0
Usenet Posted 23 years ago
Usage
Are grammarians rturnips?
I've come across a quotation that seems worthy to be posted here. (Are grammarians turnips?):
From :
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Broadly conceived, linguistics is the study of human language and a linguist is someone who engages in this study. Linguistic inquiry is pursued by a wide variety of specialists, who may not all be in harmonious agreement; as Russ Rymer flamboyantly puts it:
"Linguistics is arguably the most hotly contested
property in the academic realm. It is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, philosophers, philologists, psychologists, biologists, and neurologists, along with whatever blood can be got out of grammarians." (1)
# Rymer, p. 48, quoted in Fauconnier and Turner, p. 353)
and "Rymer" probably refers to
# Rymer, Russ (1992). "Annals of Science: A Silent Childhood-I". New Yorker, April 13.
From :
Begin excerpt from the introductory remarks
LinguisticsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Broadly conceived, linguistics is the study of human language and a linguist is someone who engages in this study. Linguistic inquiry is pursued by a wide variety of specialists, who may not all be in harmonious agreement; as Russ Rymer flamboyantly puts it:
"Linguistics is arguably the most hotly contested
property in the academic realm. It is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, philosophers, philologists, psychologists, biologists, and neurologists, along with whatever blood can be got out of grammarians." (1)
End excerpt from the introductory remarks
I don't find any numbered footnotes. The above quote seems to be from# Rymer, p. 48, quoted in Fauconnier and Turner, p. 353)
and "Rymer" probably refers to
# Rymer, Russ (1992). "Annals of Science: A Silent Childhood-I". New Yorker, April 13.
Top answer
[/nq] Well, some of them are rootabagas, and some of them are swedes. " (Robert Ingersoll)
- [/nq] Well, some of them are rootabagas, and some of them are swedes.
- " (Robert Ingersoll)
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
43 Answers
0
[nq:1]Are grammarians turnips?[/nq]
Well, some of them are rootabagas, and some of them are swedes.
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences." (Robert Ingersoll)
Well, some of them are rootabagas, and some of them are swedes.
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences." (Robert Ingersoll)
00
[nq:1]I've come across a quotation that seems worthy to be posted here. (Are grammarians turnips?): From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics : == Begin ... 353) and "Rymer" probably refers to # Rymer, Russ (1992). "Annals of Science: A Silent Childhood-I". New Yorker, April 13.[/nq]
What we have here is
What we have here is
00
[nq:2]I've come across a quotation that seems worthy to be ... "Annals of Science: A Silent Childhood-I". New Yorker, April 13.[/nq]
[nq:1]What we have here is a combination of two ideas: The first involves the adage "You can't get blood out ... ancient Greeks. I'm trying to show how the person who wrote the Wikipedia article might be looking at the matter.[/nq]
What linguists refer to the
[nq:1]What we have here is a combination of two ideas: The first involves the adage "You can't get blood out ... ancient Greeks. I'm trying to show how the person who wrote the Wikipedia article might be looking at the matter.[/nq]
What linguists refer to the
00
[nq:2]What we have here is a combination of two ideas: ... wrote the Wikipedia article might be looking at the matter.[/nq]
[nq:1]What linguists refer to themselves as "grammarians," descriptive or otherwise?[/nq]
It is likely in the same article in McArthur's book that I read a discussion about linguists avoiding calling themselves grammarians, not because ( speaking of those who write de
[nq:1]What linguists refer to themselves as "grammarians," descriptive or otherwise?[/nq]
It is likely in the same article in McArthur's book that I read a discussion about linguists avoiding calling themselves grammarians, not because ( speaking of those who write de
00
[nq:1]I've come across a quotation that seems worthy to be posted here. (Are grammarians turnips?): From : == Begin ... 353) and "Rymer" probably refers to # Rymer, Russ (1992). "Annals of Science: A Silent Childhood-I". New Yorker, April 13.[/nq]
This is Rymer's lengthy account of the wild-child "Genie", later published as "Genie: A Scientific Tragedy".
Ross Clark
This is Rymer's lengthy account of the wild-child "Genie", later published as "Genie: A Scientific Tragedy".
Ross Clark
00
[nq:2]What linguists refer to themselves as "grammarians," descriptive or otherwise?[/nq]
[nq:1]It is likely in the same article in McArthur's book that I read a discussion about linguists avoiding calling themselves ... was once at www.xrefer.com ). I'll have to consult the paper version the next time I am at the library.[/nq]
The hardover is remaindered all over the place, and the paperb
[nq:1]It is likely in the same article in McArthur's book that I read a discussion about linguists avoiding calling themselves ... was once at www.xrefer.com ). I'll have to consult the paper version the next time I am at the library.[/nq]
The hardover is remaindered all over the place, and the paperb
00
Charles Fillmore has referred to himself as "an ordinary working grammarian" more than once when asking pointed questions of (other) linguists.
Jack
Jack
00
[nq:1]Charles Fillmore has referred to himself as "an ordinary working grammarian" more than once when asking pointed questions of (other) linguists. Jack[/nq]
[nq:2]What linguists refer to themselves as "grammarians," descriptive or otherwise?[/nq]
As the father of Case Grammar, he had to be a Case Grammarian.
Peter T. Daniels (Email Removed)
[nq:2]What linguists refer to themselves as "grammarians," descriptive or otherwise?[/nq]
As the father of Case Grammar, he had to be a Case Grammarian.
Peter T. Daniels (Email Removed)
00
[nq:2]Charles Fillmore has referred to himself as "an ordinary working grammarian" more than once when asking pointed questions of (other) linguists. Jack[/nq]
[nq:1]As the father of Case Grammar, he had to be a Case Grammarian.[/nq]
He didn't have to be, He's said that he didn't intend his work on case as an alternative to other syntactic theories.
Greg Lee (Email Removed)
[nq:1]As the father of Case Grammar, he had to be a Case Grammarian.[/nq]
He didn't have to be, He's said that he didn't intend his work on case as an alternative to other syntactic theories.
Greg Lee (Email Removed)
00
[nq:2]As the father of Case Grammar, he had to be a Case Grammarian.[/nq]
[nq:1]He didn't have to be, He's said that he didn't intend his work on case as an alternative to other syntactic theories.[/nq]
Yeah. I think it's fair to say that Fillmore considers himself both a grammarian and (specifically, on occasion, and among other things) a syntactician.
Any linguist, like me for instan
[nq:1]He didn't have to be, He's said that he didn't intend his work on case as an alternative to other syntactic theories.[/nq]
Yeah. I think it's fair to say that Fillmore considers himself both a grammarian and (specifically, on occasion, and among other things) a syntactician.
Any linguist, like me for instan
0
Related Questions