LINGUIST List 2.504

Fri 13 Sep 1991

Disc: Linguists, language & dialect, professeure,

Editor for this issue: <>


Directory

  1. Paul Saka, RE: what is a linguist?
  2. , 2.489 Language and dialect
  3. "Michael Kac", Re: 2.488 ProfesseurE Part 2
  4. "Michael Kac", Dialects, languages, armies, navies etc.
  5. "MICHEL, Grammaticality Judgements (an aside during the "ProfesseurE" debate)
  6. , lousy source attribution

Message 1: RE: what is a linguist?

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 91 16:53:42 -0700
From: Paul Saka <sakacogsci.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: what is a linguist?
>Linguist List: Vol-2-472. Sat 07 Sep 1991. Lines: 165
>Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 20:46:12 PDT
>From: ctlnttviolet.berkeley.edu
>Subject: Re: Linguistic Novels, Films/467
>I wonder if anyone would care
>to share their thoughts about what, in this day and age,
>constitutes "a linguist", and how one can tell a linguist form
>a non-linguist. (I meant "from" not "form").
My personal takes:
	In ANY day and age, a scientist is someone who
does research into the object of inquiry; a linguist is
someone who does research into language. Although it is
impossible to tell what citizens do in the privacy of
their own homes, prima facie we may suppose that someone
who publishes their linguistic research is a linguist.
	Another interpretation of "-ist" would
say that a linguist must be somehow saliently or typically
occupied with the study of language. In that case, we
might say that a linguist is someone who, like a professor,
is paid to do linguistics.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: 2.489 Language and dialect

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 91 07:58:52 EDT
From: <Alexis_Manaster_Ramermts.cc.wayne.edu>
Subject: 2.489 Language and dialect
George Huttar's summary omits Edward Sapir, to whom, as I believe,
the army/navy aphorism is attributed at Chicago. Since he would
have been by far older (earlier) than the other possible sources,
that ipso facto makes this is a plausible claim.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 3: Re: 2.488 ProfesseurE Part 2

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 19:06:45 -0500
From: "Michael Kac" <kaccs.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: 2.488 ProfesseurE Part 2
The recent discussion reminds me that a colleague of mine was asked once
by a student in Introduction to Linguistics if the fact that all French
nouns are masculine or feminine is the reason French is called a Romance
language.
Michael Kac
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 4: Dialects, languages, armies, navies etc.

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 19:53:25 -0500
From: "Michael Kac" <kaccs.umn.edu>
Subject: Dialects, languages, armies, navies etc.
I suddenly recall that my source of the attribution of the saying 'A language
is a dialect [etc.]' to Max Weinreich is Chomsky's Knowledge of Language (p.
15).
Michael Kac
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 5: Grammaticality Judgements (an aside during the "ProfesseurE" debate)

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1991 10:57 EDT
From: "MICHEL <MGRIMAUDWELLCO.BITNET>
Subject: Grammaticality Judgements (an aside during the "ProfesseurE" debate)
I was asked about the reference to _Brain & Language_... Considering, it
was not there, I'd better correct this error fast. Here is the actual
reference:
	Nagata Hiroshi
		The relativity of Linguistic Intuitions: The Effect of
		Repetition on Grammaticality Judgments
	J. of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 1988, 1-17
Sorry about the mislead :-[
Michel Grimaud
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 6: lousy source attribution

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 09:22:09 CST
From: <huttar%dallasutafll.uta.edu>
Subject: lousy source attribution
>Date: Sat, 07 Sep 91 22:26:44 -0400
>From: Ellen Prince <ellencentral.cis.upenn.edu>
>Subject: Re: FYI: Language vs Dialect, Software /2-476
>>Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 08:33:12 CST
>>From: txsil!huttardallas%utafll.uta.eduRICEVM1.RICE.EDU
>>Subject: language & dialect: thanks!
>>
>>
>> The trickle of replies about the origin of "a language is a dialect
>> with its own army and navy" seems to have stopped now, so I'll thank
>> you all for your interesting range of responses. To summarize for
>> those interested, and for those who compulsively read everything in
>> LINGUIST: replies via LINGUIST or direct to me came up with Bill
>> Welmers, Roman Jakobson via Paul Kiparsky, Otto Jespersen, and Max
>> Weinreich. Weinreich got two mentions, but both derive from the same
>> source, _The Native Speaker is Dead_; the reference there to MW's
>> originating that aphorism sounds about as solidly based on hearsay and
>> unexamined memory as the other replies. Dissertation on the rise and
>> spread of ((meta)socio)linguistic myths, anyone?
>> Thanks again.
>> George Huttar
>huh??? as one of the two who answered 'max weinreich', i'm totally
>confused by this 'derivation'. what is _the native speaker is dead_? and
>why is it my source?
 My apologies to/, Ellen Prince. When I got a "my understanding is that
 max weinreich said it, but I don't have a reference. if anyone has,
 i'd appreciate hearing it" reply from her/you at about the same time as
 a reply steering me to T. M. Paikeday (1985), The Native Speaker is
 Dead! (Toronto & NY: Paikeday Publishing), p. 26, I leapt to the
 unwarranted conclusion that the Paikeday reference was the source of
 her/your understanding. Now several more references to Weinreich have
 appeared in LINGUIST, starting about the same time as my ill-advised
 summary of previous replies, giving more reason to attribute the
 army/navy bit to him than the allusion in Paikeday alone suggested.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue