I would like you to show me any credible source saying that an eggcorn must achieve widespread adoption before it can be described as such.
The prescriptivist idea that something needs to be in a dictionary before it can be considered a feature of language is something that linguists - including the dictionary authors themselves - disavow.
Ah yes, the first resort of the prescriptivist: baldly assert that you are correct with absolutely no reasoning behind it.
It’s pretty clear that you don’t understand linguistics or you wouldn’t have declared so confidently that something said on purpose and clearly understood by you to be “not a word”.
Like you literally said that you don’t understand my argument and then declared me wrong anyway. I could explain further but it doesn’t seem like you want to understand.
If you do want to actually learn something here, let me know and I am quite happy to help.
Like you literally said that you don’t understand my argument
Yes, that is what I just said. You had an opportunity just now to explain it, instead you typed up four sentences that achieved nothing other than to (I assume) make you feel like you’d “won” the argument.
What don’t you understand? I gave you the terms to look up to educate yourself if you actually cared, but instead of showing interest or the humility to ask, you literally just declared that you were right again without any reasoning and while saying you were ignorant.
So shall I take this as you not being interested in the information? It would cost you nothing to ask if you actually do want to know.
You didn’t ask me to explain anything, you said I had the chance. You’re right, I could’ve kept trying, but you didn’t ask, and I don’t owe it to you.
I have spent far too much energy in the past trying to explain to people who aren’t listening to bother with people who are functionally no different to a brick wall. It’s exhausting and pointless.
And on a more simple, practical level, if you don’t tell me what you found confusing about what I said, then I don’t know what you need explained. As I said, the information is there if you want to investigate any of the terms you didn’t understand. If you want my help, you are going to need to express it.
Which is why, when I detect this behaviour, like you showed when you baldly repeated:
“Clickbate” is not a word.
I always stop and ask the person to express literally any curiosity to understand. In my experience people who aren’t listening won’t do this. Like I said, it would cost you nothing to ask if you actually do want to know.
You can express that you are curious to understand what I’m saying, or you can not. That is up to you, but it’s literally free to do, and it’s all I ask.
I would like you to show me any credible source saying that an eggcorn must achieve widespread adoption before it can be described as such.
The prescriptivist idea that something needs to be in a dictionary before it can be considered a feature of language is something that linguists - including the dictionary authors themselves - disavow.
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to argue here. “Clickbate” is not a word.
Ah yes, the first resort of the prescriptivist: baldly assert that you are correct with absolutely no reasoning behind it.
It’s pretty clear that you don’t understand linguistics or you wouldn’t have declared so confidently that something said on purpose and clearly understood by you to be “not a word”.
Like you literally said that you don’t understand my argument and then declared me wrong anyway. I could explain further but it doesn’t seem like you want to understand.
If you do want to actually learn something here, let me know and I am quite happy to help.
Yes, that is what I just said. You had an opportunity just now to explain it, instead you typed up four sentences that achieved nothing other than to (I assume) make you feel like you’d “won” the argument.
What don’t you understand? I gave you the terms to look up to educate yourself if you actually cared, but instead of showing interest or the humility to ask, you literally just declared that you were right again without any reasoning and while saying you were ignorant.
So shall I take this as you not being interested in the information? It would cost you nothing to ask if you actually do want to know.
Fascinating how you suddenly backtrack on this when actually being asked to explain further lol
You didn’t ask me to explain anything, you said I had the chance. You’re right, I could’ve kept trying, but you didn’t ask, and I don’t owe it to you.
I have spent far too much energy in the past trying to explain to people who aren’t listening to bother with people who are functionally no different to a brick wall. It’s exhausting and pointless.
And on a more simple, practical level, if you don’t tell me what you found confusing about what I said, then I don’t know what you need explained. As I said, the information is there if you want to investigate any of the terms you didn’t understand. If you want my help, you are going to need to express it.
Which is why, when I detect this behaviour, like you showed when you baldly repeated:
I always stop and ask the person to express literally any curiosity to understand. In my experience people who aren’t listening won’t do this. Like I said, it would cost you nothing to ask if you actually do want to know.
You can express that you are curious to understand what I’m saying, or you can not. That is up to you, but it’s literally free to do, and it’s all I ask.
Do what you want.