Article View: sci.lang
Article #3108linguistics vs philology
From: Mark Israel
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 00:30
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 00:30
51 lines
2923 bytes
2923 bytes
In article <2vno1s$eg4@csi0.csi.uottawa.ca>, I wrote: > In article <199407062210.PAA17283@netcom12.netcom.com>, Karen Kay <karenk@NETCOM.COM> writes: >> Is theoretical physics a science? > > Absolutely! Theoretical physics makes correct practical > predictions. Look at the recent discovery of variations in the > background radiation, at exactly the level that theoretical > physicists had predicted. What comparable triumph has linguistics > had? In article <199407100444.VAA07983@netcom10.netcom.com>, Karen Kay <karenk@NETCOM.COM> writes: > Hittite, I believe. Linear B? Sorry that I was unclear. Detection of variations in the background radiation is a *recent* practical result that demonstrates the validity of *recent*, *theoretical* physics. In return, I was hoping for a recent practical result that demonstrates the validity of *recent*, *theoretical* linguistics. Hittite was deciphered in 1915 by Hrozny Bedrich, whose studies had been in Theology and History. Linear B was deciphered in 1952 by Michael Ventris, whose degree was in Architecture. Neither of these triumphs -- and I agree they were spectacular -- in any way validates modern theoretical linguistics, i.e. the work of Chomsky or his rivals. I like philology, but it seems to me that philology was doing just fine before linguistics came along and subsumed it. In what way has linguistics assisted philology? > And some Chinese stuff discovered in Dunhuang supplied some missing > links there, I think. Scott, do you know anything about this? > There's a nice prediction in my diss.:) > > I could tell by the distribution of a certain set of particles that > the date of a particular text was later than the date of publication. > > Luckily I found a citation that mentioned the editing of this text > about the time that I had projected it resembled being written. But > I didn't find the citation till I had already determined it was later. Congratulations! And in what way did theoretical linguistics help you make that prediction? misrael@csi.uottawa.ca Mark Israel
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<2vso7d$s0e@csi0.csi.uottawa.ca>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!yeshua.marcam.com!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!uotcsi2!misraelReferences:
<199407100444.VAA07983@netcom10.netcom.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10b097,826aa1babacf3c92 X-Google-Attributes: gid10b097,public X-Google-Thread: 10a20a,46af33b4381bd91f,start X-Google-Attributes: gid10a20a,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-07-11 22:05:47 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!yeshua.marcam.com!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!uotcsi2!misrael From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) Newsgroups: sci.lang,bit.listserv.words-l Subject: linguistics vs philology Date: 12 Jul 1994 00:30:37 GMT Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa Lines: 51 Message-ID: <2vso7d$s0e@csi0.csi.uottawa.ca> References: <199407100444.VAA07983@netcom10.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaml3.csi.uottawa.ca