/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16418620]

EVERY SINGLE BOOK I'M READING FOR COLLEGE IS ABOUT RACISM AND SEXISM AND HOMOPHOBIA

I'm not racist sexist or homophobe I just do not give TWO FUCKS about humanities or politics in the slightest I just want to autistically study proto-languages.

[Anonymous No.16418627]

>>16418620
What is your major?

[Anonymous No.16418639]

WELCOME TO COLLEGE
YOU'RE HERE FOR THREE YEARS (BUT YOUR DEBTS ARE FOREVER)

[Anonymous No.16418652]

>>16418627
English

[Anonymous No.16418658]

Yep that's how it is nowadays. Nobody did anything about it at the critical time.

At least there will be significant backlash in 10 years.

[Anonymous No.16418666]

>>16418652
Kek. You fucked yourself then, buckaroo. It doesn’t really ever get better.

[Anonymous No.16418667]

>>16418620
sucks to be a burger

[Anonymous No.16418681]

>>16418620
Privatising universities was a fucking huge mistake we will never recover from.

[Anonymous No.16418684]

>>16418652
If you're interested in historical linguistics, you should major in linguistics. Just stay away from sociolinguistics. It's a garbage subdiscipline filled with garbage people.

[Anonymous No.16418714]

>>16418652
>English
F

[Anonymous No.16418739]

>>16418667
As if it's different elsewhere

[Anonymous No.16418746]

>>16418620
I'm Canadian and my American English course was full of the classics, Frost, William Carlos Williams, Hemingway, Twain, Willa Cather and it was taught by a middle-aged white woman. My British English course was taught by a Scotsman and it was also basically entirely by white Brits about white Brits except Kazuo Ishiguro. probably will never happen again, sad.

[Anonymous No.16418762]

>>16418746
Nice

[Anonymous No.16418764]

>>16418652
>majoring in English
For your own sake I hope you're trolling

[Anonymous No.16418815]

>>16418684
My backwater community college doesn't offer linguistics

[Anonymous No.16418891]

>>16418620
I have only had this experience in the gen ed English class that everyone is forced to take. All my other English classes have been poggers.

[Anonymous No.16418909]

Woke.

[Anonymous No.16418915]

>>16418652
Luckily I received my comp lit degree before all the departments became bastions of shitlib politics

[Anonymous No.16418918]

>>16418620
>I just want to autistically study proto-languages.
what the fuck is a protolanguage?

[Anonymous No.16418928]

>>16418620
I too wish for college education to never make me examine systemic issues in society. Obviously, an education should focus on pure ideas solidified by dominant power structures.

[Anonymous No.16418935]

>>16418652
Get out immediately, it doesn't get better. Transfer to anthropology or linguistics itself.

[Anonymous No.16418936]

>>16418918
Prehistoric language. Proto-Indo-European and such.

[Anonymous No.16418943]

>>16418928
They would've been better off teaching you not to split infinitives.

[Anonymous No.16418945]

>>16418815
That sucks. Are you any good at math? There's some good money in computational linguistics; you could study comp sci or math early on, and then go back for a comp ling masters, and you'd skip out entirely on the bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16418963]

>>16418620
majoring in a language you already speak :/

[Anonymous No.16418981]

>>16418936
cool, have you started? do you know why ancient languages seem more complex than modern languages? did we turn retarded?

[Anonymous No.16418987]

>>16418936
cool, we will need people like you to revive the Vedic tradition

[Anonymous No.16418996]

Woke.

[Anonymous No.16419010]

>>16418963
it's the closest thing to linguistics my college offers. I've studied latin, french, and OE quite extensively actually but unfortunately my uni doesn't offer anything related to them besides french.

[Anonymous No.16419013]

>>16418928
>an education should focus on pure ideas
Yes, this is correct you filthy god damn discord tranny.

[Anonymous No.16419026]

>>16418981
>did we turn retarded?
Yes lmao
>t. not OP

[Anonymous No.16419039]

Are you woke yet?

[Anonymous No.16419040]

>>16418620
>I'm not racist sexist or homophobe
then shut the fuck up you gay faggot

[Anonymous No.16419555]

>>16418928
>universities should exist to further my political agenda
Hey man, at least you're honest about it.

[Anonymous No.16420217]

>>16418943
>Using latin grammar rules for a non-romance language. K.

[Anonymous No.16420233]

>>16418620
Sounds fucking horrible.

Every story about seismic, racism, homophobia whatever all play out the same. It's a super fucking boring genre.

