Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

emic/etic

Expand Messages
  • Peter T. Daniels
    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
    Message 1 of 20 , Mar 3, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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@...
      Jersey City

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Niels Peter Lemche
      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
      Message 2 of 20 , Mar 3, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        Copenhagen





        -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
        Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@...
        Jersey City

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Niels Peter Lemche
        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,
        Message 3 of 20 , Mar 3, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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
          Copenhagen


          -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
          Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
          Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
          Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          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
          Copenhagen





          -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
          Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@...
          Jersey City

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          ------------------------------------

          Yahoo! Groups Links





          ------------------------------------

          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Peter T. Daniels
          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
          Message 4 of 20 , Mar 3, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            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@...
            Jersey City


            >________________________________
            > From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
            >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
            >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
            >Copenhagen
            >
            >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
            >Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
            >Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
            >Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
            >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
            >Copenhagen
            >
            >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
            >Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@...
            >Jersey City
            >

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Niels Peter Lemche
            Dear 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
            Message 5 of 20 , Mar 3, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear 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
              Copenhagen


              -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
              Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
              Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 16:32
              Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
              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@...
              Jersey City


              >________________________________
              > From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
              >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
              >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
              >Copenhagen
              >
              >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
              >Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
              >Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
              >Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
              >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
              >Copenhagen
              >
              >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
              >Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@...
              >Jersey City
              >

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • Peter T. Daniels
              Can you provide the reference where someone so badly misinterprets the terms? An anecdote about Evans-Pritchard s failure to learn the language of the people
              Message 6 of 20 , Mar 4, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Can you provide the reference where someone so badly misinterprets the terms? An anecdote about Evans-Pritchard's failure to learn the language of the people he was "studying" doesn't seem to provide the origin. At least a subsequent generation learned(!) of the distinction between endonyms and exonyms.

                (I don't give a d... for what the anthropologists think.) 
                --
                Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                Jersey City


                >________________________________
                > From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
                >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                >Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:45 AM
                >Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                >
                >

                >Dear 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
                >Copenhagen
                >
                >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                >Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                >Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 16:32
                >Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                >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@...
                >Jersey City
                >
                >>________________________________
                >> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                >>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
                >>Copenhagen
                >>
                >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                >>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
                >>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
                >>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                >>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
                >>Copenhagen
                >>
                >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                >>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@...
                >>Jersey City
                >

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Emanuel Pfoh
                Anthropologists on the emic/etic distinction: I think Marvin Harris was one of the first, if not the first one, in presenting a formal use of this distinction
                Message 7 of 20 , Mar 4, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Anthropologists on the emic/etic distinction: I think Marvin Harris was one of the first, if not the first one, in presenting a formal use of this distinction in his *The Nature of Cultural Things* (New York 1964) and in his *The Rise of Anthropological Theory* (London 1968).

                  Emanuel Pfoh
                  National University of La Plata
                  Argentina


                  ________________________________
                  From: Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@...>
                  To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 10:43 AM
                  Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic


                   
                  Can you provide the reference where someone so badly misinterprets the terms? An anecdote about Evans-Pritchard's failure to learn the language of the people he was "studying" doesn't seem to provide the origin. At least a subsequent generation learned(!) of the distinction between endonyms and exonyms.

                  (I don't give a d... for what the anthropologists think.) 
                  --
                  Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                  Jersey City

                  >________________________________
                  > From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                  >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                  >Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:45 AM
                  >Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                  >
                  >

                  >Dear 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
                  >Copenhagen
                  >
                  >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                  >Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                  >Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 16:32
                  >Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                  >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@...
                  >Jersey City
                  >
                  >>________________________________
                  >> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                  >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                  >>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
                  >>Copenhagen
                  >>
                  >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                  >>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
                  >>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
                  >>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                  >>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
                  >>Copenhagen
                  >>
                  >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                  >>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@...
                  >>Jersey City
                  >

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Niels Peter Lemche
                  You could for example start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lee_Pike. The literature is very comprehensive. Maybe you will learn something. And I
                  Message 8 of 20 , Mar 4, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    You could for example start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lee_Pike.

                    The literature is very comprehensive. Maybe you will learn something. And I hope that you find it of interest that the terms were invented by a linguist.

                    Niels Peter Lemche
                    Copenhagen



                    -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                    Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                    Sendt: den 4 mars 2013 14:43
                    Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                    Emne: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic

                    Can you provide the reference where someone so badly misinterprets the terms? An anecdote about Evans-Pritchard's failure to learn the language of the people he was "studying" doesn't seem to provide the origin. At least a subsequent generation learned(!) of the distinction between endonyms and exonyms.

                    (I don't give a d... for what the anthropologists think.) 
                    --
                    Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                    Jersey City


                    >________________________________
                    > From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
                    >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                    >Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:45 AM
                    >Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                    >
                    >

                    >Dear 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
                    >Copenhagen
                    >
                    >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                    >Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                    >Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 16:32
                    >Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                    >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@...
                    >Jersey City
                    >
                    >>________________________________
                    >> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                    >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                    >>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
                    >>Copenhagen
                    >>
                    >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                    >>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
                    >>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
                    >>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                    >>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
                    >>Copenhagen
                    >>
                    >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                    >>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@...
                    >>Jersey City
                    >

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                    ------------------------------------

                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • Yechiel Lehavy
                    Harris & Ward Goodenough used it. Yechiel M. Lehavy Professor, ACCC, Retired ________________________________ From: Emanuel Pfoh To:
                    Message 9 of 20 , Mar 4, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Harris & Ward Goodenough used it.

                      Yechiel M. Lehavy
                      Professor, ACCC, Retired




                      ________________________________
                      From: Emanuel Pfoh <manupfoh@...>
                      To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:07 AM
                      Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic


                       
                      Anthropologists on the emic/etic distinction: I think Marvin Harris was one of the first, if not the first one, in presenting a formal use of this distinction in his *The Nature of Cultural Things* (New York 1964) and in his *The Rise of Anthropological Theory* (London 1968).

                      Emanuel Pfoh
                      National University of La Plata
                      Argentina

                      ________________________________
                      From: Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...>
                      To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 10:43 AM
                      Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic


                       
                      Can you provide the reference where someone so badly misinterprets the terms? An anecdote about Evans-Pritchard's failure to learn the language of the people he was "studying" doesn't seem to provide the origin. At least a subsequent generation learned(!) of the distinction between endonyms and exonyms.

                      (I don't give a d... for what the anthropologists think.) 
                      --
                      Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                      Jersey City

                      >________________________________
                      > From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                      >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                      >Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:45 AM
                      >Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                      >
                      >

                      >Dear 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
                      >Copenhagen
                      >
                      >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                      >Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                      >Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 16:32
                      >Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                      >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@...
                      >Jersey City
                      >
                      >>________________________________
                      >> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                      >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                      >>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
                      >>Copenhagen
                      >>
                      >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                      >>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
                      >>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
                      >>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                      >>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
                      >>Copenhagen
                      >>
                      >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                      >>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@...
                      >>Jersey City
                      >

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Peter T. Daniels
                      Thank you. Niels Peter is quite off base in suggesting that Pike had anything to do with the misuse of his own terminology. And it would seem the reference to
                      Message 10 of 20 , Mar 4, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thank you. Niels Peter is quite off base in suggesting that Pike had anything to do with the misuse of his own terminology.

                        And it would seem the reference to Evans-Pritchard was at least _two_ generations too early. 
                        --
                        Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...


