I've thought linguistics is really interesting for a long

bump for interest

>>666042
"The Mother Tongue" by Bill Bryson isn't exactly a linguistics book, but it introduces a lot of the basic concepts without getting technical. It's by no means even a real linguistics book, but it is a very entertaining and not-dry read.

Be warned, though. "Pure" linguistics isn't super history-based. It has a lot to do with biology, psychology, and sociology, as well as an analytical view of language itself.

If you're looking for a textbook, "Language Files", published by The Ohio State University is pretty good and covers a ton of material, but doesn't cost a lot. My university uses it for a bunch of classes in the 100-300 level.

>>667295
>"The Mother Tongue" by Bill Bryson isn't exactly a linguistics book, but it introduces a lot of the basic concepts without getting technical. It's by no means even a real linguistics book, but it is a very entertaining and not-dry read.
thanks
>Be warned, though. "Pure" linguistics isn't super history-based. It has a lot to do with biology, psychology, and sociology, as well as an analytical view of language itself.
I know, I figured this was the board for it since languages fell under the humanities when I took college
>If you're looking for a textbook, "Language Files", published by The Ohio State University is pretty good and covers a ton of material, but doesn't cost a lot. My university uses it for a bunch of classes in the 100-300 level.
thanks again

>>666042

Linguist here.

If you don't have a degree in linguistics but pretend to know about it you're a faggot.

>>668385
>no such thing as an amateur learner

Why are linguistics majors such jumped-up cunts? They always seem to be overly defensive and snide, kind of like the assholes who took Latin in high school so they'd look smart. There's a very salient "stop liking what I like, you're not a true believer" mentality going around – although in general, established linguists are (usually) rather decent people.

It's just strange to me that, of all people, linguistics majors tend to be the most in-your-face angry pseudo-intellectuals, when there isn't really anything in the field that would actively select for that. I know that many of my peers chose this major because they read that Chomsky is a linguist, and wanted to jump into that particular intellectual wagon, but that can hardly account for the septic attitude that's crept into the field as a whole. Like I said, most published and respected linguists don't have this snide aura at all, so maybe it's just the disproportionately vocal dredges of the humanities.

I would understand if it was just coming from the historical linguistics camp, since faulty amateur research has plagued that discipline since its inception, but they tend to be the chillest of the lot. Oddly enough, they seem to actively encourage amateur/hobbyist interest in the field, despite being the only ones actually on the defensive.

t. linguistics major pseudo-intellectual prick who took Latin in high school to look smart

>>668922
I think its just because people tend to be obnoxious about whatever they are majoring in, at least for a while.

Anyways, linguistics major here and I'm mainly interested in historical linguistics. Unfortunately, most university courses focus purely on the theoretical side and not on the descriptive/historic, so I've had to learn mostly on my own. What specifically do you want to learn about OP? Linguistics is an extremely broad topic.

>>668385
OK...? I can't just learn interesting things and maybe talk about them? I'm not going to call myself an expert. I probably would take formal classes if I had the time and money.

>>668922
It could be other influences too, Tolkien is a big part of why I'm interested and you know how hardcore Tolkien fans can be.

>>669208
Well the development of languages in the past really interests me but I'm also interested in how it's happening today and how sentences and messages can be broken down into parts that are more less universal.

PRIMO:
IOANNEM AMAS?

>>667295
I've used language files and can vouch for it being a good resource. It's was actually made and is constantly edited by Ohio State grad students who teach introductory linguistics classes, so they have a good idea of how to explain the theoretical concepts.

>>669423
If you're interested in what Tolkien was an expert in, you should look at historical linguistics. Historical linguistics is the most rigorous subfield in linguistics. I think historical linguistics should be considered a serious science/application of the scientific method.

>>670541
PROMPT:
DO YOU KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT?

>>669423
>Well the development of languages in the past really interests me but I'm also interested in how it's happening today and how sentences and messages can be broken down into parts that are more less universal.

Empires of the Word by Nicholas Ostler might be interesting to you. Its been a while since I read it, but I remember it being pretty good.