[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
This may be of interest ....
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Bryn Mawr Classical Review" <bmcreview@hidden.email>
> Date: 19 November 2009 14:29:14 GMT-05:00
> To: "Carl" <cea@hidden.email>
> Subject: BMCR 2009.11.27: de Melo on de Vaan, Etymological
> Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages
> Reply-To: "Bryn Mawr Classical Review" <bmcreview@hidden.email>
>
> Boston: Brill, 2008. Pp. xiii, 825. ISBN 9004167978. €229.00,
> $341.00. ">
>
>
> Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2009.11.27
> Michiel Arnoud Cor de Vaan, Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the
> Other Italic Languages (vol. 7 in the series "Leiden Indo-European
> Etymological Dictionary"). Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008. Pp. xiii,
> 825. ISBN 9004167978. €229.00, $341.00.
>
> Reviewed by Wolfgang David Cirilo de Melo, Universiteit van Gent (wolfgang.demelo@hidden.email
> )
> Word count: 2855 words
>
> Table of Contents
>
> There is no shortage of recent dictionaries of Latin, most of which
> contain a modest amount of etymological information, but de Vaan's
> book is the only purely etymological one. For the Sabellic languages
> we have of course Untermann's important Wörterbuch (2000), which
> provides a wealth of data and thorough discussion, but for Latin,
> before de Vaan's work appeared, one had to use Walde-Hofmann (1938)
> or Ernout-Meillet (1959). These older works are on the whole
> reliable, yet it is good to see an up-to-date dictionary fully
> adopting the laryngeal theory.
>
> I have learnt much from reading de Vaan. I shall give just three
> examples. As an undergraduate I used to read the Miscellen or
> Gemischte Beiträge in various journals, but never understood why the
> first vowel in miscellus is long since the one in miscere is short;
> de Vaan lists the word under minor and derives it from *minuscellus
> > *minscellus, and now the quantity and the meaning make sense: the
> long vowel is the result of compensatory lengthening (loss of n
> before s) and the meaning is influenced by miscere. Second, the
> Appendix Probi contains an entry pauper mulier non paupera mulier.
> Here we can see how pauper adopted a more productive type of
> inflection (Italian povero). But the feminine paupera occurred
> already in Plautus (fr. xlvi Lindsay). I used to think that the
> Plautine form foreshadowed Romance developments, but de Vaan points
> out that the adjective was originally thematic and became athematic
> under the influence of its antonym diues. Hence the Plautine form
> may be a genuine archaism not connected with the later
> rethematization. Naturally I also learnt much about languages other
> than the Italic ones by working through de Vaan's book. In German a
> common insult is dämisch or dämlich "stupid", which most speakers
> derive from Dame "lady / woman". The correct etymology, however, is
> less misogynistic: the word is not connected with Dame, but
> ultimately has the same root as Latin temetum "alcoholic drink".
>
> The structure of de Vaan's dictionary is clear and simple. After a
> brief list of abbreviations and introduction, the main part of the
> book consists of the dictionary entries, followed by a bibliography
> and useful indexes. The introduction outlines de Vaan's view of Indo-
> European, which is fairly orthodox; for instance, he believes in
> three laryngeals, whose places of articulation match those of the
> velar stops: palato-velar, pure velar, and labio-velar. He follows
> the traditional reconstruction of manner of articulation for the
> stops: there are voiced, voiceless, and voiced aspirated ones. After
> the Indo-European period, he accepts an Italo-Celtic and then a
> Proto-Italic stage and regards Venetic as an Italic language. It is
> useful to have de Vaan's outline of the major sound changes and the
> reconstructed sound system of Proto-Italic in the introduction.
>
> The dictionary entries are systematic and easy to follow. The
> headword is followed by a rough translation, the declension or
> conjugation class, and other relevant information, such as first
> attestation or variant forms. This is followed by a section listing
> derivatives, again with first attestations. Next come the
> reconstructed Proto-Italic forms and the Italic cognates. After this
> we are presented with the Indo-European forms and cognates in non-
> Italic languages. Then we get a brief discussion and bibliography.