                        >________________________________
                        > From: Emanuel Pfoh <manupfoh@...>
                        >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                        >Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:07 AM
                        >Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                        >
                        >

                        >Anthropologists on the emic/etic distinction: I think Marvin Harris was one of the first, if not the first one, in presenting a formal use of this distinction in his *The Nature of Cultural Things* (New York 1964) and in his *The Rise of Anthropological Theory* (London 1968).
                        >
                        >Emanuel Pfoh
                        >National University of La Plata
                        >Argentina
                        >
                        >________________________________
                        >From: Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...>
                        >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                        >Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 10:43 AM
                        >Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                        >
                        >

                        >Can you provide the reference where someone so badly misinterprets the terms? An anecdote about Evans-Pritchard's failure to learn the language of the people he was "studying" doesn't seem to provide the origin. At least a subsequent generation learned(!) of the distinction between endonyms and exonyms.
                        >
                        >(I don't give a d... for what the anthropologists think.) 
                        >--
                        >Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                        >Jersey City
                        >
                        >>________________________________
                        >> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                        >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                        >>Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:45 AM
                        >>Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                        >>
                        >>
                        >> 
                        >>Dear 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
                        >>Copenhagen
                        >>
                        >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                        >>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                        >>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 16:32
                        >>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                        >>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@...
                        >>Jersey City
                        >>
                        >>>________________________________
                        >>> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                        >>>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                        >>>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
                        >>>Copenhagen
                        >>>
                        >>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                        >>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
                        >>>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
                        >>>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                        >>>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
                        >>>Copenhagen
                        >>>
                        >>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                        >>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@...
                        >>>Jersey City
                        >

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Niels Peter Lemche
                        Found this: http://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20Etics.htm I do not know anything of the status of professor James Lett. But
                        Message 11 of 20 , Mar 4, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Found this: http://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20Etics.htm

                          I do not know anything of the status of professor James Lett. But from the article on this distinction I quote:

                          " Besides Pike, the scholar most closely associated with the concepts of "emics" and "etics" is the cultural anthropologist Marvin Harris, who has made the distinction between the emic and etic perspectives an integral part of his paradigm of cultural materialism. Pike and Harris continue to disagree about the precise definition and application of emics and etics (Headland et al. 1990). The most significant area of their disagreement concerns the goal of the etic approach. For Pike, etics are a way of getting at emics; for Harris, etics are an end in themselves. From Pike's point of view, the etic approach is useful for penetrating, discovering, and elucidating emic systems, but etic claims to knowledge have no necessary priority over competing emic claims. From Harris's perspective, the etic approach is useful in making objective determinations of fact, and etic claims to knowledge are necessarily superior to competing emic claims. Pike believes that objective knowledge is an illusion, and that all claims to knowledge are ultimately subjective; Harris believes that objective knowledge is at least potentially obtainable, and that the pursuit of such knowledge is essential for a discipline that aspires to be a science."

                          So some sources says Pike, other Harris. What was in this connection important before Daniels started to confuse matters was the use of the distinction which I found in material included in my Early Israel (Vetus Testamentum Supplementum, 37, Brill 1985).

                          And if Daniels would try to read what other people wrote, we would realize that he distorted my Evans-Pritchard example. Evans-Pritchard studied the Nuers in the 1930's. His book came out in 1940. His students visiting the place in the 1950s couldn't find them. The source for this is A. Southall, "Nuer and Dinka are people: Ecology, ethnicity and logical possibility, Man N.S. 11 (1976), 463-491.

                          I know that Daniels studies linguistics, but I didn't know that he also mastered social anthropology. Evidently he got lost when he was confronted by a use of the distinction that has for now been around for 40 years or more. In the way he became the first ever to question the dichotomy between emic and etic as normally used in anthrpology.

                          Otherwise, it would be nice if he would step down and tell us what the distinction really means in light of a generations abuse (in his eyes) of the term.

                          Niels Peter Lemche
                          Copenhagen






                          -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                          Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                          Sendt: den 4 mars 2013 19:47
                          Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                          Emne: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic

                          Thank you. Niels Peter is quite off base in suggesting that Pike had anything to do with the misuse of his own terminology.

                          And it would seem the reference to Evans-Pritchard was at least _two_ generations too early. 
                          --
                          Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...


                          >________________________________
                          > From: Emanuel Pfoh <manupfoh@...>
                          >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                          >Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:07 AM
                          >Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                          >
                          >

                          >Anthropologists on the emic/etic distinction: I think Marvin Harris was one of the first, if not the first one, in presenting a formal use of this distinction in his *The Nature of Cultural Things* (New York 1964) and in his *The Rise of Anthropological Theory* (London 1968).
                          >
                          >Emanuel Pfoh
                          >National University of La Plata
                          >Argentina
                          >
                          >________________________________
                          >From: Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...>
                          >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                          >Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 10:43 AM
                          >Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                          >
                          >

                          >Can you provide the reference where someone so badly misinterprets the terms? An anecdote about Evans-Pritchard's failure to learn the language of the people he was "studying" doesn't seem to provide the origin. At least a subsequent generation learned(!) of the distinction between endonyms and exonyms.
                          >
                          >(I don't give a d... for what the anthropologists think.) 
                          >--
                          >Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                          >Jersey City
                          >
                          >>________________________________
                          >> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                          >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                          >>Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:45 AM
                          >>Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                          >>
                          >>
                          >> 
                          >>Dear 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
                          >>Copenhagen
                          >>
                          >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                          >>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                          >>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 16:32
                          >>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                          >>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@...
                          >>Jersey City
                          >>
                          >>>________________________________
                          >>> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                          >>>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                          >>>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
                          >>>Copenhagen
                          >>>
                          >>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                          >>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
                          >>>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
                          >>>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                          >>>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
                          >>>Copenhagen
                          >>>
                          >>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                          >>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@...
                          >>>Jersey City
                          >

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                          ------------------------------------

                          Yahoo! Groups Links
                        • Peter T. Daniels
                          I find this attitude very bizarre in someone who is supposed to be an objective moderator of a discussion list. Thank you for the Lett quotation; meanwhile I
                          Message 12 of 20 , Mar 4, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I find this attitude very bizarre in someone who is supposed to be an objective moderator of a discussion list.

                            Thank you for the Lett quotation; meanwhile I discovered the Headland et al. (the al. happen to include Pike and Harris) reference and expect to be able to read it on Thursday.

                            Lett, unfortunately, assumes that his readers already know what both Pike and Harris meant by the terms.

                            In linguistics, the emic items are the ones that matter, the ones that make a difference; there can be any number of different realizations of emic items, and those realizations are the etic items. 

                            Thus in English there is only one phoneme /k/, and it has phonetic variants [k^] before a front vowel, [q] before a back vowel, etc., and if you say "qitchen" (using the Arabic-type [q]), everyone will know you said "kitchen" (with a funny accent). Thus in English the k/q difference is phonetic but not phonemic.

                            But in Arabic, as everyone here knows, a kalb is a dog and a qalb is a heart, so the k/q distinction _does_ make a difference, so it is phonemic and not merely phonetic in Arabic.

                            In Greek 1, and in Hebrew 5, letters have a special shape at the end of a word. The difference between Mem and Mem Sofit is etic, because the two forms have exactly the same function; but one of them happens only to occur at the end of a word. It is an automatically conditioned variant. 

