Printer Friendly

An encyclopedia of ancient languages.

In the last twenty-five years or so the discipline of linguistics has seen a huge outpouring of various encyclopedic compilations that seek to present and catalogue the fruits of a flourishing scholarly activity involving all aspects of human language. The present volume adds to this output, and we must thank the editor for conceptualizing and seeing through to completion a project that will render good service to all those looking for readable capsule treatments of every ancient language about which we know very much at the present time. Sandwiched between an Introduction by the editor (pp. 1-18) and a concluding chapter on reconstructed ancient languages by Donald M. Ringe, Jr. (pp. 1112-28) are forty-three chapters treating a whole range of languages whose actual number is difficult to specify (e.g., Antonio Loprieno treats Ancient Egyptian in its various stages together with Coptic; Dennis Pardee discusses Canaanite dialects; Joseph Eska describes a variety of Continental Celtic dialects; Roger Woodard follows a chapter on Attic Greek with one on Greek dialects, etc.). One chapter deals with a large linguistic phylum (John Huehnergard on Afro-Asiatic) and one treats a reconstructed proto-language (Indo-European, on which more below). What the chapters have in common is a unitary seven-part presentational format that includes Historical Contexts, Writing System, Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Lexicon, and Reading List. The chapters average just over twenty-five pages, with twenty-four pages being the median; but the range is from five pages to seventy (Akkadian and Eblaite). Needless to say, languages having relatively meager attestation are disposed of quickly, including Carian, Canaanite, Palaic, Lydian, Lycian, Luwian, and Phrygian, all of which are treated in twelve pages or less. Unsurprisingly, given the nature of linguistic history and the preservation of linguistic records, twenty-two of the chapters deal with Indo-European languages, eleven with Afro-Asiatic (mainly Semitic), and ten with other, including four cuneiform languages of the Ancient Near East (Elamite, Urartian, Hurrian, and Sumerian). The six remaining chapters handle Old Tamil, Early Georgian, Ancient Chinese, Etruscan, and two languages of the New World: Mayan and Epi-Olmec. In his introduction Woodard makes a case for a terminus ante quem of the fifth century in determining what qualifies as an ancient language (fall of the Roman Empire, often associated in the popular mind with the end of antiquity); and this decision allows him to make the claim (preface, xvii) that the book provides "a linguistic description of all known ancient language"; nevertheless, scholars of Inner Asia will be disappointed not to find a chapter on Orkhon Turkic or Old Uighur, and I myself would have liked to see a treatment of Tocharian and even Old Church Slavic (ninth century) on the grounds that the former is a unique exemplar of an Indo-European linguistic strain which has left no descendants, whereas the latter is foundational to a group of languages currently spoken by several hundreds of millions of people. The inclusion of such languages would still have been more or less in line with a widespread conception of late Antiquity as extending to the time of Charlemagne, but would have meant that not all known ancient languages would have been described.

This quibble aside, however, the individual chapters of this book are generally of very high quality. Given that these are for the most part thumbnail basic sketches written by experts, one would not expect to find major errors of detail, and this is in fact true, with a few notable exceptions. The main problems are localized in three chapters. The first of these is the chapter on Indo-European (Henry Hoenigswald and Roger Woodard, with a discussion of syntax by James P. T. Clackson, pp. 534-50), where one finds many errors in reconstruction. Thus, in table 17.1 Proto-Indo-European nominal endings (543), the thematic dative singular is reconstructed as *-o (read *-oi) and the nom.-voc. pl. of the same paradigm as *-os (read [*-o-es] > *-os). On p. 544 the nominatives of the pronouns 'we' and 'you (pl.)' are reconstructed as *[h.sub.1]nsme and *[h.sub.1]usme, respectively (read *wey-[/*mes?]) and *yuHs-, respectively). The forms provided in the text are approximate reconstructions of forms underlying the corresponding Greek pronouns, but on an Indo-European level represent oblique forms. Equally invalid, among verbal endings, is the reconstruction of the primary active thematic 1 sg. as *-o-[h.sub.2]ei (read *-o) (p. 545), and later on the same page the reconstruction of medio-passive endings contains numerous errors. To begin with the most obvious, the 3 pl. athematic forms in *-ontoi (primary)/*-onto (secondary) should be divested of their initial o's. Then, the 2 sg. thematic primary ending should be *-e-soi rather than *-o-soi. A study of the internal make-up of the middle endings relative to the active suggests an analysis of, e.g., 3 sg. athematic *-toi as *-t-o-i with person, voice, and tense marker, respectively; and this would suggest 1 sg. athematic primary *-[h.sub.2]-o-i, secondary *-[h.sub.2]o rather than *-[h.sub.2]ei/*-[h.sub.2]e, respectively; and the same, mutatis mutandis, for 2 sg. *-[th.sub.2]oi/*-[th.sub.2]o rather than *-[th.sub.2]ei/*-[th.sub.2]e. The 3 sg. primary thematic ending should be reconstructed as *-e-t-o-i rather than *-o-i, and the corresponding secondary ending should be only *-e-to, not *-o. Finally, I would not want to call verbs "enclitic" in main clauses in PIE (p. 545). Such forms, which could on occasion have extended to as many as four to six syllables, would have occurred normally in clause-final position, where they must at some point have lost their (raised pitch) accent because it conflicted with the cross-linguistically common falling intonation at clause end in statements.

