Editor for this issue: <>
I heartily agree with your answer to Shimizu Makoto on quoting from "Linguist". However, I would not think it should NOT be necessary to obtain the author's permission. At least, from as when the question has been clarified. My reason for thinking so is this: if you know you are likely to be quoted, then you will necessarily think twice before submitting your thoughts and comments to Linguist, lest you make a fool of yourself. Makes the moderators' task lighter, keeps the undesirable out. (Anyone may quote me on that!)Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
My feeling is that people ought to get permission from authors before print-quoting from linguist, on the basis that part of the utility of this medium is that people are somewhat less inhibited in saying what they actually think about various issues. If not- completely-well-considered views were likely to be immortalized in print, posting in Linguist would be little different from publishing a squib in LI. Avery Andrews (ada612Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecsc.anu.edu.au)
The way I've seen citations from b-boards in philosophy journals is by citing the author, list, and date. Seems to me, though, that since most b-boards are not refereed archival sources, such references have the same status as "personal communication". This, of course, does not mean that they should not be cited! William J. Rapaport Associate Professor of Computer Science Center for Cognitive Science Dept. of Computer Science||internet: rapaportMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecs.buffalo.edu SUNY Buffalo ||bitnet: rapaport
sunybcs.bitnet Buffalo, NY 14260 ||uucp: {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!rapaport (716) 636-3193, 3180 ||fax: (716) 636-3464
In response to Mr. Makoto Shimizu's query about quoting from Linguist: I would be personally distressed if any of my postings to the Linguist list were used in other publications without my permission. I view the list as the ethical equivalent of an informal discussion group, and not the equivalent of a journal. At this level of informality, I feel comfortable making jokes, proposing wild theories for the purpose of stimulating discussion, arguing a point enthusiastically, and so on. I would certainly think thrice about such things if I had ceded copyright to the list (as one does, by entering a contract, when submitting to a journal, and as I have not done with the Linguist list). I have, as yet, no professional publications in linguistics. I would like to maintain control of my bibliography, and not break into print involuntarily with half-baked ideas quoted from the Linguist list.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
It is my understanding that current copyright law (since about 1979) automatically confers copyright upon authorship: Registration of copyright is a separate issue, needed for court, but based on the original right derived from authorship. (So no longer is one in danger of losing copyright privileges by not publishing in a specific form or way.) The relevant point, in any case, is that author's permission must indeed be obtained -- unless perhaps some blanket waiver automatically included. (However, small quotes of material for research or review purposes do not require permission.) NB: This info is all amateur.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue