Re: Linguistic issues and anthropology

Ralph L Holloway (rlh2@COLUMBIA.EDU)
Sun, 11 Feb 1996 23:48:34 -0500

On Sun, 11 Feb 1996, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:

> Your statement could not have been better phrased. Of course, that is
> why linguistics is one of the four fields of anthropology. What's
> amazing is the number of anthropologists on this list who seem to have
> had no training in linguistics, or if they have had, didn't internalize
> it and apply it to everyday communication, and to the significance of the
> fact that as culture changes, so does language. The resistance to
> accepting changes in language that accord with culture changes is what's
> incredible in anthropologists. Ruby Rohrlich

This query will no doubt be seen as feminist-baiting, but I assure you
that it isn't: it's simple baiting...Tell us Ruby, just how many of us on
the list have had no training in linguistics, or have been incapable of
internalizing their lessons well enough to accepting changes in language
as "culture" changes? A clue to the answer: Tom Kavanagh just provided
you(and the rest of the list) with the means to go through the archives.
Go read them, count, and give us some facts to back up your idiotic
claims, and while your at it, count the number of times your were
feminist-baited as opposed to simply disagreed with, or where you were
asked to back up your claims with some evidence.
Ralph Holloway