[Anonymous No.16420271]

>>16419013
Haven't gotten the surgery yet. Call me in a year though ;)

[Anonymous No.16420286]

>>16418652

I highly recommend you switch your major unless your family has money or a business you can rely on. You're metaphorically taking a few steps back from the start line with that major.

[Anonymous No.16420290]

>>16418652
OH NONONONO AHAHAHAHA STEMBROS THIS CAN'T BE REAL

[Anonymous No.16420326]

>>16420286
>I highly recommend you switch your major
to what?

[Anonymous No.16420478]

>>16420326
CS is good money and if you're interested in languages, there are subfields for language analysis.

[Anonymous No.16420691]

>>16418652
I had this same ree when I first started studying English.
The point of all this social justice stuff isn't to disabuse you of any racism or whatever. You're studying English so everyone already assumes you're a fag.
The point is to understand how context shapes perception, and thus writing. Everything is interrelated in writing, and just telling you this will not let you understand the profundity of a contextual understanding. Once you've internalised this frame, you have an ability to "step out" of your own experience of reading a text and understand things better. It's a way to examine subjectivity. You're learning the discipline, not individual writers or literary traditions. The assumption is that you'll take this skill and use it to go onto grad school and apply it to something more specialised, or (more likely) use it read books while you live out the rest of your days working as a barista.
You accomplish this by studying a broad range of writing from across time, culture, and circumstance. And in the context of today, that of course means giving attention to women and black people etc etc. That's naturally uncomfortable because it sounds like affirmative action (plus social justice shit is extremely tiresome at this point), but there are actually plenty of very good writers who aren't wh*te men.
You probably had particular books you wanted to study, and it is a shame you can't just do that, but this approach will help you understand the books you're actually interested in.
People who don't understand this are doomed to see books as either good or bad, the kind of dumb shitposting you see on here. Calling someone a pseud because they like a particular author, that kind of thing.
Also, you picked the wrong subject if you dislike politics. English naturally can go into any area of human experience, and so politics and history and philosophy are inextricably linked to the subject.
All of this will help you understand how retarded most of the people ITT are. There's no such thing as a methodology for studying English that doesn't contain "an agenda". This shit is as close to a neutral frame as possible, it's the state of the art.

[Anonymous No.16420737]

>>16420691
Fellow English grade, highly disagree. The focus on context over content has led to a strong deficit in understanding canonical writers. Most students leave college knowing Morrison, Carter, Atwood, and Butler (who are varying levels of fine) but leave painfully ignorant of Dickens, Shakespeare, Joyce, and Milton. Not to mention that when the focus is on classical authors, the focus shifts from "good or bad book" to "good or problematic book".

[Anonymous No.16420759]

>>16418739
a relative of mine graduated in english a couple of years ago
she did her thesis on the plays of t s eliot, not mbugu mwanga's kill whitey books
so yes, it is still different elsewhere

[Anonymous No.16420771]

>>16420691
>wh*te
yeah i'm sure your opinions about this aren't motivated by resentment at all lmao

[Anonymous No.16420781]

>>16418928
>college courses should be leftist woke shit instead of teaching the actual subject

Go fuck yourself fag, you're exactly what's wrong with the world right now.

[Anonymous No.16420782]

>>16420691
>There's no such thing as a methodology for studying English that doesn't contain "an agenda". This shit is as close to a neutral frame as possible, it's the state of the art.
If that were true it would offer a version that criticized its own anti-racist, antisexist, anti-colonialist etc. frame as so much more ideology that colours context.

[Anonymous No.16420797]

Take your medicine, goy.

[Anonymous No.16420806]

>>16420737
Maybe my school wasn't as bad, because we studied none of the former and all of the latter.
But I don't totally disagree, there's no focus with this approach. Even if you do cover canonical stuff, it's hard to really go in depth. I do feel quite ignorant.
>"good or problematic book"
I kind of feel like the focus on context deliberately avoids this problem. "It was a different time" is the whole point.
Maybe it's because I'm in the UK, I can see Americans being insanely neurotic and annoying with social justice stuff.

>>16420771
That was a joke, anon. All my favourite writers are white, don't panic.

[Anonymous No.16420812]

>>16420691
>The point is to understand how context shapes perception, and thus writing.
No. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.16420817]

>>16420691
holy cope

[Anonymous No.16420822]

Should've taken the classics pill. Imagine studying contemporary lit that trojan horses tranny shit.

