Nominations please, for the all asshole scale

[Sean]

Bzzzzzz! Wrong again Quad. < means 'is less than'. We use this symbol to show differences between things. Andrew is trying to show equality between definitions. The symbol you are groping for is = which means 'is equal to'. So unless 1=3 you need to try again.

I'm glad you could learn something here today.

[Gob]

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.

Sole source quoted?

Lts not forget that "native language" is not the dispute here, (though what else could be the native language of Cornwall?) it's whether Cornish has been "resurrected".

It died, it was brought back to life, it is used as a living language, it has been resurrected.

[Sean]

To clarify Quad, if you had said "1 is one less than 2 and 2 is one less than 3" then your logic would have held water. But you didn't so it doesn't.

[Andrew D]

Ah, one must respect the cunning.

Lord Jim takes a preemptive strike. He identifies true things which I could say -- and he knows that they are true -- and then sets the whole thing up.

If I say the true things, he will be able to claim that he somehow "got" me.

If I refrain from saying the true things, he will be able to claim that I had no answer to his assertions.

But what else should we expect from someone who lives a lie every day?

[Gob]

But what else should we expect from someone who lives a lie every day?

What lie?

[quaddriver]

That goal post just moved a wee bit eh?

1 <> 2, 2 <> 3, 1 <> 3 still holds.

Andrew did not state anything that could be represented as equated 1 =2 and 2 =3 and 1 =3 3, in fact in your example, neither did you.

As I said 3 posts ago, that particular argument failed at birth, get a different one. But Id still like to see how when the sole single quoted source said someting 180* opposite of what his 'evidence' was used to prove, proves your point.

I think Andrew quoted this guy rather well and highlighted the words equally as well. You have to address THAT, and ONLY THAT in order to be in scope...

[Andrew D]

I've already set it out in terms I thought would be easy enough for you to understand.

Does that mean that you can't?

Or just that you won't?

[Gob]

Which sole single source Quaddy?

[Sean]

FYI Jim, 1 & 3 were correct in your predictions (except that is was only one rather than a few gratuitous insults but I'll give you the point).

[Sean]

I've already set it out in terms I thought would be easy enough for you to understand.

Does that mean that you can't?

Or just that you won't?

It means that I'm not your teacher Andrew. I've set it out in a way that even Quad nearly understands. I don't jump through hoops for you.

[quaddriver]

It died, it was brought back to life, it is used as a living language, it has been resurrected.

It sounds like (from reading the material) it is used as a novelty langauge. Can one go into Corwall and order at a bar in cornish? Get telephone service installed? File a police report?

THAT would be a living language.

I have a number of tube radios that operate. I even made some operate. I might even sell some of them. Does that mean that tube radio technology has been re-adopted as a standard? Or am I just being quaint?

(sean take note, that example actually works)

[Sean]

That goal post just moved a wee bit eh?

1 <> 2, 2 <> 3, 1 <> 3 still holds.

Andrew did not state anything that could be represented as equated 1 =2 and 2 =3 and 1 =3 3, in fact in your example, neither did you.

As I said 3 posts ago, that particular argument failed at birth, get a different one. But Id still like to see how when the sole single quoted source said someting 180* opposite of what his 'evidence' was used to prove, proves your point.

I think Andrew quoted this guy rather well and highlighted the words equally as well. You have to address THAT, and ONLY THAT in order to be in scope...

*Sigh* First of all Quad, try reading back. I am not disputing anything about Andrew's evidence or research, only that there is a logical fallacy in his joining together of two completely separate dictionary definitions.

PS I don't jump through hoops for you either big boy. Did/could you not read my clarification?

[Gob]

It died, it was brought back to life, it is used as a living language, it has been resurrected.

It sounds like (from reading the material) it is used as a novelty langauge. Can one go into Corwall and order at a bar in cornish? Get telephone service installed? File a police report?

THAT would be a living language.

I have a number of tube radios that operate. I even made some operate. I might even sell some of them. Does that mean that tube radio technology has been re-adopted as a standard? Or am I just being quaint?

(sean take note, that example actually works)

The argument is not "how much is it used," or is it a "living language " (it is) but has it been "resurrected".

Languages and dialects

Cornish
Everyone in Cornwall now speaks English, but the original Celtic language of the area is Cornish (Kernewek). The last native speaker of Cornish was John Davey, who died in 1893. For a while, Cornish was described as a ‘dead’ language, but it has been going through a revival in the last few decades.

Cornish is one of the Brythonic group of Celtic languages (see UK Language Tree). The Cornish language began to develop after the South West Britons of Somerset, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall became linguistically separated from the West Britons of Wales after the Battle of Deorham in 577AD. During the following centuries, the Celtic tribes of the South West were pushed back into Cornwall by the Anglo-Saxons, who invaded England from Europe. In fact, the ‘wall’ in the name ‘Cornwall’ comes from the Anglo-Saxon term meaning ‘foreigners’.