                            What is entirely unclear is how this contrast of "makes a difference/doesn't make a difference" got transmogified (by M. Harris?) into a contrast of "what subject knows/what observer knows." In particular, speakers of languages generally do _not_ know that they are consistently making phonetic, non-phonemic, distinctions in their speech. The English-speaker automatically doesn't aspirate a stop after /s/ and has no idea that s/he aspirates stops in some contexts, and doesn't aspirate stops in other contexts.

                            The Evans-Pritchard examples is perfectly clear, however. The sainted Evans-Pritchard made a bonehead mistake. It has nothing to do with the fact that 30 years later, someone (M. Harris?) chose to apply a pair of labels to such a situation (that one in particular?).
                            --
                            Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...


                            >________________________________
                            > From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
                            >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                            >Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 2:11 PM
                            >Subject: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                            >
                            >

                            >Found this: http://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20Etics.htm
                            >
                            >I do not know anything of the status of professor James Lett. But from the article on this distinction I quote:
                            >
                            >" Besides Pike, the scholar most closely associated with the concepts of "emics" and "etics" is the cultural anthropologist Marvin Harris, who has made the distinction between the emic and etic perspectives an integral part of his paradigm of cultural materialism. Pike and Harris continue to disagree about the precise definition and application of emics and etics (Headland et al. 1990). The most significant area of their disagreement concerns the goal of the etic approach. For Pike, etics are a way of getting at emics; for Harris, etics are an end in themselves. From Pike's point of view, the etic approach is useful for penetrating, discovering, and elucidating emic systems, but etic claims to knowledge have no necessary priority over competing emic claims. From Harris's perspective, the etic approach is useful in making objective determinations of fact, and etic claims to knowledge are necessarily superior to competing emic claims. Pike believes
                            that objective knowledge is an illusion, and that all claims to knowledge are ultimately subjective; Harris believes that objective knowledge is at least potentially obtainable, and that the pursuit of such knowledge is essential for a discipline that aspires to be a science."
                            >
                            >So some sources says Pike, other Harris. What was in this connection important before Daniels started to confuse matters was the use of the distinction which I found in material included in my Early Israel (Vetus Testamentum Supplementum, 37, Brill 1985).
                            >
                            >And if Daniels would try to read what other people wrote, we would realize that he distorted my Evans-Pritchard example. Evans-Pritchard studied the Nuers in the 1930's. His book came out in 1940. His students visiting the place in the 1950s couldn't find them. The source for this is A. Southall, "Nuer and Dinka are people: Ecology, ethnicity and logical possibility, Man N.S. 11 (1976), 463-491.
                            >
                            >I know that Daniels studies linguistics, but I didn't know that he also mastered social anthropology. Evidently he got lost when he was confronted by a use of the distinction that has for now been around for 40 years or more. In the way he became the first ever to question the dichotomy between emic and etic as normally used in anthrpology.
                            >
                            >Otherwise, it would be nice if he would step down and tell us what the distinction really means in light of a generations abuse (in his eyes) of the term.
                            >
                            >Niels Peter Lemche
                            >Copenhagen
                            >
                            >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                            >Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                            >Sendt: den 4 mars 2013 19:47
                            >Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                            >Emne: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                            >
                            >Thank you. Niels Peter is quite off base in suggesting that Pike had anything to do with the misuse of his own terminology.
                            >
                            >And it would seem the reference to Evans-Pritchard was at least _two_ generations too early. 
                            >--
                            >Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                            >
                            >>________________________________
                            >> From: Emanuel Pfoh manupfoh@...>
                            >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                            >>Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:07 AM
                            >>Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> 
                            >>Anthropologists on the emic/etic distinction: I think Marvin Harris was one of the first, if not the first one, in presenting a formal use of this distinction in his *The Nature of Cultural Things* (New York 1964) and in his *The Rise of Anthropological Theory* (London 1968).
                            >>
                            >>Emanuel Pfoh
                            >>National University of La Plata
                            >>Argentina
                            >>
                            >>________________________________
                            >>From: Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...>
                            >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                            >>Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 10:43 AM
                            >>Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> 
                            >>Can you provide the reference where someone so badly misinterprets the terms? An anecdote about Evans-Pritchard's failure to learn the language of the people he was "studying" doesn't seem to provide the origin. At least a subsequent generation learned(!) of the distinction between endonyms and exonyms.
                            >>
                            >>(I don't give a d... for what the anthropologists think.) 
                            >>--
                            >>Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                            >>Jersey City
                            >>
                            >>>________________________________
                            >>> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                            >>>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                            >>>Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:45 AM
                            >>>Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>> 
                            >>>Dear 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
                            >>>Copenhagen
                            >>>
                            >>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                            >>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                            >>>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 16:32
                            >>>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                            >>>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@...
                            >>>Jersey City
                            >>>
                            >>>>________________________________
                            >>>> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                            >>>>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                            >>>>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
                            >>>>Copenhagen
                            >>>>
                            >>>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                            >>>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
                            >>>>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
                            >>>>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                            >>>>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
                            >>>>Copenhagen
                            >>>>
                            >>>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                            >>>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@...
                            >>>>Jersey City
                            >

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Niels Peter Lemche
                            well, after all, I have been busy all day approving your mails. So much for a biased moderator. I found out that Lett has also contributed to the Headland etc
                            Message 13 of 20 , Mar 4, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              well, after all, I have been busy all day approving your mails. So much for a biased moderator.

                              I found out that Lett has also contributed to the Headland etc volume, which seems to be central to the discussion.

                              Found Marvin Harris article from 1976 here:

                              http://www.jstor.org/stable/2949316?origin=JSTOR-pdf

                              Niels Peter Lemche
                              Copenhagen



                              -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                              Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                              Sendt: den 4 mars 2013 21:51
                              Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                              Emne: Re: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic

                              I find this attitude very bizarre in someone who is supposed to be an objective moderator of a discussion list.

                              Thank you for the Lett quotation; meanwhile I discovered the Headland et al. (the al. happen to include Pike and Harris) reference and expect to be able to read it on Thursday.

                              Lett, unfortunately, assumes that his readers already know what both Pike and Harris meant by the terms.

                              In linguistics, the emic items are the ones that matter, the ones that make a difference; there can be any number of different realizations of emic items, and those realizations are the etic items. 

                              Thus in English there is only one phoneme /k/, and it has phonetic variants [k^] before a front vowel, [q] before a back vowel, etc., and if you say "qitchen" (using the Arabic-type [q]), everyone will know you said "kitchen" (with a funny accent). Thus in English the k/q difference is phonetic but not phonemic.

                              But in Arabic, as everyone here knows, a kalb is a dog and a qalb is a heart, so the k/q distinction _does_ make a difference, so it is phonemic and not merely phonetic in Arabic.

                              In Greek 1, and in Hebrew 5, letters have a special shape at the end of a word. The difference between Mem and Mem Sofit is etic, because the two forms have exactly the same function; but one of them happens only to occur at the end of a word. It is an automatically conditioned variant. 

                              What is entirely unclear is how this contrast of "makes a difference/doesn't make a difference" got transmogified (by M. Harris?) into a contrast of "what subject knows/what observer knows." In particular, speakers of languages generally do _not_ know that they are consistently making phonetic, non-phonemic, distinctions in their speech. The English-speaker automatically doesn't aspirate a stop after /s/ and has no idea that s/he aspirates stops in some contexts, and doesn't aspirate stops in other contexts.

