Mendele: Yiddish literature and language ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 3.041 June 22, 1993 1) Wexler (Ellen Prince) 2) Reyzl Kalifowicz-Waletzky's remarks (Khaim Bochner) 3) Re: Wexler's theory (Khaim Bochner) 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue Jun 22 00:06:34 1993 From: "Ellen F. Prince" Subject: Wexler meylekh, you claim that i have said that i haven't read wexler's article and that certain kinds of counterarguments are in order. first, i don't know what i said that led you to believe the first thing, but i have read wexler's work on the subject. second, i do believe there were specific counterarguments made on mendele a while back and now again by khaim. if you think they are flawed, tell us in what way. arn, you don't want to know. but, if you really do and if reyzl is reluctant to tell all, try sally thomason and/or maggie reynolds. and bring along an airsick bag. ellen prince 2)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue Jun 22 13:57:22 1993 From: bochner@das.harvard.edu Subject: Reyzl Kalifowicz-Waletzky's remarks 1) It's true that it's prudent to observe an electronic forum for a while before jumping in. But a) reading all the archives is surely more than is necessary; b) this particular forum isn't one where you get jumped on for not knowing what was discussed 6 months ago; c) you clearly have interesting things to contribute. Shemt zikh nisht, lomir hern! 2) All I know about the Slobodjanskyj affair is what appeared in _Language_, and I had forgotten that Wexler's name was associated with it. I would post what I know, but it sounds like more of the story came out in _Lingua Franca_; please give us a summary, or at least a reference. 3) Reyzl mentions "Jewish involvement in slave trading of Slavs in the first millennium". This is entirely new to me; it's a bit further from our topic, perhaps, but I'm probably not the only one who would appreciate a summary. -- Khaim 3)---------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue Jun 22 14:25:45 1993 From: bochner@das.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Wexler's theory Meylekh writes: > Must one not,. then, acquaint oneself with the theory first-hand, > and then, only then refute it? Meylekh is right, of course, and that's why I was careful to mention that I hadn't read the paper. I intend to read it when I can find the time, if only because it looks like this topic will keep on coming up, and I would like to have a more informed opinion. But I think he's wrong is saying that Ellen hasn't read it: her remarks back in issue 1.195 of Mendele sound pretty well informed to me. I can forward a copy to anyone who's interested. Khaim ______________________________________________________ End of Mendele Vol. 3.041 If your message is intended for MENDELE, please write to: mendele@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu If your node is Bitnet-only and is not connected to the Internet, please send your message to: mendele@yalevm If you want to discuss personal business or have a shmues with the shames, please write to: nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu Please sign your articles.