STUDIA INDOGERMANICALODZIENSIA (SIGL)

Vo1. V Łódź 2003

J. P. MALLORY and D. Q. ADAMS (eds.), Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, London, Chicago 1997,8Ż9 pp', ISBN 1-884964-98-Ż

Reviewed by Krzysztof Tomasz WITCZAK(University of Łódź, Poland)

The publication under review is a perfectly prepared edition, arrangedaccording to the conceptual form of encyclopedic entries. It contains boththe standard headings (e.g. Illyrian language, pp. 287-289; Indo-Europeanhomeland, pp. Ż90-299; Jastorf culture, pp' 321-322) and the typical lexicalentries (e.g. insects, p. 312, with hve nominal lexemes; Jump, pp. 323-324,rł'ith ten verbal roots), accompanied with plentiful tables, sketches, cfoss-references and bibliographical sources. There are useful indexes (Languageindex, pp. 659193, and General index, pp. 795-8Ż3), which permit us tofind a question with no problem.

As I and my colleagues from the University of Łódź arc engaged inpreparing a new Indo-European comparative and etynological dictionary, itseems comprehensible that in my review I would like to discuss first of alla number of lexical items. Below I refer to the entries of Encyclopedia ofIndo-European Culture (henceforth: EIECI).

ALDER. Alb. verr (p. 11) denotes'white poplar, Populus albaL.', not'alder' (as in Cęltic *wernd f *wernos 'aider'). Moreover, it cannot bederived from xwer-no-, as IE. *we- yieids regularly Alb. vje- or vi- (neverre-). It is more promising to derive AIb. ven 'white poplar' from *Hrwigeryos,

cf. Gk. aiyupoq, 'black poplar'z.

1 The following abbreviations are used in my review: AED -y, Orel, Albanian EtymologicalDictionary,l-eiden, Boston, Kóln 1998; CDIAL _ R' L. Turner, A Comparative Dictionary ofthe Indo-Aryan Languages, London |966; FB|| _ W' von Wartburg, Franzósischesetymologisches l{'órterbuch. Eine Darstellung des galloromanischen Sprachschatzes, vol. 1-25,

Tribingen, Basel 1948-1978; GEL - A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by H. G. Liddelland R. Scott, With a revised supplement 1996, Oxford 1996; IECD - S. E. Mann,Indo-European Comparative Dictionary, Hamburg 1984-1987; IEly - J. Pokorny, Indoger-manLtches etymologisches ll]órterbuch, Bern, MLinich 1959; MTHED _ I. Hilmarsson,Jvlaterials for a Tocharian and Etymological Dictionary, Reykjavik 1996.

2 See K. T. Vy'itczak, Greek and Albanian: New Evidence for Lexical Connections,

,,Zeitschńft ftir Baikanologie'' 1997, 33 (2)' pp. 215_216"

116 Reviews

ANGER. D. Q. Adams (p. Ż2) cites the root *rabh- '* ferocity' (IEW852) with the question mark. This root appears not only in Latin rabies(f.) 'rage, madness, anger' fury, wi1d passion, eagerness' and olnd. róbhas-'ferocity' violence', but also in the Greek epithet of Dionysos (aipurptóqq,Aeol' śppurprcbtuq, litęr. 'the mad [god]' Gk. *ćpzęio |: Lat. rabiĄ'tobe mad, wild, ferocious') and in Toch. A rapurfie 'passion, desire, cupidity'.It is clear now that such fourfold attestation suggest a good Indo-Europeanstatus of the rcot *hrrabh-.