[Anonymous No.16420830]

>>16420806
Hate to say it, but I think your college was much better than an average American one. Mine was in the American southwest (not California though), and wasn't an especially liberal college, yet the classes all had a distinct focus on "the patriarchy" whenever dealing with a "dead white guy". Hell, I remember my English Survey teacher interrupted teaching Chaucer's Wife of Bath section to have a round-table discussion about Trump winning the election. She cried and said she was worried that since she was a lesbian someone would kill her daughter "now that people know hatred is acceptable" lmao.

[Anonymous No.16420835]

>>16420691
Your post got 5 seething (you)s, you musta said something right. Based and context pilled.

[Anonymous No.16420836]

>>16418620
Take the anthropill, you may actually end up those things

[Anonymous No.16420950]

>>16418681
>Privatising
without privatising all would be the same, priavate universities allow diversity of thought

[Anonymous No.16420988]

>>16418928
black crime and anti white racism are systemic issues...so are people like you, lets figure out a solution together, shall we?

[Anonymous No.16421014]

>>16420782
You don't understand. It can apply it's criticism to itself just fine. The anti-racism content emerges out of this particular time in culture. The lens is ABOVE racism and anti-racism, it's just that the consensus right now is anti-racist, so the content will be a product of that.
If a LENS was explicitly racist or anti-racist, then it wouldn't have the property of being able to see itself.

>>16420830
Patriarchal and patriarchy are words that got used for sure, but that sounds fucking insane honestly. I'm not going to pretend my school was centrist or anything, this whole approach has its origins in marxism I guess, but it wasn't hysterical or preachy about it. I'm just guessing here, but maybe being closer to marxist origins helped keep it a bit more academic. I would assume American unis were more traditional until around the 90s when this stuff appeared as like, an outgrowth of liberal feminism more than anything else.

>>16420950
lol

[Anonymous No.16421399]

>>16418684
Is philology still a widespread major at major schools? Because that would suit historical linguistics quite well, should OP transfer.

[Anonymous No.16421744]

>>16418620
>racism, sexism, homophobia
>politics
I think the word you're looking for is "decency."

[Anonymous No.16421745]

>>16418652
Man you should have seen this coming. Colleges are already thoroughly screwed up, with the arts the worst of it. You would gain more by reading the classics, then posting a thread to /lit/ and /pol/ for "analysis". It wouldn't be any good, especially the /pol/ one, but it's free, unlike the English courses.

[Anonymous No.16421773]

>>16420822
IMMO VERO, LATINITATEM DISCO IAM COMPLVRES ANNOS SED EHEV! LVDVS MEVS INFELICITER NON OFFERT STVDIA CLASSICA.

[Anonymous No.16422119]

>>16420988
Nah

[Anonymous No.16422183]

>>16421014
>he lens is ABOVE racism and anti-racism, it's just that the consensus right now is anti-racist, so the content will be a product of that.
So it's not above it at all lmao. it can't criticize its own ideology for one second. Jesus did you even read what you wrote there?

[Anonymous No.16422194]

This is exactly why I'm racist. They turned contrarians into racists. I hope they're happy, lol. Niggers.

[Anonymous No.16422206]

>>16420217
It's not a grammar rule in latin, it's a construction syntactically impossible in the language.

[Anonymous No.16422253]

>>16420737
I'm an English major faggot and we just read canon works and are supposed to look at them from an SJW POV. OP just goes to shit school. It's a stupid major though

[Anonymous No.16422255]

>>16422206
Only according to 19th century prescriptivists. The inflected infinitive couldn't be split in Old English because it was essentially a gerund declined in the dative case. For example, Old English "Iċ cume to seonne" actually means something like "I come for seeing".

When declension was discarded in Middle English this entire paradigm collapsed so it's retarded to hold Modern English to the same grammatical rules.

[Anonymous No.16422276]

>>16418620
Most of your profs are giddy over a biden presidency. Don't worry it cant be nearly as radical as it should be.

[Anonymous No.16422279]

>>16422255
That same argument could be used against every grammatical rule

[Anonymous No.16422289]

>>16422255
also german uses a suffix for infinitives as well, so being non-romance shouldn't be a reason

[Anonymous No.16422335]

Imagine not going to a Catholic university where the sole bias is perpetually BTFO of protties.

