Reviews Lehfeldt, Werner. Einfiihrung in die morphologischeKonzjeptionder slavischen Akzentologie.2, verbesserte undergdnzteAuftage.Mit einemAppendixvon Willem Vermeer. Vortrage und Abhandlungen zur Slavistik, 42. Otto Sagner, Munich, 200I. I88 pp. Notes. Bibliography.?20.45 (paperback). SLAVONIC historical phonology and morphology are inconceivable without due attention to word stress,vowel length and tone. What is more, they help to understand the prosodic features of modern Slavonic languages which cause the learner notorious problems such as mobile stress in Russian. It seems, however, that accentology does not usuallyrepresentmuch more than footnotes to the academic teaching of Slavonic grammar,both historicaland modern. In I993, Lehfeldt made a remarkableeffortto remedy this situation and presented an introduction to the morphological conception of Baltic/ Balto-Slavonic, Proto-Slavonic and Old Russian accentuation a highly accurate and well informed summary of the assumptions and findings of the so-called 'Moscow Accentological School' (MAS) and their predecessors. Lehfeldt'sbook rightlyreceived six approvingreviews;one of them by Gerald Stone in thisjournal (vol. 73, I995). Seven years after the publication of the first edition it had been sold out by then- Lehfeldt decided to comply with his publisher's request and started preparing a revised version of his introduction. On the whole, the chapter plan has remained unchanged: remarkson key issuesof the MAS such asthe rejectionof Saussure'slaw for Slavonic and IllicSvityc 's revision of Hirt's law; a discussion of the Balto-Slavonic prosodic featuresand the domain of the application of stress,the phonological word; a survey of the three Proto-Slavonic accentual patterns found in nominal paradigms (as compared to Proto-Lithuanian) and in the verbal inflection; aspects of the paradigmatic accentuation of nominal, adjectival and verbal word formsin Old Russian;and, finally,a synchronicand diachronicoverview of tone and stresspatternsin the inflectionalmorphologyof Lithuaniannouns, adjectivesand verbs. Importantnovelties of the second edition are an appended criticalessay on the MAS by Willem Vermeerand an extension of the firstchapterwhich deals with some of the School's key observations. Now, this chapter also includes Dybo's most recent, typological work on Morfologizovannye paradigmaticeskie akcentnyesistemy (Moscow, 2000; cf. also Lehfeldt's new paragraph on accentuation in the Abkhaz language at the end of chapter 3) as well as the two major innovations presented in Osnovyslavjanskojakcentologiiby Dybo, Zamjatina and Nikolaev (Moscow, I990). New assumptions about ProtoSlavonic isoglossesand the reconstructionof EastBulgarianaccentualsystems based on manuscripts from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. This is followed by an entirelynew sub-sectionon the School's verylatestrevisionsof certainsound changes, includingthe 'moststriking'surrenderof Dybo's/IllicSvityCs rejection of Saussure's law for Slavonic, as Vermeer points out convincingly(p. 157).The new sub-sectionconcludestheintroductorychapter REVIEWS 7 I I of the second edition. In the remaining chapters of the book, Lehfeldt has expanded a few points and scrupulouslyremoved shortcomings, mainly, but not only, on the basis of Georg Holzer's notice in Wiener Slavistisches ahrbuch (vol. 4I, 1995) and, notably,WolfgangHock'sverywell informedand detailed review in Zeitschrifitfiur Slavische Philologie (vol. 54, I994). Finally, the reader is presented with an even more comprehensive bibliography than in the first edition of I993. At the same time, he/she may find it helpful to be aware of the following minor slips: 'G. Sg. *roga, *sad6vi' (p. 20) instead of 'G. Sg. *rogA,D. Sg. *sad6vi', a mistake inherited from Dybo himself (cf. e.g. Osnovy, p. I30); a missing clarificationthat Proto-Balticrather than Proto-Slavonic had 'einen langen Vokal ohne entsprechenden kurzen "Partner"' (p. 3I), namely /o/; the paragraph 'Nach einer ... .) PANZER I99I, 299 if.)' (P. 33) whose place in the text cannot be the correct one; the claim that the accentual paradigma in u-stems is 'nicht belegt' (p. 49), even if Dybo et al. have '*iTh'in their Osnovy (p. 34);the formulation'einen Diphtong odereinen Sonanten' (p. 55)whereas the list of examples does not include roots ending in a diphtong in the proper sense of the word; the use of the term 'Min-markiert'(pp. 93, 95) in the sense of 'recessive accent' rather than 'special qualifier of recessive accent' as introduced on p. 78; redundancies on pp. I05-IO repeating material presented on pp. 37-42. Notwithstanding these marginalproblems, the updated, corrected and, on certainpoints, revisedversion of Lehfeldt'sintroductionwill suit readerseven better than...