ANT. D. Q. Adams (p. Ż3) gives three different archetypes: *morwis

(cf. olr. moirb, Av. maoiri, ochsl. mravi 'ant') - +niorm- (cf. Gk' póppoq,pÓppqt, Lat' formica) *mouros (cf. oN. maurr) and adds a furthervariant *worm- (seen in Toch. B warme 'ant'. olnd ' l'ałmiką- 'id.', Lith.dial. (Zhemaitian) yartnąi m. pl. 'flying ants''l. Gk. Hes. iipptrcą acc. pl''ants'). He concludes: "Though it is hard to reconstruct the exact PIE shapeof this word, it is clearly of PIE date)". I agree u,ith this opinion, thoughI think that the last variant *worm- is undoubtedly influenced by theIndo-European term for 'worm' (Toch. B v'arme'ant' is the exact equivalentof Gmc. *wl,lTmaz and Gk' Óóprs [all from IE. *wfmosl, cf' also Lith.waimas m. 'gnat, midge', ORus. vermije coll. 'insects', Lat. \,ermis, etc.) andthe contaminated form *morm- seems also secondary. Therefore we mustchoose between *morw- and *mour-. The hrst variant (preferred by P o k o r n yIEW, p. '149, and others) is attested perfectly in Slavic, but not in Iranianand Celtic. The Iranian forms represent rather *mauri- (cf. Av. maoiri,NPers. mo:r, etc.). Also Celt. *morwi (f.) 'ant' may securily derive from*mowri by the regular metathesis -rr{'- < -rlr-. cf. Celt. *tarwos m. 'bull'< IE. *tciwros m. 'aurochs, bull, Bos primigenitłs' (cf. Khotan Saka ttura-'mountain goat', Russ. tur 'anrochs; mountain goat', OPrus. tauris 'btson',Lith. tafrras m. 'aurochs, bull', Lat. taurus 'bull'); CeIt. *garwos adj. 'rough,raw' (cf. OIr. garb, W. garw 'id.') < *ghall'rós (cf' olnd. ghora- adj. 'terrible,

dreadful, awe-inspiring', Gothic gatłrs adj' 'sorrowful, sud' sullen')+. Thus,in my opinion, the archetype *mowr- seems more original than *morw-.

It shouid be nnphasized that the second term for 'ant'. not listed inEIEC as well as in lEW, is attested in Celtic (cf. olr. sengón m. 'ant',

3 Cf. E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologbches |I'órterbuch. vol. 2. Heidelłxrg 196Ż,p. IŻ01.a The metathesis of the same kind appears in Latin and Venetic, cl-. (1) Lat. nervus m.

'sinew, tendon, muscle; string, wire; bowstring; thong, strap, penis' < IE. +stt€-wro-, cf' Gk.vtipov n-'sinew, tendon; gut, cord made of sinew; cord of a sling; penis'; (2) LaL. parvus

adj. 'small, little, puny, short' young'<IE. +pawros, cf. Gk. nzcpą adj-'little, small, short';(3) Lat. alvus m. 'bell1', bowels, stomach; womb; boat; beehir'e'<IE. *awlos' cf. Gk' ań7óe

m. 'flute, tube, pipe, a hollow thing'. The Latin word for 'bull', taurus, seems a borrowingfrom an ltalic or Greek source. The metathesized form *tarwom is perhaps attested in VeneticPlace-Name Tar t, is ium.

Reviews

MIr. seangón'id.'), Baltic (cf' oPrus. sangis m. 'ant')s and Albanian (cf.

A1b. thnegćl 'ant', dial' thćnegulle 'winged ant', pi. thnegla (<PAlb.*tsanguld f.)ó. See also NPers. eng 'bee' and Kurd, heng 'bee, queen bee'(both from lran. *hangu- 'a winged insect, esp. bee, queen bee'). It isunclear whether Gk. dial. (Hesych.) oćpłpot ' oi ntepatoi póppr1rceq ('wingedants') belongs here or not.

APPLE. The Northern-IE name for 'apple' should be reconstructed as*hoeb-h"el-, cf. olr' ubull, uball, W. afal (<Celt. *abblu-), Gmc. *abólaz

l *ablaz (m.). See also olr' aball'app\e-treeo, oW. aball (<Celt. *abóI-

nol : 9s.. Abella (a city in Campania, which Vergil calls malifera 'apple-bearing'). The lost of laryngeal between *b and xl is regular in Balto-Slavic+abl-, where different apophonic forms are attested, e.g. *dbel-, *dbal-,*abol- (all derived from *h,ab-h,el-). It is possible that IE *b appearssecondarily from *p or *m by influence of the following laryngeal, cf. OInd.pibati, OIr. ibid, Lat. bibit'he drinks' (<*pibeti<*pi-phr-eti, a reduplicatedform of PIE. *pehr-; see IEW, pp. 839-840J. If so, then Iranian *(h)ałnar-na-

