[Aztlan] Astronomy and such

[nhopkins at mailer.fsu.edu]

It occurred to me as I was reading the postings of astronomers whose 
work is largely ignored that the situation of linguistics is somewhat 
similar.  You are dealing with complex systems of interrelated concepts 
relating to large bodies of esoteric knowledge, and when you try to 
explain how all this relates to a question of epigraphy, eyes glaze 
over and people just go on as if you hadn't opened your mouth.  
Likewise, when on the basis of extensive knowledge of languages and the 
Mayan family we argue that the antecedent of the pronouns in an 
inscription has to be Person A rather than Persons B, C, or D (YAX L. 
23), that a continuous inscription around a monument has to begin at 
Point A rather than Point B (PAL Sarcophagus Rim), that the vowels in 
final syllable signs have to be read in order to produce a proper 
grammar (intransitive verbs), that the grammar derived from such a 
reading produces discourse structures consonant with those of living 
languages, supporting the hypothesis (inscriptions in general), and so 
on, many people simply don't get it.

After all, it is argued, who could know more about epigraphy than 
epigraphers?  Never mind that the epigraphy is just the artistic and 
linguistic expression of a culture, and that that culture encompasses 
complex and extensive knowledge systems, belief systems and theories of 
the world.  So my sympathies to the astronomers.  I wish I understood 
more of what they are saying, and to paraphrase an oldie, I defend to 
the death their right to say it.

Los dos centavos del dia.

Nick Hopkins


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