Similar difficulties are encountered in the chapter on Attic Greek (Roger Woodard, pp. 614-49). Thus, the formulation "PIE *sla-m-[g.sup.w]-o- [right arrow] [lambano:]" (p. 620) is infelicitous in several regards. First, the PIE etymon, as written, is impossible, since the infixed nasal of the Proto-language would have been realized as dorsal, not labial before a root-final dorsal. Then, unless the designation "[right arrow]" is meant to signal lots of morphological as well as phonological change (unlike, say, "PIE *septm [right arrow] [hepta]" two lines earlier), the process involved is not clarified. On p. 634, the term "labial" should be replaced by "velar" in the formulation that verb stems in -zd- (-[zeta]-) come "from the Proto-Greek sequences voiced {dental, labial, labiovelar} stop + y." The immediately following example, vi[zeta][omega] 'I wash', should be derived from *[nig.sup.w]-ye (cf. aorist [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), not *nig-yo. On the same page, the Proto-Greek form of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'I honor' should be *tim-a-yo, with long a, and the PIE reconstruction of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'I shiver with cold' should be *sriHg-[eh.sub.1]-rather than *rig-[eh.sub.1]-(cf. Lat. frigere). I do not understand the parenthesis around the k' in the statement that the Greek thematic suffix -ske/o- is descended from PIE *-s(k')e/o- (p. 635). When Woodard says that Greek infinitives in -en <[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]> represent "(earlier *-ein)," he surely means to say "earlier *-een" (< *esen) (p. 641). The discussion of the aorist and perfect participles in Attic (p. 642) suffers from both errors and inadequate explanation. Thus,

*-at- would derive by regular sound change from *-s-n-t-, not *-s-r-t- (clearly a typo); and the formant -ant- should be described as owing to the 'alpha-thematic' rather than the "thematic" stem lu-s-ant-os. He should then note that, unlike the present active participle, the aorist ppl. does not lose its -s (pheron vs. lusas). Woodard derives the fem. pfct. act. ppl. Attic [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (ed-uia) directly from *wid-us-[ih.sub.2], which is impossible. Other questionable statements here are that "It is the Greek language which best preserves evidence of the Proto-Indo-European consonants conventionally called laryngeal" (p. 623), as if the actual occurrence of h/hh in Hittite were not the best evidence one could have. What he means, of course, is that Greek alone shows a threefold treatment of the laryngeals in zero-grade, thereby buttressing our reconstruction of three such entities. An assertion that does not represent the communis opinio and therefore is out of place in a general treatment without at least a reference to the usual view is that the acute and grave accents of Greek are allographic variants, both of which mark high pitch (p. 619). This position would seem to take writing as primary, rather than starting from the perspective that the difference in the distributions of the acute and the grave ought to have something to do with real phonetics (surely, those who introduced the accents into the written record did not just find it visually pleasing to change the representation of raised pitch on the last syllable of a word before another accented word within the sentence). Moreover, this view ignores the linguistically widespread phenomenon of tonal sandhi, which is expected precisely at word or morpheme boundaries. The Greeks themselves have left us evidence that they considered the grave to be, to employ a term from Sanskrit grammar, anudatta, sometimes marking it in manuscripts on every syllable that is not otherwise given an acute or circumflex (i.e., is not raised in pitch). Finally, in his chapter on "Greek Dialects" (pp. 650-72), Woodard's statement (662) that Proto-Greek *{r,l}s, where *s belongs to the aorist suffix, yields [s] with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel outside of Lesbian and Thessalian is immediately falsified by [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'I sent' and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'I cut'.

