Which is the older sense of the word "linguist"?
I have been listening to some rants on YouTube against people learning a bunch of languages calling themselves "linguists".
I'm personally interested in both linguistics and languages as a hobby but I have no official training and certainly no qualifications in either.
My instinct was that the ranter was kind of right in his opinion that people who speak many languages are not linguists. But I was uncomfortable with his opinion that you had to have certain pieces of paper to be called a linguist, I think "post doctorate" from memory.
So I looked up "linguist" in some imperfect online dictionaries and was surprised to find both senses. Here's the defs from oxforddictionaries.com (chosen at random):
- A person skilled in foreign languages.
- A person who studies linguistics.
Now I don't have access to a better dictionary on historical principles from my current location.
I would like to know which of these senses is the original one?
My original opinion was the latter sense but on thinking about it I now expect it to be the former. I doubt the word would be a back-formation from "linguistics".
As a side question, would the first sense now be considered to be colloquial or at least nontechnical or outdated?
The earliest sense of linguist simply means a skilled speaker, such as a rhetorician (Online Etymology Dictionary):
linguist (n.) 1580s, “a master of language, one who uses his tongue freely,” a hybrid from Latin lingua “language, tongue” (see lingual) + -ist. Meaning “a student of language” first attested 1640s.
The original sense survives in the double entendre cunning linguist. The word didn’t refer to the study of language until later, and to linguistics much, much later:
linguistics (n.) “the science of languages,” 1847; see linguistic; also see -ics.
linguistic (adj.) 1856, from French linguistique (1833); see linguist + -ic. The use of linguistic to mean “of or pertaining to language or languages” is “hardly justifiable etymologically,” according to OED, but “has arisen because lingual suggests irrelevant associations.”
Before that, the study of language was called philology.
philology (n.) Meaning “science of language” is first attested 1716 (philologue “linguist” is from 1590s; philologer “linguistic scholar” is from 1650s); this confusing secondary sense has not been popular in the U.S., where linguistics is preferred.
J.R.R. Tolkien was a renowned philologist.
linguist (n.) 1580s, "a master of language, one who uses his tongue freely," a hybrid from Latin lingua "language, tongue" (see lingual) + -ist. Meaning "a student of language" first attested 1640s.
According to the etymology both meanings can fit, probably evolving from self-taught scholars to modern language studies.
According to the OED, it was originally referred to as a science: "The science of the general comparison of languages, now developing itself under the name of linguistic, has, within a short period, made a very remarkable progress." -- 1825, Asiatic Jrnl
OED
The OED fully supports Josh's response: according to the definition of "Linguist", not Linguistics.
Definition of Linguist: "A person who is skilled in the learning or use of foreign languages. Also fig. and in figurative contexts."
-1582 Bible (Rheims) 1 Cor. xiv. 457 (margin) Much like to some fond Linguists of our time, who thinke them selues better then a doctor of Diuinitie that is not a Linguist.
-1593 G. Harvey Pierces Supererogation Aunsw. Lett. sig. **3v, Be thou Iohn, the many-tongued Linguist, like Andrewes, or the curious Intelligencer, like Bodley.
OED: Linguist
My answer has more to do with your side question than your main one (which others have addressed) but I think a look at the definitions and current usage is relevant.
MW has "linguistic" as
of or relating to language or linguistics;
a "linguist" as
a person accomplished in languages; especially : one who speaks several languages
a person who specializes in linguistics;
and "linguistics" as
the study of human speech including the units, nature, structure, and modification of language
MW goes on to say of "linguistics":
Study of the nature and structure of language. It traditionally encompasses semantics, syntax, and phonology.
[...]
With the rise of historical linguistics in the 19th century, linguistics became a science.
Someone with a strong propensity for studying/learning foreign languages may be said to have good linguistic skills, but somebody who studies how a language or languages in general work OR who is accomplished in languages, is a linguist.
At first sight, the definition in your question, "A person skilled in foreign languages." surprised me as it seemed so simplistic (compare to MW's definition above), but looking at the example sentences that accompany this definition, we have
He was also an accomplished linguist speaking nine foreign languages including Chinese and Tibetan.
He was a formidable linguist, speaking 25 languages and many more dialects.
A skilled linguist, Marianne used her new-found freedom to become an interpreter for the British Army.
In each of these instances, the person described as a "linguist" is accomplished at speaking (generally a great number) of foreign languages. These are not people who enjoy studying foreign languages, or have only learnt keywords/phrases, or simply have a knack for picking up languages - these are people who likely will have studied these languages in depth and arrived at a high level of fluency. These people require "linguistic" skills, but more than likely have also engaged in "linguistics", and thus are "linguists" in the "true" sense of the word.
Of course, anybody can use "linguist" to describe themselves, but this does not mean that they are "linguists" from the field of "linguistics".
It pays (for the YouTube ranters) to keep in mind that etymology is not a dictatorial force, and that it is current usage that dictates current meaning. There does seem to be a plethora of things online these days about how much everyone loves grammar and how important it is (examples) - a sort of "pop-linguistics" trend that has perhaps surpassed that of the "pop-psychology" that was everywhere a couple of decades ago. People are free to describe themselves as "linguists" if they have an interest or any knowledge of language(s) at all. It is a matter of preference how freely one wishes to apply the word, but it pays to keep in mind how your audience is likely to understand the word.