[Spellyans] Rules for the apostrophe

Eddie Climo eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk
Thu May 20 07:05:40 BST 2010

On 20 Me 2010, at 00:00, Michael Everson wrote:

>> On 19 May 2010, at 21:59, Eddie Climo wrote:
>> No, Nicholas, Nance was a fine linguist,

> He did not have scientific linguistic training (as we use the word  
> "linguist" today)

Unfortunately, your use of the word 'we' does not include the fine  
linguists in the Oxford Dictionary team. Their American edition says:
> linguist |ˈlɪŋgwɪst|
> noun
> 1 a person skilled in foreign languages.
> 2 a person who studies linguistics.

No mention of 'scientific' or 'training' there.

> in the way which Jenner did. "Philologist" is a more accurate  
> description for someone with the background that Nance had.  There  
> is nothing wrong with philology. But it isn't the same as scientific  
> linguistics.

The same red herring: nothing in the AOED about 'scientific  
linguistics'. And the vocabulary lesson is unnecessary, thanks, as  
I've been studying languages (and linguistics) for many decades. Why,  
I even know what a lexicographer is as well!

> His compiling a dictionary makes him a lexicographer, not a linguist.

Piffle! it made him both a linguist (in both senses of the word) and a  
lexicographer. Lexicography is part of Linguistics, as is Philology.

>> Nance, Jenner, Smith, Chirgwin, Hooper and many others of that  
>> generation — their place in the history of the Revival is secure.
> It does not, however, confer infallibility upon them,

Another red herring: we never said it did.

> and none of them, I believe, would be happy to be beatified by later  
> generations.

You and Nicholas need to co-ordinate your hyperbolic slurs: if any of  
these people were 'deified' they'd scarcely be in line for the lesser  
'honour' of beatification, would they? Anyway, this is another red  
herring: nobody suggested either 'deification' or 'beatification'; a  
modicum of respect would be in order, though.

As someone (Isaac Newton?) famously said, if we see further it's  
because we stand on the shoulders of giants. We don't stand there so  
we can gratuitously kick them in the face.

I recall that Ken George used precisely this technique of trying to  
rubbish the scholars of Nance's generation (and of all the preceding  
ones, right back to Glasney College) in an attempt to enhance the  
status of KK.

It saddens me to see people using exactly the same tired old trick to  
try and do the same with KS.

Rak meth dheugh!

Eddie Foirbeis Climo
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
Dres ethom akennow byner re bons lyeshes
Accenti non multiplicandi praeter necessitatem

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20100520/7123a554/attachment.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list