In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

REVIEWS451 far as to support, for IE *ager 'field', a reflex of art rather than the expected *arc, a view to which, incidentally, O subscribes (30). In other areas O has been quite courageous, sticking to an innovative theoretical position for which she, at first, received much heavy fire. This was true of her position on laryngeals, where she argued (REArm 19.5-17 1985) that the traditional trinitarian view with reflexes of e, a, and o was unacceptable for Armenian. The picture had always been a bit bleary since in many instances original initial IE *0-, appearing in Greek with an initial o-, was reflected as Arm. a-. Though there were laws to account for this Armenian shift to a-, O shows (762-67) that it is simpler to find an explanation for those instances where Arm. o- appears instead of a-, which she considers the expected result. The few instances of initial Arm. e- from a laryngeal source also, but for one exception, have plausible alternative explanations. Hence, Armenian does not provide conclusive evidence for a three-colored laryngeal, an idea developed by O from the 80s that approaches a postulation by William F. Wyatt in the 60s that was then widely rejected. This has been a great linguistic volte-face, now widely accepted in Armenian circles. I will deal finally with O's treatment (or should I say nontreatment) of certain controversial loan words. She deals forthrightly with loans from Iranian, Greek and Syriac (Appendices I, II, III, 857-934). She entirely leaves out, with only two exceptions, all the shared Georgian vocabulary , upon which there has been considerable scholarship, and shies from energetically discussing certain loan words (935-62) which she simply calls of 'unknown origin'. The first problem here is that fewer than half the roots of Armenian can be identified as to origin. Hence she classifies all the remaining non-IE, -Greek, -Persian and -Syriac words as of unknown origin, although about some there has been intense discussion. Most ofthis comment is ignored. She lists numerous citations from Adjarian's famous Root dictionary (in Armenian) but does not pass on any of Adjarian's comments nor does she note that Adjarian frequently rejected earlier etymologies. Overwhelmingly for these 'words of unknown origin', O simply gives us a list of words without discussion. She refers to Semitic loans (other than Syriac) yet will not analyze the past discussion concerning the unlikely possibility that Akkadian vocabulary could have reached Armenian ears. Similarly, there is a body of work of decent volume and long pedigree on Urartian loans in Armenian, a distinct possibility considering that the Armenians replaced the Urartians in Eastern Anatolia in the sixth century bc. Yet O offers virtually no comment on this complex and variegated lexical material. Some words which seemed to be shared by both Luwian and Armenian, with exact phonetic and lexical shape, and a surprisingly similar use in Hittite and Armenian literature, are simply left out (cf. laxur 'celery', Hitt. lahJiuru 'id'). To summarize: Though O's overview of Armenian phonology and noun morphology, beyond her original ideas on laryngeal reflexes, has little new to say, the book is useful for any IndoEuropeanist , if not for its critical thinking, then for its marvelous completeness. It is a sturdy, well-indexed, well researched compendium. Yet it is also dangerous for the scholar uninitiated in Armenian phonology, for that person has no way to judge O's often undefended etymologies. More defense, or at least acknowledgment, ofthe odd etymology would have made this otherwise superior book more useful. That, however, is a common complaint in Armenian studies, where disagreement is rampant. Linguistics Cleveland State University Cleveland, OH 44115 [j.greppin©] Structure and interpretation in natural language. By Marc Authier and Lisa Reed. Munich: Lincom Europa, 1999. Pp. iv, 180. Reviewed by Julia Herschensohn, University of Washington This volume—which could easily be entitled Generative syntax meets model-theoretic semantics —is a clear introduction to both generative syntax and Montagovian grammar that provides 452LANGUAGE, VOLUME 76, NUMBER 2 (2000) original arguments for joining the two to account for problems of the syntax-semantics interface. The book is not only lucid in...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 451-453
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.