Errors in the identification and labeling of forms are seen in the chapter on "Sabellic Languages" (Rex Wallace, pp. 812-39). Here, following the LOC.SG. line at the end of table 33.5 (p. 824), the remaining four lines should be labeled 'PL.' rather than 'SG.'; emantur (p. 827) should be marked '3rd pl.' rather than '3rd sg.'; and Umbrian Treblanir should be labeled 'abl. pl.', not 'abl. sg.' (p. 830). Other minor errors in this chapter include the spelling of Umbrian tote (both dat. and loc. sg.) and totam in bold type, indicating that they are written in the native Umbrian alphabet, when in fact these forms are attested spelled this way only in the Latin alphabet (pp. 825, 837, respectively). Also, arfertur should be labeled as Umbrian (p. 830), and Oscan ligatuis nuvlanuis should at least be designated as oblique (dat., abl., or loc.) plural following the translation 'legates from Nole' (p. 832). The Oscan form pedu, identified as genitive plural (p. 836), is not securely attested; and in any event a genitive plural here should show -um, as indicated on table 33.5. In the passage cited from Iguvine Tables Ib 35 (p. 834), the place-name accusatives rupiname and tra sahta are translated as locatives. Read rather "He shall direct the order to Rubinia that one distribute the erus (and) then he should direct the order to Trans Sancta" vel sim. In order to make several of the sentences in the syntax section comprehensible, Wallace should have indicated in his table 33.6 Sabellian personal endings (p. 827) that Oscan 3rd pl. active verbs in -nt are often spelled without the -n-. Elsewhere here, read -fa- for -fa- in the statement "*-fa- >-ba- in Latin" (p. 813) and Umbrian peri for peri (p. 836). Finally, in Wallace's chapter on Venetic (pp. 840-56), the name vho.u.go.n.t- is surely not to be compared directly to Greek pheugont-'fleeing' (p. 851) (a point made to me years ago by my teacher, Warren Cowgill. What parent would name a child 'the fleeing one'?) but must somehow be based on the root allomorph seen in the causative-iterative stem *bhoug-eye-and mean 'he who puts to flight'; and similarly, vhugiio- must mean 'router'.

In Jan Terje Faarlund's treatment of Ancient Nordic (pp. 907-21), numerous errors and omissions are seen in table 37.2 Ancient Nordic nominal stems (913-14). Thus, in the dat. pl. of feminine o-stems read *-amz/-umz for *-amz/-umz, and in the same category under i-stems read *-imz/-umz for *-amz/-umz. In i-stems, an-stems, and on-stems the genitive plurals should end in *-o, just as they do in every other nominal category, not *-o. The nom. and acc. pl. of i-stems should be entered as *-iz and *-in, respectively, rather than being left blank; but I do not understand why the author treats ungandiz 'unbeatable' as a genitive singular in -iz rather than a nominative singular in -iz. The runic inscription in which this form occurs reads ek gudija ungandiz i h, which could just as easily mean "I, the unbeatable priest in H ..." as "I, the priest of the unbeatable one (or: of U ... [proper name]) in H ...." Elsewhere in his presentation of verb inflection, Terje Faarlund should have noted that the first pers. sg. present tense form of the weak verb which he cites (taw-o) is specifically a class II verb (Class I weak, by contrast, would show the ending -ju). Finally, in his discussion of compounds (p. 916), the author treats witanda-hlaiban 'bread-ward' as having an adjective head (witanda- 'paying heed to'); but the type, exceedingly rare in Germanic, is best described as a verbal governing compound, with agentive-like first member, of the sort seen in Sanskrit bharadvaja- lit. 'bearing booty'. In this same section, read gle-augiz for gloe-augiz 'bright-eyed'.

In addition to the chapters just noted, problems of presentation are seen in Alain Peyraube's treatment of Ancient Chinese (pp. 988-1014). The author introduces the letter j both in reconstructed words as well as in citations from the literary corpus of the Classical period that he makes the focus of his discussion. Yet, the phonetic value of this graph is nowhere discussed. Presumably anyone who has studied a modicum of Chinese will know what sound Peyraube is referring to, but the absence of any explanation of the graph adversely affects the usefulness of this chapter in an encyclopedia, the goal of which should be to provide general knowledge to an educated non-specialist readership. There are a number of other problems with this chapter as well, including incorrect cross-references to earlier citations on pp. 1002 (read [11] for [10], [section]5.2.2.3), 1004 (read [15] for [9], [section]5.3.2), and 1005 (read [14] for [8], [section]5.3.3). Moreover, on p. 1003 there is a reference to a [section]5.2.3, which does not exist. On p. 1002, Peyraube states that "Chinese prepositions are all verbal in origin" but leaves the reader disappointed by not identifying the verbs which have undergone this grammaticalization process or their meanings. It would be helpful to know the subject of the second clause of the sentence from Mencius translated "[What] you [the Prince] greatly desire, could obtain a hearing [of it]?" (sentence 30, p. 1006).

