Timeline for If someone is an expert in written (rather than spoken) language, can they still be called a "linguist"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 15, 2011 at 8:53 | comment | added | Lanny Heidbreder | I upvoted this, though I think nohat got more to the crux of how I was asking the question incorrectly. I'm commenting mainly to say this, @MrHen: "Question." | |
| Jul 14, 2011 at 3:53 | comment | added | MrHen | @Fumble: I agree with your point, but I felt that it was a technicality that didn't help the OP get the answer to the question that was really being asked. | |
| Jul 14, 2011 at 3:31 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | I'm certainly not a linguist by most people's definition of the word, but I wouldn't say Jim is either. He's a specialist in one particular language. Well, two, actually, since we must assume he's pretty fluent in English too. And that's the point. Most of us here are fluent in at least one language; that doesn't make us linguists. | |
| Jul 14, 2011 at 3:20 | comment | added | MrHen | Also of note, since all of our communication on EL&U is written, we are fairly likely to consider writing a major part of linguistics. | |
| Jul 14, 2011 at 3:19 | history | answered | MrHen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |