for the Linguists out there

[Ursus]

Roger D. Woodard (ed.), The Ancient Languages of Europe. Cambridge/New

York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Pp. xix, 261. ISBN

97805216849. $39.99 (pb).

 

Reviewed by Zsolt Simon, Hungarian Academy of Sciences

(zsltsimon@...)

Word count: 1196 words

-------------------------------

To read a print-formatted version of this review, see

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-11-31.html

To comment on this review, see

http://www.bmcreview.org/2008/11/20081131.html

-------------------------------

 

Four years after the publication of The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the

World's Ancient Languages (ed. by Roger D. Woodard) that aroused much

scholarly appreciation,[[1]] a paperback version of the Encyclopedia

has come out. Not in one bulky volume, but in five volumes of average

thickness, in the usual layout standards of the publisher. The five

volumes have been arranged in geographical order, i.e., (1)

Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum; (2) Syria-Palestine and Arabia; (3) Asia

Minor; (4) Asia and the Americas; (5) Europe. It is the last one that

is reviewed here.

 

As the editor has chosen the 5th c. A.D. as a terminus ante quem for

'ancient' languages because of pragmatical reasons (p. xv-xvi), the

volume contains the following languages: Attic Greek, Greek dialects

(pp. 14-49 and 50-72, resp., both by the editor), Latin (pp. 73-95, by

James P. T. Clackson), Sabellian (pp. 96-123, actually only Oscan and

Umbrian, since South Picene is underrepresented in the chapter),

Venetic (pp. 124-140, both by Rex E. Wallace), Etruscan (pp. 141-164,

by the late Helmut Rix), Continental Celtic (pp. 165-188, by Joseph F.

Eska), Gothic (pp. 189-214, by Jay H. Jasanoff), Ancient Nordic (pp.

215-229, by Jan Terje Faarlund) and an Appendix on the reconstructed

Proto-Indo-European by the late Henry M. Hoenigswald, the editor and J.

P. T. Clackson (pp. 230-246). An introductory chapter is devoted to a

wide selection of undeciphered and fragmentary languages (pp. 1-13, by

the editor).[[2]]

 

The reason for this selection is not quite clear. All literate

languages are included -- at least per tangentem. The omission from

such an encyclopaedia of non-literate languages known only from

onomastic material, glosses or some loanwords is defensible. Yet since

the non-literate Illyrian has also been treated here (extensively, at

greater length than e.g. Messapic), Scythian or Sarmatian - also known

from onomastic material only and from Nebenueberlieferung -- should

also have been included (especially because in fact, they are slightly

better known, than Illyrian[[3]]). And since Illyrian is included, the

similarly nebulous Ostalpenindogermanisch (the language of pre-Roman

Alpine tribes and the Pannon) should also have a place here.[[4]]

 

Individual chapters provide a short descriptive grammar of the given

languages and dialects in a unified and straightforward manner: 1.

Historical and cultural contexts. 2. Writing system(s). 3. Phonology.

4. Morphology. 5. Syntax.[[5]] 6. Lexicon. 7. Reading List and

Bibliography. Some authors have slightly diverged from this general

pattern (Gothic lacks 'Lexicon'), the only unfortunate cases are where

the section 'Reading List' is missing (Latin, Sabellian, Venetic,

Etruscan, Ancient Nordic): as these chapters, of course, cannot replace

the detailed standard grammars, an annotated 'Reading List' is of great

importance for those who decide to explore a given language further.

 

As can be observed from this general structure, the main--logical--goal

was to give a synchronic description. But Woodard's chapters (Attic

Greek and Greek dialects) are overloaded with diachronic information:

not only with the changes from Proto-Greek to the dialects (which are,

of course, necessary to understand the dialect forms), but also with

the Proto-Indo-European background, which is absolutely unnecessary

from a synchronic point of view.[[6]]

 

Needless to say, such short descriptions should be up to date and based

on the communis opinio of the scholarly community, and idiosyncratic

views should be minimized. By and large this volume is in this

tradition, though minor flaws can still be frequently found; they have

been listed by earlier reviewers and therefore do not need to be

repeated here.[[7]] Only the first section on Latin and some parts of

the introduction pertaining to the fragmentary languages can be

seriously challenged.

 

J. P. T. Clackson is a well-known follower of the hypothesis of the

secondary convergence of Sabellian and Latino-Faliscan, instead of an

Italic branch, since 'it has proved difficult to demonstrate

conclusively that these similarities result from genetic affiliation,

and have not arisen through convergence of separate branches of

Indo-European over time. Our present state of knowledge of Sabellian

and the early history of Latin is not sufficient to allow a definite

answer to this question' (p. 74). However, this is not the case.

Handbooks of Latin historical grammar contain long lists of unique

shared innovations of Latino-Faliscan and Sabellian (which is the only

way to prove the existence of an Italic branch), some of them are

quoted by Wallace in the same volume, too (p. 97), so Clackson's view

cannot be upheld today.[[8]]

 

Though by adopting a periodization of Latin 'Early or Old Latin, from

earliest times to c. 100 B.C.; Classical Latin, c. 100 B.C.-A.D. 14,

Post-Classical A.D. 14-c. 400, Late Latin from c. 400 onwards' (p. 74)

Clackson is clearly in renowned company;[[9]] this periodization is

obviously based on the history of the Latin literature, and not on that

of the language itself. At the same time, there are other well-known

periodizations, based on the changes of the Latin language.[[10]]

Wherever one puts the obviously arbitrary borders, the period before

the fundamental changes of vowel weakening, syncope and rhotacism

definitely must be separated from the periods after these changes and

cannot be treated together under the simplifying heading 'Early or Old

Latin'. Another disadvantage of Clackson's periodization that it lacks

a date to mark the end of Latin, which, of course, was different

depending on the region, but it can be dated by sociolinguistic devices

around 750 in Gaul and around the turn of 9th and 10th c. in Italy and

in Hispania.[[11]]

 

Contra The Introduction (p. 4-5), Early Insular Celtic is known not

only from Ogham Irish, but also e.g. from the inscriptions of British

coinage.[[12]] And if one accepts the philologically sound

argumentation of K. Forsyth that Pictish is actually a Celtic language

(Woodard does not mention this work, p. 5), then the scope becomes even

wider.[[13]] What is certain, however, is that there was no

'Thraco-Phrygian' (p. 9), since Phrygian is clearly very closely

related to Greek (and both belong to Balkan Indo-European /

Balkanindogermanisch).[[14]] More than a decade after the discovery

(and publication) of the defixio of Pella the treatment of Macedonian

(pp. 9-11) as a distinct language, and not a Greek dialect is

questionable, and only a mention of this tablet without its

consequences is not enough.[[15]]

 

The only main problem of this volume is its up-to-dateness. Even the

manuscripts of the hardback edition were completed well before its

publishing (as Rix himself noted in the chapter on Etruscan, he

couldn't include the results of two books from 1999 and 2000 (!)) and

also the past four years have seen the birth of many important

monographs.[[16]] The above mentioned reviews of the hardback edition

suggest many corrections. Thus both these corrections and an addition

would have been very useful, and this reprint would have been a good

chance to include these critical remarks, which unfortunately never

happened (a funny consequence is that Maps 1. & 2. (p. 49, 123) are

already historical, since they show Yugoslavia as an existing country).

 

To sum up: this volume is a useful reprint for those who cannot pay

$160 for a single book (especially if they are interested only in some

chapters), but at the same time a missed chance for updating and making

an excellent book even more reliable.

 

 

------------------

Notes:

 

 

1. See the generally very positive reviews: Yves Duhoux: Les langues

de l'antiquite/: un important nouveau manuel. Cahiers de l'Institut de

Linguistique de Louvain 30/4 (2004) 73-80; Joshua T. Katz: BMCR 2005.

08. 36; K. Jongeling: BiOr 62 (2005) cols. 620-622; Eirik Welo: JIES 33

(2005) 439-450; Jared S. Klein: An Encyclopedia of Ancient Languages.

JAOS 125 (2005) 91-97; Raimo Anttila: Diachronica 23 (2006) 448-452;

Karl Horst Schmidt: Krat 51 (2006) 65-69.

 

2. The volume is introduced by technical lists and two prefaces by

the editor (pp. v-xiv.) and rounded off with full tables of contents of

the former and paperback versions and with indices (pp. 247-261).

 

3. Cf. Ruediger Schmitt: Andere altiranische Dialekte and Roland

Bielmeier: Sarmatisch, Alanisch, Jassisch. In: Ruediger Schmitt (ed.):

Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden, 1989, 92-93, 236-245, resp.

 

4. See the works of Peter Anreiter: Breonen, Genaunen und Fokunaten.

Vorroemisches Namengut in den Tiroler Alpen. Budapest, 1997; Der Ablaut

in 'ostalpenindogermanischen' Namen. In: id.-Jerem, Erzse/bet (eds.):

Studia Celtica et Indogermanica. Festschrift fuer Wolfgang Meid zum 70.

Geburtstag. Budapest, 1999, 23-38; Die vorroemische Namen Pannoniens.

Budapest, 2001. For criticism see e. g. Be/la Adamik: Review of

Anreiter 2001. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 43 (2003)

262-268.

 

5. Syntax is treated in the philologically oriented, traditional and

the (post)modern way. The continuous emphasis on head-first/head-final

typology is cumbersome, since the authors who cite it need to add the

counterexamples immediately (e. g. p. 90, 180, 227.). It is worth

noting that although poetic texts are widely held as ill-fitted for

syntactical investigations, Clackson cites Vergil's Aeneid I. 109 for

scrambling and extreme displacement of the relative pronoun (p. 90.).

 

6. Since Woodard does not draw a clear-cut line between descriptive

and historical linguistics, it is logical that he suggests only

historical Greek grammars as 'excellent linguistic overviews' (p. 48).

 

7. See esp. Duhoux (n. 1.), Klein (n. 1.) 92-96 and Katz (n. 1.).

Some additions: The problem of Latin /h/ (which disappeared before

rhotacism and was resuscitated later in educated pronunciation only)

remains unmentioned (p. 76-77). Feriae, uti, sacer, pius and cena are

not restricted to Italic (p. 121), see e.g. Michiel de Vaan:

Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages.

Leiden-Boston, 2008, 212-213, 648, 532, 468, 106, resp. The speculative

nature of the view that '[t]he nonsyllabic allophones of the first two

laryngeals seem to be voiceless, that of the third, voiced' (p. 233)

should have been indicated. There was no neutralization of final *-ms

and *-ns in PIE (p. 234) and thus acc. pl. cannot be reconstructed as

*-ms / *-ons (p. 239) as the Hittite acc. pl. -us < *-Cms / *-oms

clearly shows (see already H. Craig Melchert: Anatolian Historical

Phonology. Amsterdam-Atlanta, 1994, 180, 185-186). When describing the

PIE root structure (p. 237) it would have been worth noting that it

does not apply to grammatical words. The view '*so ,,and he"

(maintained as such in Hittite)" (p. 240) is false: su in Hittite is a

semantically neutral sentence-initial conjunctive particle with

preterite verbs of Old Hittite (Joseph Weitenberg: The Use of Asyndesis

and Particles in Old Hittite Simple Sentences. In: Onofrio Carruba

(ed.): Per una grammatica ittita. Pavia, 1992, 305-353), and for the

etymological problems see now Alwin Kloekhorst: Etymological Dictionary

of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden-Boston, 2008, 772). The

augment cannot be projected into PIE time (p. 241) if it is attested

only in the closely related groups of Indo-Iranian and Balkan

Indo-European languages.-The reading lists sometimes lack important

text-editions and monographs: of the Rhaetic (Stefan Schumacher: Die

raetischen Inschriften. Geschichte und heutiger Stand der Forschung.

Budapest, 1992) and the Messapic inscriptions (Carlo de Simone - Simona

Marchesini: Monumenta linguae messapicae 1-2. Wiesbaden, 2002). Helmut

Rix's analysis of Rhaetic and Etruscan is a must (Raetisch und

Etruskisch. Innsbruck, 1998), the same goes for the dissertation of

Joshua T. Katz on PIE pronouns (p. 240). In the case of Mycenean

dialects (p. 94), Ivo Hajnal: Sprachschichten des mykenischen

Griechisch. Salamanca, 1997 is missing. For the history of Latin,

Baldi's somewhat problematic work (see the review by Gerhard Meiser:

Krat 47 (2002) 108-115) has been cited, but Andrew L. Sihler: A New

Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York - Oxford, 1995 not (p.

94).

 

8. Some unique shared morphological innovations can be added to his

list, only to quote the firmest evidence: 1) the merge of ablative and

instrumental (in abl. sg. and instr. pl.); 2) adverbs on *-ed from

adjectives of the 1st and 2nd declinations; 3) the transformation of

the present paradigm of the copula (*esom/*som); 4) the transformation

of PIE present-types into the same four conjugations; 5) the

*-k-extension of the root *dheh1- 'to do'. For full lists (including

the phonological isoglosses, discussions and refs. to earlier

literature), see esp. Helmut Rix: Latein und Sabellisch. Stammbaum

und/oder Sprachbund? IncLing 17 (1994) 13-29; Ausgliederung und

Aufgliederung der italischen Sparchen. In: Alfred Bammesberger, Theo

Vennemann (eds.): Languages in Prehistoric Europe. Heidelberg, 2003,

150-156; Gerhard Meiser: Lautgeschichte der umbrischen Sprache.

