3. Simado 'deep' (of lands), sima 'abyss'.

Baist, Zeitschrift für rom. Phil. 5. 563, derived sima from Greek ciuós 'eingebogen, hohl, ansteigend'. This etymology has recently been rejected by Meyer-Lübke, REW, defended by Persson, Eranos 20. 80,2 and contested by Spitzer, Rev. de fil. esp. 23. 117, who proposes instead the type *sedimen, a base recorded by Meyer-Lübke, following Salvioni (Z. f. rom. Phil. 22. 174) as the etymon for Old Italian sedime, 'Untergrund'. However, Spitzer realizes that *sedimen would rather have produced *seimbre, irregularly *simbre in Spanish. This *simbre he sees in Spanish cimbre 'subterranean gallery'. I am willing to admit a degree of probability in this one feature of Spitzer's etymology. But it is much harder to follow him when he suggests that *sedimen may also have developt into sima, comparing Old Spanish sija beside seija < sedilia, and Spanish grama < gramen, both irregular developments. On the whole, the irregularities presented by the etymology are so great that it may be said to rest merely on the meaning of the etymon indicated by the Old Italian word, and on a slight resemblance in forms.

The Greek adjective σiuós means not only 'snub', 'bent upwards', but also, according to unmistakable lexicographic evidence shown in the Greek dictionaries, 'hollow', 'concave'. This essential fact establisht the semantic basis for Baist's etymology. Meyer-Lübke rejects not ouós, which, in accordance with his usual practice when dealing with Greek-Latin etyma, he does not distinctly mention, but the attested simus, defined as 'aufwärts gebogen, platt', which he declares 'begrifflich nicht möglich'. Now is it not fair to assume, notwithstanding this summary treatment and Spitzer's opposition in the interest of the etymon *sedimen, that simus had not only the meaning 'snub' but also that of 'hollow', in Latin as in Greek? A considerable number of Greek words which have descended into the Romance languages are not in the Latin dictionary at all, yet both the form and the meaning which they must have had in Vulgar Latin are regarded as known. Leaving out of account doubtful bases and borrowings from middle and modern Greek, I find 115 Greek etyma among the 182 Greek words listed by Meyer-Lübke on pages 1072 and 1073 of the REW as not recorded in the same form and meaning in George's Lateinisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. For example, the etymon of French plat and its congeners is given as Greek plattus, 'flach'. Now, the existence of plattus in Vulgar Latin is inferred from the form of the Romance words, and it is generally

2 ? In this article Persson shows conclusively that ouós meant originally 'bent', 'concave', and that its use in the sense of 'snub' is a secondary specialization.

connected, for example by Schwan-Behrens, Grammaire de l'ancien français 123, with Greek Tλarús, which, however, means essentially 'broad', only secondarily and occasionally 'flat'. When we find platys attested once in Pliny3 with the meaning 'broad', not in that of 'flat', and note that the word means 'broad' in modern Greek, are we to abandon the etymology unless we can find the meaning 'flat' attested in Latin? Certainly not; yet such a procedure would be rather analogous to that of Meyer-Lübke and Spitzer in accepting for the Latin simus, obviously borrowed from the Greek, only that meaning which happens to be attested in Latin.

Starting, therefore, from the form simus, assumed to mean 'hollow' in Vulgar Latin as in Greek, I posit the verb *simare 'to hollow', the past participle of which accounts for the adjective simado 'deep' (of land). Sima 'abyss', properly 'hollow', may be taken either from the adjective simus or from *simare as a postverbal.

4. Sosegar 'to pacify', sosiego 'tranquillity'.

The verb is often derived from *sessicare, but the o presents enormous difficulty, as all who have studied Spanish phonology will at once admit. The base *sessicare, I will note in passing, should not be associated with the intransitive verb sedere, but must be formed from the noun sessus, 'seat'.

Sosegar is, I am convinced, another word. I derive it from the base *insulsicare, a type formed like *albicare, *amaricare, etc., to which I assign the primary meaning 'to stupefy', whence-perhaps originally as a medical term-'to quiet'. Cf. Spanish soso 'flavorless', 'stupid', < Latin insulsus 'flavorless', 'stupid'.

According to Crouch, Encyclopaedia Britannica 1. 207, there is abundant evidence to show that the use of anesthetics is a practice of great antiquity.

The diphthong in the strest syllable of sosiego is evidently due to the attraction of the verbal forms like sosiega, where it results from the analogy of verbs having a short e in the stem, which develop the diphthong regularly. Cf. Menéndez Pidal, Manual 229, where the following examples of this shift are given, among others: siembran, piensa, friega, pliega, riega, nieva.

3 Pliny 26. 5. 58: nervus qui platys appellatur.

4 Körting, Lateinsich-romanisches Wörterbuch3, favors Storm's etymon *subsedicare, which Meyer-Lübke, REW, rejects on phonetic grounds, preferring Michaelis' type *sessicare (influenced by sub), likewise a very irregular etymology.

LINGUISTICS AND PHILOLOGY

GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

[Discussion of the terms 'linguistics' and 'philology' as used in American English.]

To the recently renewed discussion1 of the terms 'linguistics' and 'philology' something may perhaps be added. The problem is not to stake out theoretical claims to portions of the field of scholarship,2 but simply to recognize certain actually existing types of scholarly activity and apply to them labels in such a way as to minimize the risk of misunderstanding. Three such stimuli seem to me to be present in our environment, and I shall endeavor to suggest them without wishing to insist upon the desirability of the verbal descriptions employed. A. The study of man's speech-habits.

