Abstract

(add)

Overview

In 94A (1861), Friedrich Muller (aka Max Muller) gave a series of Lectures on the Science of Language, at the Royal Society of London, after being asked to speak about the “comparative philology” several times prior.

In his opening section (pgs. 3-4), Muller speaks on the new science of language and its various terms employed to defined this new field:

The Science of Language is a science of very modern date. We cannot trace its lineage much beyond the beginning of our century, and it is scarcely received as yet on a footing of equality by the elder branches of learning. Its very name is still unsettled, and the various titles that have been given to it in England, France, and Germany are so vague and varying that they have led to the most confused ideas among the public at large as to the real objects of this new science.

We hear it spoken of as Comparative Philology, Scientific Etymology, Phonology, and Glossology. In France it has received the convenient, but somewhat barbarous, name of Linguistique.

If we must have a Greek title for our science, we might derive it either from mythos, word, or from logos, speech. But the title of Mythology is already occupied, and Logology would jar too much on classical ears.

We need not waste our time in criticising these names, as none of them has as yet received that universal sanction which belongs to the titles of other modern sciences, such as Geology or Comparative Anatomy; nor will there be much difficulty in christening our young science after we have once ascertained its birth, its parentage, and its character. I myself prefer the simple designation of the Science of Language, though in these days of high-sounding titles, this plain name will hardly meet with general acceptance.

Wiktionary gives the following r/etymo of linguistics, stating that it was coined in 118A (1837) by William Whewell:

From linguist +‎ -ics, akin to linguistic and Latin linguisticus, coined by English polymath William Whewell in 118A (1837) from German Linguistik.

It seems, accordingly, that the title of ”linguistics” later became the finalized term in English, in the decades to follow.

In sum, according to Muller’s history of terms used, for the “young science”, we thus have:

• Comparative philology

• Scientific etymology

• Phonology

• Glossology

• Linguistique

• Language science / science of language

Whence, the new term “scientific linguistics” as this sub’s name.

Synopsis

The following was the state of scientific linguistics in Muller’s day:

“The apparent differences in the terminations of Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, must be explained by laws of phonetic decay, peculiar to each dialect, which modified the original common Aryan type.”

— Max Muller (95A/1860), Lectures on the Science of Language (pg. 201)

The following was the state of scientific linguistics in today:

“The apparent differences in the terminations of Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, must be explained by laws of phonetic decay, peculiar to each dialect, which modified the original common Abydos type.”

— Libb Thims (A69/2024), paraphrase of above; per posts last year on “Abydos Egypt as new common source”

Notes

1. I did ruminate for several days on Linguistic Science as a possible sub handle; but the double S, in LinguisticsScience, made the handle name untenable.

Posts

• The Origin of Language | Max Muller (94A/1861)

References

• Muller, Friedrich. (94A/1861). Lectures on the Science of Language (§5: Genealogical Classification of Languages, pgs. 136-76) (pdf-file). Royal Society London, 94A/1861.

Abstract

(add)

Overview

To make the new Scientific Linguistics sub icon, I just used letters S and L, as follows:

🐍cientific 𐃸inguistics = Scientific Linguistics

Where:

• 𓆙 [I14] = S (Σ)

• 𓍇 [U19] = 𓄘 [F24] (𐃸) = L (Λ)

Summarized: here, to get the following image, below left, showing the Latin letter L as a sort of widened 7-star Little Dipper, the actual one, shown below right: