on the epistemological nature of historical linguistics...

[Gonzalo Rubio]

The interesting replies from Benji Wald and Steven Schaufele are well
taken, and I thank them for their kindness. However, I'd like to insist on
the aspect of "dilettantism".
 
Benji Wald makes an interesting point when he says that somehow most
pioneers of historical linguistics were dilettanti. I guess, when Sir
William Jones became a judge of the Bengal Supreme Court in 1783, there
was no chair of historical linguistics. Figures such as Schlegel, W. von
Humboldt, Rasmus Rask, Franz Bopp, Jacob Grimm, and Renan, had exceptional
backgrounds in many languages, not only as scholars, but also as travelers
--one of the few ways they had access to some of the languages they
mastered. Before them, the first rather intuitive approaches to historical
linguistics were made by people (Hervas, Adelung, Young, etc.) that got
the best linguistic education one was able to get during the Enlightment.
 
Obviously, someone working on a field before this field becomes a common
discipline, could be called dilettante, in some way. However, I'd rather
reserve this label for people attempting to address issues of disciplines
already constituted as such, but who happen not to have a true (if any)
background in them. When Jones started, there was no way to "learn"
historical linguistics, there was no "theoretical framework" to work
within.  Nowadays, the situation is quite different. The difference
between being a Romantic during the Romanticism (Humboldt, etc) and being
a Romantic now, is painfully striking, I'm afraid.
 
Anyways, thanks a lot for your very interesting comments.
 
------------------------
Gonzalo Rubio
Near Eastern Studies
Johns Hopkins University
gonzalor at jhu.edu
------------------------