>
> Reviewing a dictionary is very different from reviewing any other
> type of book. The reviewer is one of the few people who can
> reasonably be expected to read the entire work from cover to cover,
> while others are more likely to read only individual entries. And
> while the reader of a more general book will not be upset if one or
> two paragraphs contain mistakes because it is the whole that
> matters, people consulting a dictionary and finding a faulty entry
> will of course be upset because it is typically just one entry they
> need. For this reason the rest of my review is a list of suggested
> improvements, but it would be appropriate to offer first an overall
> assessment: de Vaan has produced a useful book fully incorporating
> recent research, and in many respects he replaces the older
> etymological dictionaries of Latin (though for the Sabellic
> languages I naturally prefer Untermann). The work is very reliable;
> if my list of corrections seems lengthy, one should not forget that
> the book is over eight-hundred pages long. However, I also have some
> points of criticism. I find it regrettable that de Vaan so rarely
> tells us his own opinions. For the most part we get only summaries
> of earlier research. As any etymologist freely admits, reconstructed
> forms can never be absolutely certain. But there are degrees of
> certainty. The etymology of equus, for example, is much more certain
> than that of abies. It would have been nice to have a clearer
> marking scheme for what is relatively certain, moderately certain,
> and completely uncertain. My final and most important point of
> criticism concerns the treatment of loanwords. All words that are
> definitely loanwords are excluded from the discussion. This is not a
> peculiarity of de Vaan's work: all dictionaries in the series follow
> the same procedure. However, the omission of all certain loanwords
> means that de Vaan's book cannot be a sufficient etymological work
> on its own.
>
> But now it is time to turn to the finer points. My list of
> corrections begins with some obvious omissions and mistakes. Nux is
> feminine, not masculine, so it should be nux Abellana under Abella.
> Clam is listed as adverb. One would have liked to see at least a
> mention of its prepositional use in early Latin. The etymology of
> consulere advanced by de Vaan may well be correct, but *kom-sed- is
> dismissed too easily in view of considium in Plaut. Cas. 966. Under
> doleo we find the statement that the experiencer must originally
> have been expressed in the dative. This construction is actually
> well attested. Elutriare is listed under lauare as if it were a
> native formation, and the first two vowels are marked as long. But
> this rare word (attested in Laber. com. 151) is probably of Greek
> origin (ἔλυτρον) and the first two vowels are consequently
> short (the Laberius passage is inconclusive in this respect). Under
> facio I would have liked to see the form vhe:vhaked from the fibula
> Praenestina, even if de Vaan should consider the document a forgery.
> Under forceps de Vaan states that forfex is a by-form that arose by
> metathesis. This cannot be right. The form that arose by metathesis
> is forpex, and forfex is derived from this by long-distance
> assimilation or by association with agentive nouns in -fex. All
> three forms are feminine, but forfex is attested with masculine
> agreement in Vitr. 10. 2. 2, which makes the second explanation,
> that there was an association with agent nouns, more likely. The
> noun gerulifigulus is listed under gero as if it were securely
> attested. It is a textually problematic hapax legomenon (Plaut.
> Bacch. 381). Under hic, the nominative plural hisce, mostly used
> before vowels, is not even mentioned. It seems rather unlikely that
> in- is automatically lengthened before -gn- (see my comments below).
> Iuxta is normally said to have a short first vowel; de Vaan does not
> indicate vowel length here (or in iuxtim), but derives the word from
> *jougVsto-, in which case the first vowel ought to be long.
> Inscriptional evidence for long -a- in largus is mentioned, but, if
> this is accepted, should de Vaan not also mark the derivatives of
> the word as having a long vowel? Much the same can be said of forma
> and its derivatives. Liquidus is discussed under liqueo. I would
> have liked to see a note stating that the first syllable of liquidus
> occasionally scans as heavy in Lucretius (3. 427 liquidus umor aquai
> as hexameter ending). Muricidus, a hapax legomenon in Plautus (Epid.
> 333), is glossed by Paulus Diaconus as ignauus and stultus. We are
> clearly dealing with an insult, though the exact meaning remains
> unclear. We find this word under marceo in de Vaan's dictionary, who
> thinks that it belongs here for semantic reasons and that it could
> be a by-form of murcidus (his term is "corruption", but obviously an
> emendation to murcide (voc.) in the Plautus verse would be
> unmetrical). He could be right if the first three syllables are
> light, but the first and third syllables can also count as long, in
> which case the meaning could be "mouse-slayer" (an insult for a
> cowardly soldier?) or "wall-destroyer" (an insult for a thief,
> τοιχωρύχός, also perfossor parietum in Pseud. 980).