A very unfortunate typographical error is seen in the chapter on Old Tamil (Sanford Steever, pp. 1015-40), where the velar stop category in the presentation of Tamil consonant phones is filled by a g nowhere evidenced in the writing system or in any of the language data presented here. Presumable, Steever meant to enter in this slot the extremely prominent sound k. In the same chapter the forms of the dative and accusative case endings are not listed but must be inferred from the sentences used to illustrate them (presumably -k(k)u and-ai, respectively) (p. 1022), whereas the forms of all other case endings are provided as they are introduced. In sentence (7E), p. 1022, the dative case ending is apparently left off the example (van, glossed as 'heavy rain-DAT.'). In some instances as well Steever has presented forms in his sentence citations which do not agree with those presented in isolation. For example, on p. 1026 he lists among demonstrative pronouns proximal sg. masc. ivan and distal sg. masc. avan, but in sentences (21) A. and B. (p. 1027) these show up as ivar-ai (acc.) and avar-ku (dat.), respectively. I presume some kind of sandhi variation is going on here, but Steever nowhere discusses sandhi of this sort in his presentation.

Another chapter where I have noticed less than full explicitness is Joseph Eska's treatment of "Continental Celtic" (pp. 857-80). Thus, the author refers to the Hispano-Celtic numeral "Tiris 'three' (masc. acc.)" and Gaulish "tidres 'three' (fem. acc.)" (p. 871). But nowhere in his tables of Hispano-Celtic nominal inflection (table 35.3, p. 865) or Gaulish nominal inflection (table 35.5, p. 867) does he indicate accusative plurals in -is or -es, respectively. Similarly, the well-known phrase in Alixie (p. 875) contains an o-stem locative in -e enregistered as such in table 35.5, but the parallel phrase in Alisija on another inscription (p. 876) shows an ending which, based on the same Table, can only be instrumental sg. (of an a-stem? the case form is unlabeled). Eska several times uses the terms 'raised/raising' idiosyncratically to mean 'fronted/fronting', respectively (pp. 872-73). Finally, I do not understand how, in the Hispano-Celtic sentence ios uranTiom=ue auseTi aratim=ue (untranslated), where the X=ue ... Y=ue terms functioning as direct objects of the verb auseTi are in a conjoined disjunctive relationship (-ue 'or'), the second conjunct is a "non-core argument" (p. 872). Early Indo-European conjoined structures of the sort *X-[k.sup.w]e Y-[k.sup.w]e 'X and Y' and X-we Y-we X or Y' signaled close nexus among their constituents rather than 'after-thought' conjunction (note how the first instances of these post-positional conjunctions can be considered 'cataphoric', inasmuch as they implicate a second term), so that whoever wrote the Hispano-Celtic inscription in question clearly meant to express a core argument in the second conjunct.

