![]() ![]() These are not people who enjoy studying foreign languages, or have only learnt keywords/phrases, or simply have a knack for picking up languages - these are people who likely will have studied these languages in depth and arrived at a high level of fluency. In each of these instances, the person described as a "linguist" is accomplished at speaking (generally a great number) of foreign languages. He was a formidable linguist, speaking 25 languages and many moreĪ skilled linguist, Marianne used her new-found freedom to become an He was also an accomplished linguist speaking nine foreign languages ![]() Someone with a strong propensity for studying/learning foreign languages may be said to have good linguistic skills, but somebody who studies how a language or languages in general work OR who is accomplished in languages, is a linguist.Īt first sight, the definition in your question, "A person skilled in foreign languages." surprised me as it seemed so simplistic (compare to MW's definition above), but looking at the example sentences that accompany this definition, we have With the rise of historical linguistics in the 19th century, It traditionallyĮncompasses semantics, syntax, and phonology. Study of the nature and structure of language. The study of human speech including the units, nature, structure, and Of or relating to language or linguistics Ī person accomplished in languages especially : one who speaks My answer has more to do with your side question than your main one (which others have addressed) but I think a look at the definitions and current usage is relevant. Meaning “science of language” is first attested 1716 ( philologue “linguist” is from 1590s philologer “linguistic scholar” is from 1650s) this confusing secondary sense has not been popular in the U.S., where linguistics is preferred. The use of linguistic to mean “of or pertaining to language or languages” is “hardly justifiable etymologically,” according to OED, but “has arisen because lingual suggests irrelevant associations.”īefore that, the study of language was called philology. “the science of languages,” 1847 see linguistic also see -ics.ġ856, from French linguistique (1833) see linguist + -ic. The word didn’t refer to the study of language until later, and to linguistics much, much later: The original sense survives in the double entendre cunning linguist. Meaning “a student of language” first attested 1640s. The earliest sense of linguist simply means a skilled speaker, such as a rhetorician (Online Etymology Dictionary):ġ580s, “a master of language, one who uses his tongue freely,” a hybrid from Latin lingua “language, tongue” (see lingual) + -ist. I doubt the word would be a back-formation from "linguistics".Īs a side question, would the first sense now be considered to be colloquial or at least nontechnical or outdated? My original opinion was the latter sense but on thinking about it I now expect it to be the former. I would like to know which of these senses is the original one? Now I don't have access to a better dictionary on historical principles from my current location. Here's the defs from (chosen at random): So I looked up "linguist" in some imperfect online dictionaries and was surprised to find both senses. But I was uncomfortable with his opinion that you had to have certain pieces of paper to be called a linguist, I think "post doctorate" from memory. My instinct was that the ranter was kind of right in his opinion that people who speak many languages are not linguists. I'm personally interested in both linguistics and languages as a hobby but I have no official training and certainly no qualifications in either. I have been listening to some rants on YouTube against people learning a bunch of languages calling themselves "linguists". ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |