Languages and Linguistics

Literature references and annotations by Dick Grune, Last update: Fri Jan 13 14:32:32 2017.
These references and annotations were originally intended for personal use and are presented here only in the hope that they may be useful to others. There is no claim to completeness or even correctness. Each annotation represents my understanding of the text at the moment I wrote the annotation.
No guarantees given; comments and content criticism welcome.

* "Korean -- Phrasebook & Dictionary", Lonely Planet, 2016, pp. 272.

* Ho-Bin Ihm, Kyung-Pyo Hong, Suk-In Chang, "Korean Grammar for International Learners", Yonsei Univ. Press, 2015, pp. 442.

* Ross King, Jaehoon Yeon, Chungsook Kim, Donald Baker, "Advanced Korean", Tuttle, 2015, pp. 352.

* Ross King, Jaehoon Yeon, Insun Lee, "Continuing Korean", Tuttle, 2015, pp. 430.

* Ross King, Jaehoon Yeon, "Elementary Korean -- 2nd Ed.", Tuttle, 2014, pp. 334.

* Daniel A. Foxvog, "Introduction to Sumerian Grammar", 2014, pp. 170.
Matter-of-fact description of the Sumerian language, based on lecture notes, with warnings and hints for avoiding pitfalls when particles or constructions might be confused or misinterpreted. The author is not given to theorizing, and does not even begin to suggest why there would 7 different signs that are pronounced gu, although sometimes alternative analyses are presented. The explanations are clear, with neat tables and enough examples, but their relationship to the surrounding material is sometimes puzzling. There is an appendix of 16 exercises, ranging from simple to serious; the exercises refer to a "glossary" but it is not in the book, nor is it an accompanying publication that I can find.
The book is a typographical disaster, printed in a spidery non-proportional font with very long lines, and any structure present in the text is hardly mirrored in the layout. But then, for 5 quid what am I complaining.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Byways and Beasts of Sacred Scripture", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2012, pp. 56.
In his other religiolinguistic works the author advocates taking the bible literally as long as possible. Here the author turns to a number of passages where a literal interpretation is no longer possible: the day the sun stood still; dragons and liliths; etc.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Gwyliwch y gwagle -- Mind the Gap", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2012, pp. 56.
Personal thoughts of the author, linguistic and otherwise, from his wanderings in the English-Welsh border region around Pontypridd.

* Kyubyeong Park, "500 Basic Korean Verbs", Tuttle, 2011, pp. 528.

* Sunjeong Shin, "Read and Speak Korean for Beginners with Audio CD", 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill Contemporary, 2011, pp. 112.

* Korean Language Institute, "Korean Vocabulary Practice for Foreigners, Beginners Level", Yeonsedaehakkyo Chulpanmunhwawon, Seoul, 2011, pp. 429.

* Jaehoon Yeon, Lucien Brown, "Korean -- A Comprehensive Grammar", Routledge, 2011, pp. 476.
Excellent, but not really comprehensive grammar, with all Korean text in Hangeul, with English translation; no transcription, which is a very good thing. With an index of more than 500 grammatical constructs, ordered in Hangeul order on the first particle.
Although it calls itself a "comprehensive grammar", it isn't really, certainly not as comprehensive as Ho-Min Sohn's "Korean", Routledge, 1994. A few examples (there are more):
1. The treatment of the irregular verbs is sketchy. Of course all classes are mentioned and referred to over the next couple of pages, but only a few examples of each class are mentioned and no examples of verbs that look irregular but aren't are given. In a comprehensive text I would expect an exhaustive list of all verb stems that end in -p, in two lists, those that change the -p to u, and those that keep the -p, etc., as the Bescherelle does for French.
2. The "familiar" and the "semi-formal" (their terminology) speech levels are treated in less than half a page each. It says: "details regarding the grammatical formation of this style are not included here." That's not what I call "comprehensive".
3. I have not been able to find the -in my eyes- irregular form eottaeyo ('how is...') from eotteohda anywhere in the book, explained or even mentioned. (Why isn't it eotteyo?)
The really good point is that all examples are in Hangeul with English translation: no XXXX (expletive deleted) transcriptions. Other strong points have already been brought up by other reviewers: excellent index of particles, in Hangeul order, both for nouns and for verbs; and accessibility: the text is never "difficult".
IMHO the definitive Korean grammar has not yet been written, but this is a very good approximation.
Although the style is definitely very, and perhaps overly, colloquial for a "comprehensive grammar", it is not a text book: the text is mainly structured along the lines of the language rather than for pedagogical purposes, and there are no exercises. Definitely worth the money.

* Gunter Preuss, "Die kleine Hexe Toscanella", Lychatz Verlag, 2010, pp. 77.

* "Collins Korean Dictionary in Colour", Collins, 2010, pp. 400.
Very pocketable dictionary with more than 9000 Korean and about 9000 English entries, both with pronunciation guide, all in a 7 pts. font. Remarkably, the dictionary is well-balanced, not aimed specifically at Korean or English users. Given the unusual semantics of some Korean verbs, some verbs are translated by sample sentences only, which works actually quite well.

* "Si-sa Elite Korean-English Dictionary", Si-sa, Seoul, 2010, c1999, pp. 2678.
Full Korean-English dictionary, with many sample sentences.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Ethiopic -- A Straightforward Introduction to the Classical Language", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2010, pp. 56.
Exactly what it says in the title, with an eye to reading, or at least decyphering the bible books of which copies have survived in Ge'ez.

* Henry J. Amen, Kyubyong Park, "Korean for Beginners: Mastering Conversational Korean", Tuttle Publishing, 2010, pp. 176. Not a textbook in the traditional sense of the word. If I were to propose a title for this book it would be "A Guided Tour of the Korean Language". It shows a very large part of the language in varying detail. For example it introduces, with examples, four levels of politeness in the verb (out of six or seven) and then for the rest of the book concentrates on one, honorific 1, the same level used in "annyeong haseyo". So you learn one level well, but at the same time know there is lots more, so you won't feel ambushed when you meet them later on in your studies. It briefly describes some 20 to 30 particles, but uses only a few; etc.
The book does not cut corners or dumb things down; for one thing it gives the reader a solid basis in hangeul, the Korean alphabet; for another it covers most of the irregualr verbs. In line with the book's "guided tour" nature there are no exercises. There is, however, a CD, with a lady with a lovely voice, who pronounces almost all the Korean text in the book. (Why "almost", why stop there?) It teaches the reader about 500 words, which is not enough for a meaningful conversation, but is a very good start.
I found it an excellent, easily accessible and certainly affordable pre-read for the Korean course I am going to start taking this autumn.

* Guy Deutscher, "Through the Language Glass", arrow books, London, 2010, pp. 310.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Bible Linguistics and Apocrypha", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2010, pp. 56.
Part 2 of "The Tractate of Khons." Discusses and criticises the interpretation of linguistic properties of the bible text by some bible experts, for example as to dating the various parts.

* Joseph Biddulph, "The Tractate of Khons, and Other Red Herrings", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2010, pp. 56.
Plea, in a very personal style, for a method of text exegesis in which the text is taken at face value and assumptions like "later editing", "textual corruption" and "author error" are shunned, at least until all avenues to explain the text within these limits are exhausted.
(The Tractate of Khons is an inscription on a 5-th century BC stele in Egypt concerned with exorcism, which is used by H. St. John Tackeray to declare the Book of Tobit a derivative, a view that is fought by the author of this booklet.)

* Joseph Biddulph, "Too Many Syllables? -- The Languages of the Sanskrit World", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2010, pp. 56.
More than 300 small notes about the Sanskrit footprint on the world: languages, historical figures, grammatical terms, etc. "A sample of a sample", as it says in the preface.

* Young-Mee Yu Cho, Hyo Sang Lee, Carol Schulz, Ho-Min Sohn, Sung-Ock Sohn, "Integrated Korean: Beginning 1", University of Hawai'i Press, Revised edition, Honolulu, 2009, pp. 230.

* Anatoly Liberman, "Word Origins", Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2009, pp. 325.
This book makes one realize that there are two kinds of etymologies: one that tries to explain terms like "hackney" and "jack-o-lantern"; and one that tries to explain terms like "hand" and "bring". The first makes you search through medieval tomes and books about ancient crafts; the second causes one to delve into ablaut series and next to unpronounceable Proto-Indo-European (PIE) words that look more like formulas (which they partly are). The first yields a number of anecdotal and often amusing stories, the second dry-as-dust formal word derivations. The author, although acknowledging the existence of the second, is clearly much more interested in the first; PIE figures only sporadically in the text and does not even occur in the index.
This approach makes the book a juicy read, especially on "funny" English words; the sections on ablaut series etc. lack the same flourish and are mercifully small. Yet even in the juicy part there are quite a number of promising paragraphs that lead nowhere. For example, on page 101 we learn that "Cockney" has an interesting origin, but that origin is never revealed.
Much too much to my taste is attributed to sound symbolism (page 212: the b in "to beat" is suggested to be "imitative (echoic)" of the beating action; the argument is that out of 115 synonyms of "beat, strike" about 20 begin with a b) or explained as "baby words" (pig - big - bag for "swollen things"). I think such claims are warranted only when supported by similar phenomena from several non-Indo-European languages. I personally cannot find any of these sound symbolisms in Hebrew, the only Non-IE language I know well. Latin capere (to take), Finnish kappan (to seize) and Hebr. kaf (hollow hand) may very well be related (and I think they probably are) but I don't hear any sound symbolism in them (page 43). For that matter, Hebr. chataf (he grabbed) sounds much more like seizing.
The editing is far from perfect; one problem is that the Old-English/Icelandic letter "thorn" (a p with an upward stick like a b) is often printed as a p (f.e. page 83). In summary, the subtitle "Etymology for Everybody" is fully justified, but it is a limited form of etymology.

* Paulien Cornelisse, "Taal is zeg maar echt mijn ding", in Dutch: I'm so into languages, I really am, Contact, 2009, pp. 212+19.
A hundred or so newspaper columns about the sillier uses of the Dutch language, sometimes hilarious, sometimes sarcastic, often both.

* Jeremy Butterfield, "Damp Squid: The English Language Laid Bare", OUP, 2009, pp. 192.
Annotated statistical data of the English language, based on the Oxford Corpus, containing over 2 billion words. The title is a corruption of 'damp squib', where 'squib' is a small piece of firework.

* Harry A. Hoffner Jr., H. Craig Melchert, "A Grammar of the Hittite Language", Vol. 1 Reference Grammar, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, 2008, pp. 468.

* Easily Pronounced Language Sysytems, "Say It Right in Korean", Easily Pronounced Language Sysytems, 2008, pp. 176.
The strong points of the book are that it keeps to very simple but useful sentences + a sentence assembly system, and that it is in large print, which can be useful when you need to show the Korean texts to Koreans. This makes it easy to use.
Its weak points are that it is often inconsistent and is full of small errors in the pronunciation. For example: optional particles are given in the Hangul text between parentheses (as in a text book) and omitted in the pronunciation; whom does that serve? The consonant assimilations (which abound in Korean) sometimes are and sometimes are not shown in the pronunciation; this is not much of a problem because Koreans will understand you either way. As to small errors, starting at a random page: page 75, one entry from the bottom, a syllable is missing in the pronunciation; page 77: the ending -으로 is present in all entries but its pronunciation is not; page 78, first entry: the Korean has do-, the pronunciation has po-.
The book may be useful to a traveler who wants the comforting feeling of having something in his (large) pocket for an emergency; also any user will be saved by the almost infinite ability of Koreans to understand bad Korean. As a travel companion Berlitz Korean Phrase Book and Dictionary is smaller and covers much more, but is admittedly more complicated to use. As a Korean learning aid it is useless.

* Harry A. Hoffner Jr., H. Craig Melchert, "A Grammar of the Hittite Language", Vol. 2 Tutorial, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, 2008, pp. 75.
Exercise book to Vol. 1, Reference Grammar, to which it is an indispensable aid. It presents fourteen lessons, in a fixed format. Each lesson starts with advice on which parts of the reference grammar to study for the exercise, and how. This is followed by fifteen sentences to translate, most of them made up by the authors, but a considerable number taken from actual inscriptions. The pertinent vocabulary, in three parts: Hittite, Sumerograms, and Akkadograms, closes the lesson. No full translations of the sentences are provided, but most sentences come with translation hints. A combined vocabulary, again in three parts, terminates the booklet.
I don't know why they call it a `tutorial'. A tutorial is something else in my dictionary.

* Joseph Biddulph, "A New Method in Aramaic", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2008, pp. 56.
Details the four scripts in which Aramaic was written: Samaritan, Hebrew, First Syriac, and Second Syriac (but none of these looks even remotely like Hebrew handwriting, since that is a 13th century development).
Starting from a Palmyrene inscription in a Roman camp in South Shields, Northumbria, the author supplies enough vocabulary and grammar of Aramaic to explain parts of the bible written in Aramaic and parts translated into Syriac.

