Re: Theologers and astrologians
- From: Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:20:38 GMT
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:30:15 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>jayne.kulikauskas@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Normally, -ologies are studied by -ologists.
>> > >
>> > > Does anybody have any idea how the exceptions "astrologer" and
>> > > "theologian" came about? And are there any others?
>> >
>> > There also used to be philologers.
>>
>> This reminds me of a question I have about "philology". When I come
>> across this word in old books it seems to refer to something that I
>> would call "linguistics". Is "philology" used anymore? If it has been
>> replaced by "linguistics" are there any ideas on why?
>
>When what we now think of as linguistics was being developed, during the
>length of the 19th century, it was being developed by people who were
>trained as philologists -- "historical linguistics" is just about the
>same as "comparative philology."
>
>The disciplines grew apart during the 20th century, with linguists
>concentrating on the study of language(s) and philologists continuing to
>concentrate on the study of texts (and what they reveal of the culture
>of those who wrote them). Philologists are unable to study unwritten
>languages; linguists have enough to worry about without also looking
>into the literature written in the languages. Though they do, of course,
>record and analyze traditional texts as well as spontaneous
>conversation.
>
>Even within the linguistics of Native Amerian languages, there is an
>"American Indian philology" which is the analysis of pre-linguistic
>writings on Native languages for information about those languages that
>can be gleaned from the unsystematic orthographies and the Latin-based
>grammatical remarks they contain. Such texts have proven to be very
>helpful for many families, even ones where not all the languages have
>become extinct.
>
>IIRC there's an account of it by Ives Goddard in the Smithsonian
>Handbook of North American Indians, vol 17 *Languages*. (All but one of
>the regional volumes have been published, and each of them contains one
>or more articles on the languages of its region; vol. 17 does a good job
>of not overlapping with them. The one missing regional volume is
>*Southeast*.)
That's what you say. Here in aue, we will wait for Purl Gurl to
elucidate on Native American languages because we are interested in
accuracy.
(sci.lang mercifully deleted)
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
.
- Prev by Date: Re: run down to some place
- Next by Date: Re: Chippies from East to West
- Previous by thread: Alternatively in the wild
- Next by thread: Re: Theologers and astrologians
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
