Prescriptive - Descriptive (Language)

Why are there so many, who pretend they aren't there, that let you go on and on in your appalling idiocy?

====

Speech-generating device
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Speech synthesis


Stephen Hawking, physicist and SSpeech synthesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Speech generating device


Stephen Hawking is one of the most famous people using speech synthesis to communicate
Speech synthesis is the artificial production of human speech. A computer system used for this purpose is called a speech synthesizer, and can be implemented in software or hardware products. A text-to-speech (TTS) system converts normal language text into speech; other systems render symbolic linguistic representations like phonetic transcriptions into speech.[1]GD user
Speech-generating devices (SGDs), also known as voice output communication aids, are electronic augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems used to supplement or replace speech or writing for individuals with severe speech impairments, enabling them to verbally communicate their needs.[1]

=========

That's not "duplicating human language" you silly Billy. That device reproduces Mr Hawking's language. It does not "generate" speech.

Look JT--your Pinker chappie has allowed life to pass him by. Nobody could garner so much exterior decoration to his persona without concentrating on nothing else. Which is idiotic.

You have read Veblen's The Higher Learning in America? And he was an eye-witness.

And Mr Pinker is on his third wife. What could possibly be more idiotic than that? Prof. Dawkins is in the same boat.

And the passage you quoted was mush to be fed to gawking admirers. Worthless foam.

I bet he thinks that ladies who submit to his embraces are being granted a rare privilege.

Why are there so many, who pretend they aren't there, that let you go on and on in your appalling idiocy, Spendi?

Who do you mean?

You're much too much an idiot to waste time on. You have the attention span of a gnat. You toddle off, mentally [probably physically too], into a vast wasteland of disjointed nonsense. You can't address the easiest questions. You, by your own admission, know squat about the English language. You are a waste of time.

I could go on, but instead I'll just let you go on with the above.

That's exactly how ladies talk, JT, when stumped.

Do you not know what you meant?

Knowing how vacant you are upstairs, Spendius, I'm sure that you've heard this from a lot of people, not just ladies.

Whatever other diversions he likes indulgimg in, Spendi is absolutely correct about synthetic speech (and I say that as one with Journal publications in the field).

You are quite frankly out of your depth in your understanding of language. The dichotomy "descriptive versus prescriptive" had its functionality established in Chomsky's anti-behaviorist stance with respect to initial language acquisition (1957). Its political aspects are at a different level - a fact which is easily misunderstood, because Chomsky's political liberalism misguidedly serves to promote idealistic pedagogical issues regarding secondary embellishments of language performance. As previously stated, Chomsky himself avoided linguistic performance issues by his use of the term "competence", which pointedly did not encompass "social competence".

I would have used "who" instead of "that" but I find, on consulting Fowler, that you are correct.