Well, sure, those things are involved in linguistics.
But I'm not an astronomer just because I have studied things that would somehow fall into the category of astronomy. That is how I view the word linguistics with regard to language learners.
The field of linguistics is far wider than one would typically get from learning a language, basically.

But that is just one (mostly) uneducated native speaker's impression of the word from all the contexts I've ever heard it in. Basically there is where the confusion for a lot of people is from. I do not object to his use of the word.

In fact, if I come across the word "linguist" used in this way I can often tell it's Steve's writing before I even find out. It sort of marks his brand.

James123,

I think you need to read the article in more depth. As I recall, the Wikipedia article on theoretical linguistics is good. It really has nothing to do with "grammar" as it is understood in language learning circles.

Studying case endings in a particular language (morphology) does not a linguist make (in the academic sense). If you look at things like Optimality Theory, or Principles and Parameters Theory, or The Minimalist Program, or other theoretical frameworks in linguistics, you'll find they don't have much to do with the traditional conception of grammar.

MisterB said: "Christophes Youtube replies to "lingosteve"s and "mandalearn"s comments are hilarious.. Perhaps too much Muay Thai…"
---

You have to hand it to Clugston, he tries hard to sound like a snooty intellectual - even if he does look like a bad cross between a truck-driver with a 1-bit brain and a skinhead soccer-hooligan...

You know things are serious when people start calling each other out on YouTube videos. It would have been more entertaining, however, had it been in rap with references to Steve's "posse" and Benny's "homies".

Also, this: "Please tell me when you can walk a university and obtain a position og linguist with your sophomoric understanding of what it encompasses."

What does this even mean? If I understood correctly, and I'm really not sure that I have, the author of the video is stating that he's an intellectual and scholar who understands the meaning of the word "linguist" to such a superior degree that he could be offered a university lectureship, where he might choose to present a paper on "serial verbs", whereas the previous commenter could not achieve that.

Please could we sort this out once and for all with a rap war.

Man that guy loves the word "hackneyed" hahaha
Here he go again with another video Called...
"Steve Kaufman schooled on linguistics: Christophe Clugston"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAnRP3imKaA&feat...

oops.. you might need to copy the entire link and paste it into your browser..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAnRP3imKaA&feature =channel_video_title

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAnRP3imKaA

You don't need the rest of the URL.

I think Clugston obviously feels that his profession is been underestimated. It's his right to response. Although I feel he comes a little harsh on people, he's right in his statements.

*to respond

This is a boring, waffling rant on absolutely nothing. Also he should cut out the alcohol when making videos. He sounded like he'd had a few to me.

I guess he is trying to sell he old university books or something.

His comparison with an MD (medical doctor, the profession I am studying) is kind of stupid. If you look up the definition of an MD, it states clearly "a physician, someone who hold a professional degree in medicine".

I guess the guy feels as if his profession is underestimated! But that's just a dumb comparison...

I just watched his latest video, and he seemed quite angry that people without academic qualifications in linguists are calling themselves linguists. He is absolutely right in some of his statements. Linguistics is the scientific study of languages, and few language learners are interested in studying languages scientifically. Rather, they spend their time immersing themselves in learning to speak languages.

The relationship seems similar to that of an athlete and a sports scientist. The athlete spends their time running and jumping, whereas the sports scientist spend their time studying people who are running and jumping.

His arguments then, are similar to those of a sports scientist complaining to an athlete "you know nothing about biomechanics and physiology so don't call yourself a sports scientist". That is a fair point. Of course, the athlete in turn is probably super-fit with extraordinary physical abilities, and the sports scientist gains none of these merely by looking at others doing the actual sport.

1) Splog look up the definition of Linguist in any English dictionary. Is there any dictionary that does not say that a linguist is someone who speaks more than one language?
2) What does the term "accomplished linguist" mean to you?
3) I am a linguist by this definition and so are most of the people at LingQ.
4) I am not a "language sicentist"., I do not study linguistics. I do not claim to. I only claim to be a linguist.
5) I do not understand why this is in any controversial.

in any way controversial (sorry)

It isn't controversial, Steve. There isn't any issue with using the word "linguist" according to its primary dictionary definition.

Nevertheless, it might be good tactics to avoid opening up a second front with creeps like Clugston? (You could do this quite easily by simply calling yourself a "polyglot"...)

I have a degree in Linguistics. I speak many languages. I earn a living as a translator, and sometimes as a language teacher. Yet, often times, I'm not sure whether I should call myself a linguist or not. Obviously, you use that term a LOT more liberally than I would.

Yes, polyglots are linguists according to English dictionaries, so strictly speaking, you are not mistaken. But you no doubt recognize that you use the term linguist in a way most people would not. Quoting the dictionary is one thing; recognizing usage is another.

I also remember that you said something along the lines of "at least in English" in one of your videos, so I assume you are aware that the definition of linguist is not that liberal in most other languages. Le Petit Robert, for instance, says: "linguiste: Spécialiste en linguistique".

You say you don't understand the controversy, but I don't understand why you insist on using linguist rather than polyglot, despite all the controversy. It's your prerogative, but the controversy over that word won't die anytime soon.

In the Czech Language, we use the work "lingvista" which is a linguist :)) and we usualy use it for someone who is studying (or studied) linguistics at university.On other side, Czech people are not multilingual, so we do not use this term for someone who can speak many languages. In the czech dictionary, there is a deffinition that a linguist is:
someone who is a specialist in linguistics;
someone who knows many languages

so according these phrases, Steve is someone who knows many languages and I can call him "lingvista" in the Czech language :)

"But you no doubt recognize that you use the term linguist in a way most people would not. Quoting the dictionary is one thing; recognizing usage is another. "

The dictionary recignuzes usage. What makes you think that my use of "linguist" is controversial with anyone other than the minority of people who are into linguistics, or even know what it is.

This usage of the word is peculiar to English so the French reference is irrelevant. However, I like the idea that linguist means someone who speaks many languages, and hope that this will spread to other languages. There are far more linguists and potential linguists in this sense, than there are people interested in linguistics. I stuck with this word in the translation of my book. Violinist, optimist, rightist, leftist, linguist.

Most English speakers have never heard the word "polyglot" and do not know what it means.

"Most English speakers have never heard the word "polyglot" and do not know what it means."

Huh..!?

You must be living right out in lumberjack country, Steve! :-D

I rephrase it. Most English speakers that I see in Canada or the US do not know what polyglot means. The UK may be different.

It's like the word "professor" which depending on dictionary (and language) could mean any kind of teacher or a teacher of particularly high rank, holding a chair at a university (or similar).

In Sweden we had this martial arts teacher calling himself 'professor' "because it was common usage" among his peers in the States. Nobody but his students really "bought" it.

Don't be surprised if the average man in the street (or Christophe Clugson) doesn't agree with how you use the word "linguist".

Jeff, man in the street where? Based on my experience, the man or woman in the street here, and probably throughout North America, has no idea what linguistics is, has not heard the word polyglot, and thinks that someone who speaks a few languages is quite the linguist. Sweden is no doubt different, and English is perhaps one of the few languages where linguist has this meaning, but it does, to the best of my knowledge.

Steve is absolutely right. In English the first dictionary definition of "linguist" is a polyglot, a language enthusiast, etc. I believe the word has, however, been increasingly hijacked by Clugston and his ilk over the last 50 years or so.

(As I said in an earlier post, you have to ask whether it's really worth getting into a fight with these bums...)