Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Re[4]: Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jason Hare" <parousia_occ AT yahoo.com>
  • To: b-hebrew
  • Subject: Re: Re[4]: Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)
  • Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 5:54:26


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!

jason hare
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[3]: Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)
> Author: <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
> Date: 22/02/2000 17:03
>
> <snip>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Ian
>
> <snip>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page