B. The study of what his speech-habits have enabled man to accomplish, that is the study of civilization as a whole.3

C. The establishment and interpretation of the texts of such documents as need that treatment.

To B Sturtevant-Kent decline to react on the ground that 'no one scholar can cover so large a field'. The objection is true but not to the point. It assumes that our efforts must be individualistic rather than cooperative. If the issue were to be raised at all, it should rather be: Can a library to cover so large a field ever be accumulated? Even then the answer 'No' must be given, if we have in mind a library that can answer all possible questions. The same, however, is true of A and C as well; and the fact need not trouble us. Our studies are aspirations; that their

1E. H. Sturtevant and R. G. Kent, 'Linguistic Science and Classical Philology', Classical Weekly 22. 9–13; Holger Pedersen in a review of the publications of the Linguistic Society, Litteris 5. 148-59 (1928).

For that reason I shall not discuss the 'relationship' between philology and linguistics. Viewed concretely it would mean the relationship as it exists in some individual or group, and that is ever-shifting.

For I would go beyond Sturtevant-Kent and say that all, not practically all, civilization is the result of language.

3a

ideals are unattainable is a guarantee of their permanence, and may best be regarded as a merit. The unwearying quest of Truth is better than the possession of Truth herself. What concerns us is the presence or absence of an ideal, not its attainability; and a serviceable test is the existence or lack of corresponding organizations to aid and coordinate our efforts.

Here a

To A corresponds the LINGUISTIC SOCIETY of AMERICA. tendency to subdivision has hardly as yet set in. This is due of course to the relative youth of the science, to the precariousness of its hold in this country, and not to any smallness of the field. The Modern Language Association, in spite of its name, belongs under another heading, so that the real exceptions seem to be American Speech (1925 on) and the International Journal of American Linguistics (1917 on). The exceptions are, as exceptions should be, significant: one is an international enterprise, and both deal with problems that ought to be of peculiar concern to dwellers in this country.

Corresponding to B we have the American Council of Learned Societies Devoted to Humanistic Studies. Here consciousness of unity came late (1919), and we may note as symptomatic the cumbersome title as contrasted with that of its counterpart the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The reason for this is clear: B comprises an overwhelming mass of material; the workers have attacked it eclectically and their eclecticisms are reflected in the earlier organizations. Even so, the breadth of their interests is the noteworthy thing. Thus the American Philological Association started with an interest in language, but long ago this began to shift 'to the fields of literature and interpretation, to ancient life in general, and in particular to art and archaeology'. If nevertheless, archaeology seems inadequately represented in this organization, it must be remembered that the Association has an interlocking membership and holds joint meetings with the Archaeological Institute of America. The latter too is far from limiting its interests as narrowly as its name might suggest. Witness the broad

3 The sentiment is Lessing's. In homelier form is the English saying: Always to court and never to wed

Is the happiest life that ever was led.

I shall limit myself to this country; and as I am thinking of pure, not applied, science, organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English, the American Association of Teachers of Spanish, the American Association of Teachers of Italian do not come into consideration.

'F. G. Moore, ‘A History of the Association', TAPA 50. 14 (1919).

programs of the schools it has founded and fostered: the American Schools of Classical Studies at Athens and in Rome, the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem and in Bagdad. I may cite also the American Oriental Society which is now seeking, in union with the Archaeological Institute and the Council of Learned Societies, for the foundation of a School of Indo-Iranian Research. The broad outlook of these endeavors prevents putting them under either A or C; and if we are to find a unity within them (and the fact of their organization constrains us to seek it), it can be done I think only by regarding them as eclectically chosen parts of B.

There seem to be two alternatives. We might with Leonard Bloomfield make 'national culture' rather than human culture our highest unity. But, while it is true that our eclecticisms often approximate or follow lines of national cleavage ('national' being interpreted most liberally), the organizations named reveal a consciousness of larger unities that forbids our stopping at the boundaries of nationality. So I should prefer to regard the study of the culture of any one nation as but a portion of the study of human culture. The second alternative would be to divide B into two parts, history and philology; but the distinctions attempted seem evanescent,' and it is admitted that they are never, and never should be absolute, only relative'. I should agree rather with Gercke: so wird am Ende alle Philologie auch Geschichtsforschung, und alle historische Forschung ist im Grunde streng philologische Arbeit'.

To C, whether we consider it as a whole or have regard to possible (nationalistic) subdivision, there is no corresponding organization. Societies and periodicals devoted to the study of certain languages and literatures are not to be classed as such; for, as Pedersen points out, much more than C is included in the study of literature. Work of this type finds its home in the organizations mentioned under B, of which it forms, indeed, the core. Fortunately, however, the activity of C as a

LANGUAGE 1. 4, (1925).

7 Cf. Birt, 'Kritik u. Hermeneutik', Muellers Hdb. d. klass. Altertumswiss. 1.33. 4: 'Der Philologe behandelt das Gewesene, der Historiker das Geschehene'. Also Maurice Bloomfield, 'Philology', Johns Hopkins Alumni Mag. (an unfortunately out-of-the-way place) 14. 5 (1925): 'History draws this picture in outline that may be compared to a pen and ink drawing, philology lays on the colors. History is engaged with what may be called the more external, pragmatic, secular aspects of the human past; philology deals more with its inner, spiritual aspects.' The quotation in the text is from the same page.

8 'Methodik', Einl. in d. Altertumswiss. 12. 35. The whole section 'Die Einheit der philologisch-historischen Methode' will repay close reading.