@mahagod.bsky.social It’s fitting that someone whose bio admits to 'no academic content' is the one laughing. Every King needs a court jester, but don't mistake your 'despair' for a peer review. Leave the linguistics to the Professors.

Evidence: doi.org/10.1057/s415...

@thomaspellard.bsky.social It is clear that a lack of knowledge leads to vulgar language. The failure to read reliable sources has caused some to be shocked by the idea and attack it with an exclusionary view; I call them amateur readers. doi.org/10.1057/s415... bsky.app/profile/did:...

Language is not just arbitrary codes. "What word best describes the liquid essential for life? Our cross-linguistic investigation of /h/ symbolism uses the case of H2O to challenge established debates on arbitrariness in language." doi.org/10.1057/s415...

Innovative approach to orthography. "Linguistic forms have intrinsic power. This study bridges phonological theory and cognitive linguistics to investigate the symbolic nature of the [h]-sound in both pronunciation and orthography." doi.org/10.1057/s415...

Groundbreaking evidence. "Evidence suggests the relationship between sound and meaning isn't purely arbitrary. We propose a unique word dichotomy (REAL vs FAKE) to analyze the linguistic and symbolic functions of /h/." doi.org/10.1057/s415...

Challenging Saussurean arbitrariness. "Evidence suggests the relationship between sound and meaning isn't purely arbitrary. We propose a unique word dichotomy (REAL vs FAKE) to analyze the linguistic and symbolic functions of /h/." doi.org/10.1057/s415...

"At the symbolic (and allegorical) level, /h/ is a reference to the creator who breathes into his creation." Damn, I've been doing linguistics wrong the whole time!

A major contribution to cognitive linguistics. "Evidence suggests the relationship between sound and meaning isn't purely arbitrary. We propose a unique word dichotomy (REAL vs FAKE) to analyze the linguistic and symbolic functions of /h/." doi.org/10.1057/s415...

The resistance scholars faced was not rooted in empirical failure, but in the threat their ideas posed to established power structures, dominant paradigms, and institutional authority.

Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno, Ignaz Semmelweis, Alfred Wegener, Nikola Tesla, Rosalind Franklin, and Lise Meitner were dismissed or suppressed not for error, but for challenging power, consensus, and authority a recurring structural response to disruptive ideas.

Do you think that your response is logical? You are referring to Nature's reviewers and editorial board as shoddy workers and low-level scientists. The last time I checked, the article satisfies all the conditions to be a Nature's article.

A case study on the word 'Water' across languages reveals striking phonological similarities. doi.org/10.1057/s415... @Nature #Typology