Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.mathworks.com!gatech!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!alderson
From: alderson@netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III)
Subject: Re: Indo-European OnLine? (was Re: PIE texts??)
In-Reply-To: petrich@netcom.com's message of Mon, 14 Aug 1995 11:42:48 GMT
Message-ID: <aldersonDDBxu8.9tq@netcom.com>
Reply-To: alderson@netcom.com
Fcc: /u9/alderson/postings
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <sglinesDD770x.81M@netcom.com> <petrichDD7onn.KCn@netcom.com>
	<smryanDD9vDF.918@netcom.com> <petrichDDAtvC.IKw@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 02:06:07 GMT
Lines: 41
Sender: alderson@netcom2.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.archaeology:28581 sci.lang:42082

In article <petrichDDAtvC.IKw@netcom.com> petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
writes:

>In article <smryanDD9vDF.918@netcom.com>, @#$%!?! <smryan@netcom.com> wrote:

>   [Not much stuff on Indo-European available online...]

>>That could be changed if there's sufficient interest, I would think.

>>I don't know German, but I'm willing to type in the Pokorny roots (but not
>>all the derivations) and use a German/English dictionary if others are
>>willing to contribute the latest theories on syntax, morphology, and
>>history. (Not going to school anymore, my access to recent publications is
>>difficult.)

>I'm not sure I have what you might be looking for; but I do have some copies
>of all those Shevoroshkin Nostratic books I mentioned; would anyone be
>interested in an online list of Nostratic roots?

I'm using Loren Petrich's posting in sci.lang to respond to this, since I have
not had the patience for sci.archaeology for a long time.

The entire usefulness of Walde-Pokorny (for example) is the "derivations" that
Steve Glines does not wish to include.  To enter only the root forms from the
dictionary, without the data which allows their postulation (and correction to
more modern reconstructions) is to waste everyone's time, most importantly that
of the typist.

Since Pokorny's dictionary was a work of authorship--that is, the versions of
the roots which he posited were *his* *own* *work*, not simply the repostage of
a hack--and since it was copyright within the last 75 years, there is also the
issue of whether one has the right to publish it on the net.

Certainly, Vitaly Shevoroshkin is aware of the possibilities of electronic
publishing, and would I am sure object to his work being disseminiated without
his permission, in violation of his copyrights.
-- 
Rich Alderson   You know the sort of thing that you can find in any dictionary
                of a strange language, and which so excites the amateur philo-
                logists, itching to derive one tongue from another that they
                know better: a word that is nearly the same in form and meaning
                as the corresponding word in English, or Latin, or Hebrew, or
                what not.
                                                --J. R. R. Tolkien,
alderson@netcom.com                               _The Notion Club Papers_
