Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Leonard Bloomfield died (18-4-1949)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 13:38:30 +0100
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <87zftomcop.fsf@parhasard.net>
References: <uvv1o0$396po$1@dont-email.me> <878r18o4rl.fsf@parhasard.net>
 <v008a1$3klnn$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net ZoClbGwsnogbRRxQ0DAung4SQk+l5QJsBFc7RycW3vfY64SvFy
Cancel-Lock: sha1:I2Z6FyUR2IaFHFKtEOFFjbAanHA= sha1:e3aYKVDqGYQGwJTkQphp8wvclMU= sha256:CBe9ugd+MtY0M8rMy5FURpV9txSe0h6ykIrJLpCW3YE=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.101 (Gnus v5.10.10) XEmacs/21.5-b35 (Linux-aarch64)
Bytes: 1769


 Ar an fichiú lá de mí Aibreán, scríobh Ross Clark: 

 > > [...] A very small-tent approach, odd to take it as someone academically
 > > senior, who might be thought to have reason to increase his area of
 > > interest. Rules out PTD’s ‘The World’s Writing Systems’ for one.
 > 
 > But PTD did not spend his whole life studying writing!

Indeed he did not.

 > He did enter into linguistic study (even read Bloomfield, and was taught by
 > one of his students). This study undoubtedly informed his treatment of
 > writing systems.
 > 
 > Plus, I don't think Bloomfield is saying these other areas of study are
 > worthless -- just that they should be distinguished from linguistic science.

I think a natural approach is to say that they are part of linguistic science.

-- 
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)