From kopff@spot.colorado.edu Sun Feb 11 13:33:01 2001 Received: from mxu4.u.washington.edu (mxu4.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW00.12) with ESMTP id NAA149230 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:33:00 -0800 Received: from spot.colorado.edu (spot.Colorado.EDU [128.138.129.2]) by mxu4.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id NAA20539 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:33:00 -0800 Received: from localhost (kopff@localhost) by spot.colorado.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/ITS-5.0/standard) with SMTP id OAA25354 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:32:59 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:32:59 -0700 (MST) From: KOPFF E CHRISTIAN To: classics@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: "Real Science" (WAS:The study of language; WAS: 2-3 languages?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, James Pfundstein wrote: > ECK seems to misunderstand that prescription and description > are complementary, not antithetical, activities. The view attributed to me is that of Andre Martinet, Elements of General Linguistics (English translation, 1964) p. 15. Martinet is one of several post-WW II linguists quoted by me, including Hans-Martin Gauger and Peter von Pohlenz. I also referred to Panini and Jacob Grimm in ways that, if mistaken, I should be glad to see corrected. That the only linguist I have referred to during this thread was Allen Walker Read is a bald-faced lie. He later went on: > I can't accept the premise, proposed by ECK and others, that the standards > which physical scientists use to sort through and construct various > possible models for a satisfying account of physical phenomena are > prescriptive, in the linguistic sense. I never said this nor do I think it. Christian Kopff University of Colorado, Boulder kopff@spot.colorado.edu .