> Muscus is marked with a macron on the first vowel, muscosus is not;
> the length of the first vowel is unclear in either case. Under nasci
> de Vaan cites an inscription with nationu gratia "on account of
> giving birth"; the inscription is from Praeneste (CIL 14. 2863) and
> the spelling is archaic, with cratia rather than gratia. On noxit,
> which de Vaan regards as an s-present to noceo, I refer to my book
> on the early Latin verb; this is definitely not an s-present, but an
> aoristic formation. Pater is said to go back to a nursery form *pa,
> phonologically *pH2. Much as I like the laryngeal theory in its
> modern form, a phonological representation of babies' first babbling
> seems slightly over the top. Exactly the same could be said about
> atta "daddy" < *H2et-o-. As for penis, I agree with de Vaan that the
> most likely semantic development is from "tail" to "penis". However,
> here as elsewhere I have to take issue with his chronological
> considerations; he argues that his theory finds support in the fact
> that the meaning "tail" is attested as early as Naevius, while
> "penis" is not found before Catullus. Roman comedy deliberately
> avoided terms like "dick" or "cunt", so the mere date of first
> attestations does not mean anything. Under pluma de Vaan lists
> another Plautine hapax legomenon, plumatile, which he translates as
> "feathered" and scans with the two first syllables heavy. The word
> occurs in Epid. 233 in a list of women's dresses and stands in
> opposition to cumatile, which must be connected with κύμα. Since
> de Vaan's scansion leads to an impossible divided anapaest, it is
> better to scan the first two syllables as light and derive the word
> from πλύμα, as Duckworth (1940 ad loc.) does. His translation
> "watery or dishwatery" also brings out the joke. Under pungo we find
> a brief discussion of pugna and related words. Again it is claimed
> that before -gn- vowels are automatically long, a statement which is
> hard to maintain in view of Italian degno, segno < dignus, signum
> (not too much should be made of the spellings seignum in CIL 1^2. 42
> and dIgne, with i longum, in CIL 6. 6314). Under quiris we read that
> the word might be a loanword with Sabellic connections; but in that
> case the labiovelar would be odd. Under saxum de Vaan lists Germanic
> words for "knife" as possible cognates, but then says that the
> connection between "rock" and "knife" is not straightforward.
> However, Latin saxum can of course also refer to a flint knife (as
> in the proverbial inter sacrum saxumque sto), so perhaps the
> connection is not far-fetched. Under se, it is wrongly claimed that
> Plautus still uses the accusative / ablative sed (he only uses med
> and ted). Under limus "oblique", an adverb sublimen is listed.
> Though this word occurs several times in Plautus manuscripts (e.g.
> Men. 992), we are probably dealing with nothing more than a
> corruption of adjectival forms of sublimis. Subuolturius is listed
> under uoltur as if it were a normal derivative, while in reality it
> is a nonce-formation punning on subaquilus (Plaut. Rud. 422). Under
> uerbera I miss a reference to the verb form uerberit in a lex regia,
> discussed in Szemerényi (1987). Since de Vaan distinguishes between
> vocalic u and consonantal v, it should be veruina rather than
> vervina (under veru), and conversely, volvi rather than volui (under
> volvo). The alternative form uotare for uetare is not a hapax, pace
> de Vaan. Vinum receives an Indo-European reconstruction and the fact
> that this might be a later loan (possibly from Semitic, where words
> of similar shape occur) is not even mentioned. The form ullo (Acc.
> trag. 293), a future perfect of ulcisci, should probably be restored
> to ulso; de Vaan comes up with an ad hoc sound change *-lks- > *-ls-
> > -ll-, but obviously l and s look rather similar in certain types
> of minuscule manuscripts.
>
> The treatment of Faliscan data is sometimes less than satisfactory.
