From: pielewe
Message: 44835
Date: 2006-05-31
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapoviæ <mkapovic@...> wrote:
[I'm not going react to statements where I would just have to repeat
myself or where things would become too subjective.]
> I just don't see why it is such a common trait in BSl accentology
to be so
> hazy. I include here both the MAS and Kortlandt.
I suspect the complexity of the subject is an important reason. On
the other hand I also suspect that there is a distinct tendency for
historical linguistics (and in particular historical reconstruction)
to attract people with communicative handicaps. This was less of a
factor in the past when historical linguistic was the only type of
linguistics that was taken seriously.
I'd written:
> > (Actually to be honest I do think I understand full well what
> > Kortlandt is doing here, but I also think that it is his
> > responsibility and not mine to clarify his intentions.)
Mate:
> Of course. However, you did try to do exactly that sort of stuff
before
> (in Cybalist and elsewhere) :)
Yes, but those were issues I was more or less confident about, this
is a conjecture.
I'd written:
> > I vividly recall that when Kortlandt was working on his
> > accentology back in the early seventies intricate dialectal data
were
> > very much on his (and everybody's) mind. [Etc.]
Mate:
> OK, I can accept that for Molise Croatian or Kajkavian, but what
about
> Slovincian and Old Polish? Lorentz's grammar dates from 1903, if I
am not
> mistaken.
But there is a lot of Slovincian in "Slavic Accentuation", isn't
there? And as I wrote in an earlier posting, I distinctly recall
Kortlandt telling me at some point in the seventies that he regarded
the Slovincian/Old Polish alternation we have been talking about as
just about the only point or which his theory did not offer a clear-
cut solution. I can assure you he was aware of those facts.
On Croatian dialectology:
I'd written:
> > Although internal
> > facts sufficed to see that the well-known Susak description (of
1956)
> > was profoundly flawed and although many people must have known
about
> > that, nobody in Croatia had the courage to say so publicly.
Mate:
> I wouldn't say it was up to courage. The main reasons were:
> 1) the "authority" of the three academics
> 2) the lack of knowledge of the majority of dialectologists
> 3) that those who did have enough knowledge to criticize it just
did not
> care enough to do it
Fair enough. In addition I have always wondered whether there were
political factors involved. Pavle Ivic's lengthy review of the Susak
description is extremely carefully worded and he lived in a different
republic.
And then:
> But it's hardly a Croatian specialty.
I hasten to agree.
> For instance, who would dare
> confront Kortlandt in Leiden? Or the Netherlands? Isn't it not
funny that
> his theories on Slavic accentuation are recognized only in Leiden?
I have never understood why the persons immediately involved in this
farce do not seem to be bothered by it and the impression they are
making, and take no steps to remedy it.
> I heard that Peter Schrijver had to leave Leiden just because he
did not
> agree with Kortlandt and Beekes on some matter.
As far as I know (but just about everything I know is hearsay) the
mechanism was much more complicated than that.
> Thus, one does not need to
> look at Croatia to see this kind of things...
Again: I completely agree.
On the Vrgada dictionary:
> I see you have a lot of insider knowledge...
In the early seventies Ebeling's PhD student Hein Steinhauer spent
some time with Blaz^ Juris^ic/. It is a heartrending story.
Publication of the book became possible only with Hraste's death
(1970). When the proofs arrived (in 1971 and 1972) Juris^ic^ was
barely able to correct them because of failing eyesight. (Hein
related the story somewhere in his "C^akavian Studies"). When the
book, for which Juris^ic/ had struggled all his life, finally
appeared (1973), he was blind. By the way, the entire tragical affair
received some publicity after the break-up of Yugoslavia, I think
Josip Bratulic/ wrote about it, perhaps others too.
I had written:
> > Zvonimir Junkovic, who hailed from
> > the most archaic section of the Kajkavian dialect area (at the
time
> > very poorly documented),
Mate:
> What part?
If I'm correctly informed he came from somewhere in the narrow strip
west and north-west of Zagreb which has not carried through stress
retractions, I think from the surroundings of Zapres^ic/.
Best,
Willem