Manhart editing

[shokooh Ingham]

Thanks Willem.  Unfortunataly SOAS has stopped taking IJAL which is really short sighted of them.  They've even got rid of the old ones, but I believe I can look it up on line. SOAS used to be the 'designated' library for American Indian things and it seems a terrible shame.  If you've got the text and can send it to me on line, I would be grateful.
Bruce  

--- On Sat, 24/9/11, De Reuse, Willem <WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU> wrote:

> From: De Reuse, Willem <WillemDeReuse at MY.UNT.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Manhart editing
> To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu
> Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 19:43
> My two cents regarding all this are
> in my review of this second edition, in IJAL Vol. 70, Number
> 2, April 2004.
> 
> Willem de Reuse
> ________________________________________
> From: Siouan Linguistics [SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu]
> on behalf of shokooh Ingham [shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK]
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 1:03 PM
> To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu
> Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan polyandry
> inquiry)
> 
> Yes. I can see that point Jan. I suppose the idea of
> republishing was to make a more visually readable dictionary
> using modern technology.  Buechel/Manhart's use of dots
> and commas to mark the plain and aspirated consonants is
> very difficult to see in the small print and the second
> edition doesn't make it any easier, but I would be
> interested to know how much of the data you consider to be
> inaccurate.  There are words which look dubious to put
> it mildly, purely because of their morphology and most
> learners with a reasonable basis in the language will have
> had their doubts about these items, but is there really that
> much wrong with it? Percentage wise how much would you say?
> Bruce
> 
> --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Jan Ullrich <jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Jan Ullrich <jfu at LAKHOTA.ORG>
> > Subject: Re: Manhart editing (Lakota=>Siouan
> polyandry inquiry)
> > To: SIOUAN at listserv.unl.edu
> > Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 17:29
> > > De mortuis non nisi bonum.
> >
> >
> > Right!
> > My comment was more about the alive who made the
> decision
> > to entrust Manhardt with the second edition,
> especially at
> > his advanced age.
> >
> > > We shouldn't forget that Manhardt seems to have
> put a
> > lot of effort into
> > > that work with the meager facilities that he had,
> also
> > re-editing it at an
> > > advanced age; and it was, after all, the only
> thing
> > around for a long time.
> > > I couldn't have learnt Lakota without it.
> >
> > This was not to dismiss Manhardt's contribution in
> making
> > the first edition available to the public! I was
> mainly
> > referring to the decision to re-publish the dictionary
> in
> > the way it was done, i.e. without even the slightest
> attempt
> > to make corrections based on research (with speakers
> or from
> > texts). The problem of the Buechel manuscript is not
> that it
> > doesn't include valuable data, but that without much
> > research it is impossible to tell which parts of the
> data
> > are reliable and which are not (e.g. entries and
> definitions
> > borrowed from unreliable or non-Lakota sources, like
> Riggs,
> > or sentences originating in non-idiomatic translations
> of
> > liturgical texts etc.). Of course, no dictionary is
> perfect,
> > but in this dictionary the problematic data
> constitutes a
> > major proportion.
> > So, much of the learning from the dictionary
> inevitably
> > involves un-learning the incorrect stuff, if one is
> able to
> > figure out which parts are incorrect.
> >
> > Jan
> >
>