'apple' and Hitt' śamalu- 'apple' can bę related.BACK. The word *kłiłh,los'back' appears in Indo-Aryan (cf' olnd' kulg-

slope, back: rear of army'), Celtic (cf. W. cil'back', Bret. kll; OIr. cul'back, nape'), Italic (cf. Lat. cńIus 'rear-end'), Slavic (*kyla 'reat-end;hemorhoids'), Baltic (cf. Lith. kńlas 'back') and Anatolian (cf. LydianrżrcilJ'óv n. 'a privy part of body', most probably 'back, rear-end', cf.Hesych. cżlcń)"óv tó ai6ofov' AuóoĄ' The initial vowel a- in Lydian goes

back to a ,,prothetic vowel" in Nesitic, most probably to *ar. Thisdistribution guarantees an Indo-European status.

BADGER. The Indo-European term for 'badger', *meli- (EIEC 45), isreconstructed by V. Blaźek on the basis of two equivalents: Latin mdJds

(f.) 'badger, marten' and Slovinian (dial.) melc 'badger' (< SL *meluct).

This attestation is rather weak. Note, however, that Late Gk. pil,ivr1,

denoting 'a kind of animal', perhaps 'badger' (GEL, p. 1097), may representsthird cognate. May AIb. bal 'badger' be a cognate form?

I believe that the basic Indo-European name for 'badger' is residuallyattested in the Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Greek. The original meaningof Skt. ąrśa- (m.) 'a sma]l animal', |rśa-, Wsa- (m.) 'rodent' (lex.), v{śa-dmnśa-(m.) 'ąnimąl living in holes' is preserved in Modern Indic dialects: Hindibijju'badger', Nepali bharsia'id.'. The Iranian term *yarsuka- (m.) 'badger'

5 K. B u Ea, Rtnktiniai raśtci, vo(. 1, Vilnius 1958' p' 316.6 For this archetype, see ABD, p' 480' V' oręl explains differently the origin of the

Albanian term for 'ant'.7 See also OInd. bila- n, 'car.e, hole, pit' (see also Pali, Prakrit biln-'cave, hole', Singhalese

bila 'cave'), Iranian *bila- 'balk, shore' (cf. Ossetic Iron óyl, Digoron bilti 'Ufet, Rand')'w. bal'peak, summit' (<*balo- < *mh'l-o-) cf. IE|Y, pp.721_7Ż2.

117

178 Reviews

is a source form for some teruns attested in numerous oriental languages,e.g' Turkic barsuk, Tatar bursyk, osm. porstłk 'badger', whence Russ.barsńk, PaI. barsuk 'badger'. Armenian has gorśuk 'badger' (if it is a nativeterm and not a borrowing from Iranian). The Greek data are ratherambiguous: Anc' Gk. ciprcr1)"og (m.) seems to mĆail '\oung panther; youngof an animal'' whereas Byz. Gk' d,prcópus (m.) ano \Iod. Greek (Cretan)uprcil"oq (m.) denotes exclusively 'badger's. All these names goes back toIE' *worl€o-, wrko- (m')'badger'. It probablr'ierlres tiom xworf-'to befat', cf. Hitt. warkant- (adi.) 'fat'e.

BEECH. The arboreal term *bheh,gos (uith ''ie.ar *;. not *g, as printedin EIEC 58--ó0) is attested in tlre North-\Ves:ern IE .anguages rł'ith themeaning 'beech' (cf' I-at' fagus 'beęch'. oHG :'..,-):):,-;. btłocha 'beech',perhaps also in Gaulish in the same senserr' ,rrJ :n '.ne Paleo-Balkanianguages with the meaning'a kind of oak' ,G_t l:': ij: i.: Alb. btłngri f',as if from *bhagna; Phryg. Bayuioq 'oak-g..J T:e suugested Slavic andIranian cognates are highly doubtful. The ::jr-:ional oprnion of mostIndo-Europeanists, which I repeated in n:,' :.--:rent article. is that thesemantics 'beech' is original, and a semantic s:. : app"'ared in the Balkans.Now it seems to me more probable that::le _-'.-:-:_ł' .ę15E rł&S preservedin the "older" Paleo-Balkan group of IE fa:r:,'.. :rJ -r ^::e lE community,which existed north of the Alps and tne C.::.::.:-r:i \lountains (i.e."newer" North-Western group of IE fan::,.' ,. -a::. J -i.-3J. a semanticalinnovation, when beech expanded toward nor:f ::J ,i:'S, r.. :ire Iron Age(see mape, p. 59). This conclusion agrees rłl:: ::-.- :b.::''a:lon that "inthose regions where IE stocks do attest the m.e:l::: 'r:'-r1'. :he tree itselfseldom appears earlier than the Bronze Age". l:::-: rr,3;i-,ii'a kind ofoak'is original, then the beech cannot be resarJJJ -r: -'- -:..---t. narker ofthę location of the IE homeland.

