dilettentes and amateurs

[Dorothy Disterheft]

In the discussion so far of dilettentes and amateurs, there seems to
be something missing. The cases of the illustrious
amateurs mentioned so far are people who were trained in
linguistics/philology (e.g. Grassmann, Whorf) or in other sciences
and who, for various reasons, did not pursue careers in the university.
I also don't see lack of formal training -- either in the nineteenth or
in the twentiety century -- as necessarily being a weakness: look at the
huge number of us who are professional practitioners in areas outside of
those in which
 
The above cases are very different from the language (and science)
dilettents who are neither formally nor self-trained. As was just pointed
out by Gonzolo Rubio, they pick and choose among various bits and pieces
of information scattered over the decades, and they put it together to
fit whatever whim they're currently practicing. This lack of dedication
to rigor clearly takes them out of the amateur class, which I interpret
in its etymological meaning, and plants them firmly in the nut and
crank class.
 
Those of you who were on the list last year will remember
HISTLING's Proto-World phase,
which finally dissolved into a spate of etymological electronic umbrage
being slung around the globe. This, you will also remember,
was the motivation for turning HISTLING into a moderated list. And
as moderator of this list, I received lots of private
correspondence from these characters saying that I was acting to repress
future Galileos -- I guess this made me a member of the Inquisition!
Anyway, most of those dilletents signed off immediately, presumably
looking for other lists on which on which they could plunder and pillage.
 
The point of this rambling? That we can make another generalization about
many who belong in the dilletent category: in addition to their lack
of education about the facts of the field, they also haven't been educated
as to style and standards of scholarly discourse. (Of course, some of you
out there will immediately come up with a list of ill-mannered people
who are/were also professional linguists, but those types have been
marked as [+nasty] by their own colleagues.)
 
Dorothy Disterheft
you (usually silent) moderator