laurence.horn at YALE.EDU
Tue Mar 6 01:54:33 UTC 2001
At 2:57 PM +0100 3/6/01, Paul Frank wrote:
> Paul Dean trashes Words on Words, but
>since he thinks linguists are linguisticians perhaps he's not to be
>trusted. It's published by Penguin and the University of Chicago.
You're right, he's not. _Words on Words_ is a comprehensive
dictionary of quotations about language, and it's quite good,
although not perfect--certainly the best resource for this purpose,
although not quite up to the standards of Fred's Oxford Dictionary of
American Legal Quotations. I was a reader for the U. of Chicago Press
on the Crystals' book proposal, so I had the opportunity--not to
mention responsibility--of looking at the entire manuscript, although
I haven't purchased the published version. Safire mentioned it
favorably in a recent column, but I hope even Barry wouldn't hold
that against it, as he always has nice things to say about DARE too.
I didn't find any egregious errors in the ms., but I did note several
of my favorite quotes missing--I don't know if they snuck them into
the published (cis-Atlantic) version, or if they ignored my comments
and just reprinted the Penguin version.
As for "linguistician"--I've come across it and assumed it was used
as a disambiguator, but it has always struck me as pompous, so I (and
most of us) are resigned to putting up with the polysemy of
"linguist". I recall a posting somewhere in which someone was
complaining that the "-ician" is too redolent of "beautician" and
"dietician", but I wonder if that's a fair critique (i.e. turning
linguistics into a pink-collar profession). Certainly nobody who
studies phonetics or syntax objects to "phonetician" or
"syntactician" on those grounds. How do others feel about the
distinction between "dialectologist" and "dialectician"?
More information about the Ads-l