* Roger D. Woodard, "The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia", Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008, pp. 262.
This is volume five of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages, a collection of 45 entries covering in principle all languages of which sufficient recorded material is available from before 476 AD to write a meaningful entry about. All entries are of superb quality, so I'll restrict myself to specific comments on the entries in this volume.
This is the least exciting of the five volumes, not because of the text itself, but because the languages of the Near East are so similar; no juicy Etruscan, Hurrian, or Elamite here. The volume covers Ugaritic, Hebrew, Phoenician/Punic, Canaanite dialects, Aramaic, Ancient South Arabian, and Ancient North Arabian.
Most of Ugaritic is written in its own cuneiform, without any vowels, except a, i, and u when precede by an aleph. This obscures much morphology, especially in the verb forms, which is an obstacle to the study of the language; many vowels must be guessed on the basis of the other Semitic languages. Another problem is that the language used in prose differs considerably from that used poetry.
Ugaritic is much more conservative than Hebrew, with the three traditional Semitic cases nominative (-u), genitive (-i), and accusative (-a) still fully operative. The construct state is still in its infancy, and the genitive construction is still usual: malku qarīti = the king (nom.) of the city; malka qarīti = the king (acc.) of the city. Only in the dual and plural a shorter (construct) form may appear: malkū qarīti = the kings (nom.) of the city, rather than malkūma qarīti = the kings (nom.) of the city. Short forms do, however, occur before personal pronouns: malkūhu = his kings. There is no article, prefix or postfix.
The verb has full singular, dual, and plural conjugations, for perfect, imperfect, jussive and imperative.
The usual Semitic prepositions b-, l-, and k- are present, all governing the genitive, but mi- is missing: motion in any direction is indicated by l- and the appropriate verb. There is no preposition for the direct object either, since its function is performed by the accusative.
Although I am reasonably familiar with the subject, I had to read several explanations twice, because they are often less than intuitive. An example (page 31): "Personal pronouns agree ... with an appositional verb." Huh? I thought the verb agreed with the personal pronoun (actually both agree with the person, of course).
Hebrew: Since the development of Hebrew from Proto-North-west Semitic is mainly driven by vowel and stress shifts, these are treated in depth, e.g. kotèvet (= she writes) from katibt. We also learn that the glottal stop in z'ev (=wolf) from zi'b is a hypercorrectism (even in those days!) since it should have been left in unpronounced position, just as in -se't (=to carry) from -si't. Hebrew lost the Proto-NWS case endings, resulting in stress on the last syllable. A table of how the 6 vowel classes of the Proto-NWS verb fared in Hebrew clarifies many of the perceived irregularities of the H. verb. Unfortunately there is no discussion of the origin of the article ha- (= the) nor why it would cause lengthening of the following consonant.
Phoenician/Punic: The differences between Phoenician/Punic and Hebrew are minute,except that they are written in different alphabets and that P/P is written entirely without vowels. Some differences are: 1. the article ha- is often pronounced as 'a- or even a- (as it does in Modern Hebrew). 2. negation is not expressed by lo' but by bal or 'i-, the latter also known from Hebrew.
Comparison of the Phoenician alphabet in the table in this chapter with the text on the cover of the book shows how far practice can deviate from theory.
The chapter on the Canaanite languages is actually a high-level theoretical discussion of what offsets the Canaanite languages from the other Semitic languages. Not a single word of Moabite, Edomite, etc.
Aramaic was and is spoken from about 1500 BC to the present day; it was written from about 950 BC until about 700 AD. It was written in two scripts, Tiberian (= Hebrew) and Syriac (Estrangelo).
Old Aramaic had more emphatics than Hebrew, which developed differently. This accounts for much of the difference between them,for example H. 'arets (=land) = A. 'argha, both from original 'arł', the last sound being a voiceless glottalized lateral fricative. It shares with Hebrew the property that b alternates with v, etc.
In addition to Absolute and Construct, the author introduces a state Emphatic, but since it is always formed by the suffix -'ā, it can just as well be considered a postfixed definite article .
Some Aramaic dialects have prefixes n- or l- for the 3rd person instead of y-, forms totally absent in Hebrew. Unlike Hebrew, Aramaic had already early on a progressive/habitual form consisting of the present participle + the verb hwh = to be. Such forms were developed much further in Syriac.
The determinate direct object is marked by 'yt, as in Hebrew, or, remarkably, by l-. The unmarked word order is VSOI, but other orders are readily found.
All Aramaic text in this chapter is written without vowels, although in many cases the vowels are known. Somehow this gives the language a more arcane flavour than is necessary.
Ancient South Arabian, spoken from the 8th century BC until the 6th century AD in and around Yemen, was written in an impressive monumental script, of letters sometimes 30 cm. high, practically without vowels. At the other extreme, thousands of wooden sticks have come to light in Yemen in the 1970s, inscribed with minuscule letters.
The main Ancient South Arabian dialect is Sabaic.
The noun has three states: indeterminate, determinate, and construct, characterized by endings -n, -nhn, and -w/-y, resp., in the plural. Case endings would not have been written, but an occasional -w/-y suggest an unsurprising -u for the nominative and -i for the genitive. The probable -a for the accusative would have no chance of ever being written. The indefinite in -n returns in mn = who (Hebr. mi), and mhn = what (Hebr. mah).
The suffix conjugation of the verb uses -k- rather than -t- in 1st and 2nd singular.
The chapter features a very extensive and illuminating section on the syntax of Ancient South Arabian, in which quite complicated sentences are analyzed. The literature references show that this is a specialty of one of the authors.
The vocabulary of Ancient South Arabian differs considerably from that of the other Semitic languages and from that of Modern South Arabian. Dictionaries of related languages are of limited use, and many texts have only been partially deciphered. Especially the wooden sticks still pose many riddles.
Ancient North Arabian consists of a dozen dialects, one for each oasis and then some, written in a very variable alphabet that left great freedom to the individual scribent as to letter form and writing direction: some text is written vertically or in a spiral. Tens of thousands of small texts have been found.
Tables are given of how the Proto-Semitic sibilants fared in Ancient North Arabian (two dialects), and in Arabic (before and after the 9th century AD). The second step in table 2, however, cannot be correct, since the two occurrences of sh interfere. Presumably the top line occurred before the bottom line.
Ancient North Arabian cannot be the parent of Classical Arabic, since it has already lost the -n at the end of a syllable, as in Hebrew, while this -n is still present in Classical Arabic (or is Classical Arabic an artifact in which the -n has been restored? DG).
Many verb forms in the various binyanim are known and reported here, mostly of the 3rd person.
Here we finally find some hard evidence on the origin of the Hebrew determinate article ha- with gemination of the following consonant. In many Ancient North Arabian dialects the article is h-, as in Hebrew, but in some it is hn- before aleph, ayin and chet: hn-'lt = the goddess (vocalized han'elit?). The author interprets this as a local development, but assimilation of the n to the following consonant would explain the gemination. And this han- could be related to Hebrew hineh = this-is.
Another explanation could come from the occurrence of the article hal-, a contraction of ha- and the Arabic article 'al (also interpreted differently by the author). Vowelless -l- is known to cause gemination in Hebrew: yiqqaħ (= he will take) for yilqaħ from lqħ = to take.
Ancient North Arabian uses the construct state (called here 'annexation') to express possession, but because of the lack of vowels, its existence is visible only in particular contexts. There is no sign of a particle indicating the accusative.
Modern North Arabian languages have been of help in determining the meanings of some words in Ancient North Arabian.
Afro-Asiatic: The appendix has the title 'Afro-Asiatic', but after a short survey of the Afro-Asiatic languages and an even shorter (less than a page) treatment of Afro-Asiatic as a language, the chapter covers Proto-Semitic only.
The first Semitic words are found as Akkadian loans in Sumerian texts of about 3300 BC, and the first full Akkadian texts are from about 2500 BC.
Much information is given about the development of the Afro-Asiatic consonants in the various daughter languages. For example, s before vowels changed to h in Semitic, except... when there are too many forms of the same root in which the s is not in front of a vowel, root consistence overrides phonetic shift. The Proto-Semitic sum (= they) turned into Hebrew hem; the root srq (= to steal; Akkadian sharraaqum = thief remained srq, however, due to the prevalence of forms like yisraq which could not change.
It is interesting and illuminating to see this stylized and no doubt simplified form of a Semitic language, in which many properties of the daughter languages can be recognized.
Proto-Semitic had the endings -at and -t for feminine; the first led to -ah in Hebrew, the second to -eth. The Proto-Semitic genitive in -i is related to the all-purpose adjective ending -īy. The plural in Proto-Semitic was originally formed by inserting a between second and third radical. The plural in an ending (-im in Hebrew) originated from adjectives followed by a pronoun (hem in Hebrew). (The Hebrew feminine plural ending -ot can be explained as inserting a in the last syllable: malkatmalkaat. DG)
There were independent pronouns and suffixed pronouns. The latter existed in a nominative form (salim-ta = you are well) to be used after adjectives, and a genitive/accusative form (baytu-ka = your house) to be used after nouns, resp. verbs. The first resulted in the suffix conjugation in Hebrew, the second in the possessive forms of the noun.
There was a declinable relative pronoun, θū, which, remarkably, agreed with the antecedent rather than with its position in the subordinate sentence: baytu ba`lim θī 'anθ'aru = the house of the lord whom (genitive!) I guarded.
Remarkably some Semitic languages use mah for "who" and min for "what", and others use the reverse. But there is always 'ayy-, as in Hebrew 'e-ze =which, 'e-fo = where, etc.
The Proto-Semitic verb had two forms, the 'perfective' with pattern yap`ul, which led to forms like yisgor in Hebrew, and an 'imperfect' with pattern yapa``al, which was lost in Hebrew.
The verb had several participles, which, being adjectives, were combined with the nominative endings; these led to the suffix conjugation in Hebrew.
In addition to the qal (G-stem), three more stems are reconstructed for Proto-Semitic: the N-stem (passive); the C-stem (causative), with a prefixed s- (which changed into a h- in Hebrew); and a D-stem, in which the second radical is doubled. Each of these stems could further obtain a prefixed t-, indicating reflexivity, etc. There may have been an R-stem, with reduplication of the third radical.
Proto-Semitic word order was VSO. Akkadian word order SOV is ascribed to Sumerian influence.
Proto-Semitic and Proto-Indo-European had some words in common, f.e. PS qarn- = PIE kr-n- = horn.
Maltese is missing from the list of Semitic languages in Section 2.1.
Classical Arabic is too young to be included in this series, unfortunately.
These five books are going to get prime estate in my book case!

* Roger D. Woodard, "The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Aksum", Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008, pp. 250.
This is volume four of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages, a collection of 45 entries covering in principle all languages of which sufficient recorded material is available from before 476 AD. All entries are of superb quality, and describe all aspects of the language in some depth, often even diachronically. So I'll restrict myself to specific comments on the entries in this volume.
The Sumerian entry alone is worth the money. Sumerian is heavily nesting: sa'a dummu lugal.ak.ak.she = cat-1 son-2 king-3 of-3 of-2 to-1 = "to the cat of the son of the king", where the numbers are nesting depths. It is structurally completely different from the surrounding languages, and looks vaguely like a North-Caucasian language. Its verb system is split-ergative. The description of cuneiform is deferred to the entry on Akkadian.
Elamite was described in contemporary texts of the surrounding countries as weird and twisted. The phonetic inventory that has been recovered is very normal and tame, so we are probably missing something here. The purported relationship to the Dravidian languages is reported but neither endorsed nor rejected.
The Akkadian and Eblaite entry starts with a good explanation of cuneiform and its developments; a full list of signs was given in an appendix in volume two. The infamous homonymy of the signs (there are 27 ways to write ge!) is explained away by the fact that at any given moment in time only perhaps two or three of these signs were in use, and their use was fixed by tradition. Since Akkadian and Eblaite are East-Semitic languages, they differ considerably from Arabic, Hebrew, etc., but the main morphology is easily recognizable as Semitic.
The Egyptian language (Afro-Asiatic but not Semitic) covers 4400 years (±3000 BC - ±1400 AD, from Early Egyptian to Coptic), and it is not surprising that the text feels cramped for space; even Loprieno's book 'Ancient Egyptian -- A Linguistic Introduction', which is ten times bigger, makes dense reading. An enormous lot of information is supplied, but sometimes in highly technical prose (like what is a 'prospective'? Ah, I see, it is a stem used in future forms, etc.; what is a 'rheme'? I still haven't found out). Hieroglyphs are explained very well, and demystified in a few paragraphs: the usual form of a word consists of one to three signs each contributing a few consonants to the consonant skeleton, plus a determinative sign, which specifies the class of the object or the action; together that is almost always enough to figure out what is written. Quite some attention is paid to Coptic. A 25 page appendix with a structured list of about 750 hieroglyphs closes the entry.
Ge`ez (Classic Ethiopian) is the language of Aksum (Axum) in Ethiopia; it is much neglected in linguistics, but here you find lots of information. The interesting/weird Ethiopian syllabary with its corresponding phonetics is explained in detail. The language is South-Semitic and may not differ more from Hebrew than German from English, in spite of there being more than 1500 kilometer between the two. This allows interesting comparisons between Akkadian (above) and Ge`ez, some of which are worked out in the text.

