Talk:Classical philology

Sanskrit?
Is the study of Sanskrit generally included under the auspices of Classical Philology? I hope in the near future to expand this page with a history of the discipline, but that history would be close to the narrative of Sandys and Pfeiffer, which of course would not include Sanskrit. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That may or may not prove thorny. The "classical philology" of Greek and Latin is just a conventional label for a field of study. It doesn't mean Sanskrit isn't a "classical" language of its own tradition and with its own philology, and some classical philologists of the former kind do Sanskrit. But I don't see any benefit in mushing things together that aren't normally treated as one unified thing. Besides, this article hasn't been edited in a long time and really needs development. So I at least would applaud you for proceeding with the conventional understanding of "classical philology" in the Western tradition. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cynwolfe. I do study Sanskrit a bit, as well, as part of the general tendency now for Hellenists to also have a certain command of Indo-European linguistics, and I understand how my narrowing the scope of the article could be, as you say, "thorny". I think as I go forward I might attempt an inclusive definition or, at least, investigate how I might properly phrase and link the intro so as not to offend the Sanskritists. If it leads to controversy, then that would be good, since a bit of attention would do some good. Still, I'll be starting from the early situation of the fifth century through the Hellenistic period; i.e. no Sanskrit. If this page is on your watchlist, please let me know if I'm too unilateral. I've read Wikipedia for a long time, but don't really know how a page goes from what this is presently to a strong article. Thanks, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I've found out how the Sanskrit appeared. Someone at Philology added a link to the catalog of a university that listed Greek, Latin and Sanskrit under "Classical Philology". Then an editor doing something else on that article a minute or two after doing something here added Sanskrit here and from there the philology half of this definition took over and Classical Philology became "the study of the so-called "classical" Indo-European language systems, including ancient Greek, classical Latin, and Sanskrit". (That is, philology = historical linguistics.) A course catalog of course can't change the accepted usage: in the States now Latin is often taught in Modern Languages departments. I'm mulling over how to get this to read like an informative, helpful article&mdash;with some citations that don't make it look like the discipline is notable for Nietzsche's having dabbled (kidding)&mdash, but for now at least I think we can get away from the primacy of Sanskrit. A word about Sanskrit near the end of the now imaginary article re Classical Philology and Indo-European Linguistics over the past 150 years will be necessary. Thoughts on restructuring to come (I just woke up and realized I'd dealt with Philology while ignoring this page). The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"classical" refers to classical antiquity, so no, Sanskrit philology is not part of that. The reason why it is sometimes included is that there is, by now, a "golden age of philology" in the sense that philology of that time, the second half of the 19th century, is itself "classical", because it was done by the giants of the field. So the "classical" here does not refer to classical antiquity, but would appear to modify "philology" directly. Because the study of Sanskrit in the West falls into this period, and because Sanskrit was studied by the same people who were also classical philologists, it cannot be denied that there is a kind of affinity. This sort of relationship could be explained, if the proper references can be gathered, but it is of course false to state that "Sanskrit is part of classical philology" without further qualification. --dab (𒁳) 14:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

btw, this article as it stands is so short that it should be made into a section at either philology or classics pending expansion. --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)