In many instances one finds misstatements that probably bespeak inadequate proofreading by the authors. Thus, one of the more peculiar statements in the book occurs in the chapter on Phoenician and Punic (Jo Ann Hackett, pp. 365-85), where, after presenting an entire page setting out the verbal system of the G-stem sound verb in Phoenician (essentially equivalent to the Hebrew qal), including prefix and suffix conjugations as well as second person imperative, the author states that "No finite G-stem forms are attested in Phoenician" (p. 379). I assume she means Punic. In the same chapter, read "gender" for "person" in the statement that "the demonstratives in Phoenician are declined for person and number" (p. 376). Similarly, read "aspect" for "mood" in Piotr Michalowski's statement (Sumerian, pp. 19-59) that "the traditional description of modes distinguishes between pairs of homophonous prefixes that differ in meaning depending on the mood" (p. 41). In his chapter on Ugaritic (pp. 288-318), Dennis Pardee states tautologically that the masc. and fem. pl. dt of the relative pronoun are "interchangeable with dt," and the same is said of the fem. sg. dt (p. 301). I assume he means d, the masculine singular form, in both instances. In his treatment of Ancient North Arabian (pp. 488-533), M. C. A. Macdonald notes that the indirect object can precede the direct object (p. 524), but in the sentence he cites, ngy b-h-bqr h-nhl "and he fled the valley (h-nhl) with the cows (b-h-bqr)," I would not want to call the comitative phrase b-h-bqr an 'indirect object'. Also here, if I am not mistaken, in the phrase 'three months', the 'month'-word should be the relevant form of wrh/yrh rather than '[s.sup.2]hr (p. 523). In their chapter on Akkadian and Eblaite (pp. 218-87), John Huehnergard and Christopher Wood state that Proto-Semitic *y was lost at the end of syllables (except when followed by another *y) with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel (p. 237), but their first example of this change, *yupahhar > upahhar 'he gathers', fails to illustrate the process. Elsewhere in this chapter, the perfect of the G-stem (ptar Vs) is said to lose its theme vowel by syncope with the addition of "the plural suffixes (-u, -a, i)" (p. 253); but the last of these is actually the vowel of the second pers. fem. sg. (taptarsi 'you have cut'). One place here where I would have liked to have had more information is in the discussion of the verbal predicative construction (p. 264). The authors note that in a form like sarr-aku the base is indeclinable and not marked for gender, number, or case, so that this word means both 'I am king' and 'I am queen'. They then gloss the corresponding first person pl. sarr-anu as both 'we are king' and 'we are kings'. However, one would like to know whether this can also mean 'we are queen(s)'.

Among his examples illustrating Thurneysen's Law in Gothic, Jay Jasanoff ("Gothic," pp. 881-906) cites au[thorn]ida 'desert' vs. diupipa 'depth'. The latter form, however, is actually a counterexample to the law, which states that in certain derivational suffixes (one of which is - [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]a-~-[thorn]a-) a voiced fricative appears when the preceding syllable begins with a voiceless consonant and vice versa. A better example for a dental suffix would be wratodus 'journey' vs. gabaurjo[thorn]us 'pleasure'. Elsewhere in this chapter, Jasanoff has erroneously taken the ei [i:] of hairdeis 'shepherd' and frawardeip 'destroys' to represent in each instance a contraction product of pre-Germanic *-iji-, when in fact this is true only of frawaurdei[thorn]. hairdeis represents rather pre-Gothic *-ijaz. The listing of ansts as voc. sg. to the i-stem feminine (table 36.2 Gothic nominal stems, p. 894) is conjectural and even unlikely, especially if the original ending here was simple *-i. Moreover, it would perhaps be easier to understand the long *-[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]- of uncertain origin inserted into the preterite plural of classes V and IV of the Germanic strong verb if one began with, say, reduplicated *gegbum 'we gave' and *nenmum 'we took', respectively, rather than simply *gbum, *nmum (p. 902). In the category where we can envision such zero-grade root shapes in word-initial position, the past passive participles *gbanaz, *nmanaz, what we get is rather either short vowel insertion (cf. Gothic gibans 'given') or apparent resyllabification (*nmanaz [right arrow] *nmanaz, whence Gothic numans 'taken'). But the long vowel of the preterite plural seems rather to point to compensatory lengthening, which would be easiest to generate through reduction of a consonant cluster in the sequence *CVCC-.

