« ZurückWeiter »
tion; and the Oscan present seems to be a direct denominative to potis, shifted to the second conjugation, not a back-formation to the perfect. 361.14 Umb. iepru: another explanation at 218.15, without crossreference at either place. 363 prope: from proq"e; the assimilation to *q- as in quinque is avoided, not because of the following r (the product would have been *croque; unobjectionable, cf. coquo from *quequo, *p*eqō), but to avoid separation from proximus. 363 pròspěrus: explanation involves some difficult vowel shortenings; but it is an obscure word. 364 proelium: better in Walde. 364 provincia: good. 370 quantus: equation with Greek was very dubious; better *quam-tos, as in Walde. 371 trucido: 'cut into four pieces', good; support for tru- from *qu(a) truis found in Oscan trutum 'quartum'. 371 quattuor: for the -tt- see LANG. 3.12-4. 372 quartus: caption and explanation are at variance. 372 quadraginta: the prior element is *quaturā, an Italic neuter plural, from which the long vowel spread to the subsequent multiples of ten; but the -d- is inexplicable, cf. my note on 154. 373 querquedula: better in Walde. 377 colo: if the o-grade of the root is original, the verb ought to be a denominative of the first conjugation. 379 ut: originally with adverbial ta; unlikely. Rather as in Walde. 382 rectus: Muller accepts Lachmann's Law; this seems impossible to me, and I explain the lengthened vowels as products of paradigmatic analogy. 384 rīma: the caption reik(z) mā indicates a wrong chronology of the development; see my note to 313. 384 rīvālis: I prefer the connection with rīvus, disapproved by both Walde and Muller. 392 rumex: from rug+m-ak-s, according to Muller; but why then the short u, which he does not explain, though he points out the difficulty? Walde says that the g is lost by dissimilation against the following k. The u is short in Romance, despite Muller.
419 sincerus 'aus einem Wuchs': cf. cēra from *crērā 85; good. 419 semel: doublet of simul, with adverbial -s; not quite satisfactory, for final el is rare and needs explanation. 420 sine: from sě-ně in proclitic position: good. 421 senex: relation of nom. to sen-is is not explained. 431 līmāx: an obvious borrowing from Greek λeiuag, though Muller does not hint at the possibility. 432 mitto: from smīd-ětō, after Brugmann; I cannot accept this, for the indic. mitat of the Duenos Insc. (cf. LANG. 2.213) has now been found in another insc. 434 sodālis: to *sodos 'road' Greek dôós; good. 447 stinguo 'extinguish': not identical with stinguo 'stechen', but by wrong division from ex-tinguo; good.
465 sublimis: in support of sub līmen 'up to the lintel,' cf. Bährens
Glotta 15.53-60. 476 tenebrae: the n from m is not yet adequately explained; perhaps by popular etymology to tenere, quod tenebrae tenent? 479 tenuis: why e here from IE reduced e, but a in maneo? Muller makes no comment; Walde has a suggestion, not very cogent; but perhaps *tanyis became tenuis after *lexuis levis, associated in meaning. 482 testa: Walde seems to me to exercise sounder judgment among the possibilities. 483.12 territorium: rather a rime-word to some form in -tōrium, cf. Leumann-Stolz Lat. Gr.' 213. 483 terreo: Muller notes that e instead of o in a causative is abnormal, but suggests no reason; it may have followed terror, to avoid confusion with torreo 'parch'. 487 tonitru: contamination of tonitu- and tonitro-; good, but the i is irregular, cf. triquetrus fulgetrum feretrum. The i comes from tonitu-, the other word being properly *tonetru-. 491 taberna: from tråbernā; yes, but why posit the prior r in the caption-form, from which it was early lost by dissimilation? 493 ter: this and the following caption are out of alphabetical position. On accented -ri- becoming -er-, cf. my note on 112. Ter is for *tris after quater: terque quaterque. Tertius followed in Latin and in Umb.; testis (from *tri-stis 495) followed in Latin, but not in Oscan. 494.2 trěcenti: with ē in Romanic; yes, by influence of tredecim. 497.9 trucido; the explanation here differs from that on page 371, and there is no cross-reference at either place; this shows the value of a complete index.
502.31 facētus: from stem in facies; see rather Walde. 504 falx; to me the article is in some details not clear. 505-6 filus: from felos; but some forms of the root in Sanskrit show a diphthong, and in general I distrust Latin i from earlier ē. 507 firmus: with dialectal i, not commented on by Muller; see reff. in Walde. 508.35 Fal. fifiked, f[if]iqod: quoted wrongly fifiged fifiqont 509.10; see Herbig IF 32.71-8. 511 frāgum 'strawberry': to root of frigeo 'be cold'; curious semantically, see rather Walde. 515 fūsus 'spindle': from pur[e]sos, with loss of r before s; hardly, for in prōsa and suasum the combination is -rss-. 517 vervactum: the medial a, not commented on by Muller, denotes either a short vowel retained by analogy to some other word, or a long vowel; cf. also Robson CR 30.69-70. 519 caption valemos: should have è, ē, whatever the precise history. 525 via: either pre-form given by Muller meets with phonetic difficulties, cf. also Walde s.v.; apparently it must go back to older *vijā. 531 venēnum, 532 Venus: Walde's semantics seem to me preferable. 535 virga, 536 virgo: on the radical vowel, see rather Walde. 541 vespillo: from ue-spel-, cf. sepel-io; in part like Pott and Pauli (v. Walde); good. 543 vestibulum: Muller
takes up and defends the older view, that it is from the root yes- 'dwell'; good. 549 vindex: not surviving in Romanic; no, but vindico and vindicta survive, and this is not mentioned.