Innsbruck, 1986, 36-38; Veni vidi vici. Die Vorgeschichte des

lateinischen Perfektsystems. Muenchen, 2003, 30-33; Frank Heidermanns:

Nominal composition in Sabellian and Proto-Italic. TPS 100 (2002)

185-202; Peter Schrijver: Review of Meiser 2003. Krat 51 (2006) 46-64;

Brent Vine: On 'Thurneysen-Havet's Law' in Latin and Italic. HS 119

(2006) 211-249; de Vaan (n. 7.) 5. Cf. further Gert Klingenschmitt: Die

lateinische Nominalflexion. In: Oswald Panagl, Thomas Krisch (eds.):

Latein und Indogermanisch. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen

Gesellschaft 1986 in Salzburg. Innsbruck, 1992, 89-135; Robert van der

Staaij: A Reconstruction of Proto-Italic. PhD dissertation. Leiden

University; Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel: Kernitalisch, Latein,

Venetisch. Ein Etappenmodell. In: Michaela Ofitsch - Christian Zinko

(eds.): 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz. Festband anlaesslich des

125j aehrigen Bestehens der Forschungsrichtung 'Indogermanistik' an der

Karl-Franzens-Universitaet, Graz. Graz, 2000, 47-70.

 

9. Similarly e. g. Gerhard Meiser: Historische Laut- und Formenlehre

der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt, 1998, 2; de Vaan (n. 7) 14.

 

10. Oswald Szemere/nyi: Latein in Europa. In: Karl Buuechner (ed.):

Latein und Europa. Traditionen und Renaissancen. Stuttgart, 1978, 26-31

(= Scripta Minora II. Innsbruck, 1987, 1002-1007); Helmut Rix: Das

letzte Wort der Duenos-Inschrift. MSS 46 (1985) 193-194 with n. 6;

followed by Heiner Eichner: Reklameiamben aus Roms Koenigszeit. Die

Sprache 34 (1988-1990) 223, n. 32.

 

11. See esp. Jo/zsef Herman's detailed analysis: The end of the

history of Latin. Romance Philology 49 (1996) 364-382.

 

12. See Patrizia de Bernardo Stempel: Die Sprache altbritannischer

Muenzlegenden. ZCP 44 (1991) 36-55.

 

13. Katherine Forsyth: Language in Pictland. The Case Against

'Non-Indo-European Pictish'. Utrecht, 1997. Jongeling (n. 1.) 620 n. 1.

already missed this reference.

 

14. It will be noted that Woodard refers to the Phrygian chapter

where Brixhe dismisses Thraco-Phrygian in favour of a close

relationship with Greek. On the relationship of Phrygian see esp.

Guenter Neumann: Phrygisch und Griechisch. SbO+AW 499. Wien, 1988; Gert

Klingenschmitt: Die Verwandschaftsverhaeltnisse der indogermanischen

Sprachen. In: Jens E. Rasmussen (ed.): In honorem Holger Pedersen.

Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25. bis 28. Maerz 1993

in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden, 1994, 244-245; Joachim Matzinger: Phrygisch

und Armenisch. In: Olav Hackstein - Gerhard Meiser (eds.):

Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der

Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Halle an der Saale, 17.-23. September

2000. Wiesbaden, 2005, 381-386.

 

15. The discovery has been followed by lively scholarly discussion,

see esp. Laurent Dubois: Une tablette de male/diction de Pella:

s'agit-il du premier texte mace/donien? REG 108 (1995) 190-197; Claude

Brixhe: Un 'nouveau' champ de la dialectologie grecque: Le Mace/donien.

AION 19 (1997) 41-71; Ivo Hajnal: Methodische Vorbemerkungen zu einer

Palaeolinguistik des Balkanraums. In: Bammesberger, Vennemann (n. 7.)

123-124 and most recently James L. O'Neil: Doric forms in Macedonian

inscriptions. Glotta 82 (2006) 192-210.

 

16. E.g. an excellent introduction to PIE linguistics (Benjamin W.

Fortson: Indo-European Language and Culture. An Introduction. Oxford,

2004), the new edition of Rhaetic inscriptions (Budapest, 2004, cf. n.

7.) and a detailed analysis of the relationship of Messapic (Joachim

Matzinger: Messapisch und Albanisch. IJDL 2 (2005) 29-54).

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------

The BMCR website (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/) contains a complete

and searchable archive of BMCR reviews since our first issue in 1990.

 

Please do not reply to this email as this is an unmonitored mailbox.

You can contact us by sending e-mail to classrev@.... To

subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list, visit

http://newmailman.brynmawr.edu/mailman/listinfo/bmcr-l. To unsubscribe,

you may also send a blank e-mail to bmcr-l-request@... with

the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.

 

_______________________________________________

BMCR-L mailing list

BMCR-L@...

http://newmailman.brynmawr.edu/mailman/listinfo/bmcr-l

[docoflove1974]

I've used the hardbound encyclopedia before...very good as a base resource. Glad to see that it's out now in paperback! Thanks for the update, Ursus!