BOAT. Neither the reconstruction *h-aidi:,.,- rJ..l!.,i-. .-lriJ-. trough'(EIEC 74), nor *aldh- (given in IEW, pp. 31-33; -s r:ss:i-: iu- r..ept. Theterm for'boat'is attested only in Baltic (ci. L.::i -;.;-'-;: 'b,oal'r. Slavic(cf. Pol. lód'ź, dimln. łód,ka f. 'boat') and Tochar:an r_ĄB o'i; 'boat'). Thearchetype must be restored as *h,oldi (note thar IE. *d. but not tdh,

disappears regularly in Tocharian).The traditional etymology connects the abore terms for'boat'with the

Germanic terms for 'through', e.g. Norw. diai. oida, NSwed. dtal, dlle,ODan. aalde, aide (<*aldon f.) and OE. ealdop 'through' (<*alduBa-), and

8 G. P. Shipp, Madern Greek Evidence for the Ancient Greek Yocabulary, Si'dney 1979,

pp. 95-97.9 J. Friedrich, KurzgefaJ3tes hethitisches |l/órterbuch, Heidelberg 1991' p.245.

10 The Welsh term for 'hog', baedd, seems to derive from CelI. *bag-ed-'eating acornsor beach-acorns'.

Reviews

suggests the primitive sense 'dug-out, dugout canoe, trough'. However, thiscomparison remains weak from the semantic point of view and is handlyacceptabie for the phonological reasons. What is more, the Germanic termscannot be separated from PSl. *olro 'through' (cf. Russ. dial. lot 'a kindof through'). This Germano-Slavic isolexeme derives from *alt- ar *olt-.

In otber words, Germanic xdcomes back to xp in agreement with Werner'sru1e and further to IE' xr (Gmc. *alóipa- / *a/drn-<*olb-<*alt- with theoxltone stress). Thus Germanic and Slavic terms for 'through' have nothingto do with the Balto-Slavic and Tocharian names for 'boat'.

BROWN. The archetype *badyos'(yeliow) brown' (so Adams in EIEC,p. 85, following IEW, p. 92) is excluded for Latin bad.ius 'bay, chestnut brown(of a horse)'. It is well known that the cluster *-dy- is simplified to -i- (cf. Lat.peior'wotse'<*ped-io-s-), but the cluster *-dh!- is preserved as -di-, cf. Lat.medius <lE. *medyo-). Thus OIr. buide'yellow', Sabine basus and Lat. badiuspoint to the Italo-Celtic *bodhyos (with a non-apophonic *o).

CARP. The reconstruction *ghćrsos 'asp' of 'pikeperch' (EIEC, p. 90)leans on Gmc. *gersaz (cf . Norw. gjors 'pikeperch, Sflzostedion lucioperca',Swed. grirs 'ruff, Gymnocephalus cernua: Acerina cernua') and Slavic*żerchn (cf. Russ. uećpex 'asp, Aspius aspius')' Probabiy to bę connectedis Skt' jha;aĘ (m.) 'a kind of large fish', representing a late form of olnd.*ksuqaĘ. The initial cluster *kł_ - jń- derives most probably from theBrugmannian group *ghdh-, thus the PIE archetype should be reconstructedas *ghdhersos. The fourth cognate is perhaps Gaulish *darsos 'chub,Leuciscus cephalus / vandoise' (FEW III, p. 18). It is not impossible thatIE. *ghdhersos is a compound formation, related to IE. *|bdh-yuh- 'fish'(lEW pp. 416-417, EIEC, p. 205). If so, then the element *ersos (hence*ghdh-ersos 'fish-ruĘ may be connected with Russ. epru 'ruff, Acerina CeTnlta''