* Roger D. Woodard, "The Ancient Languages of Europe", Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008, pp. 261.
This is volume three of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages, a collection of 45 entries covering in principle all languages of which sufficient recorded material is available from before 476 AD to write a meaningful entry about. All entries are of superb quality, so I'll restrict myself to specific comments on the entries in this volume.
In the last two millennia BC the north half of the Mediterranean was a hotchpotch of recorded languages. The introduction divides them into three classes of accessibility: 1. the language's existence is known, but little else is; 2. there is a reasonable guess at the language's affiliation; 3. enough is known to sketch a grammar. The first two classes are covered in the introduction, leading to a bewildering variety of scripts and languages; a map is sorely missing. The further chapters cover class 3: Attic Greek, Greek dialects, Latin, Sabellian languages, Venetic, Etruscan, Celtic, Gothic, and Nordic.
Attic Greek, 400 BC. The language is shown in considerable detail, with, for example, 10 pages of verb morphology, deriving many forms from PIE. What is missing is an explanation of the pronunciation of the zeta, which at times and places seems to have been pronounced as dz, zd, and z. Remarkably, and probably superfluously, (but consistently) all Greek texts are also transcribed in Latin letters.
The Greek dialects entry makes confusing reading, not surprisingly. After all the author tries to describe a three-dimensional object, an aquarium whose length and width are the length and width of the Mediterranean area, and whose height is time; dialects form stalagmites and stalactites in this aquarium. Fortunately in this case a map is supplied, although 2D. As expected the labiovelars of PIE are pretty distinctive: some languages have delphis, others belphis, for "dolphin"; some have tettares, others pettares, for "four"; etc. Hundreds of such differences are given and explained.
The authors place Latin, the Sabellian languages, and Venetic in three different chapters, since there are fundamental differences between the three groups, but they fail to tell what these are and on what the split is based. This is confusing, because the languages as presented seem to differ no more than German, Dutch, and Frisian. (The EB explains that one reason is that the three branches form the perfect tense in fundamentally different ways, by v, t, and s, resp.: Lat. donavit, Osc. duunated, Ven. donasto = he gave, which points to an ancient split; and that the similarities arose from almost a millennium of contact.)
The Latin entry shows conclusively that Latin is simpler than Greek: the Latin verb forms take only 5 pages to explain.
There are three Sabellian languages known to us: Umbrian, South Picene, and Oscan; almost nothing is known about South Picene, so the entry is about the other two. Umbrian and Oscan differ considerably from each other, and from Latin, and from just looking at it it is difficult to tell which difference is larger. A representative word is water: Umbr. utar, Lat. akwa, Osc. āpa. This seems reasonably comparable to Dutch hoofd, Frisian holle, German Kopf = head.
Oscan is often written in an extended Etruscan alphabet (250 BC), which uses diacritics to express its three front vowels (i, é, è), where Etr. had only two, i and e, and its two back vowels (u and o) where Etr. had only one. Umbrian uses a similar alphabet but without diacritics, in spite of the fact that it has three back vowels, u, ó, and ò). The first two are written u, the third with a. We know this because some words are also found written in the Latin alphabet, and then some us are written o (i.e. ó), and some as are written o (i.e. ò): Umbr. script pihaz = Lat. script pihos (= purified), so we have an ò (and a z expressed as a s in Latin letters); and Umbr. script puplum = Lat. script poplom (= people), so we have two ós.
Oscan is characterized by palatalization of both consonants and vowels: múinikú (= common), deivai (= divine), tiurri (= tower). Umbrian has no palatalization and no diphthongs (except recent ones). South Picene had words ending in -h: matereih = to the mother.
In spite of purported ancient differences Venetic cannot have been too different from Latin: of the 10 Venetic words with known PIE etymologies, 10 have very similar Latin forms, e.g. vhraterei = to the brother (vh = f), Lat. fratri. It may have felt some Celtic influence (genitive in -oiso rather than -osio) from neighboring Lepontic.
As with the Sumerian entry in volume four, the entry on Etruscan in this volume is by itself worth the money: all recent information about Etruscan from the expert in 24 pages. A few notes: 1. Etruscan had two sibilants, s and sh, written with three different characters, using mappings that differ in the north, the south, and the far south. This causes major transliteration problems; the author solves them by writing s as s, and sh as σ, and modifies them with accents to show which character was used in the original text. It works (but it's still complicated). 2. Although the Etr. φ, θ, and χ are usually interpreted as aspirates, ph, th, and kh, Rix has a different view, explaining the vast discrepancy in frequency of φ, θ, and χ: rather than aspirated, these sounds are palatalized. That is, next to the unmarked stops, there is a series of palatalized stops, py, written φ; ty, written θ; and ky, changed into ts in Pre-Etruscan times and written z. Next comes a series of fricatives, labial f; dental, the English th, also written θ; and velar, written χ, which has a variant h at word initial. In the same vein there are two sibilants, an unmarked one, written s, and a palatalized one, written σ. This neatly ties together all Etruscan consonants. (There are more arguments: it explains why the Romans copied Θefarie as Tiberius rather than as Thiberius; and there is the regional argument: no other language in Italy, then or now, has aspirated consonants, but several have palatalized ones. DG) (It also makes Etr. a lot more easy to pronounce!) 3. The author contradicts himself with σa = 6 on page 152, and σa = 4 on page 159. 4. The translation (from German, I think) is described as "masterful" in the preface, but contains a few strange sentences; I'd like to see the original.
The Continental Celtic chapter covers Hispano-Celtic, with its own interesting alphabet; Lepontic, written in a modified Etr. alphabet; and Gaulish, both in Greek and Latin letters. Enough material exists to reconstruct noun declensions for all three languages, but conjugated verbs are scarce. Unfortunately on pages 180 and 181 the translations are missing, which leaves the reader seriously guessing.
Gothic: at last a language again about which enough is known for a coherent description without question marks or guesswork. And the author makes full use of it: all the robust Germanic sounds laws are explained and then used to derive large numbers of Gothic forms straight from PIE, through Proto-Germanic and East-Germanic (unfortunately laryngeals do not figure in the derivations, although they are occasionally mentioned). Very illuminating! Differences between Gothic and Old High German are also pointed out: f.e. Gothic giban, OHD geeben (= to give). In spite of its importance in Gothic, vowel length is not indicated; ah, well, there is always Wright to fill in the details.
Ancient Nordic: between 40 and 50 inscriptions, in futhark. As with Celtic, it is enough to reconstruct much of the noun declensions, but little of the verb conjugations beyond forms like nam (= he took), was, tawō (= I make), tawidō (= I made) (I suppose the latter are from a verb related to Eng. to do).
The last chapter is about Proto-Indo-European. I hesitate to call it a language; it's more a container of the reduction of our knowledge of the IE languages, it has too many weird features. 1. It is described as having three laryngeals, h1, h2, and h3, consonants, with three accompanying vowels, on par with y/i, w/u, n/vocalic-n, etc., i.e. the known semi-vowel and vowel pairs. Does any language have laryngeals which are in a semi-vowel/vowel relation to vowels? Wouldn't these vowels then perhaps just be e, a, and o? And what are the semi-vowels belonging to e, a, and o? (The text obscures the issue by introducing new terminology: nonsyllabics versus syllabics.) 2. Roots can optionally be preceded by an s-, without any semantic effect; does any language have such a feature? 3. There is an unexplained and seemingly incomprehensible set of restrictions on allowable roots.
The chapter is quite high-level, meaning: many paragraphs with rules, with hardly an example; grades (full, e-, zero, and lengthened) are listed, but no hint of their application and their relation to pitch is given (some explanation can be found in the chapter on Greek, around and in Table 2.3).
A word consists of a root, followed by zero of more suffixes, followed by an ending. Suffixes can modify meaning, or make verbs from nouns, or vice versa; the ending terminates the word. As a result PIE is more regular than its children, more agglutinative. There are five moods to the verb, indicative, subjunctive, optative, injunctive, and imperative, but two of them, the subjunctive and the optative, are constructed with suffixes; they are not separate paradigms. The paradigms for indicative (active, middle, and perfect; there is no passive) and imperative are given; the injunctive is not shown. There is a thematic paradigm (= with connecting vowel) and an athematic one. The original (secondary) endings can, and usually are extended with a -i to yield the primary ones. In the thematic indicative singular there are two completely different sets, earlier and later ones, the latter derived from the athematic ones (the presentation in the book in Tables (8) and (9) is confusing). The endings show a strong relationship to the reconstructed personal pronouns. Unfortunately the pitch positions on the endings are not given, so the application of the grades in the two examples comes as a surprise.
The index of this volume leaves much to be desired: 1. it is structured on main languages; as a result one has to know that, for example, Phocian is a Greek dialect before one can find it in the index; 2. it is far from complete: for example, North Picene (one paragraph in the Introduction) is not in it, neither under North nor under Picene.
In spite of these criticisms these five books are going to get prime estate in my book case!

* Roger D. Woodard, "The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor", Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008, pp. 184.
This is volume two of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages, a collection of 45 entries covering in principle all languages of which sufficient recorded material is available from before 476 AD to write a meaningful entry about. All entries are of superb quality, so I'll restrict myself to specific comments on the entries in this volume.
Where Attic Greek, Latin, Gothic, Ancient Nordic, the Sabellian languages, etc., are easily recognized as Indo-European (and as even fairly similar in morphology), one has to look very hard at Hittite (and at Armenian!) to get any feeling of familiarity. Only when one reaches the verb conjugation, some recognition dawns.
Most of Hittite is written in cuneiform; cuneiform is covered in the entry on Akkadian in volume four of this series. The Anatolian languages are the only ones in which the PIE laryngeals have direct consonantal representations, as hh, however that may have been pronounced. The gender system of Hittite, animate vs. inanimate, differs profoundly from that of PIE (masculine, feminine, neuter); this has given rise to a lot of controversy. The author's view is that the Anatolian languages inherited the PIE system, lost the feminine, and were left with an animate/inanimate system. (That is a lot of change; the simplest explanation seems to me that PIE just had a suffix (among its many suffixes) -eh2-, for constructing a feminine word when needed, something like Eng. -ess, that Hittite didn't get this suffix, and that it took off in the other branches of PIE to form a full-fledged feminine paradigm. DG) There is no dualis either. The difference between animate and inanimate shows moderately in the morphology of nouns, but, more importantly, affects the syntax: inanimate subjects of action verbs are not in the nominative but in a special case, the ergative; this seems to reflect the idea that inanimate objects cannot act. Unfortunately the text does not give an example, so I'll have to make one up: "The ball rolls" is expressed by something like "Rolling happens by/to the ball", where "by/to" is the ergative case. (The actual situation is more complicated, since there are two sets of action verbs.)
Hittite has two classes of verbs: mi-verbs and hi-verbs. They differ it the singular: -mi, -shi, -zi versus -hi, -ti, -i. Again the origin is controversial; the author attributes the hi-conjugation to an old perfect (but it also looks quite similar to the old secondary endings; DG).
(Hittite religious texts contain embedded fragments of Hattic, the language of the older inhabitants of Anatolia; this is the only source of Hattic material, and there is not enough of it to warrant a description in this encyclopedia; it may be remotely related to Hurrian, which see below.)
Much, much less is known from the other Anatolian languages, although the author claims that "Luvian was arguably the most widely spoken member of the Anatolian subgroup of IE".
In addition to cuneiform, Luvian was also written in home-made hieroglyphs; a sample is shown in the text and the signs look like rebus drawings, quite recognizable.
Palaic was written in cuneiform only; scarcely a dozen inscriptions are known. It has an f, but probably only in Hattic loans.
Lycian is known from some 150 inscriptions and was written in a Greek-like alphabet, so we know pretty well how it was pronounced. It is then not surprising that it shows greater phonetic variety than the previous three, including sounds like th and dh.
Lycian comes in two dialects, Lycian A and Milyan. It has nasal vowels, which were not always distinguished; many accusatives ended in from -in, which is indistinguishable from nominative -i. Many consonants are doubled in writing, even at the beginning of a word; it is unknown what this means (except that the writers were not satisfied with one consonant). Lycian shows some signs of the feminine-forming suffix -eh2-.
Lydian is written in another Greek-like alphabet; it is known from perhaps a 100 inscriptions. It differs so much from the above Anatolian languages, that little of the contents is understood; Hittite apa (= that) shows up as bi. It had weird consonant clusters, or else sibilants are syllabic: k\('sbλa- or dçtdid.
Carian script looks like Greek-derived, but it turns out many of the symbols don't have their normal values; it's kind of an Anatolian futhark. Much of the text is still not understood.
Phrygian was recorded in two separate periods, centuries 8-6 BC, and 1-2 AD; the language of the second period is the direct continuation of the first. Phrygian is written in a Greek alphabet, without the letters for the aspirates; its morphology looks very Greek, but it uses many words we don't know, so much of the Phrygian text is still obscure. The entry does not address the question whether Phrygian and Ancient Greek form a subgroup or if both are independent branches of IE.
Hurrian was spoken over a wide area, from Mesopotamia to Asia Minor; material is known from the entire second millennium BC. Most Hurrian text was written in Akkadian cuneiform (= syllabic), but a part was written in Ugaritic cuneiform (= alphabetic), so we know pretty well how Hurrian was pronounced. Hurrian is considered a language-isolate; a possible connection to the North-Caucasian languages is mentioned. It distinguished between voiced and voiceless in the stops and the fricatives, but voicedness was automatic, controlled by rules. The simple version is: initial and clusters of stops and fricatives were voiceless; internal, final, and mixed clusters were voiced. The syllabic scribes understood this, and used only one or the other for a given syllable, thus reducing the number of different cuneiforms needed; the alphabetic scribes wrote in full, which is how we know. Hurrian is unusual in Anatolia in having a large set of fricatives: f/v, s/z, th/dh, hh/gh; for historical reasons the th/dh is transcribed as sh/zh.
The general form of a Hurrian word is: root, complements, suffixes, ending. The root+complements determine the basic meaning; the suffixes determine details; and the ending specifies the grammatical function. For nouns this boils down to: root+complements, plurality_1, possession, plurality_2, case ending. Example: eniffazhuzh = en - - iff - azh - uzh = god - - our - plural - ergative = our gods. Verbs are more complicated; example: shid-ar-ill-oo-m X = curse - verbalizer - beginning - past - ergative = he started to curse X (-ar- is a complement; -ill- and -oo- are suffixes). There are zillions of complementers and suffixes, for modes, tenses, negation, valence switching, etc., but there are many of unknown meaning. (Since most of them have the form VC, easily pronounceable words result.)
Hurrian is an ergative language, but ergativity means different things in different languages. The ergative conjugation is used only for transitive verb forms with explicit object (as is the X above). Only the ergative conjugation is a real conjugation, in that it has endings for the person of the subject; the other verbal constructions just use the absolutive of the pronoun (ishte = I, fe = you) as an enclitic to the verb or some other suitable word in the sentence.
Surprise: the numbers 6 and 7 are shezhe and shindi in Hurrian, repeating a pattern found in IE (Eng. six, seven), Semitic (Hebrew shesh, sheva'), and Etruscan (σa, semφ).
Although more recent (two centuries around 800 BC) much less is known about Hurrian's sister language Urartian. There are several reasons for this: the language is written in a variant of syllabic cuneiform in which often CV and VC syllables are swapped (perhaps for good reasons, but we don't know); except for a small Urartian-Assyrian one, there are no bilinguals; and the Urartian texts are about military affairs, the Hurrian ones are religious, and they do not have many words in common. Decipherment rests solely on its similarity to Hurrian and the one bilingual. The general structure is like that of Hurrian; ergativity must have worked a bit different, though: in Hurrian the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb are in the same case (the absolutive), but in Urartian they can be different, in the first person singular anyway: nom. ishtid0, acc. shuk0, erg. iesh0 (cf. Hurr. abs. ishte, erg. izhazh). (The sample sentences in the text lack a verbatim translation, which leaves the non-Uratian speaker puzzling about which word means what.)
The Armenian alphabet was designed in the beginning of the fifth century AD, and the first texts are from the middle of that century, just in time to be included in this encyclopedia. With Classical Armenian we are back in the IE realm, but it takes an expert to see that. The language is notorious for the weird transformations it has undergone through the ages; for example, the Old Armenian lateral ł developed into the voiced uvular fricative G. The most famous transformation is that of dw- to erk-, occurring in several words, among which dwoerkow = two. A possible scenario is: 1. dw-dg- (wg occurs elsewhere); 2. dg-edg- (to ease pronunciation); 3. edg-erg-; 4. erg-erk- (during a voiced-to-voiceless period).
Armenian has no gender, not even in the pronouns; this is very un-IE. There are seven cases, but only some pronouns have that many different forms; for all nouns we have in the singular: nom. = acc., and gen. = dat.; in the plural we have gen. = dat. = abl., and acc. = loc. . Armenian has a definite article; actually it has three of them, enclitics -s, -d, and -n, depending on whether the "the" was a weak form of "this", "that", or "yon".
With berem, beres, berê, = I carry, etc., we are back on firm IE ground, but the numerals again tax our derivative powers; some easier ones are hing = 5 (cf. pente), and k`san = 10 (cf. dekem). The chapter shows that the weirdness of Modern Armenian is not the product of the last millennium and a half; Classical Armenian was already that way.
The last chapter is about Early Georgian; not exactly Asia Minor, but it's interesting, so who cares. Modern Georgian is notorious for its consonant clusters, and Early Georgian is no different. The reason is that various restricted consonant clusters are considered as single consonants. One such restriction that the articulation moves from front to back and the voicedness stays the same; and example is sx. Such "single consonants" can be preceded and/or followed by m or r, allowing such clusters as msxr-.
Like Armenian, Georgian nouns have seven cases and no gender, but unlike Armenian, nouns have all seven forms, and the pronouns have fewer. There is a short and a long declination, the application of which is depends on the context, vaguely similar to the strong and weak declination of the Germanic adjective. Plurals using the suffix -eb- are syntactically singular (collectives?) Genitives additionally get the case endings of the words they belong to: c'iaγ abraham-is = the bosom of Abraham; c'iaγ-ta abraham-is-ta = into the bosom of Abraham.
The Early Georgian verb has 13 skreeves (term not used here), grouped in three series; the good thing is that the nature of these three series can be understood: Series I (present) was originally an antipassive: X sees Y = X-abs. Y-dat. sees (X is busy seeing (intr. → X-abs.), using Y (indirect → Y-dat.). Series II (aorist) is just the standard ergative construction: X saw Y = X-erg. Y-abs. saw. Series III (perfect) was originally a passive, later modified into an active without changing the construction (its passive is still the simplest verb form): X has seen Y = X-dat. Y-abs has-seen (by X (indirect → X-dat.) Y (intrans. → Y-abs) has-been-seen). And so it all makes perfect sense...
The Early Georgian verb form has fourteen slots, with 2 preverbs, several slots for object, subject, and plural combinations, tense, mood, the works; the author explains them all. Unusual is that there is a slot, after the preverbs, for an additional enclitic; apparently the preverbs still had some independence in Early Georgian. The language uses "normal" subordinate sentences, with the relative pronoun romel- = which, that; this is surprising, since most languages of this structure use participles or special verb forms.
The volume closes with an appendix with a list of cuneiform signs; unfortunately the Borger numbers of the signs are not given.
These five books are going to get prime estate in my book case!