550 vīnum: from earlier form with Italic 7, and therefore not borrowed from Greek; good, but the conclusion is then inescapable that Italic and Greek borrowed the word from different but related nonIE Mediterranean dialects. 558 lupus: I cannot accept a pre-form (u)lukuos; on this and volpes 561, see LANG. 2.188-9. 566 religio: from (u)red+līgiōn ‘das hemmende Band', to ligāre; this bases it on taboo and explains the long initial syllable found in poetry, disappearing in standard Latin by the law of mámma-mamilla.
The number of my comments is not to be taken as an unfavorable judgment of Muller's work, but as testimony to the interest which it has aroused. No two etymologists will agree in all details, or on all words and problems. I wish that Leumann's revision of Stolz's Lateinische Grammatik, Laut- und Formenlehre (in von Müller's Handbuch) had appeared in time for Muller to use the chapter on word-formation; but that was not destined to be. All in all, Muller's work takes its place alongside Walde's as indispensable to every serious student of Latin etymology; the two mutually supplement each other, and we are grateful to Muller for this additional assistance to the understanding of the Latin language.
ROLAND G. KENT
A Course in the Analysis of Chinese Characters. Pp. 384. By R. B. BLAKNEY. Shanghai: The Commercial Press, 1926.
This book is intended for students in the early stages of their study; we cannot say for absolute beginners. Due to the dearth of such books and the supreme disregard for the student which most of those that exist show, it will be very welcome.
Under 178 headings Blakney groups a total of some 1300 characters, which he discusses etymologically. The order of these headings is from simple to difficult. Similar forms, although not etymologically related, are noted, and cross-references throughout the book make it possible to analyse each character (radical, phonetic, or borrowed) completely without too frequent repetition.
Though the arrangement is pedagogical, the analysis is etymologic, depending in the main on Chinese authorities, especially on the Shuo Wên and the Seal forms of the characters. Western scholarship, however, is not neglected; Wieger is referred to frequently. Unfortunately,
however, Blakney does not tell us his authority in each particular instance, and we are not always sure whether the explanation he gives for a particular character is an accepted Chinese explanation or one possibly of his own ingenuity. Even the short Chinese quotations which he includes (of which we might wish more) are given without even the name of the book. The inclusion of such bibliographic references would add greatly to the value of the book, without detracting from its mnemonic quality. It then could serve also as an introduction to Chinese etymology. Here the authorities are particularly important to us, for what is of value is less what seems plausible to us or to an individual Chinese commentator, or even what the facts of origin may have been, than what the people have considered their characters, rightly or mistakenly, to imply. That is, the accepted connotations, whether historically sound or not, are of more interest than what may be but archeological curiosities.
Used after some elementary knowledge of Chinese character has been gained from such a book as Bullock's Progressive Exercises in the Chinese Written Language and in conjunction with such a one as Hirth's Notes on Documentary Chinese or Hauer's Das San-tze-king (in Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen zu Berlin, Ostasiatische Studien, 1924) the present work will prove a great help in the acquisition of a vocabulary in written Chinese.
R. E. SALESKI
Die Laute des Ful. (Neuntes Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen.) Pp. 155. By AUGUST KLINGENHEBEN. Berlin, Verlag von Dietrich Reimer (Ernst Vohmer) A.-G.; Hamburg, C. Boysen; 1927.
The Fula people seem to have been chiefly in the region of the great bend of the Niger River, from which, in the early part of the nineteenth century, they spread under the leadership of Othman Dan Fodio and established a great empire. In this territory they still remain as a ruling caste, distinct from the subject peoples in their lighter color, their superior intelligence and strength of character, and their language. There are seven dialects of Ful which were available to Dr. Klingenheben in his study; they range from Senegambia on the west, through the central Hausa states, to the Bagirmi territory east of Lake Tchad. His own closest acquaintance is with the dialect of the Hausa region, which also is the one best known to and described by Westermann. A careful study of the sounds, as recorded by the latter scholar, shows
that they can be reduced from 49 actually found, to 28 etymologically independent sounds which are the basis of the complete number. The nature of these sounds, and the character of certain others, which appear in other dialects, are discussed in detail. There follows then the development of the primitive Ful language into the several dialects, a careful comparative phonology; and finally, a classification of the phenomena of sound change which have been found to occur in this development.
It has been known to scholars that the Ful dialects differ from the other African languages, especially in the use of suffixes, and in some ways seem to stand nearer to the Hamitic languages. The most recent studies indicate even that they are to be ranked as a divergent branch of Hamitic. But the tracing of remoter linguistic relationships is possible only after the construction of the comparative grammar and the reconstruction, so far as is possible, of the primitive languages of the groups concerned. This is the task to which Dr. Klingenheben has applied himself, and for his work the students in African languages should be grateful.
It is regrettable that African languages, apart from ancient Egyptian and Coptic, have received little attention from American scholars. They present many interesting features, which throw light on the possible variant methods of human expression. Miss Alice Werner's Language-Families of Africa2 (London, 1925) is available as a description of the different types of languages and of the distribution of the of the language groups in Africa, and after a perusal of this book one may start the serious study of these languages with a certainty that it will be profitable.
ROLAND G. KENT