Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen By Wolfgang Pfeifer et al (review)

BOOK NOTICES 417 involved, and experimental procedures and data collection methodologies are quite heterogeneous . Generalizations are hard to extract, and can only be tentatively put forward. A whole range of relevant factors, such as motivation and attitude, are ignored—perhaps because the authors are most familiar with the ESL context in the U.S., where motivation to learn English springs directly from students' own life-situations . Rather surprisingly, intelligence is never mentioned. Nevertheless, it seems that better language learners are generally those who use a variety of learning techniques, focus on overall meaning rather than discrete lexical or grammatical categories, and are conscious of contextual and real-world clues. Unfortunately, the authors report little convincing evidence that such strategies can be successfully taught, at least using today's techniques. For now it seems that we know only that individuals differ in learning strategies: we are able to offer little to those whose strategies may be deficient. Whatever we know about teaching a language, we know even less about teaching students how to learn it. [David Barnwell, Columbia University .} Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. By Wolfgang Pfeifer et al. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1989. Pp. xxxiv, 2093. This book breaks the hegemony of Kluge's classic Etym. Wb. der dt. Sprache (20th edn. 1967, pp. 915; 22nd. edn. fully revised by Elmar Seebold, 1989) in the category ofa short, handy, and reliable reference work. P's page size is slightly smaller than K's, but he retains the easily legible double-column format. P's work is clumsier to use because of its three volumes, but it contains more information since it is about 1.6 times bigger than K's. Thus, for instance, Zyklus is covered by 2+ lines in K, but displays 19 in P (cf. Zwitter: K 7.5 lines, P 40; Zwist: K 9, P 29). Because of the space available, P can present more possibilities ofreconstruction. For example, against K's *dwi(s) 'twice' for Zwist P lists either a 'participial' *dwis-to- or a compound *dwis-stho-. Most of the time K lists compounds or derivations as separate entries, whereas P treats them under the base words, if at all. P's Welt, for instance, comprises two columns as against K's twelve entries with Welt(-) in his 1.3 columns, including such basic coinages as Weltall, Weltflucht, weltklug, Weltratsel, Weltschmerz —none of them found in P. One might maintain that such forms are opaque, but it is useful to find the era, or even the exact literary text, of their provenience. Similarly. K's Zwölffingerdarm 'duodenum' can be found in encyclopedias or other dictionaries (not in P), but what about earlier technical vocabulary like Schellhengst (or Schal-) 'stud horse' (K, not P)? Terminology in this semantic area has in general been replaced with words for more modern concerns . For Tiger K mentions specifically an Iranian source (Avestan tigri- 'arrow'), whereas P refers to an 'oriental word' that has come through Iranian. One wonders what new information might lurk behind the vaguer statement. The 38 lines on Ader in P contain more information than the 1 1 in K, but K provides a Germanic reconstruction and a reference to the river name Oder as a variant. In general P skips Proto-Germanic reconstructions, if there is evidence beyond Germanic, whereas K tries to give both PGmc and PlE. A reader who is not careful will blur his/her chronologies, as P lists the derivational suffix in Germanic but with a PIE root! Thus, K gives *baka- from *togo- for Dachlthatch, but P just gives *(s)teg- for all of it. Lack of such Germanic concepts as Wergeld in P is curious, but this is obviously tied to the fact that P has more modern concepts. The change of times is seen in the fact that taboo words are now included, e.g. Fotze. an extremely coarse word for a woman's genitals. K normally transliterates Greek (often omitting the accent) and Russian, whereas P always gives the original script also. In this sphere I have noted a rare misprint, Iykos with length (195b). Stressed diphthongs are transliterated with a line over them, e.g. pals...