The Cornish language continued to flourish throughout the Middle Ages, reaching a peak of about 39,000 speakers in the 13th century. However, the number of Cornish speakers is thought to have declined after that. The revival of Cornish began in 1904, when Henry Jenner published his book Handbook of the Cornish Language. Even though the language was described as ‘dead’ towards the end of the 20th century, its revival has resulted in 2,000 people now being fluent in it (as per a survey in 2008).

Many Cornish language textbooks and works of literature have been published over the decades. Recent developments include Cornish music, independent films and children's books, a small number of children in Cornwall have been brought up to be bilingual native speakers, and the language is taught in many schools.

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/uk-la ... south-west

And for teh third time; which "single source" are you referring too?

[Sean]

It died, it was brought back to life, it is used as a living language, it has been resurrected.

It sounds like (from reading the material) it is used as a novelty langauge. Can one go into Corwall and order at a bar in cornish? Get telephone service installed? File a police report?

THAT would be a living language.

Then you shouldn't have any problems walking into a Cornish bar and telling the locals that theirs is a "novelty language" should you Quad?

I have a number of tube radios that operate. I even made some operate. I might even sell some of them. Does that mean that tube radio technology has been re-adopted as a standard? Or am I just being quaint?

(sean take note, that example actually works)

Brilliant! This from the man who claimed that:

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

IS a valid logic construct.

Too fucking easy!

[Andrew D]

Lts not forget that "native language" is not the dispute here ....

"Native language" is exactly the dispute here.

You claim that Cornish "is being used as a living language".

I do not dispute that Cornish is being used. (So is Sanskrit.)

The issue is precisely "native language," because, yet again:

dead language
n.
A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a NATIVE LANGUAGE by a speech community.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.)

(Emphasis added.)

I have adduced direct evidence that "native language" and "first language" are synonymous. You do not appear to be claiming that anyone is being taught Cornish as a first language. You do not appear to be disputing that a language no longer learned as a native language is a dead language.

So that leaves as the only option: A language can be someone's "native language" without being that person's "first language".

Either that, or you are claiming that Cornish has been resurrected but is still dead.

[Sean]

I have adduced direct evidence that "native language" and "first language" are synonymous.

Wow! So if I've got this straight, sticking one's fingers in one's ears and saying "Nery nery, I can't hear you!" is a valid debating technique amongst the super-duper- intelligent...

[Gob]

I have adduced direct evidence that "native language" and "first language" are synonymous. You do not appear to be claiming that anyone is being taught Cornish as a first language. You do not appear to be disputing that a language no longer learned as a native language is a dead language.

So that leaves as the only option: A language can be someone's "native language" without being that person's "first language".

Either that, or you are claiming that Cornish has been resurrected but is still dead.

I have shown that Cornish is a living language, one which died out, and was then resurrected.

You asked "which language has been resurrected?"

Cornish has.

[BoSoxGal]

Wampanoag has, too.

[Gob]

The way around this observation is to locate the criterion of identity in something else. The criterion that suggests itself is the mutual intelligibility of utterances to speakers. This move draws in political and pragmatic considerations. Obviously appealing to the effect of utterances on speakers presupposes identity criteria for speakers and groups of speakers. If we have random groups of speakers, there’s not much chance that anything resembling a language as we know it will emerge. But speakers helpfully group themselves politically as Welsh or Cornish or … and so on. If we take the identities of the groups as politically determined, then utterances belong to the same language when they mutually intelligible to speakers of the same group. Or better, two token utterances belong to the same language when they belong to a sequence of utterances that preserves a continuity of mutual intelligibility over time among members of a group.

On this version of the ‘corpus picture’ then, Cornish counts as going extinct and then being resurrected because there is a group of people who identify as a distinctive Cornish group, and there is mutual intelligibility among the members of the group. They all understand the Cornish utterances. In particular, I take it as a necessary condition on the success of the resurrection project that if an 18th Century native speaker of Cornish were somehow transported to the present day, they could converse without difficulty with people who claim to speak Cornish now. The per force hypothetical intelligibility to one of the earlier speakers of Cornish is what allows us to say that it is the same Cornish the modern group is speaking.

http://kenanddot.wordpress.com/2009/08/ ... languages/

[Andrew D]

I have adduced direct evidence that "native language" and "first language" are synonymous.

Wow! So if I've got this straight, sticking one's fingers in one's ears and saying "Nery nery, I can't hear you!" is a valid debating technique amongst the super-duper- intelligent...

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.

(Leonard Bloomfield, Language, page 43 (italics in original, boldface and capitalization added).)

I did not make that up either. That is Wikipedia's own cited source.

Does the phrase "direct evidence" ring any bells at all?