CHARCOAL. Paul Friedrich (EIEC, p. 10a) cites two Indo-Europeantenns' *h*óngl 'charcoal' (cf. IEW, p. 779 s'v. angelo-) and *g(e)ulo-

- gulom 'fire, glowing coal' (IEW, p. 399). The former item, which appearsinst of all in Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Baltic and Slavic (where IE. xo andła flow together), should contain the vocalism -a- in the root, if NIr.aingea! 'light, fire' belongs to this group of words (as Friedrich himselfbelieves, when he says: "The cognates in five stocks, in any case, virtuallyguarantee its PIE status"). The sixth cognate appears in Albanian, see Alb.kongjill m. (pl. kongjij) 'charcoal'<PAlb. *kangli- (see AED, p. 190)*k"o-anglis vs. IE' *artglis m' 'charcoal', cf. Lith. artglis, Pol. węgiel, Russ.ugol' 'charcoal, coal', OInd. angdra- m. 'charcoal'. It is worth emphasizingthat Alb. kongjiU m. 'charcoal' agree morphologically with the ModernIndo-Aryan forms such as Kashmiri kigtiri, kig'r f. 'portable brazier',ka4gu m. 'large btańef ,Hindi kigrt f. 'small portable brazier' (<*karpgeri-kc-'pcor or mall brazier', see CDIAL, p. i53, No. 3006).

179

180 Reviews

The second term occurs not only in Celtic (cf. olr. gńal 'coal') andGermanic (cf' oN. kol, E. coa), but also in Toch' B śoliye 'hearth'(<*geul-iyo-; this term is omitted tn IEW, but quoted tn EIEC) andArmenian acuł 'coal'll' Friedrich, not knowing this Armenian cognate,reconstructs mistakenly the Indo-European archetype. It should be printedrather as *h,$(e)ulo- (with the palatal stop xf and the initial vocalizedlaryngeal)' It is possible that oInd. jvaló- m. 'flame', Prakrit jalaga- m.'fire' and other Modern Indo-Aryan forms (e.g. Hindi jaran 'firewood',Kashmiri zdlun m^ 'fuel') belong here as well.

FAT. D. Q. Adams cites four Indo-European items under the entryFAT (EIEC, p. 194), namely *pih*W 'fat(ness)' (IEW, p' 793), *sćlpes- OiJ,fat, grease' (IEW, p' 901), *smćru- Oil, grease' (IEW pp' 970-971) and*h,opus '(animal) fat' (a new reconstruction, not listed by Pokorny). Thelast term is attested in Anatolian (cf. Hitt. appuzzi 'animal fat, tallow'),Tocharian (cf. Toch. B op '*fatness') and Italic (cf. Lat. adeps 's:uet,

Iatd'r2, oplmus adj. 'fat', as if from *opi-ptmus). In my opinion, the Italic*ad-ep- I *ad-op- 'suet, lard, animal fat' cannot be separated from Arm.atok' 'ft;Jl, fat, abundant, fertile'13 and Roshani a\awoj 'piece of lard'1a.

The Armenian and Roshani terms derive most probably from *ad-op-eko-

(or the like).GRASS. The text by D' Q. Adams reads as follows (p. Ża$: "*uel-

'grass' IIEW 1139-1140 (*Ael-); Buck 8.511. Welsh gwellt 'grass', OPrus wolri'head of gfass', Lith. yóltis 'oat panicle', Hlt wellu(want)- 'gfass'' Cf. alsooCS ylasr7 'hair, particularly human headhair' and olnd vólśa' 'btanch,sprout'. Rather sparsely attested; however, its geographical distributionassures its antiquity within IE. Probably the oldest word we can reconstructfor 'grass'. Within the cosmological systan of the early Indo-Europeans,grass is an alloform of hair, i.e. in the stories of the creation of theuniverse, grass is formed from the hair of the primeval giant. Similarly, incures of balness, grass is applied to stimulate the regrowth of hair. *koino-

'grass'. IIEW 610 (*l€oi-no-); Buck 8'52]. Lith śi7nas'hay', Latv siens'hay',oCS sólro 'hay, fodder, grass', Grk Qlesychius) rcolvc{ (p1.?) 'grass'. At least

a late term used in the central area of the IE-speaking world".

