Re: Formal vs. natural languages (was Re: Oligosynthetic languages in nature.)

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>wrote:

> Hallo!
>
> [snip]
>
> Blame it on the dreadful Benjamin Lee Whorf.  He invented
> the term.  Indeed, "oligomorphemic" would be better.

This is not the first time you've made disparaging remarks about Whorf.
Whorf was an excellent field worker and wrote masterful descriptions of two
Uto-Aztecan languages: Hopi and Milpa Alta Nahuatl. His descriptions are
detailed and accurate, if unorthodox. His theoretical writing may a bit more
suspect, but then he was an insurance salesman and not an academic. In fact,
that is what I like most about his work; he was not beholden to the academic
orthodoxies of his time and felt free to pursue other lines of explanation.
If they prove to be mistaken (which declaration may be premature at this
point), it doesn't diminish his work. He may, in fact, turn out to be wrong
for all the right reasons. And that's useful, as well.

As for the (in)appropriateness of the term "oligosynthetic." Deal with it.
Linguistics is full of crackbrained terminology. On This Very List we've had
knock-down drag-outs over "gerund" vs "gerundive" and "perfect" vs
"perfective" -- "ergative" seems ripe for ridicule; what does this case have
to do with "work"? Linguists deal with it (or not, as in the case of
"oligosynthesis") and move on.

Dirk

Reply