English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

1. As I had occasion to point out in 1981, linguistics as a science differs from the natural sciences by the fact that it is concerned with data which become accessible to scientific observation only after having been under stood first on another, subjective level of cognition: the level of language use. Instances of language use which are not understood on this level cannot form a sound basis for linguistic, scientific study (Uhlenbeck 1981:9). Only one year later an article appeared which forms as I will show in the following pages a perfect illustration of this elementary but often forgotten truth. I am referring to an article by Becker of 1982 (henceforth to be referred to as B), which came to my notice quite recently when I found it reprinted unchanged but under joint authorship (with Thomas Hunter) in a collection of studies on Austronesian linguistics (McGinn 1988). The contents of B's article on 'Binding Wild Words: Cohesion in Old Javanese Prose' are not easy to summarize. One finds in it reflections on Old Javanese in general, on its supposed relation to Sanskrit, on the morphological differences between the two languages, and further re marks about a general concept of'binding'. It is not my intention to discuss all this here. My comments will be limited to the empirical basis of B's views, which consists of a single Old Javanese sentence, a paraphrase of the first Sanskrit ?loka of the Tantri Kamandaka (henceforth TK) as edited by Hooykaas (1931). In order to make things easier for the reader, I reproduce here (1) the Skt. ?loka as edited by B?htlingk (1870,18732), (2) his translation, (3) the Skt. ?loka as found in the TK, (4) the Old Javanese paraphrase, and (5) the Dutch translation of (4), the last three taken from Hooykaas' edition.

Some critical remarks on a recent interpretation of a sentence from the Old Javanese Tantri Kamandaka