From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 35937
Date: 2005-01-15
----- Original Message -----
From: "willemvermeer" <wrvermeer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 7:53 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Croatian dialectology (was: Latin ibex akin to
Portuguese bezerro?)
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
> <s.tarasovas@...> wrote:
>>
> [On Ivsic as a predecessor of Stang in formulating the retraction now
> known as "Stang's law".]
>
>>
>> Fortunately, not Dybo who notes (in _Morfonologizirovannyje
>> paradigmatic^eskije akcentnyje sistemy_ of 2000) that "Vpervyje
>> strojnuju teoriju proisxoz^denija "novogo akuta" sozdal Stepan
>> Ivs^ic^... V sus^c^nosti, teorija "novogo akuta" Xr. Stangom vzjata
>> poc^ti polnost'ju u St. Ivs^ic^a...".
>>
>
>
> It is already in my article in FLH 5/2, 1984, p. 333, and probably
> elsewhere. By the way, I strongly doubt if Dybo's accusation that
> Stang "took" it from Ivsic can be substantiated. It wasn't Stang's
> style to "take" discoveries from other scholars without properly
> crediting them. Stang was a very chivalrous scholar.
But Stang cited Ivsic for the Posavina material so he must have known his
work. So we cannot really assume that he didn't read Prilog za slavenski
akcenat as well. And the fact is that he hasn't credited Ivsic while
explaining the retraction. But we cannot know for sure what happened - it is
always possible to say that he just read it and later forgot about it.
Anyway, it wasn't Stang himself who named the retraction Stang's Law. So it
is not only his fault....
Mate