* Roger D. Woodard, "The Ancient Languages of Asia and the Americas", Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008, pp. 264.
This is volume one of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages, a collection of 45 entries covering in principle all languages of which sufficient recorded material is available from before 476 AD. The book also exists in one volume, but at 1150 pages I take my copy in five manageable parts any day; the price difference is next to negligible depending on where you buy. The volumes are not numbered; I derived my ordering from the order of the descriptions in the ads at the end of the books, and the ISBN numbers, which happen to agree. The EWAL is a marvelous opportunity to get information about a large number of languages from long ago. All entries are of superb quality, describing all aspects of the language (history, writing system (with tables), phonetics, morphology, syntax, lexicon) in some depth, often even diachronically, and are written by experts in the field. Nevertheless there are some things I'd rather have seen different.
This part covers Sanskrit, Middle Indic, Old Tamil, Old Persian, Avestan, Pahlavi, Ancient Chinese, Mayan, Epi-Olmec and Zapotec. For some scripts the direction is not specified, e.g. Sanskrit (left-to-right) and Pahlavi (right-to-left).
It is, I think, a pity that Vedic Sanskrit and Classic Sanskrit were not given different entries. Separate treatment would have made both more understandable: much of the morphological complexity of Vedic Sanskrit is motivated and made understandable by its pitch accent, but shows up as next to incomprehensible irregularity in Classic Sanskrit, which has an unrelated stress accent.
The entry on Old Tamil is very interesting; not much is readily available on it elsewhere. But many of the sample text fragments have (unexplained) XML-like structure information in them in the form of numbered or marked brackets. This makes the samples hard to read, and since it is not referred to in the text it adds little or nothing.
The words (characters) in the Old Chinese samples are given in their modern pin-yin pronunciation (without tones to boot), rather than in the reconstructed phonetics of Old Chinese; it says so right in the second paragraph of the entry and it does. This is like having a grammar of Beowulf English with all the words replaced by their modern English equivalents! For example, we are told in the morphology section that Old Chinese has prefixes n-, t-, s-, etc., but we never get to see them since modern Chinese does not allow consonant clusters.
As the nineteenth century was the age of decipherment of the ancient oriental languages, the last few decades of the twentieth are the age of the decipherment of the ancient meso-american languages; I somehow suspect that this was one of the reasons to publish this encyclopedia now. It is impressive to see how much progress has been made in deciphering the Mayan language. Here "decipherment" is to be taken literally: the language was not the problem since it is the parent of several well-known present-day Meso-American languages; but the script was. It left so much to the artistic freedom of the scribes (chiselers?) that almost all signs are different: for example, any cartouche containing a picture of a man, a man's head or a vulture was an acceptable sign for 'ahaw (= ruler). The script is explained extensively, and the Old-Mayan language is then described in the same format as the other languages.
Epi-Olmec is a (non-Mayan) language with a completely different script, which is still being deciphered. This shows clearly in some of the purported translations: a translation like "Four are your elsewhere [otherworldly] sky pillars" does raise some eyebrows. Still a large number of translated fragments make sense. Unlike the other entries in the encyclopedia, this entry contains an approx. 100-word dictionary of all known words; I don't know how much this adds; I'd rather seen more translations from steles instead. This entry uses the transliteration usual in Native-American linguistics (7 for the glottal stop; j for h; x for sh) and so is out of step with the rest of the books. (In the meantime the decipherment has been criticized by Houston and Coe, and that criticism has been criticized by Mora-Marin; in short - decipherment in progress.) A two-and-a-half page report on the decipherment of the Zapotec script concludes the entry.
The last section of the book concerns the techniques of proto-language reconstruction. The author advocates a very cautious and conservative approach, showing by example that anything but iron-clad proof can be misleading. (The section numbers in this entry are missing. Editing is better or even unnoticeable (= perfect) in the later parts.)
The above remarks are only minor gripes. These five books are going to get prime estate in my book case!

* John Kruse, "The Etruscan Language -- A Brief Introduction", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2008, pp. 32.
In spite of the subtitle "Zich Ra\('snal" (Etruscan Writing) in Etruscan letters on the cover this book is more a treatise on the Etruscan language than a description of it. The introduction describes the position of E. among the almost 20 languages spoken in ancient Italy, ranging from Lepontic around present-day Lugano to Elymian on the western tip of Sicily. The 6 chapters cover sources, script, and outline grammar of the Etruscan language, and personal names, cultural relations, and origin of the Etruscans.

* Christopher Beckwith, "Koguryo: The Language of Japan's Continental Relatives", An Introduction to the Historical-Comparative Study of the Japanese-Koguryoic Languages, Brill, Leiden, 2007, pp. 274.

* John Kruse, Joseph Biddulph, "The Native American Languages", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2007, pp. 40.
After a lament on the treatment of the American Indians at the hands of the white, the author examines the state of the art of research in the Native American languages through the ages. In the 16th and 17th centuries the Indian was seen as a fellow soul in need of conversion to some form of Christianity, and reasonable good grammars and dictionaries were made, albeit based on the structure of Latin. In the 18th and 19th centuries the Indian was seen as an obstacle, and any research or recording there was served commerce, and was in the hands of amateurs. These often misjudged the prefix-root-suffix nature of many Amerind language, which resulted in incorrect identification of forms, for example k-nisk for 'hand' where the actual meaning is 'your hand' (from a white man holding up his hand and asking "What do you call this?"). Also, glottalization and tone were often not recorded (or heard).
The second part is an annotated list of about 170 languages from North and South America, in the same style as 'Some Languages of the Pacific Region' by the same author.

* Tuna Prekpalaj, "Woordenboek Nederlands-Albanees Albanees-Nederlands / Fjalor Holandisht-Shqip Shqip-Holandisht", in Dutch/Albanian: Dutch-Albanian Albanian-Dutch Dictionary, 4th Ed., Eburon, Delft, 2007, pp. 344.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Notes on Old Nubian", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2007, pp. 41.
Old Nubian is known from 8-th century Gospel translations. Its relationship to the modern Nubian languages is not obvious, and these notes collect some information on the subject. It consists of several parts: introduction; notes on Coptic, Egyptian, Meroitic, Greek, Old Nubian, modern Nubian language, and Nandi; language trees for the region; conclusion. No firm conclusions drawn.

* Marlies Philippa, et al., "Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands", in Dutch: Etymological Dictionary of the Dutch Language, I, II, III, IV, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2003-2009,
Far superior to any of its predecessors. (But I keep my de Vries, "Nederlands Etymologisch Woordenboek" (1971) still on a top shelf!)

* Samuel E. Martin, "A Reference Grammar of Korean", Tuttle Publishing, 2006, pp. 1056.

This book provided tons of information not available elsewhere in English; one may quibble about the presentation, but that fact stands.
Although it is a very thick book with small margins it actually consists of four parts:1. a grammar of 347 pages, detailing all the ins and outs of the structure of Korean (and there's a lot of it); 2. an appendix of 67 pages, listing, for example, all verb stems ending in -ㄹ, and many other word classes; 3. a grammatical lexicon of 542 pages, listing dictionary-wise all forms and endings, with translation, examples, and historical background; and 4. an index of 76 pages. As I said, encyclopedic.
Its use of romanization instead of Hangeul has been reviled by many reviewers and it is indeed an eye sore. But the present-day Hangeul symbol set was designed for modern Korean, and cannot represent many Old and Middle Korean syllables. Scribes of old were not restricted to a fixed set of consonant combinations, and could write on their paper any combination of double or even triple patchim if they needed them. (Recently a Unicode set for Old and Middle Korean has been established, the Jamo set.) Using the romanization, however ugly, allowed the author to freely write down any historical, hypothetical, or partly incorrect form he needed for his explanations. For example, the stem of 돕다 – “to help” is “tow” but that cannot be written in Hangeul. So first I was annoyed by the ugly romanization (the use of “e” for a sound that is more like the “o” in “hot” still irks me no end) but I'm beginning to see the usefulness of the Latin alphabet over the Hangeul one for scientific linguistic purposes.
Another thing that kind of annoyed me is that the author describes the “speech of the educated Seoulite” rather than “Standard South Korean”. They differ in subtle points: the 여 is mostly pronounced as 에, producing f.e. 멫 for 몇; the 예 is pronounced 이, which makes 예쁘다 into 이쁘다; and the infinitive has -아 only after 오, so we find 받어요for 받아요. Oh well, anybody who can read this book will get over that.
I liked very much that the author has consistently indicated which syllables and endings cause tensing of the following consonant when applicable. Again Hangeul does not shows this, but you still have to know it when you want to learn the language properly.
Definitely worth every Eurocent.

* "Si-sa Elite English-Korean Dictionary", Si-sa, Seoul, 2006, c1995, pp. 2556.
Full English-Korean dictionary, with many sample sentences.

* John D. Bengtson, "Some Features of Dene-Caucasian Phonology (with Special Reference to Basque)", Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain (CILL), 30, #4, pp. 33-54. 2006,

* Joseph Biddulph, "Some Forgotten Languages of Europe", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2006, pp. 40.
List of about 240 minority languages and (mainly English) dialects of Europe, with annotations, in a style similar to Biddulph's "Some Languages of the Pacific Region". The most glaring omission is Luxemburgian, the sole remaining Frankish language.

* Joseph Biddulph, "The Five Languages -- Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2005, pp. 60.
Short initial reading aid to the five "original languages of the Scriptures and their earliest translations". For each language, the booklet supplies the alphabet, some grammar, some basic vocabulary, and, except for Syriac, a short fragment from the Scriptures with translation. Not everything is transliterated, and the author relies heavily on the reader's ability to learn foreign alphabets fast, which with the 251 (33x7+4x5) characters of Ethiopic is beyond me.

* Guy Deutscher, "The Unfolding of Language", arrow books, London, 2005, pp. 360.

* Hans-Jorg Bibiko, Hagen Jung, Claudia Schmidt, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, Bernard Comrie, "The World Atlas of Language Structures", Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, pp. 695 + CD-ROM.
[This summary is concerned with the 2005 book. There is a regularly updated Internet version that may differ.] More than a hundred world maps of language features, with locations and extents of their occurrences; each map is preceded by a careful explanation and analysis of the feature in question. There is, of course, a wealth of material; some noteworthy observations are: 1. Rounded front vowels are really rare; they are effectively restricted to Eurasia. 2. Although gutturals cluster, the th does not; it is just rare. 3. Australian phonetics is often the odd man out: no fricatives. 4. The large majority of the languages is concatenative (agglutinative). 5. A large majority of the languages expresses possession by an affix. 6. The ordering of fragments (SV/VS), (OV/VO) is more important that the usual distinction SVO/SOV/... (map 81-94). 7. Wichita stands out as having the most complicated verb forms (map 22), as I long suspected.
It does not feel right to criticise such a monumental book, but it is inevitable that a work of this magnitude should contain some statements that might raise some eyebrows. 1. The a in the Spanish Maria vio a Juan is considered a case form; the et in Miryam ra'ata et Yohanan is not. 2. The vowel management in Hebrew is called "ablaut". 3. French is considered a no-case language, English a 2-case one. 4. Map 70 shows German to have no imperative plural.
Unfortunately Dutch is not one of the 500+ languages included; too similar to German, I suppose.

* Robert Craig, "Zeaxysch Vor To-Dai", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2005, pp. 56.
Seems to be an attempt to construct the language that would have resulted if the West-English dialects had given rise to the "main" language. No reasons are given for the design decisions. The spelling is atrocious and seems intentionally complicated.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Some Languages of the Pacific Region", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2005, pp. 44.
An encyclopedia of about 250 lemmata of the languages along the Pacific, from Abau (a Papua language of Upper Sepik) to Yis (another Papuan language). The sizes of the lemmata range from one line to three pages (Maori), with about 7 languages per page on the average.

* Geza Vermes, "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English", Penguin Classics, 2004, pp. 648.

* Joseph Biddulph, "The Mercian Language", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2004, pp. 56.
Dissatisfied with the many complicated books on Anglo-Saxon and Old English, which make the language next to inaccessible to the speakers of Modern English, the author describes the 11th to 12th century Mercian language, claimed to be the direct precursor to Modern English, in layman terms. The last 14 pages contain annotated samples of the language, A Hymn of Praise, Layamon's "Brut", The Legend of St. Kenelm, and Magnificat (untranslated).

* Edward J. Vajda, "Ket", Lincom Europa, Languages of the World 204, Munich, 2004, pp. 99.
Russia, Krasnoyarsk province, Yenissej

* The Japan Foundation, "Basic Japanese-English Dictionary", 2nd Ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004, pp. 1024.
Unlike its first edition (1984), the entries in this one are in kana order rather than in alphabetic order, which makes it pretty useless to anybody interested in Japanese but lacking the time or unwilling to spend the effort to learn to read Japanese script.
Also, the additions are minimal.

* Mark Abley, "spoken here", arraow books, London, 2004, pp. 322.

* Martha J. Macri, Matthew G. Looper, "The New Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs -- Vol. 1", Oklahoma Univ. Press, Norman, 2004, pp. 375.

