fieldwork or cultural theft (part 3)

[Allan Wechsler]

    [Peter Keegan:]
        At 01:19 PM 2/5/97 -0500, Allan Wechsler wrote:
	    >Before we complacently reassure ourselves that, pace Peter
        Keegan,
	    >linguists are usually benign or indifferent influences, let's
        consider
	    >fieldwork from an economic and game-theoretic viewpoint.  I will
	        >explain.

		    You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out if
		    linguistic field
		        work is
			    considered from an economic and game-theoretic
		    viewpoint then less would get
		        done and languages would disappear at a faster rate.

			    I certainly don't ascribe to an ideology that
			    suggests market forces should
			        permeate all aspects of society including
			    language.

			    I'm sorry I was unclear.  I don't support such an
			    ideology either.  My
			    point was that the market systematically
			    undervalues endangered
			    languages, relative to their real moral and
			    scientific value.

			    Anyhow, it's a bind -- I think we agree on that.
			    (Is the idiomatic
			    use of "bind" to mean "dilemma" global English or
			    just American?)

			    -A
			    ----
			    Endangered-Languages-L Forum:
			    -endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
			    Web pages
			    -http://carmen.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
			    Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands:
			    -majordomo at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
			    ----