11 G. B. Dźaukj al, oćerki po istorii dopisemnogo perioda ałmjankogo jazyka, Erevan1967, p' Ż04; K. T. Witczak, Studies in Armenian Etymology (31_35), "Annual of Ar-menian Linguistics'' Ż2_23' Ż003, pp. 83_87.

12 See also Umbrian a:iepes (abl" pl') 'adipibus', see J. Untermann, |l:órterbuch des

O skis ch- Umbr is chen, Hetdelberg 2000, pp. 47 48.13 J. A. P. Grepp in, An Etymological Dictionary of the Indo-European Components of

Armenian' fasc' 1, ,,Bazmavep- Rel'ue d'ótudes atmeniennes'' 161' 1983' p. 306.14 G- Morgenstierne, Etymological Vocabulary of the Shughni Grorłp, Wiesbaden

1914, p. 13.

Reviews

It should be obvious for everybody that the former item *wel-, in spiteof its undeniable archaic character, appears to have a extremely scarcedistribution, which is limited (at least in the meaning 'grass') only to theAnatoiian and Celtic stocks. What is more, it is highly probable that thesense 'grass' may (though have not to) be a semantic innovationls. Theiat:er one ('which should be reconstructed rathet as *lĘarino-) denotes firstc^ .-,'ray'16, thus C. D. Buck lists correctly the root under 8.52 HAY17.

i: ny opinion, the basic Indo-European term for'grass'is xat-. To:.r:--1r3 all the possible sceptics I would like to cite the lexical data,.:..:-:":'J most probably in NINE (sicl) Indo-European subgroups:

.,-TCHARIAN: Toch. A arl 'grass', Toch. B atiyai, atyai (obl. sg.) 'id.'- -: trll-).

.\DIC: olnd. atąsą- (n.) 'bush, thicket' (originally perhaps 'thicket of'-_.j ::':!! i. afusr- (f.) 'flax, Linum tłsitatissimum L'', Pali atast- (f'), Prakrit.. ,, -- ;.,isr- (f.) 'id.', Nepali alas, dlas, Awadhi lakh, arsi, Hindi als{,

-'_ .:':_._ :,śi (f.)' Marathi alś|, ąlś| (f.) 'flax' (<Ind. xat-as-f-; CDIAL,: \ c 198);

_--:'R.DIC: Kashmiri altś (f')'flax, linseed' (<Dard. *at-as-r-; CDIAL,: - \.r 198).

'xĄ'\iAN: ossetic lron taw, Digoron tawa 'yotlftg grass grown up in: ..r,nr-3i alter mowing the spring one, aftermath, after-grass; sprouts,::.::s. offspring' (<Iran. *atdwą- : PS1 ' *otała);

CELTIC: Welsh atwf ladladd (m.) 'second crop, aftermath', atyfu 'to:r:.i r-t.tin'.

BALTIC: oPruss. attolis (m.) 'gromot, i.e. Grummet'' Lith. atólas (m.)'artermath, after-grass, fog, rowen', Latv. atdls (m.)'id.' (<BaIt. *atalas);

Lith' ątiłodogiai and attioriećiai'spring (summer) rye' (orig. 'summer grass'.:C'spring grass', respectively).

SLAVIC: Russ. o/rźya f. 'grass grown up renew after mowing', dial.:._:-mowing grass in a meadow under the Snow', BRuss. otóvaf.'aftermath''_.-:-EraSS', Ukr' otóva f' 'id.', Sloven. otdt,a f., SC' ótgva f., Bulrg. otóua

- :_''-śITn&th; grass grown up after mowing', Cz' otaya f', Slovak otava f.,

: T:e onginal meaning is perhaps 'meadow, pasture' (IE. *welsz-), as suggested by

" _ :': Hes1'chian gioss rcowdt ' xóproq seems to denote 'hay, fodder' (it is the basic

l'.::_'']'] :: Gk. yóproE) rather than 'grass'. Also Lat. faenum, secondarily fenum, foenum (n')::.. .':..: .nd dried)' and a number of Romance lorms (e-g- Sp. heno, lL. fieno, Fr. foin,3.:-:-..';':' r:ust derive through the stage +khainom from the Indo-European term for'hay''r ''::._ło-). A diflerent opinion was suggested V' Geor giev, I'at. faenum 'Heu' ' ein

-_-_-1.j ą:elsa])', Lehn*'ort' ',Glotta'' Ż4, 1'936, pp. 254 256, who tried to derive Lat',:'"- ?. ::;.' licr. an I11lrian or \{essapic source.'