[Anonymous No.16422422]

>>16420759
>mbugu mwanga's kill whitey books
KEK

[Anonymous No.16422438]

>>16418928
>college courses should make you pay them to shove propaganda down your throat or into your eyes.
you are a retard

[Anonymous No.16422564]

>>16422335
Based Spanishbro

[Anonymous No.16422700]

>>16418652
Well done nigga, you've gonna get a shitload of debt for a subject where you'll get a low income debt. The STEM only meme is true

[Anonymous No.16423206]

>>16420759
>she did her thesis on the plays of t s eliot
You get to choose that.

[Anonymous No.16423280]

>had to take an honors class in Supernatural Studies
>they brought in a couple who were like clairvoyant or something
>they had one student draw pictures while another student sat and watched them
>the other person had to guess what the drawing was from psychic inference
>almost nobody got it right, but the clairvoyant couple would draw these dubious connections between things and show how they actually were related to the picture
>one pair guessed the correct thing and the couple made a big deal of it.

There was this English class where this girl talked about how she loves collecting guitar pedals, and then I saw her playing at an underground show, and I whispered to my female friend, "She was in my English class!" and then she stopped everything and said, "Who said that?" and she recognized me. Then she started flirting with my friend while I couldn't think of anything to say.

[Anonymous No.16423302]

>I'm not racist sexist or homophobe I just do not give TWO FUCKS
Cringe you deserve what you got

[Anonymous No.16423332]

>>16421773
Latin is SOV

[Anonymous No.16423948]

>>16418928
>the basic concept of good ideas will eventually win over bad ideas with time, education and spreading knowledge
>THATS NOT TRUE THATS NOT HOW REALITY WORKS. I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT , B-BECAUSE MY IDEAS ARENT SHIT, THEY JUST (insert overused excuse that has been meme'd to death). ITS ALL P-POWER, YEA YOU ARE JUST (insert non related attributes) AND MY IDEOLOGY IS BEING OPPRESSED. FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU

[Anonymous No.16423955]

>>16420691
but why anon, a book can be used to explain some idea or thought. rotting your brain by focusing months on the "context" will just make lose your fucking mind and go post(modern)al

[Anonymous No.16423965]

>>16418652
Never seen a more pathetic way to waste that significant an amount of money. Unless you want to teach English--in which case just get an AA and get certified, saving 10s of thousands of $--you're a bonafide dumbass.

[Anonymous No.16424437]

>>16422183
The content and the lens are not the same thing. You literally haven't understood what I'm saying. The ideology is not anti-racist, the ideology can criticise anti-racism the same way it criticises racism. But the way of teaching the ideology, at the moment, uses case studies that happen to be anti-racist. Criticism in this case just means something like "inspection" not saying that something is bad or incorrect.
it just doesn't criticise in the way you might want, because your criticism might involve certain presuppositions, for example that black people are genetically inferior. Well the ideology I'm talking about doesn't rely on those things, it cares about "what things exist in the world that would give rise to this worldview", and doesn't care about whether or not the worldview is correct.

>>16423955
Because this helps you understand different texts. To you, engaging with a text might mean engaging with their arguments, this is wrong because x y and z. That's all very well and good and I encourage that, but that isn't what we are trying to do in the subject. We're trying to understand the text, trying to thoughrally explain it. What does it say, how does it say it, why does it say it. Not "I disagree with this". Reading something and studying it is different.
>lose your fucking mind and go post(modern)al
We're all already postmodern subjects anon. That shit is descriptive.

[Anonymous No.16424477]

My gf did enough bitching in moaning during college couldn't imagine getting graded on my reaction to it

[Anonymous No.16424525]

>>16421744
Oh look, it’s a leftist who believes his politics are aren’t political and his ideology isn’t ideological.

[Anonymous No.16424975]

Change major to STEM, if you're not into that, then get into sales of some kind.

Read books in your free time. University will not expand your thinking and help you write better books or interpret life in a more objective way, real-life experience will.

[Anonymous No.16425022]

>>16418652
Should have taken Linguistics. Shame.

[Anonymous No.16425949]

>>16423332
That's only a general trend, there was no hard rule for it.

[Anonymous No.16425958]

>>16418652
dumbass

[Anonymous No.16425960]

>>16425958
What the FUCK is so dumb about it? Being a teacher is comfy.

[Anonymous No.16425968]

>>16418928
hell yeah, long live the revolution (sponsored by google, apple, CNN, the new york times, the democratic party, facebook and the washington post)

[Anonymous No.16425977]

>>16425960
Is it?

[Anonymous No.16425995]

>>16425977
Yeah.