* "Korean -- Phrasebook & Dictionary", Berlitz, 2003, pp. 224.

* Seo Jungbum (Seo Jeongbeom), "Korean Etymological Dictionary (Korean edition)", Bogosa Books, 2003, pp. 589.

* Miho Choo, William O'Grady, "The Sounds of Korean -- A Pronunciation Guide", Univ. of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu, 2003, pp. 256.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Platt and Old Saxon", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2003, pp. 60.
The first half covers Plattduuts with some grammar, mostly from Buxtehude, with many examples and amusing stories; not everything is translated, which may be an obstacle for those unfamiliar with any English or German dialect. The second half concerns Old Saxon, with lots of grammar and excerpts from charm books and the Heliant.

* Dietz Otto Edzard, "Sumerian Grammar", Koninklijke Brill, Leiden, 2003, pp. 191.

* Mark Collier, Bill Manley, "How to Read Egyptian Hieroglyphs: A Step-by-Step Guide to Teach Yourself", University of California Press, 2003, pp. 192.

* Massimo Labadini, Fabio Sartorio, "Sinonimi e contrari", Modern Dizionari, Milano, 2003, pp. 320.

* Mario Alinei, "Etrusco -- Una forma arcaica di ungherese", in Italian: Etruscan -- An archaic form of Hungarian, Il Mulino -- Ricerca, Bologna, 2003, pp. 450.
The author attaches Etruscan to the Finno-Ugric language tree, after Finnish and Hungarian split, but before Hungarian, Khanty and Mansi split. Chronologically this is problematic, but the author is also the author of the Continuity Theory, which holds, among other things, that the time scale of the cultural and linguistic development is much larger than traditional science tells us.
This view allows the author to translate Etruscan by comparing each word to Hungarian. The methodology of this is not described in detail, but seems to be based on "looks like", sometimes with reasonable results. For example, Etruscan words ending in -nac, -nal, -ve/va and -u are often assumed to contain the Hungarian postfix particles -nak ("to"), -nál ("at, near"), -ve/va (gerund) and ó (present participle / actor), and are analysed accordingly. This leads immediately to Etr. maru (land surveyer)   Hung. mérö (he who measures), Etr. pazu (on the wall of the tomb Gollini I, near a picture of a cook) ~ Hung. fözö (he who cooks), Etr. parliu (on the same wall, near another cook)   Hung. parló (he who distills/steams), and several others.
Some correspondences are quite striking: the Etruscans named the north of their territory Felsina, the middle region Velsna, and the southern region Alsina. The author compares this to Hung. felsö (above), belsö (inside) and alsó (beneath). Some, however, strain the reader's credulity to the limit and most are of a "could be" quality. Occasionally the author makes the Etruscan read like a Hungarian dialect -- on a cup: Etr naceme uru ithal thilen is read as Hung. nekem ur ital teljen, litt. to-me master drink may-he-pour, Eng. "May the master pour a drink into me", corresponding to some Latin inscriptions on cups.
The book consists of six chapters, three of which (1, 5, 6) seem to be separate papers (the first about Etruscan titles, and the others about the place of the Etruscans in Continuity Theory). Chapter 2 covers the phonetic and morphologic relationships between old Hungarian and Etruscan, based on words and place names. Chapter 3 uses these relationships to translate many small and several larger texts, among which the Pyrgi Tablets; unfortunately the Tabula Cortonensis is not among them. Chapter 4 gives phonetic developments from old Hung. to modern Hung., indicating where the Etr. forms fit in.

* Joseph Biddulph, "A Love of Languages", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2002, pp. 56.
Autobiographical account of his contact with and love of languages, interspersed with snippets of language lore.

* John Colarusso, "A Grammar of the Kabardian Language", University of Calgary Press, 2002, pp. 254.
Kabardian is spoken by about 300000 people in the North Caucasus. It is an East-Caucasian language; East- and West-Caucasian differ enough to be considered different languages. The key word is 'very complicated': it is phonetically very complicated, morphologically very complicated, syntactically very complicated, and semantically very complicated. On the other hand, it is surprising how much it looks like an American Indian language, f.e. Wichita.
Kabardian (and the other Caucasian languages), have a large number of different consonants: there are several laterals and several gutturals, and almost all consonants come in groups of three, voiced, voiceless, and glottalized, just as proposed for PIE, to a total of 48. One of the weirdest is a glottalized f; I don't think any Amerind language has one. But there are no θ or \(dh, and more remarkably there is no l (a lateral approximant); the three Kabardian laterals are fricatives: voiced, voiceless, and glottalized.
Words (= noun forms and verb forms) consist of chains of morphemes, each being either a root or a morphological particle. A morpheme consists of one or sometimes two consonants, usually a vowel, and possibly another consonant. There are two underlying vowels, a, and ə. The a belongs strictly to the morpheme, but the ə can often be predicted, in which case the morpheme can be considered to have no vowel. But other morphemes always carry a ə. Under influence of the surrounding consonants, the underlying vowels can turn into any of the standard vowels, following precise and well-described rules.
The general principle is that the noun and verb forms consist of one or more roots embellished with a number of particles, mostly prefixes. The application of one or more of the 24 phonetic transformation rules then turns the sequence of morphemes into the pronounced word.
Nouns have no gender. There are three cases: the absolutive, in -r; the oblique, in -m; and the predicative, in -w. The oblique can be extended with the suffix -k'ya to form an instrumental. The predicative is used as a predicate, in a comparison, for the object in a subclause, etc. There is an indeterminate form of the noun, in which the absolutive and the oblique have no endings. There are no irregular nouns.
The plural is formed with the suffix -ha-, inserted between noun and case ending. That is, however, exactly the place where numbers go in numbered nouns, so -ha- may also be considered a numeral with the meaning 'more than one'.
Possession is indicated just by the personal pronoun particle followed by the particle -y- = 'of', placed before the noun: w-əy-wəna = you-of-house = your house.
The personal pronouns are: sa = I; wa = you; a = he,she,it; da = we; fa = you; a-ha = they. They are declined as nouns.
Verbs, and sometimes nouns, in American Indian languages are often described by specifying a list of slots into which particles and roots can be inserted. From the looks of it, the same could be done for Kabardian, but the author uses 'autolexical grammar' (Sadock, 1991), with too little explanation. Even after reading Sadock, I could follow the discussion of the language only by analyzing the examples. The formalism has the advantage that it can describe the structure of both nouns, verbs, and sentences. It is not used in Chapter 6, Syntax, though.
The series-of-slots nature of Kabardian is shown in such simple forms as sa wa wə-s-a-w-lhaaghw = I you you-I-present-progressive-see = I am seeing you, and in many much more complicated forms. Remarkably the personal pronouns sa and wa are not dropped here, and they occur in mirror image order, as if nesting in a context-free grammar. For good measure there are a couple of situations in which these slots are shuffled around.
The verb has intransitive, transitive, ergative, causative, anti-passive and passive patterns. Passives can also be made with an auxiliary verb.
Semantics: Kabardian has few roots, each with a fairly general meaning, and many words are compounds based on these roots, f.e. lhə-sh'ə-zhə-n = blood-make-again-ing = vendetta, and f'a-zh-a-a-p'a = sharp-throw-on-connective-place = hat peg, in close correspondence to similar constructions in Navaho.
The semantics and application of some particles is surprising, f.e. the particle q'ə = 'belonging to the sphere of the speaker'. An application is sa wa txəlh=ər -w=a-s-tə=agh-sh = I you book=abs it-you=to-I-give=past-yes = I gave the book to you; versus sa wa txəlh=ər -q'ə-w=a-s-tə=agh-sh = I you book=abs it=(in-my-sphere)-you=to-I-give=past-yes = I lent the book to you.
Sentences can, with some modification, be used as nouns: xyəbahr-z-y-a-ħ-a = news-who-to-dat-carry-dat = carries-news-to-someone = 'messenger', a construction reminiscent of "Dances-with-wolves".
The book closes with a fully analyzed 'Nart' saga: 4 ½ pages of Kabardian, 11 pages of detailed analysis, and 4 pages of translation.
It is great that a book on this weird and exotic language exists. It demands a great deal from the reader (and says so in several places), but it may not be possible to make the language any more accessible. This is not a textbook for learning the language; if it is a textbook of anything it is so of theoretical linguistics, using Kabardian as its only running example. (But then, there are probably more theoretical linguistics in the world than tourists who want to learn Kabardian. I am not certain what a textbook of Kabardian should look like; interesting question.) Accessibility is even more impaired by the use of the autolexical formalism in several chapters, except perhaps for the real specialist. That said, the book gives much more information about the language than any other source, the Internet included, if only through the more than 1500 example sentences and a fully analyzed 'Nart' saga. In summary, the book is a definite must for the theoretical linguist, a great source of entertainment for the amateur linguist, and a cure for any linguist who thinks he has seen it all. Not for the faint of heart.
The book lacks an index, which is awkward; for example, although Kabardian has no dative, the term is used in many places, (f.e. Section 6.4.2) and I would like to find where it was introduced. It has an extensive table of contents, though.

* Michael Meier-Brügger, "Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft", in German: Indo-European Linguistics, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2002, pp. 96 + 316.
Aptly titled: it is about the linguistics of Indo-European, more than about the language itself -- how we know the things we know about it. Probably at least 30% of the book consists literature references, explicitly on the first 96 pages, and then densely packed on each further page. Still we find paradigms for nouns and verbs, and readability does not suffer too much.
The book is a veritable treasure trove of information about Indo-European Linguistics. It has a broad coverage, but does not shrink from an occasional deep exposition. It also shows a more personal touch than is usual in such books, in that the author regularly explains with much enthousiasm why this or that feature or phenomenon is intersting. About two IE controversies: 1. The author agrees that the traditional p/b/bh etc. system of IE consonants is improbable and unlikely to be the real system, but finds none of the proposed alternatives convincing enough to replace it. For the moment the p/b/bh etc. system is kept as a notational convenience. 2. The author agrees that Proto-IE had an animate/inanimate distinction; next Proto-Anatolian split off; and then the non-Anatolian languages developed a masculine/feminine distinction in the animate class.

* Matthias Fritz, "Zur Syntax des Urindogermanischen", in German: On the Syntax of Proto-Indo-European, ed. by Michael Meier-Brügger, in Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2002, pp. 241-280.
Description of same, in a very complicated German that would make Tacitus jealous.
Starts with a very theoretical introduction into the nature of syntax, severely lacking in examples. However irritating such an approach may be, it makes explicit facts that would otherwise be left implicitly obvious; for example: plurality in a verb ending expresses plural actors rather than plural actions. Another non-obvious fact that is pointed out is that 'volition' may express either the will of the speaker or the will of the subject.
The theory is then applied to PIE; for example, the attitude of the speaker towards the validity of the sentence is analysed into 'old fact', 'new fact', 'possibility', and 'future fact'. These are then mapped onto the Injunctive, Indicative, Optative, and Conjunctive, resp.
PIE had appositive (extending) and restrictive subordinate clauses, the first introduced by Hio, related to the demonstrative, the second by kwi/kwo, which is related to the interrogatives. (Note that this corresponds to 'which' and 'that' in English, but that the relation is reversed.) Subordinate clauses were characterized by a stressed finite verb (as, remarkably, in Dutch, but not in English).
The finite verb expresses five dimensions: person (1st, 2nd, 3rd); number (singular, dual, plural); modus (indicative, injunctive, imperative, conjunctive, and optative); tense-aspect (present, aorist, perfect); and voice (active, middle, stative). In addition there is a dimension 'mode of action', (iterative, causative, etc.), expressed less systematically by new stems created by suffixes to the root of the verb, or by suppletion. Tense-aspect and mode of action were already entangled in PIE; paradigms like ferō, tulī, lātum, are late remainders of this entanglement.
In principle a distinction should be made between 'voice' and 'diathesis'. 'Voice' describes the same situation from a different point of view: 'the cat eats the mouse' (active) vs. 'the mouse is eaten by the cat' (passive). 'Diathesis' describes slightly different situations: 'he makes a meal' (active) vs. 'he makes himself a meal' (middle).
PIE had eight cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, and locative. They can in principle be divided in 'supplementary' ones, i.e. those required by the sentence structure (nominative, accusative), and 'indicative' ones, cases that supply new information (the rest).
The treatment of the PIE cases aims at determining the basic meaning of each, often with surprising results. The accusative was originally a supplement to the finite verb, and its precise meaning was determined by the verb: object, direction, extent ('Wir haben den ganzen Tag (acc.) gewartet' = we waited all day'). The instrumental indicated presence to the action, by a person (company), a thing (tool), or a location (the path along which). The dative denoted involvement; any positive or negative connotation was not part of the PIE dative. The ablative was simple: it denoted point of origin of a motion. The genitive was originally a partitive: cum grano salis = with a grain, a bit of salt. The locative simply denoted the place of action.
In intransitive sentences the locative pertains to the subject, in transitive sentences it pertains to the object; this can be seen as an ergative trait. The masculine/feminine/neuter system is a development of an earlier common/neuter system. The lack of an ending for the neuter points again to an earlier ergative system.

* Winfred P. Lehmann, "Pre-Indo-European", Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series, Volume 41, Study of Man, Washington, 2002, pp. 287.
The basic tenet of this book is that Pre-Indo-European was an "active" language, dividing nouns in animate and inanimate. This distinction determines the meaning of the verb gouverning the noun: "John Xs the stone", X=drop, "The stone Xs", X=fall. Such languages are charactized by the ample use of particles to narrow down meaning; several such particles are identified. Given the attempted time depth of about 8000 years, many of the details remain vague, but the author takes pains to indicate the extent of the vagueness.
Several conclusions are drawn from the presence and absence of cultural terms in the newer languages, many of them negative: the home land cannot have been "the northern perifiery of Southwest Asia" or Central Turkey. And the religion of the pre-Indo-Eutopeans was "simple".
The author assumes that the reader has read all pertinent literature.

* G.D.S. Anderson, "Case-marked clausal subordination in the Burushaski complex sentence", Studies in Language, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 26, #3, pp. 543-571. 2002,

* Joseph H. Greenberg, "Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives -- The Eurasiatic Language Family -- Vol. 2. Lexicon", pp. 216. 2002, Stanford University Press, Stanford,

* R. Goscinny, A. Uderzo, "Koljoguy Aseuterigseu", in Korean: The Gaul Asterix, Munhakkwajiseongsa, 2001, pp. 54.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Bantu Byways -- Some Explorations among the Languages of Central and Southern Africa", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2001, pp. 56.
About 22 Bantu languages are examined, at about 2.5 page per language, to demonstrate both the unity and the differences among the Bantu languages; as usual in Africa, there is choice enough. The Bantu verb morphology is treated on the basis of the Ila language, with its rich set of prefixes and postfixes and its two roots for each verb. Tones are discussed briefly in the basis of the Ekoi languages, while the Mwera language serves to demonstrate the Bantu class system.