" : -: n' --j )'::::..,.:r'. o.:'Selected S|'non1'nts in łhe Principal Indo-European lłlnguages.

1 '., _:::_:].. :'- Ii;łan. Chic:..qo 1949. pp 520_521.

181

182 Reviews

Pol. otawa f. 'second grass, which grew up in summer after mowing thespring one, aftermath', also 'hay from the aftermath'(<PSl. *otawa: Ossetictaw f tawa).

ANATOLIAN: (?) Hitt. hattar 'a kind of wheat'; Lycian XA1ase 'hay,fodder (?)' (: OInd. atasa-)18.

The above-quoted lexical material requires comments. Some etymologistsregard the Tocharian term ati I atiyai as a borrowing from Turkish nameof 'grass'1e, but this derivation "seems phonologically excluded" (so rightlyHilmarsso n, MTHED, p. 51). Others suggest that the Tocharian termfor 'grass' is cognate with Lat. ad.os 'spelt, emmer wheat', Goth. atisk 'fie\dof grain' (< IE. *ades)2o, but this connection must be abandoned forphonological reasons (IE. *d, if not palatalized, regularly disappear inTocharian). It is more promising to compare the Tocharian name for'grass', A dti, B dtiyai, with Scythian *aót- 'grass' (<Iran. *arl-) andfurther with the Baltic and Slavic terms for 'young grass'. According totraditional opinion repeated by Manfred Mayrhofer, the Indie and Dardicterms for 'flax', *atasf-, remain with no transparent etymologyzl, but theformation *atasf- seems to derive from the basic noun xcfl-'grass' (confirmedby the Tocharian and Scythian data), likewise as olnd. yayąsą- 'gfass'dęrives from yava- 'corn, grain, barley'. The Welsh (Celtic) and Spanish(Lusitanian) forms match perfectly the suggested root *af- 'grass'. Only theAnatolian forms seem somewhat ambiguous. Puhvel quotes them under thethe verbal root [at- 'to dry up, to become parched' (< PIE. *Hrad- paf ingattention to the phrase welku lad,an'dried grass, hay', but the cereal n2mehattar contains the geminate -tt-, which represents the voiceless dental stop-t- rather than -d.-. The Lycian form X?1ase 'hay, fodder' seems ro bedeveloped by means of the suffix -so-, which is seen in OInd. atasa- (n.)'bush, thicket'.

In opposition to the opinion expressed by D. Q. Adams n EIEC, theterm *at- 'grass', which occurs in many ancient languages, including themost archaic like Tocharian, Hittite, Old Indic and Scythian. must beregarded as <the oldest word fwhich] we can reconstruct for 'grass'>>. Inthe Baltic, Slavic and Iranian languages we can distinguish secondary

18 J. Puhve1, Hiltile Etymological Dictionały, vol' 3, Berlin, New York 1991, pp" Ż47ł48.19 So H. Pedersen, Tochałisch vom Gesichtspunkt der indoeuroptiischen Sprachvergleichung,

Koberihavn 1941, p. 64, fn. l; the same, Zur tocharischen Sprachgeschichte, Kobeuhavrl|944, p. l0; A. J' van Windekens, I'e tokharien confrontć avec les autres languesindo-europćennes, vol. l, Louvain 1976' p. 6Ż4.

20 So G. S. Lane, Problem of Tocharian Plnnology,,'Language'' 14, 1938, p. Ż5, fn' 2I;J. Hilmarsson, MTllED, p.51.

21 M. Mayrhofer, Etymologisches 'W'órterhuch des Altindoałi,schen, vot. 1' fasc. 1,

Heidelberg 198ó' p- 57 (''Unklar'').

Reviews

derivatives denoting 'young grass, which grew up in summer atter movingthe spring one; aftermath, after-grass'.

