Manhart editing

[Anthony Grant]

I agree, Bruce - it's made things increasingly difficult for
Americanists in the UK.  Let's hope they haven't trashed them.

Anthony



>>> shokooh Ingham <shokoohbanou at YAHOO.CO.UK> 26/09/2011 13:48 >>>
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
> >
>



Based on an award-winning 160-acre Campus near Liverpool, Edge Hill
University has over 125 years of history as an innovative, successful
and distinctive higher education provider.

•Shortlisted for Times Higher Education University of the Year 2011 the
third time in five years
 •Top in Four in England for Graduate Employment (Higher Education
Statistics Agency, 2010 all graduates, full & part time, first &
foundation degrees)
•Top Two in England (Second to Oxford) for students' Personal
Development (National Student Survey 2011, out of 93 full English public
universities)
•Top Three in England for Assessment & Feedback (National Student Survey
2011, 93 full English public universities)
•Top 20 position, and the highest ranked university in 'The Sunday Times
Best Places to Work in the Public Sector 2010'
•Grade 1 'outstanding' judgements made in all 33 inspection cells,
Ofsted Initial Teacher Education inspection report 12/5/2011

-----------------------------------------------------
This message is private and confidential. If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your
system. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or associated
companies.  Edge Hill University may monitor email traffic data and also
the content of email for the purposes of security and business
communications during staff absence.

-----------------------------------------------------