william bright wrote:

>
> hello seshat; my colleague young-key kim-renaud would like to have the
> following posted on the list, and she would like to subscribe to the list
> herself so that she can make future contributions directly. thanks for your
> consideration; bill
>
> >Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 20:41:21 -0500
> >From: Young-Key Kim-Renaud <kimrenau@...>
> >Subject: RE: Typology and classification Re: everything else
> >Sender: Young-Key Kim-Renaud <kimrenau@...>
> >To: william bright <William.Bright@...>
> >MIME-version: 1.0
> >X-WebMail-UserID: kimrenau
> >X-EXP32-SerialNo: 50000136
> >Status:
> >
> >Dear Bill,
> >
> >I guess I should join the discussion group. Could you help me do so? In the
> >meantime, please forward this message to your LIST. Thanks.
> >
> >We should be careful in our language. To accuse a publisher--in this case,
> >none other than the Republic of Korea's Academy of the Korean Language--of
> >"piracy" is a serious legal matter. It is totally un-founded and
> >irresponsible to say that Ledyard 1998 was "pirated." I have NEVER told
> >ANYONE the book "was a pirated publication, not sanctioned by the author"!
> >It
> >is completely understandable that Ledyard may not be happy with the book and
> >would not approve of it, but the reason is not because someone just stole it
> >and published it without his knowledge/permission.
> >
> >Indeed, Gari K. Ledyard and the ROK Academy of the Korean Language signed a
> >legal contract for the publication of Ledyard's 1966 dissertation with as
> >much
> >update and corrections as Ledyard would have wanted. It is just that Ledyard
> >submitted some of the revisions but not all that he had intended according to
> >schedule. Because the Academy wanted to publish the book as planned or close
> >to the original schedule, they kept sending reminders. Being a
> >perfectionist,
> >Ledyard possibly needed more time but soon stopped responding to numerous
> >reminders with no explanation, in spite of the warning that the Academy would
> >just go ahead and publish what was available. I think mainly due to their
> >budgetary constraints, the Academy finally decided to publish the original
> >dissertation, replacing only those parts for which Ledyard sent corrections.

Then if not outright piracy, it was certainly an immoral act. (I've
never understood the wording of British copyright notices -- the "moral
authority" clause -- but it would seem to apply here.)

Hello, Young-Key, if you're here yet!

> >I believe, though, one strong possibility is that the Academy sincerely
> >thought that the dissertation was of such quality that corrections were not
> >really necessary. I hope I have clarified pretty well in my review of the
> >book what actually happened.
> >
> >So, Bill, your response to Peter Daniels' remark is completely correct.
> >There
> >is no reason for "decreasing cheers." The only regret is that Ledyard could
> >not revise it the way that would have been satisfactory to him.

That was because I had to criticise Bill twice in one day!
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...