* "On the origin of Hungarian verbal number and person markers: some controversial issues", Erzsébet E. Abaffy, Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 48, #4, 2001, pp. 321-335.

* Peter Onyango Onyoyo, "Dholuo grammar for beginners", 2001, Kisumu : Lake, pp. 102.

* George van Driem, "Languages of the Himalayas : An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region", 2 Vols., Leiden, Brill, 2001, Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 2, India, 10,

* George Carcas, "A Reference Grammar of Icelandic", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2001, pp. 56.
As it says in the preface, this is an aid both for the author and the reader to remember the fine points of Icelandic grammar. So pages 5-30 are mainly tables. Pages 31-37 contain translation (Icelandic to English) exercises based on short fragments of the Icelandic bible. The next five pages give short pieces of literature, from a saga, a text about cats, and a poem, with translation. A 14 page vocabulary closes the booklet.

* Naoko Chino, "All About Particles", Kodansha Int., Tokyo, 2001, pp. 149.
Detailed description of 53 noun particles and 16 sentence particles, with example sentences in romaji and kana/kanji.

* Naoko Chino, "Japanese Verbs at a Glance", Kodansha Int., Tokyo, 2001, pp. 192.

* Anne van der Meiden, "Biebel in de Twentse Sproake, Oale Testament, deel 3", in Twents: Bible in the Twents (Tubantian) Language, Old Testament, Part 3, Stichting Twentse Bijbelvertaling, Enschede, 2001, pp. 390.

* Gunter Preuss, "Sarange Ppajin Kkoma Manyeo", in Korean: In-Love Fallen Dwarf Witch, Gilbeosirini, 2000, pp. 64.
Translation of an older version of Preuss, "Die kleine Hexe Toscanella", 2010.

* Andrew Horvat, "Japanese Beyond Words--How to Walk and Talk Like a Native Speaker", Stone Bridge Press, Berkeley, 2000, pp. 180.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Tongues of Prester John -- An Overview of Ge`ez and Amharic", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2000, pp. 56.
[According to legend Prester (=Presbyter) John was the ruler of a Christian kingdom lost in Muslim lands, more concretely Ethiopia.] Equally divided between Ge`ez and Amharic. Amharic is linguistically not the continuation of Ge`ez, but a South-Semitic language with its own history, just as Aramaic is not the continuation of Hebrew. The syllabary (incorrectly called an alphabet in the book) is composed of 33 base letters, to which seven vowels can be added as diacritics that have become ligatures; in this is differs from hiragana, in which there is no relation between characters for the same consonant followed by different vowels. Although the ligatures are in principle unpredictable, decomposing them is a help in recognizing the 231 combination.
The base character represents the consonant followed by ä. The -u form is usually formed by adding a stroke with closed circle to the right. The -i form is usually formed by adding a stroke with closed circle to the bottom right. The -a form is usually formed by shortening the left side or lengthening the right side. The -e form is usually formed by adding an open circle to the bottom right. The form without following vowel is usually formed by modifying or nicking the left side in some way. The -o form is usually formed by adding an open circle to the top right, and/or shortening the right side. The language has long consonants; the difference cannot be expressed in the script.
Name: Ge`ez
Affiliation: South-Semitic
Location: Ethiopia (~ 500 BC -   1500 AD)
Phonetics: consonants: the semitic set; vowels: a, e, i, o, u.
Nouns: gender/classes: masc./fem.; number: 2; cases: 2; possessor indication: status constructus.
Pre/postpositions: pre.
Pronouns: 'ana = I, 'anta = you(m), 'anti = you(f), we'etu = he, ye'etu = she, neħna = we, 'antemmu = you all(m), 'anten = you all(f), 'emuntu = they (m), 'emantu = they (f), # = they (n).
Numbers: 1 'aħadu, 2 kel'e (probably from a Bantu language), 3 shalas, 4 'arba', 5 ħams, etc.
Adjectives: precede the noun.
The book then spends two pages on Tigré, the living language most closely related to Ge`ez.
The next 18 pages of the book concern Amharic. For historic reasons the transliteration of Amharic uses Italian orthography; this is not followed here.
Name: Amharic.
Affiliation: South-Semitic.
Location: Ethiopia.
Phonetics: consonants: the semitic set; vowels: a, e, i, o, u, and ä.
Nouns: gender/classes: masc./fem.; number: 2; cases: 2, acc. = direct object; possessor indication: constr. state or yä- = of, preceding the owner: of-the-man the-hat.
Pre/postpositions: small ones prefixed, larger ones post-posed.
Pronouns: ine = I, antä = you(m), anki = you(f), issu = he, isswa = she, inya = we, innant = you all, inn\{:asu = they (m).
Numbers: are not so clearly Semitic as in Ge`ez: 1 and, 2 hulät, 3 sost, 4 arat, 5 ammist.
Adjectives: preceding the noun.
Verbs: less clearly Semitic than Ge`ez; there are two conjugations: one which doubles the middle consonant in some forms, and one which always doubles the middle consonant; has a polite 2nd person sing. in -wo.
Word order: SOV, strictly.
Relative clauses: use = 'of': bäreun (the ox, direct object) yägäddälä (of "it has killed") anbässa (lion) = lion of "it has killed the ox" = the lion which has killed the ox.
The book closes with two chapters on the other languages of Ethiopia and the Ethiopian calendar.

* George Carcas, "A Reference Grammar of Afrikaans", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 2000, pp. 48.
Although Afrikaans has little morphology (except for the plurals of nouns), it has lots of prepositions, connecting words, and sentence constructions. These are presented with examples of almost all of them. Like the author's `A Reference Grammar of Icelandic', exercises are based on fragments of the bible, and a vocabulary closes the booklet. There are no longer sample texts, however.

* Giulio M. Facchetti, "L'enigma svelato della lingua Etrusca", in Italian: The Riddle of the Etruscan Language Unveiled, Newton Compton, Roma, 2000, pp. 295.
Books that promise to "unveil the riddle of the Etruscan language" should be approached with caution, especially when they are published by a firm which also publishes books like "300 Simple and Original Recipes for Cooking with Nutella"...
But unlike for example Mario Alinei's book, this book is main-stream, and safely based on Rix and Agostiniani. The author is an expert on Roman and Etruscan law, and uses his knowledge of the first to interpret texts in Etruscan about the second, based in the idea that contracts in both languages often phrase similar things similarly. For example, the Latin words for the three possible obligations, facere, dare, praestare (to do, to allow, to refrain from) are found to correspond to Etr. acilune, turune, scune.
The book consists of 14 chapters + an appendix on grammar. Some of the chapters are on general subjects, for example "Doni sacri e profani", others are concrete, for example "La 'tavola di Cortona'", but their internal structure is similar: the subject is explained using many short Etruscan texts with word-by-word translation. The translation of almost each word is motivated; in addition, longer texts are also summarized in a natural translation. All this makes the text easily accessible. There are many detailed drawings of inscriptions and Etruscan objects.

* Edward J. Vajda, "Ket Prosodic Phonology", Lincom Europa, Languages of the World 15, Munich, 2000, pp. 22.
Russia, Krasnoyarsk province, Yenissey

* Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, "Genes, Peoples, and Languages", University of California Press, Berkeley, 2000, pp. 228.
Factual and fairly dry but not very systematic description of the mechanisms that cause correlations between genes, peoples, and languages, and of those that disturb those correlations.

* Bernd Heine, Derek Nurse, "African Languages -- An Introduction", Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000, pp. 396.
This book has a combined purpose: teaching about African languages and teaching linguistics using them. Of course "African languages" is not a linguistic notion, and that is both a weakness and a strength. The weakness shows in generalizations like "The large majority of the African languages are tonal." True, but less than informative: almost all Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo and Khoisan languages are, but almost none of the Afroasiatic ones are. The strength is that in teaching linguistic features, the authors can choose from hundreds of languages from four vastly different phyla.
The book consists of 12 chapters, each written by a different author/expert, usually a big name in the field. It is divided in three parts: I. the African languages (chapters 2-5, covering Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Afroasiatic, and Khoisan); II. Elements of linguistics (chapters 6-9, covering Phonology, Morphology, Syntax and Typology); and III. Linguistics (chapter 10-12, Comparative linguistics, Language and history, and Language and society).
Not surprisingly with so many authors (15) the style, terminology and quality is variable (which only adds to the realism in linguistics). There is an excellent analysis (section 6.7) of the research on the tonal system of Bambara, i.e. what the rules AND how these rules were discovered. The weakest point in African linguistics, the validity of the Nilo-Saharan phylum, is given extensive attention (sections 3.3 and 11.2), thus showing linguistics in action in a very educational way.
In summary the book is a very good introduction to linguistics for people who have affinity with African languages, and very informative for anybody interested in both its subjects. Its main drawback is its unevenness.

* "Minjung Pocket English-Korean Korean-English Dictionary", Korean title: Minjung poket Yeong-Han Han-Yeong sajeon, Minjung Seorim, Seoul, 2000, pp. 967+932.
Consists of very many relatively short entries. Made for Koreans: no explanations in English. English entries divided in syllables, with pronunciation and frequency indication; Korean entries with Hanja alternatives.

* Joseph Harold Greenberg, "Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives -- The Eurasiatic Language Family -- Vol. 1. Grammar", pp. 326. 2000, Stanford University Press, Stanford,
Collection of data that support the Eurasian superstock, plus argued account of how this superstock is delineated. Eurasian is comprised of (from west to east) Indo-European, Etruscan, Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic, Korean-Japanese-Ainu, Gilyak, Chukotian, and Eskimo-Aleut (Etruscan is included after some hesitation, due to lack of sufficient material; but the 'mi' = I, 'mini' = me is taken as a strong indication).
The supporting material comes in two groups, phonetic reconstructions and common morphemes. Chapter 2 contains the phonetic reconstructions. Eurasian is reconstructed to have alternations between p and m, t and n, etc., and examples in all language families are supplied. Also, vowel harmony is reconstructed for Eurasian, again supported by examples. Three more phonetic reconstructions are given.
Chapter 3 presents 72 common morphemes. The most prominent ones are of course 'mi' = I, 'ti' = you, 'k-' = who, but others are impressive too: '-k' = dual, '-t' = plural, etc.
A 38 page appendix contains an analysis of Ainu vowel alternations, which seems somehow out of place. I suppose the author performed this study in the course of the preparation of this book, and it was this study that convinced him to group Ainu with Korean and Japanese, rather than with Austronesian (Bengtson) or Austroasiatic (Vovin).

* Pietro Trifone, Massimo Palermo, "Grammatica italiana di base", Zanichelli, Milano, 2000, pp. 336.

* Nancy Yaw Davis, "The Zuni Enigma", W.W. Norton, New York, 2000, pp. 318.
Defends the premise that about 1350 AD (not BC!) a group of Japanese pilgrims went to America, mingled with Indians (Anasazi or their neighbors) to form the Zuni. The book lists those aspects of Zuni and Japanese culture and language in which the author sees enough correspondence. The linguistic part is unconvincing; if anything it more suggests a long-range relationship to Eurasian. I think a serious problem with Davis' thesis is that 14th century Japanese pilgrims would have known about writing, and it is hard to believe that they would have given it up. And even so, one would expect remnants of script to appear ornamentally. As the author says in the last paragraph: "These finding may nor be conclusive, but together they are suggestive." Whether it is more than that is doubtful.

* Ho-Min Sohn, "The Korean Language", Cambrigde Univ. Press, 1999, pp. 445.
Extensive description of all facets of the Korean language, including genetic affiliation, history, dialects, writing systems, pronunciation, syntax, grammar, and usage etiquette. Written for the interested and linguistically non-naive public, it keeps away from too much linguistic theory, as promised in the blurp. It is not a book to learn Korean from, but then that is not its purpose.
Its main drawback is the use of the Yale romanization system (apart from a romanization table there is no Hangeul in the entire book). The Yale romanization system is a disaster. It is very far removed from the pronunciation: the word "geureonde" (= "by the way"), which is pronounced roughly like that, is romanized as "kulentey"); and although it allows the Korean writing to be reconstructed exactly (mostly), it takes considerable mental effort to do so: "hayyo" for (RRK) "haeyo" always throws me off. Yale romanization is good only if you want to learn the language as a conceptual rather than a living entity.

* William Holmes Bennett, "An Introduction to the Gothic Language", Modern Language Association of America, 1999, pp. 190.

* Anne van der Meiden, "Biebel in de Twentse Sproake, Nieje Testament, deelen 1 en 2", in Twents: Bible in the Twents (Tubantian) Language, New Testament, Parts 1 and 2, Stichting Twentse Bijbelvertaling, Enschede, 1999, 1998, pp. 412, 316.
The bible in Twents, a Saxon language spoken in Twente, eastern Overijssel, the Netherlands. The spelling (for which no standard exists) has been chosen so as to look as much as possible like Dutch; this is an unusual choice. Diacritical marks are used only for ö; the difference between ò and ó is not indicated. The language differs slightly from what I used to speak; for example, the text has "breeve" for "letters", where I say "breem'm" (for "breev'n").

* Marianne Mithun, "The Languages of Native North America", Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999, pp. 773.

* "Van Dale Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal -- A-I, J-R, S-Z", in Dutch: Van Dale's Major Dictionary of the Dutch Language, in 3 volumes, Van Dale Lexicografie, Utrecht, 1999, pp. 1-1484, 1485-2912, 2913-4295.
The authoritative definition of the Dutch vocabulary.

* Harrie Scholtmeijer, "Naast het Nederlands -- Dialecten van Schelde tot Schiermonnikoog", in Dutch: Beside Dutch -- Dialects from Schelde to Schiermonnikoog, Contact, Amsterdam, 1999, pp. 142.

* Gabor Takacs, "Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian", Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Nahe Und Mittlere Osten, 48. Bd., 1., 1999, Brill Academic,

* H. Beem, "Jerosche -- Jiddische spreekwoorden en zegswijzen uit het Nederlandse taalgebied", in Dutch: Heritage -- Yiddish Proverbs and Expressions from the Dutch Language Area, Boekhandel en Antiquariaat Blankevoort, Amstelveen, the Netherlands, 1998, c1959, pp. 294.

