Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)
parousia_occ at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 24 05:54:26 EST 2000
Interesting take... I have not been following this discussion, but will go
back through the posts now. I prefer linguistic studies (at 20 years-old,
I know [at least in basic form] English, American Sign Language, Spanish,
Greek, and Hebrew. I plan to add as time goes on.). But this does not
rule out the fact that I must become more acquainted with other areas of
study. One of the Hebrew professors at my college regularly goes to Israel
for excavation trips. Perhaps I should join him and add another level to
my scholarship (which INDEED needs additions!).
Great post, both of you!
ozark christian college
On 02/24/00, ""Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk at sil.org>" wrote:
> Fair enough. Actually the need for a cross-disciplinary approach
> applies to synchronic as well as diachronic linguistics; neither
> should not be studied apart from the sociolinguistic environment. As
> many have pointed out, "sociolinguistics" is not really linguistics at
> all but is a branch of sociology. And of course sociology of an
> ancient society can be approached only through archaeology, epigraphy
> etc as you mention.
> But this approach, if followed to its logical conclusion, tends to
> make scholarship impossible. It is just not possible for every scholar
> of the past to become an expert in all the fields which you mention.
> While cross-disciplinary study is necessary, it is also close to
> impossible. As I see it, the best way out of this impasse is for
> scholars in one discipline to be allowed to present their case in
> scholarly journals from one side (with explicit recognition that they
> have not dealt with every side of the matter) and then engage in
> constructive dialogue with experts in the other fields involved. I
> hope that a forum like this list is a suitable place for such
> constructive dialogue. But for this to happen, we have to resist the
> temptation to write off as unscholarly those who have (consciously and
> explicitly) approached a matter from one direction only.
> Peter Kirk
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)
> Author: <mc2499 at mclink.it> at Internet
> Date: 22/02/2000 17:03
> If we are dealing with synchronic linguistics, a linguist may present
> linguistic only arguments. Yet, if we are dealing with diachronic
> linguistics, we need a manner to anchor the information into a historical
> space. To deal with the various sources needed for a linguistic study one
> needs the historical component.
> The necessity to deal with aspects of history in this day and age requires
> cross-discinplinary expertise: linguistic, iconographic,
> epigraphic/philological, economic, archaeological, and whatever else is
> seen as relevant. We can no longer afford single disciplinary analyses of
> most matters from the past.
More information about the b-hebrew