linguists

The point is that it isn't a dialect, it's accepted by linguists as a separate language.

Most linguists agree that the language is based in grammar and rules for creating sentences.

One of the problems is that linguists care more about languages than people.

> The point is that it isn't a dialect, it's accepted by linguists as a separate language.

It's not my fault that Chomsky led a generation of linguists down so many blind alleys for decades.

It's kind of a trope these days to deride pre-Chomsky linguists as a bunch of wrong-headed behaviorists.

Ask a simple group of 5 linguists and they all will give you different answers.

Generative Linguists want to determine which of those patterns can account for certain linguistic phenomenon.

Do NLP engineers include computational linguists, or do you prefer to have people who can really code and train them up?

You're correct, most linguists agree that what apes are capable of is not language.

In fact, when I say that some linguists find it controversial they look at me as if I'm demented.

I believe it is uncontroversial among linguists to regard spoken Hindi and Urdu as regional dialects of the same language.

No, most linguists consider lack of use pretty much the only reason to consider something "wrong".

Linguists don't use the term "part of speech" anymore anyway, they instead define "word class".

Both terms redirect to "first language" on Wikipedia, or what linguists refer to as "L1".

I suspect "human language" has a very specific meaning among linguists.

Linguists usually don't bother with such categorizations and just record and analyze what individuals actually say, not what they claim the are saying.