File: file.png (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB PNG

>istanbul
I mean, I don't like this lingo but i'm sure people in the past didn't like whatever new words and terms popped up but that to us are completely normal
Language is always changing

>>25114560
>ain't no way
that's not "new lingo". That's not even lingo.
However, I appreciate your rational, down-to-earth take on the subject. You're correct. As an older generation, our hatred towards new lingo comes from the fact that we literally cannot understand what the hell they're saying, so we feel alienated, and the crushing weight of time.

>>25114573
I have this theory that every generation is doomed to feel bitterness and disdain as it gets older and is replaced by newer generations.
This arises from the fact that as newer generations replace yours, it becomes harder to ignore the fact they you are older, you are getting older, you're no longer part of "the youth"
it becomes harder and harder to ignore your eventual death, your mortality and the passage of time, and so, instead of coming to terms with this, most people attack the young
oh the new generations are lazy, and they're rude, and they talk in nonsensical ways and they have crazy views and they enjoy all these new degenerate forms of entertainment and back then people were better and blah blah blah
I'm sure this has happened as far back as the rise of the modern human

>>25114587
That's exactly it, and it absolutely has.
This is a quote from 1000BC: "Today's youth is rotten, evil, godless and lazy... it will never be able to preserve our culture."

>>25114560
It's not generational. Millennials didn't do this.

>>25114560
Kill yourself.

>>25114560
This isn't an evolution of language. The emergence of such terms is representative of the niggerfication of GenZ.

>>25114616
>>25114660
You clearly both lack self awareness.

>>25114671
Not an argument. Virtually any example you can come up with will be nigger slang, not millennial slang.

>>25114671
This thread is shit and so are you.

>>25114670
By what objective standard can you judge whether a development in language is good or not?

>>25116136
>Were niggers involved?
Then it's not development or evolution.

>>25116141
How do you know this to be the case?

>>25116152
Blackness is antithetical to both development and evolution.

>>25116163
How do you know this to be the case?
Who, exactly, does and doesn't count as "black"?

>>25116168
Well, pseud-o-Socrates, because blacks have not evolved in millions of years and in that same time developed nothing of their own. Sub-Saharan Africans, particularly those with substantial archaic homo DNA, and their diaspora are what we'll broadly consider as black for their purposes of your defense of niggers.

>>25116183
>because blacks have not evolved in millions of years
Do you mean to say that there is no detectable genetic difference between dark-skinned humans today and dark-skinned hominids several million years ago?
>and in that same time developed nothing of their own
Bantu metallurgy, for instance?
>Sub-Saharan Africans, particularly those with substantial archaic homo DNA
What are you talking about? SSA are some of the only humans who don't have significant Neanderthal DNA.

Permaban these shartytoon posting cocksuckers

>>25116196
No, I do not mean to say that. You assume that black sub-Saharan Africans and their diaspora should be considered human. You also assume that the Bantu independently developed iron-working, which has not been proven and is a point of deep contention among scholars. You should know better than to assume, pseud-o-Socrates. No group of modern humans has "significant" contributions of DNA from neanderthals. What I'm talking about specifically is the nearly 20% of pre-neanderthal archaic homo DNA present in some West Africans. But don't get hung up on that, because the definition doesn't rest on it.

>>25116220
>No, I do not mean to say that.
Then what do you mean to say?
>You assume that black sub-Saharan Africans and their diaspora should be considered human.
They are biologically the same species as the rest of humanity, yes, as indicated by the fact that they can have children with each other fine.
>You also assume that the Bantu independently developed iron-working, which has not been proven and is a point of deep contention among scholars.
Okay, suppose that they didn't. Europeans never independently developed writing either.

>>25116231
>They are biologically the same species as the rest of humanity, yes, as indicated by the fact that they can have children with each other fine.
lol, really pushing the definition of species there.

>>25116246
>A species (pl.species) is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. It can be defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.
Mulattoes are not sterile like mules, therefore Europeans and Africans are the same species.

>>25116257
>Mulattoes are not sterile like mules
the offspring can be fertile and still be a different species from the two parents, moron.

