Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)
peter_kirk at sil.org
Tue Feb 22 01:00:19 EST 2000
Good point, Ian. I may not have given the "alone" its full force. On
the other hand, linguists cannot be expected to be cutting edge
historians as well, and should be allowed to present language-only
arguments. That is the point of the rest of my posting, which has been
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)
Author: <mc2499 at mclink.it> at Internet
Date: 22/02/2000 21:00
At 13.41 21/02/00 -0500, Peter Kirk wrote:
>Excuse me, but are you suggesting that philologists and linguists
>should leave discussion of linguistic dating to historians who are
>merely amateurs in linguistics?
Peter, I suggest you read the first sentence of what you are commenting on
again. I don't think you have understood it:
>>This is what may happen when philologists enter a discussion about
>>language datings segments of language on the basis of language alone.
The magic word is the last one: "alone".
[I, PK, wrote earlier:]
>So my plea is, let the linguists present their linguistic evidence
>without requiring them to first show themselves better historians than
>you are. They don't claim to be! Then, if there seems to be a
>contradiction between the linguistic and the historical evidence, both
>parties need to reexamine their evidence and work together to find a
>synthesis. Don't you agree?
More information about the b-hebrew