"Victovaloke" (was: Re: Name of the Goths) - article critical of linguistics

[akoddsson]

Hails David!

I read this article. It really is so wild that one has to question 
this fellow's motivations for writing it. Did he attempt to study 
linguistics, fail to understand it and subsequently vented his wrath 
at her? Strange, indeed. There are some telling phrases, like the 
one about IE being of 'no practical value'. On this note, no lack of 
atomic applications hindered Democritus. The author here is highly 
critical of efforts to reconstruct IE, while clearly realizing that 
even the discovery that languages like Sanskrit and Greek must have 
had a more recent common ancestor then, say, Chinese and Greek is a 
recent event. Still, he characterizes these efforts as a failure. On 
this note, one could likewise have characterized atomic theory in, 
say, the year 1400 as a failure, as Democritus was then long since 
dead, and no atom bomb had yet been built. The fact is that so much 
progress has been made in linguistics that specialists are now, for 
the most part, relegated to special fields, often having merely an 
overview of the field as a whole. Another fact is that truth reveals 
itself in stages. In practical terms, Darwin's evolutionary theory 
was both right and wrong. Mistakes are human, and a lack of perfect 
understanding more than human, especially where no learning has been 
hirtherto available. Therefore, while we honour the contributions of 
scientific forebearers, and respect them, we do not accept theories 
without criticism. Instead, we trash the wheat from the chaff, and 
work toward a more perfect understanding, wishing our descendants in 
a field to do likewise. Thus, while I, for one, have a good grasp of 
Germanic linguistics, having applied myself consistently in it for 
many years and of genuine interest, I continue to make mistakes, and 
recognize that my understanding is far from perfect. Seeing how much 
time and effort this specialty has cost me, and how much I had (and 
still have) to learn, I wisely stay away from reconstruction of IE, 
while it certainly interests me, and informs Germanic linguistics as 
well, as I am in no position to contribute, or quarrel, with those 
specialized in the field. Instead, I content myself with following 
developments as they relate to Germanic. Indeed, linguistics is hard 
science, and specializing in Germanic is, perhaps, comparable to a 
botonist specializing in roses. I am happy in my rose garden, which 
I do not fully understand. It may not be the world, but a rose is a 
world unto itself. Anyone with a genuine interest, and who respects 
the garden, can happily call it their own and join me here. 

Regards,
Konrad

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, David Kiltz <derdron at ...> wrote:
>
> On 05.08.2006, at 23:10, dciurchea wrote:
> 
> > concerning the stream of the Romanian linguists, there is no
> > established line to rely on. There is no God in science anyway.
> > Please refer for a good article on that at:
> > http://www.gandirea.ro/linguistic_history_errors.php
> 
> I found the article to be only assertive of the author's amazing 
lack  
> of understanding of comparative linguistics. I wouldn't go into 
all  
> the many things that are wrong, or plainly absurd in his 
diatribe.  
> Comparative linguistics (and linguistics in general) has moved on 
so  
> much, it's interesting he never really cites recent literature  
> (unless Romanian on rather non-linguistic subjects). If any of 
the  
> 'humanities' can claim scientific methodology it is precisely  
> linguistics. This looks like a feeble attempt to create a pseudo- 
> tabula rasa for feverish, mostly nationalistic dreams of the 
author.
> While there are many open questions, not least because of lack of  
> material, this is totally normal for any science. Just look, e.g. 
at  
> biology, where there are a myriad of questions that still go  
> unanswered since 200 years. Comparative linguistics has provided 
us  
> with so much, it doesn't have to be ashamed of comparison with 
other  
> sciences. Of course, quoting from a Larousse of 1938 and then  
> claiming 'no progress has been made' is rather pathetic. The 
author's  
> initial premiss 'no basis for Indo-European' remains totally 
hollow  
> throughout the article. This is like saying "the theory of 
evolution  
> is but a phantasm" and then list some points which are unclear. 
In  
> fact though, as is admitted by scholars around the world,  
> reconstruction of Indo-European is an infinitely more densely nit 
web  
> then the evolutionary science of biology can hope to be in the 
next  
> few hundred years.
> 
> Lastly, there is no God in science? Well, if there is a God, he's  
> everywhere, not least in science. If not, then not. Sort of a 
moot  
> point, really. At any rate, I think some people can be happy there 
is  
> no God of science that strikes them down with a vengeance.
> 
> David Kiltz
>







You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/