No one needs to explain anything to you and the likes of you and even if they did, you would twist it. Ask Noam!
So you have no idea and cannot explain the contradictions in CAL's accounts?
If you had understood Chomsky, then you would need to explain to yourself, not the likes of me, how it is that two contradictory statements can both be true. They can't, obviously. If you truly had any grasp of linguistics then you would need to clarify this. Whatever your opinion on the likes of me
, there are contradictions that need explaining. You ask no questions and have no explanation.
This is an intellectually dishonest position that any student of Chomsky and language/linguistics would pick apart. It shows a looseness with language that immediately raises questions or should. Why such vague generalisations instead of accurate numbers? There is no reason other than the shaping of a narrative. Deceptive and unclear/ambiguous language is an obvious tell to anyone with any understanding of the techniques employed.
You can't, and don't attempt to explain the contradictions. Whether or not you agree that CAL is wholly unreliable is neither here nor there. Her own contradictory claims demonstrate this.
