/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11623199
>You seem to think that the whole field of study is a scam, just because you don't understand a random paper on first read.
Because it isn't possible to understand it. There is no way to look up what you don't know, becuase the definitions of the terms refers to several different unknown terms, in a tangled web that could years to decipher well enough to even understand what your papers are saying. If they even say anything meaningfull in the first place.
>Do you expect to pick up a paper on astronomy or psychology and understand everything?
Not completely, no. But there should be no serious difficulty figuring out what the paper is about, and it should be perfectly possible to fully understand it as long as you look up what you don't know.

>>11623199
>You seem to think that the whole field of study is a scam, just because you don't understand a random paper on first read.
Because it isn't possible to understand it. There is no way to look up what you don't know, becuase the definitions of the terms refers to several different unknown terms, in a tangled web that could years to decipher well enough to decipher what you are trying to say.

>>11623199
>You seem to think that the whole field of study is a scam, just because you don't understand a random paper on first read.
Because it isn't possible to understand it. There is no way to look up what you don't know, becuase the terms require antother made up terms, in a tangled web that would take years to even learn to understand what you're trying to say.

>>11603178
>I don't know how else I can interpret the phrase "finite set". Please elaborate. If you meant to say that they don't have words aside from those composed by morphemes
No, I mean words have a finite set of forms in English. Word words speak, speaks, speaking spoke spoken. Easily possible to memorize. In fact necesasry because of the irregularities.
Impossible in langauges where the grammar is still prodictive since there is no finite list that could be derived from one morpheme. Try listing all possible words that can be derived from the morpheme that means to speak in the mexican language you said you're learning.
>Would you say compound words (the fixed fusion of two or more units of meaning) are no longer productive?
No idea why you're asking that. Once a morpheme stops being recognized as a morpheme, it isn't LOGICALLY possible to use it productively. It has to be recognized as such to make that possible.
>Allomorphs are employed to resolve contextual morphological ambuiguity.
No. They are typically used to ease pronunciation, similar to allophones. Different forms used after consonants and vowels are fairly common, for example.
>Seriously? what's so difficult to comrphend? It's quite basic syntax terminology.
It uses vocabulary invented for no apparent reason that the definition of which itself refers to another made up vocabulary and so on ad infinitum. I'm inclined to call it fractal gibberish.
>Im saying the opposite of this first clause, languages are extraordinarily easy to learn in infancy, but yes the reason they are easy is because they are hardwired at birth.
This is facepalm worthy.
Really the problem is that you're trying to prove that there are rules in language that cannot be learned, which is inherently self contradictory.