[Anonymous No.16426008]

>>16418928
What systemic racism specifically? Are you for the dismantling of AA? Getting rid of race-based scholarships? Banning racial quotas? Etc. etc.

If you're being honest, then you'll say yes, but I get the terrible feeling you're being aesthetic in your approach.

[Anonymous No.16426021]

NIGGERS
I
G
G
E
R
S

[Anonymous No.16426039]

>>16426008
>What systemic racism specifically?
It's denial that genetics can affect intelligence and human behavior. If you operate on the religious foundation that all humans are exactly identical blank slates with no inherent genetic differences, then "systemic racism" becomes the only explanation for why some races are more successful than others. None of this applies to jews though, however. They're more successful because they are more intelligent and hard working than the rest of us. Everyone else however is identical in every way. Men and women don't even exist. They're just arbitrary identities we choose to express ourselves through. Welcome to the future, bigot.

[Anonymous No.16426067]

>>16426039
>RESPECT SCIENCE, CHUD!
>IF A MAN CUTS HIS DICK OFF HE BECOMES A WOMAN!

[Anonymous No.16426119]

>>16418981
Not all of them are more complex, but mostly it's because of path of least resistance + languages like PIE are insanely complex.

[Anonymous No.16426200]

>>16418987
Underrated. All modern languages have sanskrit roots. Few people today are aware of how similar ancient greek is to sanskrit. All modern religions branched off from the vedas as well. The Buddha's religion wasn't "Buddhism", it was Santana Dharma, and Dharma is what he taught. Zoroastrianism comes from the Zend Avesta which wad written in a language extremely similar to sanskrit, from descendants of aryan yogis who migrated into Iran. And here's the real kicker: the original word for the "wise men" from the "east" (Iran) who visited Christ's birth was actually "magi". Magi is the title for holy men of the Zoroastrian faith, which evolved as a simplification of Santana Dharma. Where did Christ go for the 17-18 years missing from the Bible? "From whence cometh his wisdom?", people would often say in response to Christ's teachings. It comes from Zoroastrianism, which comes from Dharma. All religions come from the vedic traditions of Sanatana Dharma, and all languages came from Sanskrit.

I challenge you all to explore these connections in your own time. The only perceived incompatibilities between the core themes of Christianity and Sanatana Dharma are simply results of our own piss poor translations and interpretations. Time is not linear, and the soul is immortal. There is no difference between the concepts of reincarnation and the concepts of heaven and hell once you understand this. Christ's offer of grace is identical to Krishna's, and the core values of their teachings were identical. I wish I wasn't alone in understanding this. There's no need to fight over religion when you realize they're all just different ways of trying to understand and describe the same shit.

[Anonymous No.16426212]

>>16426119
>Not all of them are more complex
interesting, examples? could it be that those ancient less complex languages come from degraded forms of even more complex, more ancient languages?

[Anonymous No.16426227]

>>16418620
Have you seen Leonard Bernstein’s lecture on the universality of music? He attempts to use Noamian concepts applied to music. He has some pretty cool ideas, like saying every child knows the tune “na na na na na” being the first third and fifth tones of a major scale. I think it’s worth looking into because language and music were probably closely related in early humans.

[Anonymous No.16426234]

>>16418620
>be non-american
>be non-anglo
>life is good in every concievable way

[Anonymous No.16426236]

>>16426227
The tune children use to tease eachother***

[Anonymous No.16426240]

>>16426200
>PIE is not real

[Anonymous No.16426241]

>>16418652
what's wrong with english? can't he become a hs teacher or something

[Anonymous No.16426252]

>>16426240
I know, genetics aren't real. See:
>>16426039
God I fucking LOVE SCIENCE.

[Anonymous No.16426261]

>>16426212
>could it be that those ancient less complex languages come from degraded forms of even more complex, more ancient languages?
Yes obviously, but we can only reconstruct back to the last common ancestor of all the attested languages in a language family. For IE languages that's PIE. But PIE didn't just spring out of the ground, there are tens of thousands of years of language change we know nothing about and never will, barring the possibility we decipher some hitherto unknown descendant language and establish an IE ancestry like Hittite in the early 20th century.

[Anonymous No.16426330]

>>16426212
Languages don't really degrade, since the only standard is communicability. Languages usually become more complex in another area when they lose complexity in one area, as well. It is possible that pre-PIE or some other (proto-)-language was even more complex inflectionally or something similar, but it is not really possible to reconstruct that far into the past. Some languages are also quite "conservative". Eg. Chinese has been becoming more complex for a long time, Finno-Ugric tongues, etc.