>>25116231
I mean what I said, they have not evolved. You assume that they are the same species, but that's not a given. Until very recently, it was the predominate view in the sciences that Sub-Saharan Africans constituted a separate subspecies, along with many of the other groups you've lumped into a single human species. One might argue that this was a result of social pressure and not because of any scientific findings. That's beside the point that defining a species is not objective, there are more than 30 ways that species are defined, and the possibility of having offspring is but one of them. Many animals defined as separate species are more closely related than sub-Saharan Africans are to the rest of what you're calling humans and are capable of having even viable, fertile offspring with fewer complications than human-black hybrids. The oldest instance to date of symbols used to communicate meaning are in fact from Europe, and we likely have an incomplete picture of the develop of writing in Europe.

>>25116257
That doesn't work. Wolves and coyotes are separate species and can have fertile offspring. The same is true of African and Asian elephants and many others.

File: 548251c1324000dd4bde3c11cb765a78.jpg (30.4 KB)

30.4 KB JPG

>>25114560
personally I as an urbane young man of the world take great pleasure in perusing the various vibrant new creoles taking shape among the multicultural youth of our global cities. Just the other day I had the occasion of stopping by my local barber's shop, frequented almost exclusively by young men of colour, in order to get myself "faded up" so to speak. A young man of unsweetened chocolate complexion, who could have been either Bengali or Yemeni (or perhaps some exotic combination of any number of ethnicities), who exclusively used the pronouns "bro", "senpai" and "blud", did my hair. All the youths around me, whether Nigerian or Filipino, Arab or Indian, communicated in what seemed to be a new, streamlined and thoroughly seasoned dialect of the future. After a time I too couldn't help finding a couple 'wagwan's and 'gotchu's and 'ferreal's slipping out of me unawares. I'm sure my brothers of another colour appreciated my urbanity. I left both more cultured, more rizzed and more hopeful, knowing what the future will sound like when the last of my child-free kin happily euthanise ourselves and leave others to inherit the earth.

>>25116281
>The oldest instance to date of symbols used to communicate meaning are in fact from Europe
To a linguist, "writing" is not any symbol that has a meaning; it is specifically symbols that are used to denote language, such that a reader who has never met the writer and has no common knowledge except the language and the system of writing can read back the same words of the original utterance. Such systems have only been invented independently three or four times so far as we are aware ("three or four" because it's uncertain how much influence Sumerian writing had on the development of Egyptian writing), and at any rate the Greek alphabet, and by extension the Latin alphabet we are having this conversation in, is indisputably derived from the Phoenician alphabet, and hence ultimately from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Egypt is not Sub-Saharan, but it's certainly not in Europe either.

>>25114560
>ignores the obvious

>>25116332
Did you have a point to make, or?

>>25116353
My point is that no, writing did not develop in Europe.

>>25116356
Then you're not only arguing against an argument I didn't make but you've also just contradicted yourself.

>>25116369
You said:
>The oldest instance to date of symbols used to communicate meaning are in fact from Europe, and we likely have an incomplete picture of the develop of writing in Europe.
Was this, or was this not, meant as a rebuttal of my assertion that
>Europeans never independently developed writing either
? If not, why did you bring it up? And where have I supposedly contradicted myself.

>>25116374
Note that nowhere did I argue that the Danube script is a writing system. That would have been foolish, because it's not a writing system, it's a proto-writing system. You can plainly see that, you just quoted what I said about it. You recognized in your reply, intentionally or not, when you said "as we are aware", that there may be other writing systems outside of our awareness, as I was suggesting could exist in Europe. That's why I asked if you had a point, because nothing you had said disagreed with anything that I had said. And in response, you asserted that " no, writing did not develop in Europe", which contradicts your previous statement that accepted that other systems of writing may exist outside of our awareness. Now, had you again qualified your statement with "as far as we're aware", that would have worked, that you could have supported, but that's not what you said. You made an assertion of a negative that you can't support in direct contradiction with your previous openness to the existence of writing systems outside of our awareness.