                              The Evans-Pritchard examples is perfectly clear, however. The sainted Evans-Pritchard made a bonehead mistake. It has nothing to do with the fact that 30 years later, someone (M. Harris?) chose to apply a pair of labels to such a situation (that one in particular?).
                              --
                              Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...


                              >________________________________
                              > From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
                              >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                              >Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 2:11 PM
                              >Subject: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                              >
                              >

                              >Found this:
                              >http://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%2
                              >0Etics.htm
                              >
                              >I do not know anything of the status of professor James Lett. But from the article on this distinction I quote:
                              >
                              >" Besides Pike, the scholar most closely associated with the concepts
                              >of "emics" and "etics" is the cultural anthropologist Marvin Harris,
                              >who has made the distinction between the emic and etic perspectives an
                              >integral part of his paradigm of cultural materialism. Pike and Harris
                              >continue to disagree about the precise definition and application of
                              >emics and etics (Headland et al. 1990). The most significant area of
                              >their disagreement concerns the goal of the etic approach. For Pike,
                              >etics are a way of getting at emics; for Harris, etics are an end in
                              >themselves. From Pike's point of view, the etic approach is useful for
                              >penetrating, discovering, and elucidating emic systems, but etic claims
                              >to knowledge have no necessary priority over competing emic claims.
                              >From Harris's perspective, the etic approach is useful in making
                              >objective determinations of fact, and etic claims to knowledge are
                              >necessarily superior to competing emic claims. Pike believes
                              that objective knowledge is an illusion, and that all claims to knowledge are ultimately subjective; Harris believes that objective knowledge is at least potentially obtainable, and that the pursuit of such knowledge is essential for a discipline that aspires to be a science."
                              >
                              >So some sources says Pike, other Harris. What was in this connection important before Daniels started to confuse matters was the use of the distinction which I found in material included in my Early Israel (Vetus Testamentum Supplementum, 37, Brill 1985).
                              >
                              >And if Daniels would try to read what other people wrote, we would realize that he distorted my Evans-Pritchard example. Evans-Pritchard studied the Nuers in the 1930's. His book came out in 1940. His students visiting the place in the 1950s couldn't find them. The source for this is A. Southall, "Nuer and Dinka are people: Ecology, ethnicity and logical possibility, Man N.S. 11 (1976), 463-491.
                              >
                              >I know that Daniels studies linguistics, but I didn't know that he also mastered social anthropology. Evidently he got lost when he was confronted by a use of the distinction that has for now been around for 40 years or more. In the way he became the first ever to question the dichotomy between emic and etic as normally used in anthrpology.
                              >
                              >Otherwise, it would be nice if he would step down and tell us what the distinction really means in light of a generations abuse (in his eyes) of the term.
                              >
                              >Niels Peter Lemche
                              >Copenhagen
                              >
                              >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                              >Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af
                              >Peter T. Daniels
                              >Sendt: den 4 mars 2013 19:47
                              >Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                              >Emne: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                              >
                              >Thank you. Niels Peter is quite off base in suggesting that Pike had anything to do with the misuse of his own terminology.
                              >
                              >And it would seem the reference to Evans-Pritchard was at least _two_
                              >generations too early.
                              >--
                              >Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                              >
                              >>________________________________
                              >> From: Emanuel Pfoh manupfoh@...>
                              >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                              >>Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:07 AM
                              >>Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> 
                              >>Anthropologists on the emic/etic distinction: I think Marvin Harris was one of the first, if not the first one, in presenting a formal use of this distinction in his *The Nature of Cultural Things* (New York 1964) and in his *The Rise of Anthropological Theory* (London 1968).
                              >>
                              >>Emanuel Pfoh
                              >>National University of La Plata
                              >>Argentina
                              >>
                              >>________________________________
                              >>From: Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...>
                              >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                              >>Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 10:43 AM
                              >>Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> 
                              >>Can you provide the reference where someone so badly misinterprets the terms? An anecdote about Evans-Pritchard's failure to learn the language of the people he was "studying" doesn't seem to provide the origin. At least a subsequent generation learned(!) of the distinction between endonyms and exonyms.
                              >>
                              >>(I don't give a d... for what the anthropologists think.)
                              >>--
                              >>Peter T. Daniels grammatim@... Jersey City
                              >>
                              >>>________________________________
                              >>> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                              >>>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                              >>>Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:45 AM
                              >>>Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>> 
                              >>>Dear 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
                              >>>Copenhagen
                              >>>
                              >>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                              >>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af
                              >>>Peter T. Daniels
                              >>>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 16:32
                              >>>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                              >>>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@... Jersey City
                              >>>
                              >>>>________________________________
                              >>>> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                              >>>>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                              >>>>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
                              >>>>Copenhagen
                              >>>>
                              >>>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                              >>>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
                              >>>>af Niels Peter Lemche
                              >>>>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
                              >>>>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                              >>>>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
                              >>>>Copenhagen
                              >>>>
                              >>>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                              >>>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@... Jersey City
                              >

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                              ------------------------------------

                              Yahoo! Groups Links
                            • Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
                              Peter, no Greek letter changes form when in end-position; you obviously has sigma in your mind, but its variation is a merely modern typographical convention
                              Message 14 of 20 , Mar 4, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Peter,

                                no Greek letter changes form when in end-position; you obviously has
                                sigma in your mind, but its variation is a merely modern typographical
                                convention (which has no obvious advantages and becomes bothersome when
                                dealing with papyrological or epigraphic documents, what with the
                                scriptura continua). Neither the three-stroke sigma of early classical
                                Attic epigraphy, nor the four-stroke or lunate sigma of the epichoric
                                alphabets, nor any antique form of sigma, vary according to their
                                position in a word.

                                J.-F. Nardelli
                                Université de Provence
                              • Simeon Chavel
                                Peter, There is no question that anthropologists and other use emic and etic in the way NP has indicated, etymology and historical semantics notwithstanding.
                                Message 15 of 20 , Mar 4, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Peter,

                                  There is no question that anthropologists and other use emic and etic in the way NP has indicated, etymology and historical semantics notwithstanding. Other linguistic concepts have been accepted into and adapted by literary studies. The phenomenon is not in and of itself strange or outrageous. Perhaps you could clarify what is at stake here that warrants -- forgive me for saying it -- such resistance.

