> You make several false assumptions or gross misunderstandings of how language changes.
That's a little over the top. I only made a few claims, none specific to English:
Claim #1: There a processes that create and remove irregularities in a language. Some of these can occur in isolation, some are interactions with other languages.
Claim #2: At the very least, the ones resulting from interaction will continue to occur in the future. That is, we still have wars and immigration.
Claim #3: Implicit to my argument is my opinion that the creations occur approximately at the rate of the removals.
Certainly #3 there is the hardest to justify (and I only offer "they aren't gone yet" as my evidence). A much easier and not too different claim is "we won't reach 100% regularity" and if you like you can pretend that I argued that instead as it's not too different a claim. But "gross misunderstanding" seems unfair.
So which of these is a gross misunderstanding of language changes?
That's a little over the top. I only made a few claims, none specific to English:
Claim #1: There a processes that create and remove irregularities in a language. Some of these can occur in isolation, some are interactions with other languages.
Claim #2: At the very least, the ones resulting from interaction will continue to occur in the future. That is, we still have wars and immigration.
Claim #3: Implicit to my argument is my opinion that the creations occur approximately at the rate of the removals.
Certainly #3 there is the hardest to justify (and I only offer "they aren't gone yet" as my evidence). A much easier and not too different claim is "we won't reach 100% regularity" and if you like you can pretend that I argued that instead as it's not too different a claim. But "gross misunderstanding" seems unfair.
So which of these is a gross misunderstanding of language changes?