquently put it:

"Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice...uh...won't get fooled again"



I'm not going to be drawn into anymore Death Spiral Tangos with him; my dance card is full as far as that's concerned....

[Sean]

I have a problem with the logic of your definitions of dead language, ...Just because 1 is to 2 what 2 is to 3 it does not automatically follow that 1 is to 3 what 1 is to 2 no matter how much you want it to..

um, you might wanna rephrase that example. Or better yet, use another one.

If A then B
If B then C
therefore if A then C

IS a valid logic construct.

Actually Quad, I chose numbers deliberately as they are definitive... rather like words, whereas A, B, and C could be anything. Unless of course you are speaking of them as actual letters rather than fill-ins. In that case I would be interested (as I'm sure would quite a lot of linguists out there) to see you prove that the letter A is the same as the letter C.

Do try and keep up...

[Gob]

But you should comment on the research, when asked, the source stated that cornish is *not* being taught as a native language but rather a second language.

Cornish, the native language of the Cornish people, is being taught in Cornwall the native home of the Cornish people.

[Sean]

I see no demonstration that Cornish is being learned as a first language by anyone.

I've already torn a great big hole in this logical fallacy Andrew. Repeating bullshit often enough only makes it true in your own mind, not in the real world.

If you really believe that, set out your "great big hole" argument in syllogistic form.

Meanwhile, when did "freak" become synonymous with "collossus [sic]"?

I've already set it out in terms I thought would be easy enough for you to understand. Would you like me to put on a puppet show for you?

Meanwhile, when did I claim that 'freak' and 'colossus' were synonymous?
You keep telling us about your vast intellect (vast of course being my word but I don't think you can deny this and stay fashionable) and guess what? Last time I checked 'vast' and 'colossal' were synonymous. Mind you, I wasn't using the 'Andrew D' (D for dictionary) of course...

[quaddriver]

ok, 1 < 2, 2 < 3 and 1 < 3 and in this case logic has nothing to do with it and its still true....

I still say it is going to be hard to prove Cornish is being taught as a native language when the sole source quoted has stated it is NOT being taught as a native language.

the cool thing is, you can call this guy.