> Of course Bakkum's impressive treatment of Faliscan, published in
> 2009, was not yet out when de Vaan submitted his book, but some
> oddities point to a lack of knowledge of Faliscan. Sta MF 28,1
> glossed as "(it) stands", and statuo MF 29, glossed as "I erect",
> are considered to be related with stare. Since in both cases these
> are the only words on the objects, the interpretation looks
> unlikely. It is clear that a dedicated object stands, the question
> is who set it up for whom. Probably we are dealing with abbreviated
> names. Tulom MF 68 certainly does not belong with tollere. The
> alleged meaning, "I set up", makes no sense on a one-word
> inscription, where we would expect the donor or the recipient; there
> are also morphological difficulties if the 1st sg. perfect ends in -
> ai (pe:parai EF 1), unless one resorts to the unlikely assumption
> that Faliscan preserved a separate aorist ending as well. Perhaps
> the inscription just means "of the Tulli" (with an old genitive
> plural in -om). It is odd that under unda, Faliscan umom "water
> vessel" EF 2 (< *ud-mo-) is not mentioned. Finally, the alleged
> Faliscan forms datu (under do), rected (under rego), sacru (under
> sacer), and uootum (under uoueo) all come from an inscription in the
> Faliscan alphabet (LF 214), but the language is clearly Latin; the
> Faliscan ending is -om or -o, not -um or -u, and long vowels are not
> written double in the Oscan style in Faliscan.
>
> Venetic remains a language of which we know little. Several times de
> Vaan follows earlier literature in assigning meanings to words which
> in fact remain obscure. Atisteit (*Es 1222), under at and sto, is
> considered to have a prefix ati- and is glossed as adstat; the
> meaning of this word remains uncertain. Equally obscure is stati (Od
> 1), analysed by de Vaan as an instrumental singular meaning
> "weight". Whether Venetic poltos (Es 113) belongs with pellere, as
> alleged, is doubtful. A certain amount of scepticism, along the
> lines of Untermann (1980), would have done no harm.
>
> In an etymological dictionary one expects correct indications of
> vowel length. By and large, de Vaan gets it right, but there are
> several unfortunate mistakes. Before -ns- and -nf-, and before -nct-
> and -nx-, vowel length is automatic because the nasal was lost and
> there was compensatory lengthening (Meiser 1998: 78); de Vaan omits
> macrons in around eighty cases. On the other hand, vowels are not
> automatically long before -gn- (see above), and while de Vaan does
> not always mark them as long here, he does so in around fifteen
> cases where they are probably short. Elsewhere, macrons are often
> omitted, which can lead to some confusion.3 Occasionally de Vaan
> marks a vowel that is short as long; thus the prefix re- always has
> a short vowel, so it should be réconcinnare4 (under concinnus),
> récusare (under causa), rélaxare (under laxus), and résumere
> (under emo). Similarly, de- is shortened before vowel, so we should
> have déambulare (under ambulo), déesse (under sum), déhortari
> (under horior), déorio (under haurio), and déosculari (under os
> "mouth"). The other cases where a short vowel is marked as long are
> the following (head words in brackets): conuóuere (uoueo), dáre (in
> several places), denté (dens), éra ("mistress", under ira), faucé
> (faux), latébricola, latébrosus (both under lateo), monétrix
> (moneo), nísi (ni), prófecto (facio), and prófiteri (fateor).
>
> All remaining errors are of minor importance. The author's English
> is very good and almost free of mistakes, but Latin of the Empire is
> called Imperial Latin rather than "Empirical Latin" (p. 503). This
> new, important dictionary cannot be neglected by anyone interested
> in the history of words.
>
> References:
>
> Bakkum, G. C. L. M. (2009), The Latin Dialect of the Ager Faliscus:
> 150 Years of Scholarship, 2 vols. (Amsterdam).
>
> de Melo, W. D. C. (2007), The Early Latin Verb System: Archaic Forms
> in Plautus, Terence, and Beyond (Oxford).
>
> Duckworth, G. E. (1940), T. Macci Plauti Epidicus: Edited with
> Critical Apparatus and Commentary, in Which Is Included the Work of
> the Late Arthur L. Wheeler (Princeton).
>
> Ernout, A. and Meillet, A. (1959^4), Dictionnaire étymologique de la
> langue latine: Histoire des mots (Paris).
>
> Pellegrini, G. B. and Prosdocimi, A. L. (1967), La lingua venetica,
> vol. 1: Le iscrizioni (Padua).