* Jay Rubin, "Making Sense of Japanese", Kodansha Int., Tokyo, 1998, pp. 136.
The booklet starts with a litany on the myth that Japanese is a mysterious language in which things just happen in Zen fashion, without anybody doing them. Two main parts follow, both short pieces about various issues in Japanese. They treat wa/ga, yaru/ageru/kudaseru/kureru, morau/itadaku, kara da/wake da/no da, hodo, shiru/wakaru, tame, tsumori, kimeru/kimaru, aru/de aru, kite, and many others. The book ends with a thorough analysis of two sentences from Ienaga Saburō's history book Taiheiyō Sensō, "The Pacific Wars", one of 18 and one of 50 words; very instructive!
There are many trunk-bearing and disappearing elephants in this book. The example zō wa hana ga nagai ('Elephants have long trunks') is even worse than the author describes: hana means both 'nose/trunk' and 'flower'. Now there is little chance of misunderstanding, but tone marks would have helped: zō wa ha'na ga naga`i for 'trunks' as opposed to zō wa han'a` ga na'ga`i for 'flowers'. This also shows that Sansom's remark about writing Japanese with a [Latin] alphabet is not entirely true: one needs the tone marks.
And it seems to me that orenji itadakimasu ka (page 117) just means 'Do I humbly receive the honor of [getting you] an orange?' = 'May I get you an orange?' This fits the language -- 'I' is the natural subject of itadakimasu and the '[getting you]' is supplied by the context as the obvious task of a waiter-- and it fits the semantics.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Mandingo, Malinké, Bambara: Speeches of Mali", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 1998, pp. 36.
The three named languages are actually almost a single language, and are treated as one in this booklet, called Mandingo. It is a West-African language of the Mande group, and with between 8 and 10 million speakers it is the second largest language in Africa, after Swahili.
Pages 3-12 are concerned with the languages of the region in general; the rest concentrates on Mandingo.
Name: Mandingo/Bambara
Affiliation: Mande
Location: in and around Ghana
Phonetics: consonants: the usual + γ, R, kp, gb; vowels: 9, short, long and nasal; tones: none.
Nouns: gender/classes: none number: 2, plural by suffix -u cases: none possessor indication: juxtaposition: mansa ba = 'king mother' = the king's mother
Pre/postpositions: post
Pronouns: ne = I, i = you, e = he, she, it, ana = we, alu = you all, u = they.
Adjectives: are verbs
Verbs: root is only used as imperative; all other uses require the auxiliary verb 'to be', which is only marked for tense, mode, and negation.
Word order: SOV
Relative clauses: with connective mi = where.
In summary, Mandingo is a very simple language: no gender, no classes, no tones (not even stress), no declination and minimal conjugation: the verb = 'to be' has 18 forms, 9 positive and 9 negative (actually only 5 + 5, since 'past' is expressed by tun- prefixed and assimilated to the non-past forms).

* Anna Giacalone Ramat, Paolo Ramat, "The Indo-European Languages", Routledge, London, 1998, pp. 526.
Sixteen chapters by different authors.
1. IE Culture: points out that reliably reconstructing morphology and a lexicon is doable, but that reconstructing the accompanying semantics involves a lot of guess work. The components of the IE culture and ideology are identified as: the sacred, the military, and the economic, with many examples.
2. Proto-IE, by Watkins: the best summary of PIE I know, with extensive paradigms and a lot of explanation. Remarkably the author refrains from reconstructing the personal pronouns.
3. The IE Family: considers relationships to Uralic, Caucasian, Semitic. Is not adverse to the idea of Eurasian.
4. Sanskrit: based on a PIE without laryngeals. Bartholomae's law: dhtddh. No explanation of the origin of voiceless aspirates.
5. Iranian: the data on the Iranian languages are muddled, which is reflected in the text. It is hard to give a coherent account of a language in which the accusative of xratush (= power, cf. demo-cracy) varies between xratuum and xra\(thβ0m.
6. Tocharian: given the dearth of material on Tocharian, the text is very welcome, but it is disappointingly short, ending abruptly after 15 pages with an apology about 'A brief summary', whereas the other entries are 25 to 30 on the average. The text is also confusing; the sentence on p. 155, lines 11-12 is incomprehensible; also what are "alternating nouns", and what is "group inflection"? Summary: Almost all consonants exist in normal and palatalized form. The case endings are given in running prose only. It looks as if any resemblance to those of PIE is imaginary, except perhaps for the nom.acc. plural, with a nom. in -i and an acc. in -m. The numerals are clearly IE, and so are the personal pronouns, more or less: sing. ny-, t-/ty-; dual/plural we-, ye-. One and a half page of existing verb forms are given, with minimal explanation. Of the 17 roots involved only one, Toch A. klyos-, B klyaus- = "to hear", is recognizably IE; more IE information would have been welcome. The verb endings, active and medio-passive, are recognizably IE, Toch. A more so than Toch. B: -m, -t, -s (!) vs. -u, -t, -.m.
7. The Anatolian Languages: There were three Anatolian languages in the 2nd millennium BC: Hittite, Cuneiform Luwian and Palaic. Only Luwian survived the Sea Peoples, and gave rise to Hieroglyphic Luwian, Lycian and Milyan in the first millennium BC. The position of the more remotely related Lydian and Carian is less clear. Luwian preserves differences between the three PIE velars, but Hittite has only two, in such a way that it is difficult to reconstruct a Proto-Anatolian, suggesting that Hittite and Luwian already split in PIE times.
The paper features a number of useful tables in 6 or 7 Anatolian languages and sometimes Proto- Anatolian: the nominal endings, pronouns, and verb endings, active and medio-passive.
Two pages on the position of the Anatolian within the IE languages, discussing several theories and opinions but not leading to firm conclusions, close the chapter.
8. Armenian: Although Armenians are known from texts from the sixth century BC, the language appears in writing only in the fifth century AD. By then its relationship to IE is hard to recognise: ul = kid (Gr. pōlos, Goth. fula), hayr = father, and the notorious erku = two (from dwo). But we also find ateam = hate (cf. Lat. odium (it's almost too good; is that a loan?)). The problem is that there are rules, but they are unreasonable, f.e. -s-kh, and dw-erk-; and they don't apply uniformly: the first rule applies to endings only, not to normal words. So often 'special development' has to be invoked.
The PIE stops have changed considerably in Armenian, but not unrecognizably so. The author claims the fit is better when we start from the glottalic version, but the difference is not impressive.
Armenian prefixes and inserts vowel in several place to aid pronunciation, and the author shows a very clever scheme by Venneman, which explains precisely when and where such vowels appear, and also when metathesis (a regional feature) occurs.
Several pages are spent on the intricate way Armenian words are derived from PIE. The pronouns are recognizably IE, but the exact etymology is often obscure. The research on Armenian etymology is probably severely hindered by the lack of intermediate languages, as are often available for the other IE languages.
There is no gender difference, not even in the pronouns. Verb endings, present indicative: -m, -s, -y, -mkh, -ykh, -n (with -s-kh). The aorist 3rd sing. has a prefixed e-: e-git = he found, from gtan= to find.
In present--day Armenian, the apical and velar l-s form an opposition pair, and so do the tongue and throat r.
9. Greek: The chapter is firmly based on PIE. It starts with a well-organized description of PIE phonetics, including the accent (pitch), from which first Proto-Greek and then Greek phonetics + accent is derived in detail. A summary of what happened in the dialects follows, including some modern dialects. Lack of examples and the use of highly technical terms make the text difficult to follows, though.
The reader is assumed to know (classical) Greek well; words are hardly ever translated, and paradigms and endings are amply discussed but not shown; and the lack of examples requires one (me) to consult grammars and dictionaries. Sometimes the text is so abstract that the meaning is hard to discern, f.e. the last paragraph of the chapter.
The author shows his irritation at the lack of a satisfactory explanation of the ending for 1s, in the phrase "non-thematic -mi, thematic word-end of whatever origin".
10. Latin: The longest chapter in the book, at 61 pages. The author notes that the apparent relationship between the Latin and Celtic languages does allow the reconstruction of a Proto-Latin-Celtic node: parts of Latin are related to parts of Celtic through rules not shared by other parts. Such rules would both apply and not apply to Proto-Latin-Celtic. The author considers them parallel developments and/or coincidences. Likewise the aeē and auō need not be attributed to Umbrian influence but are so wide-spread that they may be an independent development in Latin.
The chapter pays much attention to the Latin dialects, the languages in the country-side around Rome, where we still find such words as dingua, the original of lingua (hence Eng. tongue). Also the Latin in this chapter is not always the Latin we have learned in school: antiquom, equos (nom. sing!), and many unusual forms are given for the demonstrative pronouns, f.e. istae for istī (dat. fem. sing.), and sapsa for ea ipsa. The main forms of Latin used are from Plautus (~200 BC) and from the beginning of Imperial times (~50 AD). This gives a nice wide view of the language.
All long vowels are indicated carefully, so we find lēx and sīc, which goes to show how badly we pronounce Latin. On the other hand, there are no laryngeals. Unlike the chapter on Greek, this one abounds with examples, which is a good thing. Translations are given sparingly; readers are supposed to know their Latin.
Examples of PIE dh in Latin: dhe-f- in feci; -dhe--b- in werdh-verb- (cf. Eng. word) and in stHdh-stab- (cf. Eng. stable).
Paragraphs stretching over three pages complicate reading, and have induced me to insert additional paragraph breaks. The author suggests that words like ruptus lost their infix -n- rather than that rumpō gained it.
11. Italic languages: The chapter starts with an unclear and somewhat emotional section on the relationship between the Italic languages and the "national dimension" of Ancient Italy. If I understand it correctly, there was no Proto-Italic from which Umbrian, South Picene, Oscan, etc., developed, but rather Italy started off with zillions of local dialects, which slowly converged to larger and larger clusters, forming the observed languages with their observed variations.
No translations are given, which may be acceptable for Greek or Latin, but which is absurd for languages like Umbrian or South Picene.
The author uses X<Y sometimes for 'X derives from Y' and sometimes for 'X leads to Y'; or I don't understand it.
12. Celtic Languages: Starts with a well readable and level-headed description of the history of the older languages, often pointing out that we don't know all the answers. Appears to use the --sensible-- convention: Old X: we have names and text; Primitive X: we have names but no text; Proto-X: we have reconstruction only. OWCB = Old Welsh/Cornish/Breton, as opposed to Old Irish.
Detailed pronunciations of Old Irish words are given, including a 'nasalized bilabial fricative', written here μ, without indication how they were obtained. But the notorious 'tau Gallicum' is not mentioned explicitly, and described as 'a new dental phoneme'.
The primary mutation is lenition. It arose from the difference between single and double consonants: the double ones became single, with spirantization in some branches, and the single ones became lenited at the same time. The morphology of the noun is described extensively, with many derivations from the PIE, through Common Celtic; this gives a reasonable explanation of the modern declinations with their lenitions and nasalisations. These derivations also show how far the modern languages have drifted away from their originals, f.e. Welsh h^yn = 'older' < senjos. As a result of this reduction the plural of many nouns came to coincide with the singular: both donjos = man and donjī = men (donjos < gdonjos < khthonios) became dyn in Welsh, so W. enlisted a second plural, donjones, which yielded the modern plural dynion.
Similar derivations are given for the Old-Irish verb endings. The stems are more problematic: the present stem has eight formations, AI-AIII, BI-BV, each explained by a suffix from PIE, but the subjunctive, future, and perfective stems require a lot of assumptions to be explained from PIE.
The Old-Irish verb has a different form at the beginning of a sentence than elsewhere: beirid = he carries vs. -beir, both from PIE bhereti; the difference is explained by an unknown particle in second position, which later disappeared.
Relative clauses were formed by putting -yo after the verb, and the relation could be subjective or objective: Old-Irish berte < beronti-yo = 'who carry' and = 'whom they carry'.
13. Germanic: The weak declension of the adjectives is explained as copied from the n-declension of the nouns, which had a 'particularizing, determining function' in PIE: Platōn = the Plato. It was used wherever the adjective referred to something determined (gute Sachen, die guten Sachen), and later made part of the syntax.
Likewise the prefix ga- > ge- is explained as a PIE particle expressing completion, and related to the Latin com-.
The reduction of the PIE verb system with 3 moods, 3 tenses, and 3 voices to a system with 2 moods and 2 tenses caused the PIE particles, and later the verb prefixes, to gain importance.
The predominant word order of Common Germanic was SOV, but the noun inflection still allowed much freedom. Of the four word orders of German and Dutch only two are explained: main sentence order (SVO..), as an innovation; and subsentence order (-S..OV), as a remnant of the old word order. Inverse order (..VSO) and question order (VSO) are not discussed.
14. Slavic: On their way from PIE the Slavic languages have been befallen by three vowel shifts and three consonant shifts, the more recent ones quite regular. This gives great opportunities for derivations, and zillions of etymologies of Late Common Slavic and Old Church Slavic words are derived directly from PIE via Proto-Slavic: PIE k^erd- > PS sird-ika- > LCS sirdic'e (= heart, cf. Lat. cord-). Some show how far Slavic has deviated from IE: dn̩gh-uh2- (= tongue, Lat. lingua) > PS inzū-ka- > LCS jezyku.
Detail: PIE -s > PS -x (guttural - not ks): PS damux (Lat. domus) > LCS domu.
OCS nouns had a dual and the adjectives had a definite form in addition to their normal form. The definite was formed in PS by appending -iax, -iā, -iam (Lat. is, ea, id).
The paper uses lots of diacritics, both on vowels and on consonants, without defining them, apparently relying on an unspecified transcription.
The verb has five classes, each subdivided into one to three subclasses, and is described in considerable detail.
15. Baltic: Place names in Central Europe suggest that about 1500 BC the Balts as a people lived in an area roughly the size of the Black Sea around the position of present-day Moscow.
The author emphasizes the conservative IE character of the Baltic languages by frequent comparisons to Hittite etc. The time line of the developments of the Baltic languages can be determined by considering if Latin or German loans are involved. The word order in the modern languages is SVO but in rural areas and folk tales it is still SOV.
The many diacritics are not explained; the pitch accent is described, but too briefly. But morphology is covered amply, as expected. (Wikipedia: the hooks under vowels used to indicate nasalization (as in Polish), but today signal length, as does the macron; the long i is * %written y, to avoid an ugly hook under the i or a macron over it. The hooks under the consonants (or over the g) indicate palatalization. The dot over the e turns it into a closed (high) e, as opposed to the * %normal e, which is open. The accents and tilde indicate pitch, but pitch is no longer an issue in urban Lithuania, and they are not normally written. The hacek over the sibilants has the standard meaning.)
16. Albanian: From the fact that writers used similar spelling conventions already in the first extant books in Albanian from around the end of the 16-th century, the author concludes that writing tradition started much earlier.
The southern dialect, Tosk, differs from the northern in rhotacism of intervocalic n, which in the north causes nasalization of the preceding * %vowel. The author takes great pains to derive Albanian words from PIE, a sometimes difficult task, f.e. Alb. dore" (=hand) < PIE g^her- (cf. Gr. cheir). The three PIE tectals get different representations in Albanian: k^ > th; k > k/q; kw > s, which may then undergo further developments.
Many morphological processes involve umlaut (not written with an actual umlaut): plak = old, plur. pleq, where the old plural ending -i shows both in the umlauting of a to e and in the palatalization of the k to q. Similar effects are found in the verb, mainly based on ablaut.
Albanian still has three genders, but neuter differs from masc. only in that its accusative is equal to its nominative. So a two-gender description is quite possible. There is a rather unsuccessful attempt to explain the prefixed and postfixed article: the 'prefixed' article actually follows the noun it agrees with; and although there is an example 'the book of the pupil', there isn't 'a book of the pupil', 'the book of a pupil' or 'a book of a pupil', so the effects are difficult to observe. Details of the verb system are described briefly in two pages. The system itself and the conjugations are not explained and are apparently assumed to be known, which makes this section less than useful.
In summary an uneven book, as can be expected for 16 different authors; the sections on PIE and Latin stand out as superb, and the ones on Albanian and Tocharian are the least satisfactory, but even these are not disappointing. In total a very worthwhile book.

