The flag is incorrect. Please, click on the Esperanto flag and select English.

linGUISTIC

My dictionary says they're synonymous.

But they're not. "lingual" is used in 99% of cases to relate to the "tongue" as an organ.

Looking at "lingual/linguistic point of view" in Google Books lingual is used around one times in 12 compared to linguistic.

e.g. "History aside, the book is remarkable from a literary and lingual point of view."

OK, make people believe what you wish about your Google-based imaginary English language. Most probably, the 1/12th of the time "lingual" is used this way on Google is by level1 learners...
Using lingual here just sounds completely unnatural and, as a brit, you know it very well! You just would go to the most extreme ends to disagree with me anyway...

> Most probably, the 1/12th of the time "lingual" is used this
> way on Google is by level1 learners

Every single one of them is used by a published author. That's what Google _BOOKS_ means.

> OK, make people believe what you wish about your
> Google-based imaginary English language. Most probably,
> the 1/12th of the time "lingual" is used this way on Google
> is by level1 learners...
Even the ones who wrote the dictionary?

Oxford Dictionary:
"Lingual: relating to speech or language".

Merriam-Webster:
"Lingual: Linguistic"

It is the second definition in both dictionaries (the first one being related to the tong) so, it is a valid alternative.

The fact that most of the people doesn't use a word does not mean that the word is wrong; it only means that most of the people have limited vocabulary.

Today we are one word wiser!

The problem, you see, is what you want Tatoeba to be used for:
Do you want it to be a PRACTICAL and UNIVERSAL tool for people to learn languages and translate sentences in a correct, UNDERSTANDABLE form ?
Or do you want it to be an ISLAND for purists who collect rare language forms and convoluted expressions ?
You will always find rare usage of English, especially since this language is a compilation of 4 entire vocabulary sets (latin/saxon/danish/franco-norman) + the modern influences of americanisms and european or asiatic versions of bad Globish, which explains why English dictionaries nowadays hold 50.000+ words when other languages have 15.000 to 30.000. But do you actually think a language is a garbage-collection of rare forms and mistranslations ?
What purpose does it serve ?
A language is a VEHICLE. Its purpose it to COMMUNICATE.

sacredceltic, stop trolling please. We have 24 entries w/ linguistic and 1 w/ lingual, so Tatoeba reflects how these words are used.

I think trolling here is exactly what you do.

here as elsewhere, a "lingual point of view" is the view form the perspectiver of the tongue muscle. And you should know it.

Okay, everybody. 10 minute break :-)

> here as elsewhere, a "lingual point of view"
> is the view form the perspectiver of the tongue
> muscle. And you should know it.
If your are looking for a language where every word has exactly 1 meaning, try Lojban. It's not the case for English.

You're so funny Demetrius!

Understanding words in their main meaning is not mediocrity, it is clear communication.
It is OK to be a self-procalimed "academic" but then use rare words with proper tags and in contexts that will not misguide "normal" people.
To make people believe that "lingual" equates "linguistic" is just plain misinformation.
Indeed, English is rich, and that is why it has an adjective that best describes language activities, and another that does best tongue-muscle activities.
And if 99% of people (save you "academics") can get this properly, it will spare a lot of ridiculous misunderstandings which modern Globish abounds in.

* I was responding to a now erased post by MondCivitano:
>So, tatoeba should aim for mediocrity (average) because it is for learners, how about >academic learners?.
>English is my second language, and I rejoice for its richness.

And by the way, if you aim at academism, please rejoice "at' or "in" rather than "for"

Thank you for your correction about "rejoice" I had the doubt.
This system doesn't allow to edit (or I don't know how) so I deleted and corrected.
So, tatoeba should aim for mediocrity (average) because it is for learners?, what about academic learners?.
English is my second language, and I rejoice at its richness.
Language is more than an tool for communication, it is the stuff thoughts are made of. Limited language implies limited thinking. A rich versatile language relates to an equivalent way of thinking.

But using "lingual" for muscular activity and "linguistic" for language related activity is not limited thinking but just well-ordained thinking.
The fact that "lingual" is used in 1/12th of the cases in the place of "linguistic" is probably due to the fact that 1/12th of people have muscles where they should have brains and they subsequently confuse one for the other...
Richness should not equate confusion. Richness is desirable where nuances are necessary. In this case, no nuance is required: The activity is either relative to language or to tongue muscle. It is just plain binary. I know, clarity is just boring to many people. 1/12th of them at least...

Good, well said.
Tell that to Merriam-Webster and Oxford.
My best Regards.

The problem with many English dictionaries is, they just collect usage rather than give orderly guidance.
So when 8% of people misuse one word for another over a sufficient length of time, the impropriety becomes the law.
Eventually, if English is what people say in its name, any random combination of any letters will end up having an entry.
I know many people who love confusion are aiming precisely at that. But I predict it won't ease international communication...
As for me, I think "lingual" and "linguistic" are different and from different origins precisely to convey different meanings, but I know I am a fool who believes languages should be used to convey meaning rather than gibberish...

@sacredceltic
In fact, ‘lingual’ comes from Mediæval Latin ‘lingualis’ (relating to ‘lingua’), that is derived from the Latin ‘lingua’. Latin ‘lingua’ can mean either ‘tongue’ or ‘language’.

‘Lingual’ in the sense ‘linguistic’ is a correct usage both from theoretical (it’s in line with etymology) and practical (it’s used in this sense, as the Google shows) points of view.

By the way, ‘linguistic’ means ‘related to linguists’. Using it in the meaning ‘related to language’ is in fact incorrect usage that has become widespread. So YOU’RE ADVOCATING A THEORETICALLY INCORRECT USAGE here, a thing you are constantly complain about. ^^

Oh, Demetrius just discovered the latin root of "language".
Well done, Demetrius! But you see, I am a francophone, and I know this from birth, since "language" and "tongue" are one and the same word in French: "langue".
So stating that "language" is derived from latin "lingua" is but a triviality to any latin language speaker, even if it's brand new to you, Demetrius...
That it is just irrelevant, because the words derived, and one is now relative to language as opposed to the other relative to the muscle. As a matter of fact, no surgeon ever operates any linguistic diseases, but they do the lingual.
Now if you want both words to mean one and the same thing relative to language, which word do you recommend for the organ, oh you master of linguistics from the height of your looooong experience of soooo many languages ?
You know what ? As far as I am concerned, you may make yourself a laughing stock, referring to your superior "lingual" abilities, I don't care. If you want to learn a fantasy-English that suits your half-digested etymological dictionaries, please help yourself!
But when it comes to publicly translating into English, you should as well abstain.

I’ve said nothing about the word ‘language’.

I suggest that you should read what other people have written before writing an answer.

Even if you don’t care about anyone else's opinion, don't show it so clearly, you're making a fool of yourself. ^^

Tatoeba needs to create a machine to automatically turn users' comments into submissions. The database would be so much richer then...

FeuDRenais>Tatoeba needs to create a machine to automatically turn users' comments into submissions. The database would be so much richer then...

Yes, I was thinking exactly the same, and you and me know that we've picked a few already...