BMCR 2008.11.31, Roger D. Woodard, The Ancient Languages of Europe

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
([email protected])
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).