* Ekaterina Gruzdeva, "Nivkh", Lincom Europa, Munchen, 1998, pp. 66.
Concentrates on two dialects of Nivkh: Amur and East-Sakhalin. They differ about as much as Dutch and (real) Flemish. One problem with this book is that only occasionally does the author indicate from which dialect a given example is taken; this keeps the reader guessing and looking for clues (doable). It turns out Nivkh is a language with simple and systematic morphology, somewhat like Turkish, hence the modest size of the book. One peculiarity is that even endings contain highly marked consonants, for example the ħ; this is cross-linguistically rare. An example is the ending X-roħ = into X, but the riddle is soon solved: as a noun roħ means "inside", and the "endings" are actually compounds, possibly in the process of fossilization.

* Nobuo Akiyama, Carol Akiyama, "Japanese at a Glance (Paperback)", Barron's Educational Series, 1998, pp. 464.

* Stephen Oppenheimer, "Eden In The East", Weidenfield and Nicolson, London, 1998, pp. ???.
sci.lang: Sumerian as a closest relative to Uralic.

* Andrew Dalby, "Dictionary of Languages", Bloomsbury, London, 1998, pp. 734.

* Georgii Andreevich Klimov, "Etymological Dictionary of the Kartvelian Languages", Trends in Linguistics, Doc. 16, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1998, pp. 504.
Price $236.25

* Margaret Khacikjan, "The Elamite Language", Istituto per gli studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici; Consiglio Nazionale delle Richerche, Roma, 1998, pp. 100. (Documenta Asiana , 004). Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten ; Bibliotheek

* Vladimir E. Orel, "Albanian Etymological Dictionary", 1998, Brill Academic,
Price: $243.00

* T. Burrow, M.B. Emeneau, "A Dravidan Etymological Dictionary", pp. 574. 1998, South Asia Books,
Price: $82.95 Complete and systematic record of the whole available Dravidian vocabulary. Covers 4 major lit. languages.

* John Lynch, "Pacific Languages -- An Introduction", University of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu, 1998, pp. 359.

* Tony Wolf, "Il Dizionario dei più piccoli", Dami, Milano, 1998, pp. 128.

* Laurie Bauer, Peter Trudgill (Eds.), "Language Myths", Penguin Books, 1998, pp. 188.

* Dick Grune, "Burushaski: An Extraordinary Language in the Karakoram Mountains", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 1998, pp. 40.
Covers the phonetics, the grammar of nouns, adjectives and verbs, the syntax and the numerals of the Yasin dialect of Burushaski, in an informal though detailed style. Possible parallels with the Yeniseian language Ket are pointed out. The Hunza dialect of the language is introduced in a short comparison. A small annotated bibliography concludes the booklet.

* Joseph Biddulph, "An Introduction to Malagasy -- The Language of Madagascar", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 1997, pp. 32. Confusing account of a remarkable language, in spite of the author's efforts to make things clear. Understanding is not helped by the fact that words often are translated only the first time; this is especially a problem since Malagasy words change both at their fronts and at their ends, as in Welsh, so related forms are often hard to recognize, f.e. mamonóa = 'kill!' vs. vonòy ny omby = 'the ox must be killed', from mono = 'to kill'. Also, the accent system is not explained, but is apparently significant: àzy = 'him, her', ázy = 'them'.
Word order is VOS. There are three voices, active, passive and instrumental, which place in subject position the actor, the patient and the instrument, resp., similar to Tagalog.

* "Hopi Dictionary: Hopìkwa Lavàytutuveni -- A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect", Hopi Dictionary Project (Compiler), Emory Sekaquaptewa (Editor), Univ. of Arizona Press, 1997, pp. 900.

* R.L. Trask, "The History of Basque", Routledge, 1997, pp.
sci.lang: I should point out that Trask is a specialist in Basque, not just a free-lance comparativist. He is good at demonstrating the sheer incompetence of most of the attempts to demonstrate external relations of the language. The possibility of remote relationships can't be ruled out of course, but none of the attempts has produced anything at all convincing. Of course, Trask is at the skeptical end of the scale. If you want the other end, look for web sites by Edo Nyland, who has developed a method of showing that _any language whatsoever_ is derived from Basque.:)

* "Bescherelle -- 1. La Conjugaison pour tous", in French: Conjugation for everybody, Hatier, Paris, 1997, pp. (not numbered).
All the ins and outs of the French verb.

* "Bescherelle -- 2. L'Orthographe pour tous", in French: Spelling for everybody, Hatier, Paris, 1997, pp. (not numbered).
All the ins and outs of French spelling.

* "Bescherelle -- 3. La Grammaire pour tous", in French: Grammar for everybody, Hatier, Paris, 1997, pp. (not numbered).
All the ins and outs of French grammar.

* Anatole V. Lyovin, "An Introduction to the Languages of the World", Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1997, pp. 491.
The purpose of this book is to teach languages; some linguistics is taught in the process, but the emphasis is on languages. The main body of the book consists of six chapters, one for each continent (Oceania is grouped with Australia), and one for pidgin languages. The surrounding material consists of chapters on classification of languages and writing systems, and a set of language maps.
Each chapter in the main body starts with a summary of the languages found in the region concerned, followed by "sketches" of two languages from the region; exercises introducing a few more languages and selected literature references conclude the chapter. This approach gives quite a balanced view of the languages of the world.
The languages featured are: Europe: Russian and Finnish (with exercises about Turkish and Sanskrit); Asia: Mandarin Chinese and Classical Tibetan (+ Hmong and Japanese); Africa: Modern Literary Arabic and Swahili (+ !Xũ (Khoisan)); Oceania: Hawaiian and Dyirbal (+ Tagalog, Fijian and Buang (Papuan)); Americas: Yup'ik (Eskimo) and Quechua (+ Hixkaryana, Aztec, and Huave); Pidgin and Creole: Tok Pisin (+ Hawaiian Creole English). Each "sketch", which is actually a description of reasonable depth, covers the background, phonetics, morphology, and syntax of the language, in about twenty pages. This knowledge is then applied to analyse a small (about fifteen sentences) text; the analysis consists of a literal morpheme-by-morpheme translation, explanatory notes and a translation to normal English. These sketches are of high quality; seriously working your way through such a "sketch" gives one a good grasp of the language and may well allow one to decipher simple texts in it, using a dictionary. The treatment of the languages in the exercises is of course much more restricted.
The chapter in pidgins and creoles has this same structure, and Tok Pisin (Talk Pidgin) gets the same treatment as, for example, Finnish or Quechua. It is remarkable how much Tok Pisin looks like a normal language under this treatment, even though it is evident that the English original is never far away: Dispela man i kam asde em i papa bilong me = This-fellow man he come yesterday him he father belong me = This man who came yesterday is my father.
In summary this book gives the student/reader some knowledge of a very wide range of languages and their features, supplemented by more in-depth knowledge of a dozen or so specific languages; a good combination it seems to me.
Having finished the book I came away with the intuitive impression that actually all languages are the same. For example, some languages have prepositions, some have postpositions, and others have case endings, and so on, but even these differences repeat themselves so often that they become next to meaningless.

* Albert Borg, Marie Azzopardi-Alexander, "Maltese", London, Routledge, 1997, pp. 395. Descriptive grammars,

* Steven Roger Fischer, "Glyphbreaker", Copernicus/Springer-Verlag, New-York, pp. 234. 1997,
Consists of two parts, one about the Phaistos Disk and the other about Rongorongo.
A decipherment of the Phaistos Disk is offered as follows: 1. One glyph, PD 12, is given the semantic value "and" because it is used very often as a connective. 2. Glyphs that resemble Linear B glyphs are given their Linear B values. 3. Given 2, names of Mediterranean tribes are discerned in the text, yielding more glyph values. 4. A few more glyphs suggest the text is basically Greek. 5. The pictures of still unknown glyphs were translated to Greek and then reduced to one syllable. 6. Mapping rules from Greek to the syllabary were devised. Running these rules in reverse allows a text in an ancient form of Greek to be constructed. 7. The resulting text is a call to arms for the impending invasion of the Carians.
The arguments are reasonably convincing, and the decipherment might be correct. There are three problems with it. 1. The mapping is so loose that one suspects any kind of text could be retrofitted to the Disk, but that might be more difficult than it seems. 2. The Minoans wrote Linear A, which certainly is not Greek, ancient or otherwise. The author makes a feeble attempt to turn it into Greek anyway. 3. There are five, very similar very short inscriptions in glyphs similar to those of the Phaistos Disk; they seem to translate into "belonging to Sara", where the author suggests that Sara is an old form of Hera, which it may be.
The Rongorongo sticks are deciphered as follows. 1. The last person to claim to be able to read Rongorongo, Daniel Ure Va'e Iko had recited from them, and much of his recitation has been taken down. This text was analysed, and contains mainly of "X and Y begot Z". 2. Rongorongo consists of about 55 different glyphs, most of which also occur with a phallic extension. 3. This phallic extension is taken to be an end-of-line marker, or a representation of "begot". 4. The Rongorongo sticks are memory devices for reciting the story of creation. The pictures mainly represent the objects they represent, or abstracta that sound similar in Old Rapanui.
Sounds quite reasonable, and seems to explain all the known facts.

* Heinrich Werner, "Die ketische Sprache", Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, Tunguso-Sibirica, ISSN 0946-0349 ; Bd. 3, 1997, pp. 405.

* "Das Jugische (Sym-Ketische)", Heinrich Werner, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1997, Veroffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica Bd. 50., pp. ???.

* George L. Campbell, "Handbook of Scripts and Alphabets", Routledge, London, 1997, pp. 131.
Excerpt from Campbell's Compendium of the World's Languages (1991).

* "Mangajin", Vol 68: Micro-Brewing Catches on in Japan, in Japanese/English, Sept. 1997, pp. 96.

* Igor M. Diakonoff, "External connections of the Sumerian language", Mother Tongue -- Journal of the Association for the Study of Language in Prehistory, III, Dec. 1997, pp. 54-62.

* D. Michael Job, Rieks Smeets, "Volume 3, The North East Caucasian Languages, Part I", The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Caravan Books, Delmar, N.Y.,

* Roy Andrew Miller, "Languages and History -- Japanese, Korean, and Altaic", 1996, pp. 244.
Highly polemic discussion of the deplorable state of affairs in the research of Altaic, in which all opponents are eloquently and mercilessly put to the sword, in rolling paragraph after paragraph. Very amusing, but in all this expert lambasting the matter at hand --the relationship between Altaic, Korean, and Japanese-- sometimes gets pushed into the background, or worse, delegated to a reference to one of the author's other works.
Still, sifting the linguistics from the chaff, many interesting etymologies can be uncovered. The most impressive is the solution to the problem why scribes of Old Korean used the Chinese character shih (= death) to mark words which in Middle and Modern Korean end in an l. The author shows that Proto-Altaic r2 tends to be represented by s or sh in peripheral languages, and elsewhere as l. Taking the use of sh by the Old Korean scribes at face value, he then concludes Old Korean had developed sh from Proto-Altaic r2 by one historical route, and Middle Korean had obtained l from r2 by another historical route, which means that Old Korean is not the exact precursor to Middle Korean [just as Latin is not the exact precursor to Italian (Italian preserves duals like le braccia (= the arms), which Latin had already lost) DG]. In short, the Old Koreans did say kish for modern kil (= road), but the l did not derive from the sh: both derived from Proto-Altaic r2. The argument is then extended to relate Korean pyeol (= star) to Old Japanese posi, Modern Japanese hoshi.
Among the chapters are "Japanese and Korean in Altaic", "Altaic in Japanese and Korean", and "Borrowings", which shows how knowledge about the cultures can help identify borrowings. The book has two excellent indexes, one general, and one with the words from the various languages, ordered by language.
Note: The author explains the German umlaut as a form of vowel harmony: G. der Mann, die Maänner, but this runs into trouble with @t[des Mannes]. How is the e in -er different from the e in -es? Synchronically it isn't, but of course diachronically it once was, -iz vs. -es. So in a historical sense, the German umlaut could be considered a form of vowel harmony, although it would have to be regressive.

* Joseph Biddulph, "A Handbook of West Country Brythonic -- Old Devonian", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 1996, pp. 36.
Extremely hypothetical reconstruction of the Celtic language spoken in Devon around 700 AD, based on the analysis of place names and developmental processes in Cornish and Breton. Being a reconstruction it is more stylized than an actual language and as such it gives a good -but necessarily overly simple- impression of a Celtic language.
Name: West Country Brythonic -- Old Devonian.
Affiliation: Celtic.
Status: hypothetical reconstruction. Location: Devon, about 700 AD.
Phonetics: consonants: the usual + th (as in "thin"), dh (as in "there"), ch (as in "loch"); vowels: 5, short.
Nouns: gender: masc. , fem.; number: 2, + dualis by prefixing dou-, for pairs; cases: none possessor indication: by juxtaposition: tir dafat = land of sheep; mutations (pt, etc.) occur in several positions.
Pre/postpositions: pre-; combine with the pronouns: ar = on, arnaf = on me.
Pronouns: mi = I, ti = you, ef = he, it hi = she, ni = we, hui = you all, i = they.
Verbs: often with infinite and auxiliary.
Word order: VSO?
Relative clauses: connected with a, or negatively with nak.

* