18 Oct
2010
18 Oct
'10
6:21 p.m.
From: William Donzelli
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:51 PM
> And the archaeologists often don't know enough
linguistics to make the
> call for the linguistically interesting texts.
That is kind of a slam on archaeologists, isn't
it? I bet they could
say that linguists often don't know enough history to make the
call for the historically interesting texts. "Aw, cripes, it's just
another scroll about Roman sewers or something.".
Not intended as a slam, and it is true, mutatis mutandis, of linguists'
knowledge of archaeological concerns. However, the linguists would not
toss the Roman sewer scrolls--you never know where something interesting
about language will turn up--and it's not their business to decide on
the historians' interests.
Both historical linguistics (which is what I'm talking about) and archaeology
(of any stripe) are massive fields, with a great deal of lore for the
practitioner to ingest. There is no blame in the practitioners of either
field not knowing much about the other.