>
> Szemerényi, O. S. L. (1987), "Si parentem puer verberit, ast olle
> plorassit", in Scripta Minora: Selected Essays in Indo-European,
> Greek, and Latin, vol. 2: Latin, ed. by P. Considine and J. T.
> Hooker (Innsbruck), 892-910.
>
> Untermann, J. (1980), "Die venetische Sprache: Bericht und
> Besinnung", in Glotta 58: 281-317.
>
> ------ (2000), Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen (Heidelberg).
>
> Walde, A. and Hofmann, J. B. (1938^3), Lateinisches etymologisches
> Wörterbuch (2 vols. + reg.) (Heidelberg).
>
> Notes:
>
> 1. The numbers are those in Bakkum (2009).
> 2. The numbering system is that introduced by Pellegrini and
> Prosdocimi (1967).
> 3. The correct forms are as follows (I leave the head words in
> brackets unmarked): âctiô, âctor, âctus, âctûtum (all four
> under ago), adârêscere (areo), adulêscentia, adulêscentiârî,
> adulêscentulus (all three under alo), afflîctim (fligere),
> ârdêre, ârdor, ârdus, ârfacere (all four under areo),
> ascrîptîuus (scribo), bilîx (licium), cânûtus (canus),
> capessitûrus (capio), catîllâre, catîllus (both under catina),
> cênâculum, cênâre, cênâticus, cênâtus (all four under cena),
> clâmôs (clamo), cômptiônâlis, cômptus (both under emo),
> cônâtum (conor), conciliâtrîx (calo), concubînâtus (cumbo),
> cônsentês (sum), corrêctor (rego), crâstinus (cras), creâtrîx
> (creo), dêlectâmentum (lacio), dêpudîcâre (pudeo), dîlêctus
> (lego), êbriâcus, êbriolâtus, êbriolus (all three under ebrius),
> êlêctilis (lego), êmptîcius, êmptor, êmpturîre, êmptus,
> exêmptiô (all five under emo), facit ârê (areo), farînârius
> (far), fautrîx (faueo), fictrîx (fingo), fugitîuârius (fugio),
> honôrârius, honôrâtus (both under honos), immâtûrus (maturus),
> indipîscî (endo), inêscâre (edo "eat"), labôrâre (labor),
> lâpsus (labo), lupîllum (lupus), mandûcâre (mando),
> mendîcâbulum (mendum), môrâtus, môrigerârî, môrigerâtiô,
> môrigerus (all four under mos), mûstêlînus, mûstricula (both
> under mus), nefâstus (fas), neglêctus (lego), nîxârî, nîxus
> (both under nitor), obuâgîre (uagio), ôrâculum, ôrâtiô,
> ôrâtor (all three under oro), ôsculentia, Ôstia (both under os
> "mouth"), pâstus (pascere), praefestînâtim (festino),
> praemâtûrus (maturus), prômptâre, prômptârius, prômptus (all
> three under emo), Pûblius (populus), quadrâgintâ (quattuor),
> quârticeps (-ceps), quîntânus (quinque), quînticeps (-ceps),
> quîntîlis (quinque), rêctâ, rêctor (both under rego),
> redêmptitâre, redêmptor (both under emo), rêgillus, rêgnâre,
> rêgnâtor, rêgnum (all four under rex), rôbôsem (robur),
> scîtâmenta (scire), scrôfipâscus (scrofa), sêmêstris (sex),
> struîx (struo), subrêctitâre (rego), sûmptiô, sûmptuôsus (both
> under emo), tâctus (tango), trilîx (licium), uîndêmia,
> uîndêmiâtor, uîndêmitor (all three under emo), ûtî (utor).
> 4. For typographical reasons I use the acute here to mark a short
> vowel.
>
> Comment on this review in the BMCR blog
> Read Latest
> Index for 2009
> Change Greek Display
> Archives
> Books Available for Review
> BMCR Home
> Bryn Mawr Classical Commentaries
>
> BMCR, Bryn Mawr College, 101 N. Merion Ave., Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
>
> HTML generated at 14:14:07, Thursday, 19 November 2009
> Sent to cea@hidden.email. Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Forward to a
> Friend
>
--
Carl Edlund Anderson
http://www.carlaz.com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]