Editor for this issue: <>
I would venture to guess that not many people would want to reply to Grosserhode's question about the relationship between linguistics and imperialism (including the Roman Empire), but I think it could be made interesting. First thing we have to decide is how far back we want to trace linguistics -- and does that refer to all documented inquiries into the multiplicity of languages. As far as I can remember (not because Iwas there) the first documents which might be called linguistic date back to bilingual Sumerian/Akkadian cuneiform tablets, where extensive paradigms (crudely organised but painfully exhaustive) were presented. Imperialism aside, apparently the motivation was that Sumerian was still the written language of the empire(?) but Akkadian had replaced it as the spoken language, necessitating training in Sumerian for writing purposes (obviously Akkadian was also written at that time, but Sumerian still had a position similar to Latin in Europe up to the vernacularisation drives. I don't know enough about the Sumerian/Akkadian society to know if and when it gathered enough people of different linguistic backgrounds to be considered an "empire", but it seems quite obvious that the larger the empire and the more spoken languages contained in it, the more linguistic type work is stimulated for practical reasons -- and people who are interested in language and language diversity for its own sake (and I'm sure they predate writing) jump on the opportunity. Writing, however, probably plays a large role in making empires possible/manageable. BenjiMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue