Useless argument. WARNING: basic semantic theory inside (Recruitment)

by Robot Chickens, Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 16:29 (2575 days ago) @ Korny
edited by Robot Chickens, Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 16:36

And the thing is that it doesn't bother me either, because the idea gets across. 90% of the time, I won't say anything when someone makes a mistake, because it's pure pedantry. I'll catch it, yeah (call it an intuition, lol), but I'll only point it out when doing so would be funny to me, and because I know that it annoys the person that it's directed at.
I used that example because it shows that the whole concept of "intuition" with language is false, because someone who should have that so-called intuition clearly doesn't; while someone who doesn't speak English as their first language, and who (in Kermit's mind) has to "learn" it (because it couldn't possibly develop naturally as a result of their learning of the language itself)... does.

It kills me because I agree with much of what you say, yet you coat your arguments with trollish phrases. You know that you are misrepresenting Kermit here. Kermit has suggested that it's hard to blend into the vernacular of a culture until you've spent time gaining fluency (however you want to describe that). I suck at French. I can speak a bit and convince non-native speakers that I'm decent at it, but I will get instantly recognized by those more familiar with French for stumbling across these pitfalls. I'm pretty sure this is the scenario Kermit had in mind. I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to make a universal rule that suggested non-native english speakers cannot develop fluency or even surpass native speakers.

My bone to pick with Kermit was the suggestion that inside would be indicative of a non-native speaker. There are other logical interpretations that could lead to that usage.

But yeah, this thread has been derailed by dumb excuses like that, as well as misunderstandings about context, when at the end of the day, it's all about a simple concept and perception of what an area is, and the refusal of some people to see things in a broader and more logical manner.

I was with you on this until you said broader and more logical. Systems can have an inherent logic to the users that appears baffling to the outside observer. Inside can be perfectly cromulent to one group and make no sense to another for perfectly valid reasons.

Stubbornness, however, is a different matter. When approached with other valid interpretations, flexibility or compromise should be valued above all.

That being said, I'm surprised you haven't defended stubbornness as a valid expression under the condition that it elicits the lols. :p