Talk:Philology

message: The previous version of the article incorrectly stated that there was still doubt whether Linear B recorded Mycenaean Greek; there is no doubt within the field.
A larger problem with the section is that it wasn't distinguishing between writing systems and languages, which is a grievous error for a "philology" article. I'm not sure that I got all of that out of there. Akhilleus 08:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Deciphering ancient texts" section

message: Can anyone explain why philology is not called "logophily"? Surely "philology" is the study of love, not the love of study or words. The word seems to be back-to-front. Philologists should be studying attraction and amorous behaviour.
217.39.17.117 19:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In classical Greek "philo-" compounds are fairly common, and they all denote the love or desire for something. E.g. "philosophia", the love of "sophia", wisdom. The first attestation of "philologos" is 5th or 4th century BC. Words like zoology, geology, morphology, etc. are much later coinages. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was confused by that too. Philology however, is not a ology in the same way as most: it is not the study (-ology) of love (philo-), but the love (philo-) of literature (logia). "Logos" in Greek is "word" whereas "ology" comes from the Greek word for logic. (hence the confusion!) Another example is "trilogy": not the study of 3 but instead, until only recently extended to include films, means a collection of 3 related pieces of writing (novels or plays). 
TheZenCowboy 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You realize it's the same root, right? Speach, reason. Logos.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.10.136 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is philology not called "logophily"? 

message: I would like to propose that the following paragraph be deleted:
:Most importantly, philology commends the ability to recognize the words of one language from the roots of another, by recognition of common (shared) roots and grammar. It is for this reason that someone who is fluent in Portuguese can, naturally and without training in the Spanish language, read a Spanish-language newspaper and know what is going on in the world[citation needed]. Although not every word is directly translatable, the overall meaning of the text is readily apparent.
This paragraph is nonsense. Philology does not commend anything, let alone "the ability to recognize words." Nor am I interested in the example, even if it is correct. Philology is the close study of words and texts. "The ability to recognize words of one language from the roots of another" is called etymology, not philology. This paragraph is not to the point. Lufiend 15:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It should be deleted or amended. "Philology commends the ability to recognize the words of one language from the roots of another"? I don't know what this person is trying to say. (Maybe: "If you study study the history of a language family, it'll be easier for you to learn new languages in that family, since you'll be able to find cognates for unfamiliar words"? If so, "Philology" is being used in its old sense "historical linguistics" or, as Lufiend says, "etymology" .)
--Gheuf 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognizing words? 

message: I don't feel that this introduction is particularly clear, particularly the first paragraph. I'm not convinced that giving literal meanings or explaining Greek roots are really useful to someone who has come on to the page looking for a quick definition. I think that the second and third paragraphs are much more useful and should have greater importance. Perhaps the origins of the word could be put at the bottom of the introduction, or in a separate section of the article body. Looking at the first paragraph, why does the sentence about incorrect definitions of philology come before the second and third paragraphs, which give a proper definition of philology? I would also agree with removing the paragraph about Portuguese people being able to read Spanish. Tbtommyb 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Though as the article is probably mainly edited by philologists, it is perhaps not surprising that it begins with a discussion of etymology! Saluton (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I removed the claim that Svetislav Bilbija had 'most completely' deciphered Etruscan. As far as I can see no-one outside of a handful of Serb nationalist sites give any credence to his (very limited release) publication, The Mummy of Zagreb. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Svetislav Bilbija 

message: In the paragraph within the section on Comparative Philology, one finds the following statement: 
"One branch of philology is comparative linguistics, which studies the relationship between languages. Similarities between Sanskrit and European languages were first noted in the early 16th century[8] and led to the speculation of a common ancestor language from which all of these descended — now named Proto-Indo-European."
However, this source [8] reads: 
"This fact is noted in Juan Mascaro's introduction to his translation of the Bhagavad Gita, in which he dates the first Gita translation to 1785 (by Charles Williams). Mascaro claims Alexander Hamilton stopped in Paris in 1802 after returning from India, and taught Sanskrit to the German critic Friedrich von Schlegel. Mascaro says this is the beginning of modern study of the roots of the Indo-European languages."
It seems to me that either this is an incorrect source or the writer meant to write the 18th century rather than the 16th century.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.232.128 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Source 

message: The Greek origin of the word should be included in the introduction paragraph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.64.210.7 (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of word should be included 

message: The second paragraph currently opens: "Classical philology is the philology of the Greek, Latin and Sanskrit languages" with a dead link to the course catalog of the university of Costa Rica catalog. I'm pretty sure that this school's inclusion of Sanskrit as part of its Classical Philology track shouldn't alter what is really the most common usage: Classical Philology as the study of Ancient Greek and Classical Latin. I'm being WP:BOLD here and removing Sanskrit from the definition of Classical Philology, leaving Sanskrit in the lists in the following sentence, as appears to have been the intent aside from whichever editor added the course catalog link. If anyone disagrees, please revert me and respond either on this talk page or, better yet, here. Thanks, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanskrit and Classical Philology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Philology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205030059/http://w3.uniroma1.it/cogfil/homepage.html to http://w3.uniroma1.it/cogfil/homepage.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noticed there aren't any citations in the Cognitive and Decipherment sections. Is the information in those sections from the sources already listed in the References? Or should we find other sources for those sections to cite? Primeval-Seeker (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: All I know is pain 2603:6010:BB01:2DE2:85BD:4B42:4E99:7E3D (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pain and love