                                  Sincerely,
                                  Simi
                                  --------------------------------------------------
                                  Simeon Chavel
                                  Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible
                                  The University of Chicago Divinity School
                                  http://divinity.uchicago.edu/faculty/chavel.shtml
                                  --------------------------------------------------

                                  On Mar 4, 2013, at 2:50 PM, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:

                                  > I find this attitude very bizarre in someone who is supposed to be an objective moderator of a discussion list.
                                  >
                                  > Thank you for the Lett quotation; meanwhile I discovered the Headland et al. (the al. happen to include Pike and Harris) reference and expect to be able to read it on Thursday.
                                  >
                                  > Lett, unfortunately, assumes that his readers already know what both Pike and Harris meant by the terms.
                                  >
                                  > In linguistics, the emic items are the ones that matter, the ones that make a difference; there can be any number of different realizations of emic items, and those realizations are the etic items.
                                  >
                                  > Thus in English there is only one phoneme /k/, and it has phonetic variants [k^] before a front vowel, [q] before a back vowel, etc., and if you say "qitchen" (using the Arabic-type [q]), everyone will know you said "kitchen" (with a funny accent). Thus in English the k/q difference is phonetic but not phonemic.
                                  >
                                  > But in Arabic, as everyone here knows, a kalb is a dog and a qalb is a heart, so the k/q distinction _does_ make a difference, so it is phonemic and not merely phonetic in Arabic.
                                  >
                                  > In Greek 1, and in Hebrew 5, letters have a special shape at the end of a word. The difference between Mem and Mem Sofit is etic, because the two forms have exactly the same function; but one of them happens only to occur at the end of a word. It is an automatically conditioned variant.
                                  >
                                  > What is entirely unclear is how this contrast of "makes a difference/doesn't make a difference" got transmogified (by M. Harris?) into a contrast of "what subject knows/what observer knows." In particular, speakers of languages generally do _not_ know that they are consistently making phonetic, non-phonemic, distinctions in their speech. The English-speaker automatically doesn't aspirate a stop after /s/ and has no idea that s/he aspirates stops in some contexts, and doesn't aspirate stops in other contexts.
                                  >
                                  > The Evans-Pritchard examples is perfectly clear, however. The sainted Evans-Pritchard made a bonehead mistake. It has nothing to do with the fact that 30 years later, someone (M. Harris?) chose to apply a pair of labels to such a situation (that one in particular?).
                                  > --
                                  > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                                  >
                                  > >________________________________
                                  > > From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                                  > >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                  > >Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 2:11 PM
                                  > >Subject: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >Found this: http://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20Etics.htm
                                  > >
                                  > >I do not know anything of the status of professor James Lett. But from the article on this distinction I quote:
                                  > >
                                  > >" Besides Pike, the scholar most closely associated with the concepts of "emics" and "etics" is the cultural anthropologist Marvin Harris, who has made the distinction between the emic and etic perspectives an integral part of his paradigm of cultural materialism. Pike and Harris continue to disagree about the precise definition and application of emics and etics (Headland et al. 1990). The most significant area of their disagreement concerns the goal of the etic approach. For Pike, etics are a way of getting at emics; for Harris, etics are an end in themselves. From Pike's point of view, the etic approach is useful for penetrating, discovering, and elucidating emic systems, but etic claims to knowledge have no necessary priority over competing emic claims. From Harris's perspective, the etic approach is useful in making objective determinations of fact, and etic claims to knowledge are necessarily superior to competing emic claims. Pike believes
                                  > that objective knowledge is an illusion, and that all claims to knowledge are ultimately subjective; Harris believes that objective knowledge is at least potentially obtainable, and that the pursuit of such knowledge is essential for a discipline that aspires to be a science."
                                  > >
                                  > >So some sources says Pike, other Harris. What was in this connection important before Daniels started to confuse matters was the use of the distinction which I found in material included in my Early Israel (Vetus Testamentum Supplementum, 37, Brill 1985).
                                  > >
                                  > >And if Daniels would try to read what other people wrote, we would realize that he distorted my Evans-Pritchard example. Evans-Pritchard studied the Nuers in the 1930's. His book came out in 1940. His students visiting the place in the 1950s couldn't find them. The source for this is A. Southall, "Nuer and Dinka are people: Ecology, ethnicity and logical possibility, Man N.S. 11 (1976), 463-491.
                                  > >
                                  > >I know that Daniels studies linguistics, but I didn't know that he also mastered social anthropology. Evidently he got lost when he was confronted by a use of the distinction that has for now been around for 40 years or more. In the way he became the first ever to question the dichotomy between emic and etic as normally used in anthrpology.
                                  > >
                                  > >Otherwise, it would be nice if he would step down and tell us what the distinction really means in light of a generations abuse (in his eyes) of the term.
                                  > >
                                  > >Niels Peter Lemche
                                  > >Copenhagen
                                  > >
                                  > >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                  > >Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] P� vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                                  > >Sendt: den 4 mars 2013 19:47
                                  > >Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                  > >Emne: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                  > >
                                  > >Thank you. Niels Peter is quite off base in suggesting that Pike had anything to do with the misuse of his own terminology.
                                  > >
                                  > >And it would seem the reference to Evans-Pritchard was at least _two_ generations too early.
                                  > >--
                                  > >Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                                  > >
                                  > >>________________________________
                                  > >> From: Emanuel Pfoh manupfoh@...>
                                  > >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                  > >>Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:07 AM
                                  > >>Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                  > >>
                                  > >>
                                  > >>
                                  > >>Anthropologists on the emic/etic distinction: I think Marvin Harris was one of the first, if not the first one, in presenting a formal use of this distinction in his *The Nature of Cultural Things* (New York 1964) and in his *The Rise of Anthropological Theory* (London 1968).
                                  > >>
                                  > >>Emanuel Pfoh
                                  > >>National University of La Plata
                                  > >>Argentina
                                  > >>
                                  > >>________________________________
                                  > >>From: Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...>
                                  > >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                  > >>Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 10:43 AM
                                  > >>Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                  > >>
                                  > >>
                                  > >>
                                  > >>Can you provide the reference where someone so badly misinterprets the terms? An anecdote about Evans-Pritchard's failure to learn the language of the people he was "studying" doesn't seem to provide the origin. At least a subsequent generation learned(!) of the distinction between endonyms and exonyms.
                                  > >>
                                  > >>(I don't give a d... for what the anthropologists think.)
                                  > >>--
                                  > >>Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                                  > >>Jersey City
                                  > >>
                                  > >>>________________________________
                                  > >>> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                                  > >>>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                  > >>>Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:45 AM
                                  > >>>Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                  > >>>
                                  > >>>
                                  > >>>
                                  > >>>Dear 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
                                  > >>>Copenhagen
                                  > >>>
                                  > >>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                  > >>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] P� vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                                  > >>>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 16:32
                                  > >>>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                  > >>>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@...
                                  > >>>Jersey City
                                  > >>>
                                  > >>>>________________________________
                                  > >>>> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                                  > >>>>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                  > >>>>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
                                  > >>>>Copenhagen
                                  > >>>>
                                  > >>>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                  > >>>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] P� vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
                                  > >>>>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
                                  > >>>>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                  > >>>>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
                                  > >>>>Copenhagen
                                  > >>>>
                                  > >>>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                  > >>>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] P� 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@...
                                  > >>>>Jersey City
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Peter T. Daniels
                                  Take a look at the introductory chapter by Headland, whose url I put in my last message. It s not the dialog itself, but an introduction to the vagaries of the
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Mar 5, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Take a look at the introductory chapter by Headland, whose url I put in my last message. It's not the dialog itself, but an introduction to the vagaries of the terms since they were misappropriated by Harris. He finds that no two anthropologists seem to use them in the same way -- and the only one he mentions who seems to use them as they had been used for the previous 80 years is Levi-Strauss (who would have learned them from Roman Jakobson at the time he was generalizing the structural approach from language to culture). Headland says he got them backwards ...

                                    Headland also mentioned that there was quite a drop-off in their appearance beginning around 1980.

                                    There's a review article by M. Harris in Annual Review of Anthropology -- I don't know whether it's the one Niels Peter cited from JSTOR -- I'll be printing it out today so I can read it; in the first couple of pages, which I glanced through on screen, he quotes a definition from Goodenough which exactly matches the traditional usage, so where did Harris go wrong?
                                    --
                                    Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                                    Jersey City


                                    >________________________________
                                    > From: Simeon Chavel <sbchavel@...>
                                    >To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                    >Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:47 PM
                                    >Subject: Re: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                    >
                                    >Peter,
                                    >
                                    >There is no question that anthropologists and other use emic and etic in the way NP has indicated, etymology and historical semantics notwithstanding. Other linguistic concepts have been accepted into and adapted by literary studies. The phenomenon is not in and of itself strange or outrageous. Perhaps you could clarify what is at stake here that warrants -- forgive me for saying it -- such resistance.
                                    >
                                    >Sincerely,
                                    >Simi
                                    >--------------------------------------------------
                                    >Simeon Chavel
                                    >Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible
                                    >The University of Chicago Divinity School
                                    >http://divinity.uchicago.edu/faculty/chavel.shtml
                                    >--------------------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    >On Mar 4, 2013, at 2:50 PM, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >> I find this attitude very bizarre in someone who is supposed to be an objective moderator of a discussion list.
                                    >>
                                    >> Thank you for the Lett quotation; meanwhile I discovered the Headland et al. (the al. happen to include Pike and Harris) reference and expect to be able to read it on Thursday.
                                    >>
                                    >> Lett, unfortunately, assumes that his readers already know what both Pike and Harris meant by the terms.
                                    >>
                                    >> In linguistics, the emic items are the ones that matter, the ones that make a difference; there can be any number of different realizations of emic items, and those realizations are the etic items.
                                    >>
                                    >> Thus in English there is only one phoneme /k/, and it has phonetic variants [k^] before a front vowel, [q] before a back vowel, etc., and if you say "qitchen" (using the Arabic-type [q]), everyone will know you said "kitchen" (with a funny accent). Thus in English the k/q difference is phonetic but not phonemic.
                                    >>
                                    >> But in Arabic, as everyone here knows, a kalb is a dog and a qalb is a heart, so the k/q distinction _does_ make a difference, so it is phonemic and not merely phonetic in Arabic.
                                    >>
                                    >> In Greek 1, and in Hebrew 5, letters have a special shape at the end of a word. The difference between Mem and Mem Sofit is etic, because the two forms have exactly the same function; but one of them happens only to occur at the end of a word. It is an automatically conditioned variant.
                                    >>
                                    >> What is entirely unclear is how this contrast of "makes a difference/doesn't make a difference" got transmogified (by M. Harris?) into a contrast of "what subject knows/what observer knows." In particular, speakers of languages generally do _not_ know that they are consistently making phonetic, non-phonemic, distinctions in their speech. The English-speaker automatically doesn't aspirate a stop after /s/ and has no idea that s/he aspirates stops in some contexts, and doesn't aspirate stops in other contexts.
                                    >>
                                    >> The Evans-Pritchard examples is perfectly clear, however. The sainted Evans-Pritchard made a bonehead mistake. It has nothing to do with the fact that 30 years later, someone (M. Harris?) chose to apply a pair of labels to such a situation (that one in particular?).
                                    >> --
                                    >> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                                    >>
                                    >> >________________________________
                                    >> > From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                                    >> >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                    >> >Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 2:11 PM
                                    >> >Subject: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                    >> >
                                    >> >
                                    >> > 
                                    >> >Found this: http://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20Etics.htm
                                    >> >
                                    >> >I do not know anything of the status of professor James Lett. But from the article on this distinction I quote:
                                    >> >
                                    >> >" Besides Pike, the scholar most closely associated with the concepts of "emics" and "etics" is the cultural anthropologist Marvin Harris, who has made the distinction between the emic and etic perspectives an integral part of his paradigm of cultural materialism. Pike and Harris continue to disagree about the precise definition and application of emics and etics (Headland et al. 1990). The most significant area of their disagreement concerns the goal of the etic approach. For Pike, etics are a way of getting at emics; for Harris, etics are an end in themselves. From Pike's point of view, the etic approach is useful for penetrating, discovering, and elucidating emic systems, but etic claims to knowledge have no necessary priority over competing emic claims. From Harris's perspective, the etic approach is useful in making objective determinations of fact, and etic claims to knowledge are necessarily superior to competing emic claims. Pike believes
                                    >> that objective knowledge is an illusion, and that all claims to knowledge are ultimately subjective; Harris believes that objective knowledge is at least potentially obtainable, and that the pursuit of such knowledge is essential for a discipline that aspires to be a science."
                                    >> >
                                    >> >So some sources says Pike, other Harris. What was in this connection important before Daniels started to confuse matters was the use of the distinction which I found in material included in my Early Israel (Vetus Testamentum Supplementum, 37, Brill 1985).
                                    >> >
                                    >> >And if Daniels would try to read what other people wrote, we would realize that he distorted my Evans-Pritchard example. Evans-Pritchard studied the Nuers in the 1930's. His book came out in 1940. His students visiting the place in the 1950s couldn't find them. The source for this is A. Southall, "Nuer and Dinka are people: Ecology, ethnicity and logical possibility, Man N.S. 11 (1976), 463-491.
                                    >> >
                                    >> >I know that Daniels studies linguistics, but I didn't know that he also mastered social anthropology. Evidently he got lost when he was confronted by a use of the distinction that has for now been around for 40 years or more. In the way he became the first ever to question the dichotomy between emic and etic as normally used in anthrpology.
                                    >> >
                                    >> >Otherwise, it would be nice if he would step down and tell us what the distinction really means in light of a generations abuse (in his eyes) of the term.
                                    >> >
                                    >> >Niels Peter Lemche
                                    >> >Copenhagen
                                    >> >
                                    >> >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                    >> >Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                                    >> >Sendt: den 4 mars 2013 19:47
                                    >> >Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                    >> >Emne: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                    >> >
                                    >> >Thank you. Niels Peter is quite off base in suggesting that Pike had anything to do with the misuse of his own terminology.
                                    >> >
                                    >> >And it would seem the reference to Evans-Pritchard was at least _two_ generations too early.
                                    >> >--
                                    >> >Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                                    >> >
                                    >> >>________________________________
                                    >> >> From: Emanuel Pfoh manupfoh@...>
                                    >> >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                    >> >>Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:07 AM
                                    >> >>Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                    >> >>
                                    >> >>
                                    >> >> 
                                    >> >>Anthropologists on the emic/etic distinction: I think Marvin Harris was one of the first, if not the first one, in presenting a formal use of this distinction in his *The Nature of Cultural Things* (New York 1964) and in his *The Rise of Anthropological Theory* (London 1968).
                                    >> >>
                                    >> >>Emanuel Pfoh
                                    >> >>National University of La Plata
                                    >> >>Argentina
                                    >> >>
                                    >> >>________________________________
                                    >> >>From: Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...>
                                    >> >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                    >> >>Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 10:43 AM
                                    >> >>Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                    >> >>
                                    >> >>
                                    >> >> 
                                    >> >>Can you provide the reference where someone so badly misinterprets the terms? An anecdote about Evans-Pritchard's failure to learn the language of the people he was "studying" doesn't seem to provide the origin. At least a subsequent generation learned(!) of the distinction between endonyms and exonyms.
                                    >> >>
                                    >> >>(I don't give a d... for what the anthropologists think.)
                                    >> >>--
                                    >> >>Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                                    >> >>Jersey City
                                    >> >>
                                    >> >>>________________________________
                                    >> >>> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                                    >> >>>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                    >> >>>Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:45 AM
                                    >> >>>Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                    >> >>>
                                    >> >>>
                                    >> >>> 
                                    >> >>>Dear 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
                                    >> >>>Copenhagen
                                    >> >>>
                                    >> >>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                    >> >>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                                    >> >>>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 16:32
                                    >> >>>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                    >> >>>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@...
                                    >> >>>Jersey City
                                    >> >>>
                                    >> >>>>________________________________
                                    >> >>>> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                                    >> >>>>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                    >> >>>>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
                                    >> >>>>Copenhagen
                                    >> >>>>
                                    >> >>>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                    >> >>>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
                                    >> >>>>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
                                    >> >>>>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                    >> >>>>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
                                    >> >>>>Copenhagen
                                    >> >>>>
                                    >> >>>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                    >> >>>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@...
                                    >> >>>>Jersey City
                                    >

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Niels Peter Lemche
                                    it is the article from Annual Review. So we have two related issues here: one relating to the origins of the term, and the second to its actual use or uses.
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Mar 5, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      it is the article from Annual Review.

                                      So we have two related issues here: one relating to the origins of the term, and the second to its actual use or uses. Simeon's note is worth reading. It may be wrong according to the original definition but it is definitely how it is used today. Simplified, I agree but still very useful.

                                      Niels Peter Lemche
                                      Copenhagen





                                      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
                                      Sendt: den 5 mars 2013 14:37
                                      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                      Emne: Re: [ANE-2] emic/etic

                                      Take a look at the introductory chapter by Headland, whose url I put in my last message. It's not the dialog itself, but an introduction to the vagaries of the terms since they were misappropriated by Harris. He finds that no two anthropologists seem to use them in the same way -- and the only one he mentions who seems to use them as they had been used for the previous 80 years is Levi-Strauss (who would have learned them from Roman Jakobson at the time he was generalizing the structural approach from language to culture). Headland says he got them backwards ...

                                      Headland also mentioned that there was quite a drop-off in their appearance beginning around 1980.

                                      There's a review article by M. Harris in Annual Review of Anthropology -- I don't know whether it's the one Niels Peter cited from JSTOR -- I'll be printing it out today so I can read it; in the first couple of pages, which I glanced through on screen, he quotes a definition from Goodenough which exactly matches the traditional usage, so where did Harris go wrong?
                                      --
                                      Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                                      Jersey City


                                      >________________________________
                                      > From: Simeon Chavel <sbchavel@...>
                                      >To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                      >Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:47 PM
                                      >Subject: Re: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                      >
                                      >Peter,
                                      >
                                      >There is no question that anthropologists and other use emic and etic in the way NP has indicated, etymology and historical semantics notwithstanding. Other linguistic concepts have been accepted into and adapted by literary studies. The phenomenon is not in and of itself strange or outrageous. Perhaps you could clarify what is at stake here that warrants -- forgive me for saying it -- such resistance.
                                      >
                                      >Sincerely,
                                      >Simi
                                      >--------------------------------------------------
                                      >Simeon Chavel
                                      >Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible
                                      >The University of Chicago Divinity School
                                      >http://divinity.uchicago.edu/faculty/chavel.shtml
                                      >--------------------------------------------------
                                      >
                                      >On Mar 4, 2013, at 2:50 PM, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      >> I find this attitude very bizarre in someone who is supposed to be an objective moderator of a discussion list.
                                      >>
                                      >> Thank you for the Lett quotation; meanwhile I discovered the Headland et al. (the al. happen to include Pike and Harris) reference and expect to be able to read it on Thursday.
                                      >>
                                      >> Lett, unfortunately, assumes that his readers already know what both Pike and Harris meant by the terms.
                                      >>
                                      >> In linguistics, the emic items are the ones that matter, the ones that make a difference; there can be any number of different realizations of emic items, and those realizations are the etic items.
                                      >>
                                      >> Thus in English there is only one phoneme /k/, and it has phonetic variants [k^] before a front vowel, [q] before a back vowel, etc., and if you say "qitchen" (using the Arabic-type [q]), everyone will know you said "kitchen" (with a funny accent). Thus in English the k/q difference is phonetic but not phonemic.
                                      >>
                                      >> But in Arabic, as everyone here knows, a kalb is a dog and a qalb is a heart, so the k/q distinction _does_ make a difference, so it is phonemic and not merely phonetic in Arabic.
                                      >>
                                      >> In Greek 1, and in Hebrew 5, letters have a special shape at the end of a word. The difference between Mem and Mem Sofit is etic, because the two forms have exactly the same function; but one of them happens only to occur at the end of a word. It is an automatically conditioned variant.
                                      >>
                                      >> What is entirely unclear is how this contrast of "makes a difference/doesn't make a difference" got transmogified (by M. Harris?) into a contrast of "what subject knows/what observer knows." In particular, speakers of languages generally do _not_ know that they are consistently making phonetic, non-phonemic, distinctions in their speech. The English-speaker automatically doesn't aspirate a stop after /s/ and has no idea that s/he aspirates stops in some contexts, and doesn't aspirate stops in other contexts.
                                      >>
                                      >> The Evans-Pritchard examples is perfectly clear, however. The sainted Evans-Pritchard made a bonehead mistake. It has nothing to do with the fact that 30 years later, someone (M. Harris?) chose to apply a pair of labels to such a situation (that one in particular?).
                                      >> --
                                      >> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                                      >>
                                      >> >________________________________
                                      >> > From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                                      >> >To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                      >> >Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 2:11 PM
                                      >> >Subject: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                      >> >
                                      >> >
                                      >> >
                                      >> >Found this:
                                      >> >http://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20an
                                      >> >d%20Etics.htm
                                      >> >
                                      >> >I do not know anything of the status of professor James Lett. But from the article on this distinction I quote:
                                      >> >
                                      >> >" Besides Pike, the scholar most closely associated with the
                                      >> >concepts of "emics" and "etics" is the cultural anthropologist
                                      >> >Marvin Harris, who has made the distinction between the emic and
                                      >> >etic perspectives an integral part of his paradigm of cultural
                                      >> >materialism. Pike and Harris continue to disagree about the precise
                                      >> >definition and application of emics and etics (Headland et al.
                                      >> >1990). The most significant area of their disagreement concerns the
                                      >> >goal of the etic approach. For Pike, etics are a way of getting at
                                      >> >emics; for Harris, etics are an end in themselves. From Pike's point
                                      >> >of view, the etic approach is useful for penetrating, discovering,
                                      >> >and elucidating emic systems, but etic claims to knowledge have no
                                      >> >necessary priority over competing emic claims. From Harris's
                                      >> >perspective, the etic approach is useful in making objective
                                      >> >determinations of fact, and etic claims to knowledge are necessarily
                                      >> >superior to competing emic claims. Pike believes
                                      >> that objective knowledge is an illusion, and that all claims to knowledge are ultimately subjective; Harris believes that objective knowledge is at least potentially obtainable, and that the pursuit of such knowledge is essential for a discipline that aspires to be a science."
                                      >> >
                                      >> >So some sources says Pike, other Harris. What was in this connection important before Daniels started to confuse matters was the use of the distinction which I found in material included in my Early Israel (Vetus Testamentum Supplementum, 37, Brill 1985).
                                      >> >
                                      >> >And if Daniels would try to read what other people wrote, we would realize that he distorted my Evans-Pritchard example. Evans-Pritchard studied the Nuers in the 1930's. His book came out in 1940. His students visiting the place in the 1950s couldn't find them. The source for this is A. Southall, "Nuer and Dinka are people: Ecology, ethnicity and logical possibility, Man N.S. 11 (1976), 463-491.
                                      >> >
                                      >> >I know that Daniels studies linguistics, but I didn't know that he also mastered social anthropology. Evidently he got lost when he was confronted by a use of the distinction that has for now been around for 40 years or more. In the way he became the first ever to question the dichotomy between emic and etic as normally used in anthrpology.
                                      >> >
                                      >> >Otherwise, it would be nice if he would step down and tell us what the distinction really means in light of a generations abuse (in his eyes) of the term.
                                      >> >
                                      >> >Niels Peter Lemche
                                      >> >Copenhagen
                                      >> >
                                      >> >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                      >> >Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
                                      >> >af Peter T. Daniels
                                      >> >Sendt: den 4 mars 2013 19:47
                                      >> >Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                      >> >Emne: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                      >> >
                                      >> >Thank you. Niels Peter is quite off base in suggesting that Pike had anything to do with the misuse of his own terminology.
                                      >> >
                                      >> >And it would seem the reference to Evans-Pritchard was at least _two_ generations too early.
                                      >> >--
                                      >> >Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                                      >> >
                                      >> >>________________________________
                                      >> >> From: Emanuel Pfoh manupfoh@...>
                                      >> >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                      >> >>Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:07 AM
                                      >> >>Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >>Anthropologists on the emic/etic distinction: I think Marvin Harris was one of the first, if not the first one, in presenting a formal use of this distinction in his *The Nature of Cultural Things* (New York 1964) and in his *The Rise of Anthropological Theory* (London 1968).
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >>Emanuel Pfoh
                                      >> >>National University of La Plata
                                      >> >>Argentina
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >>________________________________
                                      >> >>From: Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...>
                                      >> >>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                      >> >>Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 10:43 AM
                                      >> >>Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >>Can you provide the reference where someone so badly misinterprets the terms? An anecdote about Evans-Pritchard's failure to learn the language of the people he was "studying" doesn't seem to provide the origin. At least a subsequent generation learned(!) of the distinction between endonyms and exonyms.
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >>(I don't give a d... for what the anthropologists think.)
                                      >> >>--
                                      >> >>Peter T. Daniels grammatim@... Jersey City
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >>>________________________________
                                      >> >>> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                                      >> >>>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                      >> >>>Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 10:45 AM
                                      >> >>>Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] emic/etic
                                      >> >>>
                                      >> >>>
                                      >> >>>
                                      >> >>>Dear 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
                                      >> >>>Copenhagen
                                      >> >>>
                                      >> >>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                      >> >>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
                                      >> >>>af Peter T. Daniels
                                      >> >>>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 16:32
                                      >> >>>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                      >> >>>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@... Jersey City
                                      >> >>>
                                      >> >>>>________________________________
                                      >> >>>> From: Niels Peter Lemche npl@...>
                                      >> >>>>To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.comANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                                      >> >>>>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
                                      >> >>>>Copenhagen
                                      >> >>>>
                                      >> >>>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                      >> >>>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På
                                      >> >>>>vegne af Niels Peter Lemche
                                      >> >>>>Sendt: den 3 mars 2013 15:25
                                      >> >>>>Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                      >> >>>>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
                                      >> >>>>Copenhagen
                                      >> >>>>
                                      >> >>>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                      >> >>>>Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] 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@... Jersey City
                                      >

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                      ------------------------------------

                                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    • Emanuel Pfoh
                                      Hi to all, does anybody have access to this article? J.A. Thompson, The Near Eastern Suzerain-Vassal Concept in the Religion of Israel , Journal of Religious
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Mar 27, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi to all,

                                        does anybody have access to this article?

                                        J.A. Thompson, "The Near Eastern Suzerain-Vassal Concept in the Religion of Israel", Journal of Religious History, vol. 3, issue 1, pp. 1-19, June 1964.

                                        If so, please contact me offline.

                                        Thank you.

                                        Best,

                                        Emanuel Pfoh
                                        National University of La Plata
                                        Argentina

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Douglas Petrovich
                                        Dear Emanuel, Mucho gusto. Como esta usted? I found the article for you, and I will send it to you offline. Others need not do the same. Yours, Doug Petrovich
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Mar 27, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Dear Emanuel,

                                          Mucho gusto. Como esta usted? I found the article for you, and I will send it to you offline. Others need not do the same.

                                          Yours,

                                          Doug Petrovich
                                          Toronto

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Brian Colless
                                          ... May I put in a tender reminiscence: John Arthur Thompson (1913-2002) was my teacher of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Akkadian in Sydney and Melbourne. In 1960-63 he
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Mar 27, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            > J.A. Thompson, "The Near Eastern Suzerain-Vassal Concept in the
                                            > Religion of Israel", Journal of Religious History, vol. 3, issue 1,
                                            > pp. 1-19, June 1964
                                            >
                                            May I put in a tender reminiscence: John Arthur Thompson (1913-2002)
                                            was my teacher of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Akkadian in Sydney and Melbourne.

                                            In 1960-63 he was not available to me except by mail; he was doing his
                                            doctorate (aged 50) at Cambridge University on:

                                            The vocabulary of covenant in the Old Testament

                                            I did read it, and it inspired me to do a similar thesis (MA,
                                            Melbourne, 1965): Yahweh Hammoreh: A Study of the Divine Educator
                                            Figure in the Religion of Israel.

                                            Divine Education. Numen 17, 2 (1970) 118-142

                                            My interest in roles assigned to gods and kings led to this:

                                            Ancient Afro-Asian Kingship Roles
                                            Patterns of Kingship and Authority in Traditional Asia, 131-157
                                            Edited by Ian Mabbett. Croom Helm, London, 1985

                                            Of course, it was George Mendenhall who started it by connecting the
                                            covenants of Yahweh the Divine King with the ANE suzerain-vassal
                                            treaties.
                                            Some scholars seem to think this is old-fashioned, but I can still see
                                            the relevance of it.

                                            And Mendenhall really did "decipher" the logo-syllabic tablets from
                                            Gubla/Byblos, and I have applied his results to inscriptions from all
                                            over the Mediterranean region, and beyond (Norway, Jamaica).

                                            http://cryptcracker.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/phoenician-bronze-cup-in-jamaica-below.html

                                            Brian Colless
                                            Research Associate
                                            School of Humanities
                                            Massey University, NZ



                                            On 28/03/2013, at 1:32 AM, Emanuel Pfoh wrote:

                                            > Hi to all,
                                            >
                                            > does anybody have access to this article?
                                            >
                                            > J.A. Thompson, "The Near Eastern Suzerain-Vassal Concept in the
                                            > Religion of Israel", Journal of Religious History, vol. 3, issue 1,
                                            > pp. 1-19, June 1964.
                                            >
                                            > If so, please contact me offline.
                                            >
                                            > Thank you.
                                            >
                                            > Best,
                                            >
                                            > Emanuel Pfoh
                                            > National University of La Plata
                                            > Argentina
                                            >
                                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            >
                                            >



                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.