History of Athabaskan Language Studies
The history of Athabaskan language studies contains some interesting episodes. Krauss (2005) offers some humorous side notes on the work of Edward Sapir and his students in the early reconstruction Proto-Athabaskan. He presents some scandalous events, such as the reason why Gladys Reichard was not particularly positive about Sapir’s work: “it was in fact common knowledge in some circles that she was shacked up, living in sin, in Greenwich Village for years with none other than P.E. Goddard” (p. 63), with whom Sapir had “strange and strained relations” (p. 64). The same situation probably deprived later linguists of P.E. Goddard’s monumental comparative Athabaskan dictionary which is now lost: “Goddard’s wife naturally evinced some displeasure, which may well explain why the whereabouts of the Goddard papers, including his life’s work, the comparative dictionary of Athabaskan, have been unknown since his death” (id.).
Read more about this topic: Athabaskan Languages
Famous quotes containing the words history of, history, language and/or studies:
“... in a history of spiritual rupture, a social compact built on fantasy and collective secrets, poetry becomes more necessary than ever: it keeps the underground aquifers flowing; it is the liquid voice that can wear through stone.”
—Adrienne Rich (b. 1929)
“Every library should try to be complete on something, if it were only the history of pinheads.”
—Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (1809–1894)
“UG [universal grammar] may be regarded as a characterization of the genetically determined language faculty. One may think of this faculty as a ‘language acquisition device,’ an innate component of the human mind that yields a particular language through interaction with present experience, a device that converts experience into a system of knowledge attained: knowledge of one or another language.”
—Noam Chomsky (b. 1928)
“Recent studies that have investigated maternal satisfaction have found this to be a better prediction of mother-child interaction than work status alone. More important for the overall quality of interaction with their children than simply whether the mother works or not, these studies suggest, is how satisfied the mother is with her role as worker or homemaker. Satisfied women are consistently more warm, involved, playful, stimulating and effective with their children than unsatisfied women.”
—Alison Clarke-Stewart (20th century)