travc
Junior Member
The type of linguist who studies what sort of "languages" (in the abstract sense) different sorts of computational automata can model from a finite sets of exemplars. Not the sort who thinks much about natural language, much less the specific definitions and denotations of English words.What sort of linguist? The type who carefully and deliberately chooses their words? The sort of linguist who is able to see through the abuse of language when it is used by politicians and re state what is happening in plain English?As he is a linguist, I find his choice of words interesting. Some call it drone strikes and Chomsky calls it an international assassination campaign
He isn't that sort of linguist.
How careful he may or may not be with word choice has nothing at all to do with him being a linguist. From stories I've heard from students of his, I seriously doubt that he gives much thought to it. When challenged, he reportedly has a very annoying habit of just spouting off a blizzard of tangentially related but ultimately irrelevant shit to overwhelm/shut-down the questioner. (This is in the context of questions/criticisms in computational linguistics, not politics... stuff where there often really is a correct answer, not just opinions.)
PS: Once again, I am not criticizing this particular stance/comment/whatever of his. I was responding to an misplaced assumption that the specific terms Chomsky uses are somehow particularly meaningful or carefully chosen because he is a linguist. I'm not trying to make an ad homenim attack either, but people shouldn't do the opposite logical fallacy either and view Chomsky as some sort of trustworthy authority on this (or any IMO) subject. He's no dummy, but he's also far from infallible, unbiased, or exceptionally intellectually honest. (ETA: I'm not saying he is dishonest either! Just a normal person.).