The Ukrainian Language in the First Half of the Twentieth Century, 1900-1941: Its State and Status by George V. Shevelov (review)

Book Reviews115 Due to the brevity ofeach chapter, the book as a whole raises more questions than it answers, or at least, the answers we get give rise to other questions. This is as it should be and makes this text an invaluable tool. The disadvantage to compiling such vast amounts ofinformation in a single volume is that each chapter allows only a single approach to its subject. For example, in "The Origin of Egyptian Hieroglyphs," a subject with which I am more familiar, I found that the author, Henry George Fischer, primarily acknowledges the Sumerian culture as the source of Egyptian writing, as do many Egyptologists. What he does not mention is the dissenting faction who believe that the scripts are too dissimilar to be ofthe same origin. And he does not mention that the first known hieroglyphic text, the Palette of Narmer, circa 3100 BCE, depicts a scribe recording the pharaoh's war victory on papyrus scroll. The presence of the scroll itself denotes a much longer period for the development ofwriting than has been previously thought; but unlike the hard clay tablets of Sumeria, dated 3200 BCE, the delicate papyrus scrolls of predynastic Egypt would have crumbled to dust. Therefore, one cannot say with any certainty that Sumerian writing predates Egyptian writing, simply because older tablets have been found. Nor does he mention the similarity of African signs and symbols which may have been the basis for the hieroglyphs. Given the single approach taken by each author, which is perhaps due to space limitations and not to a lack of knowledge, the book best serves as a launching pad for further inquiry into the various writing systems. It should not be regarded as the final word. Its value lies in the fact that it is the first text to bring together the diverse studies in written language, and that is long overdue. NORMANDI ELLIS Boulder, Colorado GEORGE V. SHEVELOV. The Ukrainian Language in the First Half ofthe Twentieth Century, 1900-1941: Its State and Status. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. 242 p. This book, written by a native speaker of Ukrainian who is also a well known Slavic linguist, is divided into chapters which place the language in its political and historic contexts: its suppression as the consequence of Ukrainian political oppression by Russians, Poles, and Rumanians, as well as Czechs and Slovaks. It is ironic that Ukrainians, although numerically inferior to Russians but superior to Poles, Rumanians, Czechs, and Slovaks, never had, in the period between 1900 and 1941, a long period of independence. The author mentions in his preface that he conceives his book to be a description not of the internal history of the Ukrainian language, its morphology and phonology, but its external history, a history oflinguistic imperialism. In the author's words, "It [the language question] encompasses a much broader set of problems, first of all, the problem of the use of that language, both in written and oral communication, by 116Rocky Mountain Review whom it is used, in what functions, and with what legal, political, and social possibilities and limitations" (1). It was said that the standard, approved language in a multinational state is the language whose speakers control the government, and within the government especially the armed forces. Time and again this cynical and jocular statement is confirmed in the history of the Ukrainian language as presented in Shevelov's book. In 1900 the fate of Ukrainian in Tsarist Russia, where 85 percent of all Ukrainians lived, was decided by an ukase from the Russian Tsar who was not bound by any constitutional restraints. The edict of 1876 put Ukrainian virtually out of existence. The restrictions were so severe, prohibiting any printing of Ukrainian language material, that the only usage of the language allowed was in Ukrainian private communication. The situation ofUkrainian AustriaHungary was somewhat better. With the Ukrainian language being suppressed everywhere, the only difference was the form of the suppression and control, total suppression in Russia, restriction in Poland, undercutting of Ukrainian social base in Rumania, support ofCzech and Slovak in Transcarpathia at the expense of Ukrainian. Of course, as the author points out, at the root of the...