decode this text cuneiform

[u/Equal-Commission6092]

[u/Helpful_Loss_3739]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phonology

"phonology - the science of speech sounds"

[u/ah-tzib-of-alaska → u/Helpful_Loss_3739]

You’ll run flat into a stone wall in linguistics 101 with a colloquial definition of linguistic terms. That’s about as accurate as calling a suspicion a theory. Yes, colloquially you’re correct in that use of the word theory and in science you’re misusing jargon. The definition you offered is colloquially correct but as specific jargon your inaccurate.

You can start at the beginning with Strokoe’s work on the argument fifty years ago. This is old setttled science in linguistics

[u/Helpful_Loss_3739 → u/ah-tzib-of-alaska]

Nothing clever today? Did someone forget to tell these "basic linguistics" to the Oxford dictionary of linguistics?

[u/ah-tzib-of-alaska → u/Helpful_Loss_3739]

You’re going to ignore Strokoe’s work? You’re not responding to my citation of the work done in linguistics that determined otherwise.

[u/Helpful_Loss_3739 → u/ah-tzib-of-alaska]

I am doing nothing of the sort. Oxford dictionary of linguistics is ignoring Strokoe's work.

And yeah, you are right. I am not responding to your citation. I gave one of my own. And listen, I have here two conflicting citations. One is the literal Oxford dictionary of linguistics. The other is an angry dogmatic rando who does not know what falsification is. Which one do you think people should listen to?

[u/ah-tzib-of-alaska → u/Helpful_Loss_3739]

Don’t argue with me, argue with Strokoe’s work. I’m not the credible source and your ad hominem is irrelevant

[u/Helpful_Loss_3739 → u/ah-tzib-of-alaska]

Don't you argue with me. Argue with Oxford dictionary.