6
votes
Accepted
Is Linguistic Nihilism a legitimate philosophical/linguistic position?
It's not a view I've ever heard espoused, at least.
Language has been serving its purpose quite well for millennia. Plenty of philosophical traditions talk about things that can't be conveyed via ...
- 64k
5
votes
Is Linguistic Nihilism a legitimate philosophical/linguistic position?
This is mostly not a position discussed in linguistics (it is sort of identifiable as an application of nihilism in philosophy), but on occasion – this is one – linguists can offer reasons to reject ...
- 82k
3
votes
Accepted
Is PIE weyh₁ (to hunt, persecute) somehow related to PIE weyk (to separate, to select for sacrifice)
It seems plausible to me, but depends on a process that is has only recently been suggested and may not be generally accepted.
In his book Origins of the Greek Verb, Willi discusses k-extensions of ...
- 6,547
2
votes
Ontological status of syntactic transformations
As a minor technical correction, syntactic theories in the generative tradition do not involve transformations, they used to involve transformations, 50 years ago. Current generative syntax is very ...
- 82k
1
vote
Ontological status of syntactic transformations
The ontological status of theories of syntax is information, which is virtual. By virtual, I mean that information is a pattern that has to be carried out in some real-world thing, in order to exist, ...
- 371
1
vote
The Liar's Paradox : a linguistic perspective
The problem with "This sentence is false" is that it would seem to be a true sentence if and only if it is a false sentence. From this, we can infer that it is not a true sentence AND not a ...
Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible