Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Lingua Slovio" differant
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Linea 45:
::::::::If I ever heard 'linguist' used in that sense, I'd consider it an error. [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 12:55, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
:::OK. Still, I don't know if any of those earlier efforts were notable at the time Slovio was made. As for English Wikipedia, it's just that they've been completely taken over by the bureaucratic asshole mentality. [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 12:55, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Looking around a bit further, I'm not a bit surprised to find that the ''OED'' and I agree :) but let me add that the ''OED'' traces the "professional" sense of linguist to 1641, i.e. only 50 years after the first noted example of the "ability" sense. Here goes with a quote:
'''linguist''' ... 1. a. One who is skilled in the use of languages; one who is master of other tongues besides his own. (Often with adj. indicating the degree or extent of the person’s skill.)
* 1591 Shakespeare. Two Gent. iv. i. 57 Seeing you are beautifide With goodly shape; and by your owne report A Linguist.
Line 58 ⟶ 59:
* 1817 J. Evans Excurs. Windsor, etc. 171 And what will be curious to the linguist, here are the Iliad and Odyssey, the very books from which Pope made his translation.
* 1922 O. Jespersen Lang. 64, I think I am in accordance with a growing number of scholars in England and America if I..apply the word ‘linguist’ by itself to the scientific student of language (or of languages). [Etc. ...]
I quote this really just for interest. The OED arranges senses strictly historically, so one can't deduce from it that sense 1a is the normal one today. <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 12:59, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
| |||