the 2013 article that is cited several times thru-out is completely unfounded

edit

this article has huge issues and half of the information shouldn't even be here. it needs to be gutted. most citations point back to a 2013 BLOG POST that has no sources, no data, no evidence, nothing empirical, and doesn't even attempt to somehow validate its own claims. It simply presents anecdote and conjecture as fact.

Someone's personal blogpost about what they *think* is happening to language is not fact. It is opinion. This article is purely in the realm of opinion. There are very easy ways to verify claims made about language -- polls would easily produce such evidence. Nothing solid is included. Linguistic claims cannot be made without evidence and this article wouldn't even be tolerated in a highschool writing course. 76.97.93.14 (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply