[ QUOTE ]
Please don't try to argue against me by restating what I've already said. There is a difference between linguistic research ... and an anecdotal thread on an internet message board from geographically dispersed regions that involves vague information, hearsay, and probably a bunch of embellished or fabricated information.
[/ QUOTE ] Nowhere did I claim that "anecdotal" refers to what you just exuviated.
"Internet thread"?? Please don't try to argue against me by changing what I write.
[ QUOTE ]
While linguistics is subjective and highly diachronic, it is NOT informal.
[/ QUOTE ] Are you implying that, because linguistics is "subjective* and diachronic", we should somehow expect it, on account of these attributes, to be also informal? If so, you would be wrong. The diachronic attribute of a discipline (and not just Lingustics) has little to do with the informality of it. It can be informal and stand the test of time. Or it can (aspire to) be formal and not survive the year.
I was specific, and I thought also very clear, in stating that
Linguistic research on modern languages is based almost entirely on the "anecdotal". link to post Being anecdotal is not the same as
being based on the anecdotal -- in any language... And the brackets are no accident.
Mickey Brausch
---
* Linguistics is not something like stone sculpture! But that would digress on the issue of subjectivity.