>>25116417
We don't know enough about the function of the Danube script to know the extent to which it is proto-writing, but it seems fairly clear that no script no used today descends from it, and we have no evidence that it ever did develop into true writing.

>>25116430
None of that is proof of your assertion that "writing did not develop in Europe". You understand that, right? That absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? That a writing system or systems could have developed from it that we're not aware of, that it could have influenced writing systems, extinct or existent, that we would have no idea if it did or if it didn't, and that nothing you have said proves or could prove your claim that "writing did not develop in Europe"? Right?

>>25116458
Conceivably, but the question does arise of why, if the Vinca symbols left behind evidence, none of their descendants would have, or why they would have adopted a Phoenician script if they already had one.

>>25116462
Okay, I'm glad we're on the same page. To answer the first part of your question, their descendants did leave behind evidence. The Danube script wasn't limited to the Vinca culture, it continued for another ~1000 years after their dispersal/decentralization, right up to the edge of the earliest hypothesized Indo-European migrations into the Balkans when they would have been displaced, killed, and absorbed, as most Pre-Indo-Europeans were. Some have suggested that it influenced later linear scripts in the Mediterranean, the earliest of which probably represented pre-Indo-European European languages. Which brings us to the second part of your question, why they would have adopted a Phoenician script. I would speculate for the same reason that Linear B fell out of use. Literacy being a feature of a certain class and being used for official purposes probably wasn't unique to the Myceneans, that was a feature of writing just about everywhere, and so when the Late Bronze Age collapse happened, they might well have been lost in the same way, and otherwise might have been influenced by the adoption of a Phoenician script by other cultures that collapsed and had their writing systems replaced. The Phoenician script was simpler and it was in the right place at the right time. The "sea peoples" that helped to collapse those cultures, who were probably at least in part Phoenician and in cooperation with the Phoenicians, used it, and the Phoenicians that they were trading with before and after used it, and with records of trade and inventory being the primary purposes for writing up until that time, it would have been a natural substitute that would have been more resilient to the literacy problem that they ultimately lost their writing systems to.

>>25114560
None of the words you put in greentext are as annoying as faggots who reflexively start every other sentence with "I mean". Consider suicide.

>>25114573
>our hatred towards new lingo comes from the fact that we literally cannot understand
I understand it perfectly and I still hate it. A better theory is that it's a constant reminder of how temporary everything in the modern world is.

>>25114587
i hate people slightly older than me and i'm fine with younger people. what does that make me?

>>25116584
Retarded.

>>25116558
>I understand it perfectly and I still hate it.
so the first time you heard rizzler and gyatt you knew what they meant?

>>25114560
>I mean, I don't like this lingo but i'm sure people in the past didn't like whatever new words and terms popped up but that to us are completely normal


For all of the ones that are completely normal, there's probably a dozen people stopped using unironically after less than 5 years

I'm sure in a decade, using any of these terms will be like saying "epic fail" now.

>>25114560
Bussin originated in the 80s zoomers just stole it like they do all of their "culture"

>>25114560
It's ahh, not ass

The funny thing is, cuh is the term crips use for fellow crips just like blud is the term bloods use for fellow bloods. The gangs have had enormous influence on English slang. For example bloods use CK as an acronym for Crip Killer, so crips replace it with cc in words, hence the spelling thicc.

File: 1767048270649032.jpg (14.3 KB)

14.3 KB JPG

Perma all sharties.

>>25114568
istanbul wasnt new lingo you fucking historylet

>>25116141
do you ever say the word "cool" to describe things that you approve of or admire, as that is also african american derived?

>>25118098
/qa/ won btw

>>25114560
Most of these have already fallen out of fashion.

>>25114616
Yes we did
>t. Millennial

Also this probably varies by nation/culture. Places like Turkey and Argentina probably have their own generational slang.

>>25118267
>probably varies by nation/culture. Places like Turkey and Argentina probably have their own generational slang.
internet and social media has americanized/homogenized youth culture around the world

>>25118318
>Americanization
never liked this word. no one speaks of Europeanization or Asianization. yet we get blamed for other countries not trying hard enough.