LOVE. According to D. Q. Adams (EIEC, pp. 357158), there are sixroots with the meaning 'to love' in Indo-European: keho_, *kem-, *ken-

(a11 listed in IEIY, p. 515), *prih,-eh, (IEW p.844), *leubh- (IEW, pp.683-ó84) and *leh,d-'dear' (not listed by Pokorny). The last root is clearlyrepresented in the following three Indo-European stocks: Slavic (cf. Russ.lódyj aój. 'dear', lóda f ' 'wife', oPol. łada f. 'bride' young married woman',PoI. ladny 'beautiful' etc.), Anatolian (d. Lycian lada 'wife', la00e- '[husband's]in-laws') and Tocharian (cf. Toch. A lar adj. 'dear', B lare 'id.'< *lad-ro-).

This is obvious that the lexical data, quoted by Adams, contain onlyadjectives and nouns, but this material remains with no verbal forms. Inmy opinionj Afin' ąłątem 'I love, cafess' is an important addition to theabove mentioned bulk of words, as it represents in fact an expected verbalform. what is more, the Armenian verb in question gives us the possibilityto reconstruct the Indo-European root *h-lód.- 'to love'. It is worthemphasizing that the l,ycian and Tocharian forms go back rather to thevariant *h,lad- (with the short vowel *d or perhaps *a). The Slavic formscontain the long vowel, which may represent both the long vowel *a andthe short one *d (in the latter case we must suggest the lengthening bythe so called winter's rule). Unfortunately, it is unclear whether Arm.ałatem represents IE' *h,lcłd- or *h,ldd-.

The Tocharian adjective *ladros'dear' should be compared with mrmerousIndo-Aryan forms, derived from the root * lad- G*ladr-): Sanskrit ladayate'desires', Prakrit lalai 'caresses', Armenian Gypsy ler- 'to desire' (seeCDIAL, p. 633, No. 10922); Skt. ladaha- adv. 'lovely', prakrit ladaha-'pleasing, beautiful', Old Gujarati ladahi f. adj. 'beautiful' (cf. CDIAL,p. 633, No. 10923); Skt. ladika- (m ) 'boy, servant' (lex.), Panjabi layka (m.)'boy', laykll f. 'girl', Hindi laTka (m.) 'boy', Iaykf f. 'girl', European Gypsyraklo (m.)'boy', rakli (f.) 'girl' etc. (CDIAL, p. 633, No. 10924); Sanskritlddana- 'fondiing', ląlaką- 'id.' (lex'), Kashmiri ldra @)'husband', lórr (f')'wife'; Sindhi ldĄt'bride', Gujarati lddr f^'bride'; Panjabi lad @)'love',laTa- (m.)'bridegroom', ldTi f. 'wife' (CDIAL, p. 639, No. 11012-11013).The meanings of the Indo-Aryan forms agree entirely with the semanticsof above-mentioned cognates, attested in Anatolian ('wife'), Armenian ('tolove, caress'), Slavic ('dear, beautiful', 'bride, young married woman') andTocharian ('dear'). It is obvious that the Indo-Aryan verbal forms derivefrom an adjectival form *ladros (cf. Toch. A ldr adj. 'dear', B ldre 'id.': Panjabi laĄ m. 'love') and therefore they cannot be compared directlywith Arm. ąłatem'I love, caress'.

There is some shortcomings or printed mistakes in EIEC, e.g. p. 528and 785: Pol' dzrón'barberry' (should be oPol' drzon'dogwood, cornel-tree'

183

184 Reviews

Cornus mas'), p. 23Ż and 785: PoL. kelito 'guts' sausage' (should be jetito)'but the presentation of the lexical material is generally excellent.

It is worth ernphasizing that there appear many Indo-European rootsand terms in EIEC, which are absent in Pokorny's IEW and Mann'sIECD, e.g. *hrep-'roast' (p. 88), *ghersos'asp' or'pikeperch' (p. 90), *hrop-

'(animal) fat' G 94), *worHdi- 'frog' (p. 274), *lehd- 'dear' (p. 358),*hrelh,-n- 'sweat' (p. 580). Thus EIEC is an up-to-date publication, whichmust be always consulted by all the linguists, archaeologists, historians,who are interested in Indo-European matters. In fact, EIEC is an excellentencyclopedic summary of achievąnents of the Indo-European linguistics andarchaeology of the twentieth century.