From: T. Davina McClain (mcclain@beta.loyno.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 24 1997 - 00:47:07 EST
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, jan gabbert - dept of classics wrote:
> Yes, you do have support on this list, dm. The subject has been well enough
> discussed here and I don't plan to add much, except to remind us all of
> what we do know...
>
> It is important to use words accurately and carefully. "Genetic", for
> example,, does not mean "has origins in" - it means biologically based (genes
> and chromosomes and all that). Ebonics is not a word and nothing is gained
> from creating it, it does not describe something that has not existed
> before and for which there is no word. It's a cruel farce. We must
> call things by their right names, most certainly where discussion of
> language is concerned. I don't care what the "sociolinguists" say -
> they are as capable of foolishness as other mortals!
>
> jan gabbert
> jgabbert@desire.wright.edu
>
Hmmm, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (3rd edition), genetic
does mean "2. of, relating to, or influenced by the origin or development
of something." More pertinent, the third definition deals specifically
with linguistics: "Of or relating to the relationship between or among
languages that are descendants of a protolanguage." Although you may not
agree with what they are saying, they are using the term properly.
**************************************************************************
*T. Davina McClain "Datur haec venia antiquitati ut *
*Loyola University New Orleans miscendo humana divinis primordia *
* urbium augustiora faciat...." *
*mcclain@beta.loyno.edu --Livy pr. 7 *
**************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:03 EDT