14750SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
- Mar 3, 2013Dear Peter,
I do not think that the anthropologists will give a d... for what you think. That is the way it is being used. In social anthropology, as well as in sociology. It is quite like our old discussion about Canaanite script which a historian did not make much sense but nevertheless was the term adopted by philologists.
There will probably be list among anthropologists where you can go and make your complaints. They will probably say that you are right about the origins of the term, but also say that this is the derived way we use it.
The last sentence was a spin off from the discussion, and should be read in context (which I am sure you understand).
Niels Peter Lemche
Fra: ANEemail@example.com [mailto:ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 16:32
Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
As I said, "The usual use in social anthropology" would not be a helpful answer.
That business about "what informer tells you" vs. "what you think yourself" has nothing whatsoever to do with the original lingusitic sense (and I do not see how it can be derived from it), nor with the detachment from the root "phon-" that was used by the linguistic theoretician Kenneth Pike at least since the early 1950s. (Many -eme words were devised by Baudouin de Courtenay more than half a century before that.)
If you meant "we don't know what the folks we call Philistines called themselves," that's what you should have said.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
>________________________________[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
>To: "ANEemail@example.com" <ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org>
>Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:27 AM
>Subject: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
>And I would only add: We have an idea about what other people called the Philistines, but do we know what they called themselves? They are quite mute. It is, however, interesting that the Assyrians when they became better acquainted with the area, called "philistine" in the OT, they did not any longer use it. They never talk about Philistine kings, but rather kings from various cities mentioned by name, which would in the etic source in the OT be reckoned "Philistine."
>Niels Peter Lemche
>Fra: ANEemail@example.com [mailto:ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org] På vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
>Emne: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
>I know of the origins of emic and etic, but these terms are used without the addition og "phon-" in social anthropology to distinguish between what the informer tells you and what you think yourself. It means that what one part seems as the fact is not necessarily shared by the other part. The use of the two concepts are in anthropology not as old as in linguistics, but quite common and accepted.
>To illustrate the issue, in his well-known book "The Nuer" from the thirties, Evans-Pritchard wrote about the "Nuer". When his students returned after the war, they couldn't find them. It showed up that "Nuer" was the term used by the Dinka about the people living on the other side of the river. The people themselves did not know that they were the "Nuer".
>I used the concept for the first time in Early Israel from 1985.
>Niels Peter Lemche
>Fra: ANEemail@example.com [mailto:ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:16
>Til: ANE-2 list
>Emne: [ANE-2] emic/etic
>Toward the end of one of his long postings on "Palestine," Niels Peter recently used the terms "emic" and "etic."
>I wonder what they mean to him?
>("The usual use by scholars of X" would not be a helpful answer. The terms arose in linguistics almost 150 years ago and have been reinterpreted many times.)
>Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>