LINGUIST List 5.1123

Fri 14 Oct 1994

Misc: "Sanskrita", Indefinite pronouns, "Linguistician"

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. Larry Horn, Bare plurals in the mass media
2. benji wald, Re: Indefinite pronouns
3. Karl Teeter, "Linguistician"

The Abraham Lincoln School in New York has taken out a full-page promotional
ad in the Times (appearing 9/16/94, A15, and probably on other occasions
before or since) headlined "An Important Announcement To All Parents of Young
Children". To remedy 'the decline in education and social standards', the
school offers a program 'based on the principle that Man has a unique position
in the creation, and is capable of both the most divine acts and the most
appalling behavior' while being 'at the core of his [sic] being...pure,
perfect and complete'. Anyway, the daily schedule for 5-year-olds and up
begins as follows:
 8:30 - Arrival & attendance
 8:45 - Assembly & music
 9:15 - Philosophy (Monday);
 Sanskrita (Tues.-Fri.)
 9:45 - Mathematics
 (and so on through reading, writing, refreshment, etc.)
The ad then observes:

 "What is unusual is the study of Sanskrita. This is the oldest language
 known to man and is the source of modern languages. It has an uncorrupted
 purity and is excellent training for the mind. It is also unique in that
 its grammar reflects the laws of the creation."

Now, aside from the well-recognized value of studying a language uniquely
old, pure, and cosmogonically correct, the student appears to be encouraged to
take on Sanskrit (oops, Sanskrita) because of its status as the putative
mother of all languages. But actually, we can't serve as expert witnesses
for lawsuits brought by angry five-year-olds--the ones who demonstrate that
neither ChiMwini nor Dyirbal descends from Sanskrit(a)--because all the ad
claims is that S. is the SOURCE OF MODERN LANGAUGES, a claim supported, on the
existential reading, by Hindi, Gujarati, and so on. Aren't bare plurals
handy?

 --Larry Horn

On Marge Jackson's question on someone/somebody etc. Except for the obvious
phonological difference which can play a role in meter etc., No. There's no
SEMANTIC difference. I've actually thought about this from time to time,
because I say "nobody" etc. but I write "noone" -- and my spell check comes
back and demands two separate words "no one". Why's that? After all, it's
"nobody", "nothing" (uh, is this legitimate considering the first vowel?),
"nowhere", "someone" (with NO space), etc. Why's "no one" like
"no way (!)" but "nobody" isn't. A more interesting question
than the one asked about the semantics of anybody/ anyone is how to
characterise the difference between "anybody" and "whoever" (and the rest
of the paradigm "anything" and "whatever", "anyway" and "however" -- did
I say something wrong? These two closely related sets are more obviously
different, but I long ago noticed that "anybody who knows" is acquired
earlier and remains more common in colloquial speech than "whoever knows"
and so on. Benji

I AM repelled/repulsed by the term "linguistician", as were Einar Haugen
and many others when it was first proposed in print years ago by Robert
A. Hall -- Haugen pointed out at the time that the only terms of any
currency in English with this suffix were beautician, mortician, and
cosmetician, and did not wish to be associated with them. Neither do I.
There's nothing wrong with "linguistic scientist", which I often use, in
fact, but surely by now usage guarantees the correctness of
"linguist" in our use. Please! Yours, Karl (=Karl V. Teeter, Professor of
Linguistics, Emeritus, Harvard University)