<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Ofologists take note!</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BLOCKQUOTE>NLSUS had a very good coverage of languages, all things considered. The problem with expanding the coverage would have been that most of the remaining languages of the Southeast either have very small corpuses (Ofo, Tutelo, Atakapa, Apalachee, Karankawa), or there's no one currently working on them who's an expert (Tunica, Chitimacha, Timucua). The remaining languages of the southeast all seem to still be in the process of being actively studied right now (Mikasuki, Catawba, Yuchi, Biloxi), so nothing was/is ready to publish on them.<BR>
<BR>
The fact that such chronically neglected languages as Quapaw, Natchez, and Caddo all made it in is pretty impressive. <BR>
<BR>
Dave<BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2">Overall, I do find <I>Native Languages of the Southeastern United States</I> excellent and useful. I especially like the section on Cherokee which does a good job of summarizing such a complex language. It is heavily weighted toward the Muskogean languages, which is great for those of us wanting to know more about that family. It's too bad more of the Southeastern Siouan languages aren't included, but of course that's understandable given the paucity of material available on the languages. Perhaps, now that I'm working on it, a Biloxi sketch can be included in a future edition.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Dave<BR>
<BR>
<B><I>David Costa <pankihtamwa@earthlink.net></I></B> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2">By 'omission of Ofo' do we mean omitted from the index, or the fact that Ofo doesn't have a <I>sketch</I> in <FONT FACE="Arial"><I>Native Languages of the Southeastern United States</I></FONT>? If it's the fact that it doesn't have a sketch, that certainly seems excusable, since there's such a skimpy corpus on the language. <BR>
<BR>
I'd actually like to say some words in favor of NLSUS -- I think it's a <I>great </I>book. It has EIGHT language sketches in it (plus two pieces on Proto-Muskogean). How many books these days have that many language sketches in them? It has a sketch of every branch of Muskogean except Mikasuki (which I do wish had been included). And, as an Americanist philologist, I have to say that Kimball's sketch of <B>long-</B>extinct Natchez (taken entirely from Haas's old fieldnotes) is brilliant. <BR>
<BR>
The reason why Catawba wasn't included in the book reminds me of the story of why there are no sketches of <I>any</I> Southeastern languages in the Language volume of HNAI. The story as I heard it was that the southeastern language in the book was supposed to be a Creek sketch by Mary Haas. However, by the time Mary was assigned that essay, she was essentially retired and not really doing linguistics anymore, and so the sketch never got written. By the time it became obvious that it wasn't going to happen, it was too late to reassign it to anyone else, hence the rather conspicuous gap in the volume's geographic coverage. <BR>
<BR>
Dave<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><BR>
<B><BR>
</B></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial">The omission of Ofo and various other languages of the Southeast is only one of several weaknesses in Native Languages of the Southeastern United States that I note in a forthcoming review in Anthropological Linguistics. Heather and Janine tried their best to be inclusive of all of the languages of the Southeast, but for a variety reasons individuals who were asked to contribute sketches of other languages did not produce. I am guilty, for example, of not producing a sketch of Catawba for the book. I passed on their request to Frank Siebert who was unable to pull himself away from his Penobscot research often enough to complete the sketch.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial"> </FONT> <BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><BR>
<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <BR>
http://mail.yahoo.com <BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>