In his chapter on Latin (pp. 789-811), James P. T. Clackson states that Latin lacks a third-person pronoun other than the reflexive se; and that "oblique forms of the anaphoric pronoun is, ea, id are used to supply the deficiency" (p. 798), but I do not understand why he would exclude the nominatives from occupying this slot. This situation is a general one in Indo-European, because the proto-language possessed no third person pronouns other than demonstratives; but that does not mean that we should claim that the older languages possessed no means of signaling the role of a third person pronoun, nominative or otherwise. A clear lapsus in this article is the statement that the genitives of Lat. unus, -a, -um '1' are masc.-neut. uni, fem. unae (read rather unius in all three genders) (p. 805); and the presentation of Latin syllable structure as possessing an onset [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]OS, where O is characterized as "obstruent (stop or [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]," erroneously omits [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], which, however, cannot be followed by a S(onorant) (p. 794). In the same author's chapter on Classical Armenian (pp. 922-42) one reads, following the statement that the most noteworthy structural feature of pronominal inflection is the absence of syncretism between genitive and dative sg. found in all nominal inflection, that "the personal pronouns show a difference between genitive and dative plural as well" (p. 931). But this is infelicitous, inasmuch as the first and second person plural pronouns are not the plurals of the first and second person singulars, respectively; and their genitives and datives can therefore not be described as "plural" (note that the genitive -r of mer 'of us' and jer 'of you' is the same morpheme as is seen in nor-a, 'of him/her/it', gen. sg. of the anaphoric demonstrative; and the dative -z (-j) of k'ez 'to thee' and inj 'to me' is the same morpheme as that of mez 'to us' and jez 'to you'). It would have been better to say simply that the pronominal absence of syncretism in these cases extends to all personal pronouns as well. On p. 933 Clackson rightly notes the "curiously skewed" system of voice marking in Classical Armenian. But in fact the system is even more bizarre than he indicates, because in the case of transitive verbs, the present subjunctive of the a-conjugation is capable of forming a passive, despite the inability of the corresponding indicative to do so. Thus, banay 'opens' may form active pres. subj. 3 sg. banayc'e 'will open' as well as passive banayc'i 'will be opened'. My only other comments on this contribution are that the distinction between majuscule z and j in Armenian script, never easy in any book I have ever seen, is here nonexistent (table 38.1, p. 924). Also, ji 'horse' should be glossed where it is first adduced to illustrate the agglutinative nature of the nom. and instr. pl. in Classical Armenian (p. 928).

Outside the points just discussed, the most serious citation problem I noticed is in the chapter on Avestan (Mark Hale, pp. 742-63), where the dative plural form aspaeibiio of the a-stem noun for 'horse' has somehow gotten placed in the corresponding slot of the paradigm of the a-stem daena 'religion' (read daenaibiio) (p. 754). On the same page, the Young Avestan instrumental singular of the word for 'thought' should be listed with a short final vowel (read mana[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]ha). As a very minor addition to Donald Ringe's statement that Gathic Avestan still contains numerous stop + stop and stop + fricative clusters pointing to the prior working of Bartholomae's Law (p. 1117), I note that occasionally one finds fricative + stop clusters as well: cf. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]da- 'grown' (: Skt. vrddha- 'id.').

The volume is superbly produced. English typos are extremely few in number and will not be mentioned here. I have noticed the following additional typos in the linguistic data and/or its translation: read Akkadian purussu for purussa' (p. 244); Heb. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'yod' for [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'resh' on three occasions (p. 324), zebah 'sacrifice' for zeba (p. 340), [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] for ... -enna (p. 349), 'and he showed them' for 'and he showed him' as a translation for wayyar'em (p. 354); the famous Greek sentence 'animals run' should read [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] rather than [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (p. 547); read Sanskrit matar- 'mother' for mater (p. 697); Avestan am[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] - 'immortal' for am[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] -(p. 751), [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'man (acc. pl.)' for [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (p. 754); Gothic piuda 'people' for piuda (p. 837); Gothic hwa 'that' for hwata (p. 889); Classical Armenian minc'c'ew 'before' for minc'ew in sentence (30) (p. 939); also in this chapter, the abl. tetwoje derived from the loc. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] should be identified as belonging to the -ea-, rather than the -wo-declension (p. 931, but correctly labeled on p. 930). Finally, in the chapter on Mayan, the forms kum-lah-iy and cumwa-niy are illustrated in fig. 43.15n and p rather than 43.15m and o; and, conversely, kum-lah and cum-wan are illustrated in 43.15m and o rather than 43.15n and p (p. 1066).

Although I have spent most of my allotted space here criticizing various formulations and pointing out errors in the presentation, the fact remains that these comments relate collectively to an infinitesimal fraction of the information stored up within this volume. At the same time, however, they serve as a cautionary red flag to those who may think that everything found within the pages of an encyclopedia is perforce correct. In the final analysis, this book is a unique resource which every scholar of ancient languages should own. I am certainly thrilled to possess this volume, plan to refer to it often, and will place it within easy reach on my bookshelf.

JARED S. KLEIN

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

This is a review article of: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages. Edited by ROGER D. WOODARD. Cambridge: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2004. Pp. xx + 1162. [pounds sterling]120.
COPYRIGHT 2005 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages
Author:Klein, Jared S.
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Article Type:Book review
Date:Jan 1, 2005
Words:4797
Previous Article:A new survey of the Indo-Aryan languages.
Next Article:The Letters of Khwaja 'Ubayd Allah Ahrar and His Associates.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters