What's a genuine question you have that Google can't seem to answer but maybe somebody on Reddit can?

> your google-fu doesn't interact very well with actual academic linguistics.

My google fu? Motherfucker I work in Linguistics as it applies to Artificial Intelligence. Hence the NLP mentions. Are you thick?

>half of those things you told me to "check out on wikipedia" don't even have anything to do with natural language

Dunning–Kruger effect in action. Have you considered that you are too dense to understand the connection?

> and the rest directly support the idea that information can't be simplified down to a one-to-one parallel between living languages.

Anything CAN be simplified to a comparison, It doesn't mean its useful. I never claimed the comparison to be useful and you are shifting the goal posts. Your original claim was that the paradigm of information-theoretic linguistics is nonsense, Which is an indefensible and absurd position.

Google "information-theoretic linguistics" you fucking moron. The entire page is full of Academic links.

> moreover, "information" is not etymologically related to the concept of "to have form" - it is instead directly related to the Latin for "to give form".

I am aware of this, it's beside my point.

>do not talk to me like I'm ignorant when you clearly have no preexisting knowledge in the field of linguistics. you're a programmer. stick to programming.

I'm not a programmer, I'm a data scientist who works in natural language processing and Knowledge Extraction, among other things. I build systems that extract information from unstructured data (like Reddit comments, tweets, and articles) and do interesting things with said information. For instance, to extract truth, to understand sentiment people have towards things and to detect general trends in human thinking.

If you don't understand that fundamentally language is about the efficient encoding of information transfer from transceivers to receivers, you're fucking clueless.

Your position is self-defeating. If it is nonsensical to view language through the lens of Information Theory, how the fuck are you responding to me on the internet. News flash, the fact that we can argue about this in the first place is enabled by the fact that language is representable through 1s and 0s. Bits. Information. The entire field of Semiotics is predicated on the concept of Signifier and Signified. Encodings. Information. You're a fucking moron.

/r/AskReddit Thread Parent