|
Merely because English is a business language does not automatically mean it is a universal language.
The definition of "universal language":
"Universal language refers to a hypothetical or historical language spoken and understood by all or most of the world's population."
This leads to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a universal language. The thought of a universal language is abstract and will most likely never come into existence.
Once again, just because English is a primary business language does not qualify it as a universal language. |
|
|
@Cyber,
Fine, International Language, still upholds my points. |
|
Grant903Join Date: 2013-01-11
Post Count: 662 |
@god
Google contains millions of sources and you cant know for sure the accuracy of a website. Even if it is accurate, there is always going to be another source that negates it, or even another source that would say that another language is more universal than English.
The fact that you keep using Google as a fallback without even referencing the source or other sources proclaiming the same idea only shows your ignorance and incompetence on this issue.
|
|
|
The definition of "international language":
"International language, sometimes called universal language, refers to a hypothetical or historical language spoken and understood by all or most of the world's population."
Essentially, an international language is equivalent to a universal language, which further annuls your initial point. |
|
|
@Grant,
Hold on, hold up.
So first you're saying that we can't know the accuracy of a website, but then you're saying that becasue I'm not refering to a source I'm ignorant and incompetent?
Rather contradicting. |
|
|
"Essentially, an international language is equivalent to a universal language, which further annuls your initial point."
That's why I said International Language.
Because that's what English is. |
|
|
Have you been reading my post? You presumably accepted that an universal language does not exist, yet you still think an international language exists. An international language is a universal languages. Universal languages do not exist. Consequently, international languages do not exist.
The concept is quite straightforward. I do not understand your difficulty with grasping such a simple concept. |
|
|
"You presumably accepted that an universal language does not exist, yet you still think an international language exists."
'Presumably' being the keyword there.
"The concept is quite straightforward. I do not understand your difficulty with grasping such a simple concept. "
A quick google search will explain why English is the International/Universal language. |
|
|
I truly marvel at your lack of ability to grasp such a simple concept. Explain to me what you are failing to understand and I will gladly elaborate for you. |
|
Grant903Join Date: 2013-01-11
Post Count: 662 |
Oh i'm sorry, when did you become a college professor? I said that not all sources are accurate. A third party website is different from a major data site such as History.com, CNN, etc, and even THOSE are not always accurate.
Then, you STILL failed to provide the source in question while continuing to argue that everyone but you is apparently ignorant. Just because English is spoken worldwide under various degrees does not mean that it is universal, and instead of acting like a stubborn bigot on the matter you could choose to let it go. |
|
|
"I truly marvel at your lack of ability to grasp such a simple concept. Explain to me what you are failing to understand and I will gladly elaborate for you."
It appears that someone here is blatantly refusing to do any research on this. |
|
|
Then, you STILL failed to provide the source in question while continuing to argue that everyone but you is apparently ignorant. J
"Then, you STILL failed to provide the source in question while continuing to argue that everyone but you is apparently ignorant."
Because I expect that you are competent enough to be able to do some research on your own, 'a quick google search'.
"ust because English is spoken worldwide under various degrees does not mean that it is universal, and instead of acting like a stubborn bigot on the matter you could choose to let it go."
But isn't that what you are doing? Can't you just let it go and flutter off elsewhere as well? I mean, you're no matter than me.
You're blatantly refusing to do any research. |
|
|
I'll be back later, boys, keep bumping for me. |
|
|
Please provide links to your sources because I can find no such research.
I believe I have aptly explained your ignorance. It is quite easy to decipher through my past few responses. |
|
|
I see the white flag in the sky. We have won. He has admitted his defeat. |
|
Grant903Join Date: 2013-01-11
Post Count: 662 |
Lol the bigotry and ignorance of some people astounds me.
I cant say im not surprised though, I guess we'll just have to hold the American education system responsible for yet another academic failure in godmartinmullen's case. |
|
|
godmartinmullen is a perfect representation of the failures of the American education system. |
|
|
Actually, until I'm back, I want you to address something for me.
Grant claimed that Latin was an example of a universal language, "Latin was a universal language."
However Cyber is then claiming that a universal language cannot exist, "This leads to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a universal language. The thought of a universal language is abstract and will most likely never come into existence."
You're arguing as if you're on the same side, but it seems like you're not.
I'll reply to what you said somewhere up there ^^^^ when I'm back, but until then come up with something you can both agree on. |
|
|
Do not attempt to divert from your failures. I never disagreed with Grant903, so do not attempt to generate a flamewar. |
|
|
I'm back!
"Please provide links to your sources because I can find no such research."
Then you're not doing it. I'm not sitting around doing [DOT] for all of the links.
"I see the white flag in the sky. We have won. He has admitted his defeat."
No, I just said I'll be back later. I'm back. Get off your high horse.
'We', though...'We'. Strange. I'll get to that in a minute.
"Lol the bigotry and ignorance of some people astounds me.
I cant say im not surprised though, I guess we'll just have to hold the American education system responsible for yet another academic failure in godmartinmullen's case."
If someone did their research, they'd have different things to say here.
"Do not attempt to divert from your failures. I never disagreed with Grant903, so do not attempt to generate a flamewar."
Anyway, here it is.
'We'.
You never disagreed with Grant? Why? What he said completely goes against what you're claiming. For what you're saying to be true, you NEED to disagree with him, but here you are saying that you didn't disagree?
I mean, one of the things you're arguing with me about is the existence of a universal language, something Grant claims to also exist, but yet you ignore his arguments.
Why?
|
|
|
I highly doubt anyone truly cares that you are back. While you were gone, we have decided that you have lost the argument and we will disregard all of your replies from now on.
In other words, we won and you lost.
I will now continue to ignore any further replies composed by you. |
|
|
"I highly doubt anyone truly cares that you are back. While you were gone, we have decided that you have lost the argument and we will disregard all of your replies from now on."
That is because I have a point, and you don't want to acknowledge the point.
"In other words, we won and you lost."
Again, 'we'? Your arguments are completely different from eachother, as much as mine and yours so that they argue against eachother.
...Do you fear your points may be countered by him that much that you do not want to consider arguing with him, even though your arguments differ? This entire thing should of been a 3-way argument from the moment you said a universal language didn't exist, but yet that's not the case? You disagreed with eachother's arguments, yet still consider yousrelves as 'we'?
Again, why? |
|
Grant903Join Date: 2013-01-11
Post Count: 662 |
Note- @godmartinmullen's replies top @grant903 have officially been discredited. |
|
|
"Note- @godmartinmullen's replies top @grant903 have officially been discredited."
They haven't, really. Avoiding them doesn't equal to discrediting them.
Since you're clearly still up for arguing, you mind explaining what I've been saying to Cyber? |
|
|
Take the hint and understand that nobody cares about your replies anymore because you've already lost.
Save yourself some breath and go flame on another thread. |
|