My relationship with historical linguistics, and linguistics in general is that I consider it both interesting and pseudoscientific — I will also admit that my

My relationship with historical linguistics, and linguistics in general is that I consider it both interesting and pseudoscientific — I will also admit that my dislike for the discipline might be colored by my negative experiences in conversing with linguists on a personal level. My interest is otherwise nonprofessional though I minored in it in university. Especially linguistic psychology is to be taken with a grain of salt — what I said about how unmarked forms of words acquire secondary meanings is certainly the consensus in that field, but it is not as if it were ever established empirically, nor could it; it is simply an idea that appeals to the intuition and there is nothing obviously wrong with it.