references to collaboration or lack of it, between linguistics and neighboring
Summing up the wide-ranging work of the philologist and
etymologist Hugo Schuchardt (floruit
1864 - 1927, magnum jubilaeum):
Schuchardt hat nicht nur über fast
alle allgemeinen Probleme der Sprachwissenschaftnachgedacht, sondern alle irgendwie zur Linguistik
peripherisch gelegenen Gebiete des Lebensabgesucht, von der Sprachwissenschaft als Zentrum ausseinen Beitrag der Lösung der drängenden
-- Leo Spitzer, ed., Hugo
Schuchardt-Brevier (1921; 2nd edn. 1928), p.
Schuchardt himself, however, in places posits the wisdom of
keeping linguistics saubergetrennt:
Hamitische Sprachen sind solche die
von Hamiten gesprochen werden, oder Hamiten sind diewelche hamitische Sprachen reden.Jenes ist die antropologische Erklärung, dieses die
linguistische … Mißverständnissen kann nur dadurch voergebeugt werden, daß
Linguistisches und Anthropologischesa werde.
-- review (1912) ofC. Meinhof, Die Sprachen der Hamiten;
repr. Leo Spitzer, ed., Hugo Schuchardt-Brevier (1921; 2nd
edn. 1928), p. 334
Referring to the theoretical-semantic efforts of the pre-eminent
19th-century psychologist Wilhelm Wundt:
Wundt’s failure seems to have
discouraged others from taking up the matter in earnest, for during the last 30
years, no one has made public any system of semasiology worthy of serious consideration.Semantic work from 1900 to 1930has been characterized by an astonishing and highly regrettable lack
of contact and collaboration between psychologists and philologists.
-- Gustav Stern, Meaning and
Change of Meaning (1931)
Hugo Schuchardt, best known as a Romance philologist, but who
studied a remarkable range of languages, not excluding Basque and Berber,
Wir glauben nicht an den Segen der Zweisprachigkeit;wenn man mit Recht gesagt hat, qu’une population qui parle deux langues, a
deux cordes à son arc, so hat man vergessen hinzuzufügen, daß keine dieser
Sehnen sehr straff ist.
-- Romanisches und Keltisches
(1886), repr. in Leo Spitzer, ed., Hugo Schuchardt-Brevier (1921; 2nd
edn. 1928), p. 363
If all goes well (as we confide it may), tomorrow, the first
Sunday of this season of Lent,will see the publication on
this site,of a most singular
narrative, one which presents several features of interest.It begins like this:
A Narrow Escape
was natural that Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown should eventually meet.Either had of course heard of the
exemplary casework of the other, and regarded it with respect, if not perhaps with
total comprehension, their habitual modus of approach to problems of what the
newspapers call crimes, being so disparateor even occasionally at variance.And Brownhaving
once replied to the great sleuth’s standing invitation to drop by for a visit,
should chance or industry ever take him to London, that he would be pleased to
do so, it was only natural that, when fate eventually did so send him (not upon
any detectival matter, but merely to attend a clerical conference at Westminster),
he should telegram the time of his expected arrival, and prove as good as his
was much less natural, on the plain secular face of it, though in the end it
seemed to have been fated (and this by a Fate, that tempers the wind, to the
full-wooled lambas well as the
shorn), was that, during what had been intended to be a largely social visit,
with exchange of anecdotes over refreshments (English stout for the priest, and
some sort of white power for the host) and sharing of professional
particulars,a sudden inruption of
circumstancesshould have ordained
that the two of them should collaborate on a delicate and highly enigmatic
case, involving life and death -- indeed, tied up with something more serious
than either of these.
[T. B. C,D. V.]
In the meantime, devotees of the adventures of the great
London detective, or of his lesser-known colleague from Essex, may sate their
dear Horgan, it’s elementary:
Neither atheist, theist nor agnostic could prove or disprove their beliefs to
Holmes’ satisfaction (otherwise, it would lack the primary quality of faith).
Holmes would require deduction; that is, eliminate the impossible.
1. It would be impossible for a human to be accountable for their actions
without free will. Holmes obviously believes that humans are accountable for
crimes; ergo, Holmes believes that humans have free will.
2. Likewise, Holmes believes in an absolute morality because it is entailed by
3. It is impossible to have an absolute morality without a transcendent purpose
of that morality; otherwise the morality is simply relative to each person
(this was Moriarty’s logical error!).
4. The transcendent purpose is Holmes’ God, his raison d’etre, without which
logic itself does not exist!
As the shamus Jerome once said:"Ratio donum divinum est, et sic ipsa est divinae consors naturae."