https://padlet.com/allyasaquing3/cll5jle3j9jd2q62 en-us 2021-06-10 22:55:36 UTC 2025-10-22 15:19:47 UTC hello@padlet.com allyasaquing3 https://padlet.com/allyasaquing3/cll5jle3j9jd2q62/wish/1600898958 To answer that question, very much so. In language or language learning there would be a lot of trial and error for it to just flourish in that aspect of being able to understand its overall basis the more we dive deeper into it. Language evolves as the day passes and we try to keep up with these changes by learning and re-learning certain areas which require our outmost attention. Language doesn’t necessarily stay to be one thing, it's a millon different infinite varieties that need to be explored and examined. Now, no matter how we study a language policy, it's most likely that the policy will change because an intellectual or a very keen linguist points out its flaws and proposes a better version as they see fit and so on. But without it changing it becomes null and void. Without any further action to improve what lies behind a language simply isn't cutting it. Empty rhetoric; empty meaning containing nothing; not filled or occupied¹ and rhetoric meaning the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques² or language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content³. And as I will decribe it, put two and two together it would literally mean "empty language" (as I've only presumed it would mean). So according to that, no matter how the language is well put into place it wouldn't be as perfect because they still would be some hindrances if we don't do something about them. 






Definitions of the numbered following were taken from Merriam Webster: 
 https://www.merriam-webster.com]]> 2021-06-11 12:22:46 UTC https://padlet.com/allyasaquing3/cll5jle3j9jd2q62/wish/1600898958