User talk:Iph/Linguistician

Good page!

I'll second that!

What a well argued, literate and, indeed, eloquent entry - none of which are, regrettably, the rule on Wikipedia, or anywhere these days - my compliments! I agree entirely that the word "linguistician" is totally justified, and should be used to distinguish "linguistic scientists" from people who specialise in the study and practical use of (necessarily foreign?) languages, including language history, phonetics, etc., in which category I include myself - I am British, and speak German (fluently - I live in Germany and earn my living as a professional translator), Russian (my great passion, but I've forgotten a lot, and was never really totally fluent, as I learned the language in Soviet times, when it was difficult for most westerners to spend any prolonged time in the main country of use [USSR, as was, of course], but am trying to catch up now by visiting Ukraine frequently, and probably Russia, in future, too), and some little but useful French left over from schooldays, and am also always interested in other languages. I first heard of "linguistics" when I was at college, from fellow students who were studying philosophy (the key name was "Chomsky", of course), and got (and still am) interested, but soon established that linguistics is not necessarily involved with any practical aspects of language learning, use or, indeed, analysis. It's a branch of philosophy. To sum up, I think the term "linguistician" is the right one, should be (proudly) adopted by people who study linguistics and should be used to identify them. BUT: in over forty years of involvement with languages, one differentiation which has highly impressed me is the one between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" observation of languages, whether in grammar, vocabulary, syntax, semantics, etc.. In other words, the linguist should observe and accept what the native user of the language says or writes, and not try to dictate what he or she should say or write; this, to my way of thinking, is the only democratic and, indeed, realistic approach to the subject ("realistic", because the vast mass of users are not going to obey any rules imposed from "on high" anyway). In English (and, I think, in practice, even in French and German, too), the language itself, represented by its speakers, decides on what it needs and what it doesn't. And this is the case here: if no one wants to use "linguistician", then we just have to accept the fact. I will, nonetheless. confess to a certain dislike - resentment, even - of the appelation "linguist" being applied to people specialising in linguistics, of whom, I think it's fair to say, the majority do not have any real competence in languages. Maelli (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)