>>16426227
Onomatopeias are not universally the same

[Anonymous No.16426459]

>>16426330
>Languages don't really degrade, since the only standard is communicability
sounds like how a degraded society would cope desu

[Anonymous No.16426467]

>>16426261
yes, just curious why language would start complex and then "simplify" later. maybe we are just more retarded than golden age humanity

[Anonymous No.16426488]

>>16426459
Perhaps, but it is true nonetheless.

>>16426467
How do you know they were complex at the start? The oldest proto-languages barely dip into linguistic prehistory. It's most likely cyclical.

[Anonymous No.16426497]

>>16426467
there are always two languages. one spoken by the ruling class and one simplified, spoken by the plebs.

if a society collapses the high language may die and the overall complexity is reduced, I'd say

[Anonymous No.16426517]

>>16426488
>>16426497
makes sense, thanks

[Anonymous No.16426584]

>>16426497
>there are always two languages. one spoken by the ruling class and one simplified, spoken by the plebs.
This is retarded. Complex and simple are not valid terms in linguistics since all languages are equally developed and equally complex. Secondly the plebs don't necessarily speak poorly, they're just unchecked by the literary standards the upper-class establishes, usually based on older versions of the language. For example there was a time when even the poorest farmers and peasants in Rome spoke proper Old/Classical Latin, but as time went on the language naturally changed and eventually declension and certain tenses were dropped by Vulgar Latin, and the Romance languages went on to innovate new features of their own.

[Anonymous No.16426598]

>>16426584
>Complex and simple are not valid terms in linguistics since all languages are equally developed and equally complex
lmfao, do people unironically believe this or have they just been memed beyond comprehension?

[Anonymous No.16426631]

>>16426584
Read this. There was an obvious distinction between the Latin used by the upper classes and the mob. This can be easily seen with the graffiti that survived and Cicero's output and the difference of dialogue between the upper classes and the help in the comedies of Plautus or Terence.

[Anonymous No.16426650]

>>16426584
It is obviously wrong that all languages are equally complex.

[Anonymous No.16426668]

>>16426631
Yes but where Vulgar Latin simplified Classical Latin grammar and syntax it made innovations of its own to compensate like new prepositions, new verbs, new constructions, etc. Saying Vulgar Latin was "simpler" is simply uneducated.

[Anonymous No.16426680]

>>16426668
More complex in some areas is not the same as equally complex in all areas.

[Anonymous No.16426684]

>>16426680
How do you measure complexity objectively?

[Anonymous No.16426717]

>>16426684
Really now? Are we pretending that we don't know what the word complexity means? Multiple measures does not at all indicate that complexity is not real; in fact, it's the opposite.

[Anonymous No.16426736]

>>16426717
>Are we pretending that we don't know what the word complexity means
no we don't know. you have to define what it is.
it it the number of words? the connections between words? how do you mathematically define what complexity is and plot it for different languages?

[Anonymous No.16426788]

>>16426736
the number of components in the structure of the language (grammar), not the number of words certainly

[Anonymous No.16426793]

>>16426736
I am not a mathematician, but complexity is obviously not some esoteric term-you just have to apply it. Though yes, some thinking is needed. The size of the lexicon is a useless metric, because a lexicon is theoretically boundless in language use. It's in the complexity of relationships and the rules that govern the system.

[Anonymous No.16426827]

>>16426788
What about languages that use reduplication to convey number, to intensify verbs and nouns, to convey tense? What about languages that don't have many discrete conjunctions and prepositions, personal pronouns, tense, aspect, or recursion, and meaning is inferred through context? Certainly a language like that has a type of complexity about it that can't be measured by your definition?

[Anonymous No.16426884]

>>16420691
Are all English majors like this? Pseudo intellectuals who write meaningless word salads to pretend they are smart in front of retards? Special mention to the "ability to step out" part. Cult leader rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.16426895]

>>16426827
sounds more simple to me, the complexity is somewhere else then, not in the language

[Anonymous No.16426921]

>>16426895
>the complexity is somewhere else then, not in the language
Are you a retard?

[Anonymous No.16426953]

>>16426884
You are projecting so hard now aren't you?

[Anonymous No.16426969]

>>16426921
what do you think "context" means by your own words, you absolute brainlet?

hint: context is not part of the language

[Anonymous No.16426989]

>>16426884
10 pg minimum requirement for essays lets them flourish in bullshitting instead of condensing. The economy of composition is not their forte.