ahead of its time

This trend can be seen as following from a variation on a corrollary of Stent's (1978: 96-7) assertion that a scientific discovery will be premature in effect unless it is "appreciated in its day." In this context, for something to lack appreciation does not mean that it was "unnoticed . . . or even . . . not considered important," but instead that scientists "did not seem to be able to do much with it or build on it," so that the discovery "had virtually no effect on the general discourse" of its discipline, since its implications could not "be connected by a series of simple logical steps to canonical . . . knowledge." (It was in this sense, e.g., that Collingwood (1946/1993: 71) described Vico's 1725 Nuova scienza ("New Science") as being "too far ahead of his time to have very much immediate influence.") In the case at hand, the relevant corrollary is that scholars tend to interpret and publicize their discoveries in ways which allow connections with the general discourse and canonical knowledge of their discipline. More particularly, however, scholars in a very new field -- one where canons of discourse and knowledge still have not solidified or perhaps even arisen yet -- are tempted to adopt the discourse and canons of more established disciplines, and it is this step that nineteenth-century organicist diachronicians of language like von Schlegel, Bopp, and Schleicher seem to have taken. Seen in this light, their actions appear understandable and even reasonable.

-Janda R., Joseph, B. Handbook of Historical Linguistics Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: 2003.