5 ms·
> the theories have no utilitarian value If you've ever used a compiler, you've benefitted from "linguist theories" like regular or context free grammars.
by thomasahle 4y ago
> the theories have no utilitarian value
If you've ever used a compiler, you've benefitted from "linguist theories" like regular or context free grammars.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoPeople who dismiss an entire field of science as useless invariably know little to nothing about the field, I've found. Whenever I feel like doing that I try to go read some on the field instead. Usually I find applications I didn't know about.
- AlbertCory 4y agotell us about all these applications we didn't know about! You know, the ones that'll translate 40+ human languages into (vaguely) readable English or vice versa. Give us the URL.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoDo you actually think Linguistics is only about language translation?
- AlbertCory 4y ago> Do you actually think... No, I don't, but a working translation is proof that the theory does understand human language as it's actually used. Or in this case, that it doesn't.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoAnd is it your view that not having the field's equivalent of a theory of everything makes that field useless and without applications?
- AlbertCory 4y agoNice strawman. My view is: if you have a theory, it should be falsifiable. If your "theory" isn't, then it's a religion.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoFascinating. Is linguistics a religion, in your view?
- AlbertCory 4y agoMaybe try saying something original, instead of putting words in my mouth.
- AlbertCory 4y agoYes, they work on formal languages. Not so much on human ones.