/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11567836
>some individuals with very low IQ still have relatively unimpaired language abilities
>relatively
relatively to what? Are you trying to tell me that the way you speak cannot tell about your iq? Have you heard imbeciles speaking?
It's no wonder you quote pinker on that (another kike who will probably take place of chomsky, what were the chances he'd also be from those 2%? all the chances, they would never allow goyim take over such politically charged discipline)
> i'd happily explain all this to you, but
yeah, don't fucking bother.
>>11567709
>all of semantics
Stay the fuck away from semantics! It seems those linguists who are tired of your bs don't want to have anything in common with you. I also like the definition of the term: "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning" and it explains why there suddenly appeared such term as linguistics when philology was kind of the same thing. And probably that very term appeared when language scientists didn't want to have anything in common with grammarirans (but that's a raw guess, it still needs actual research about it)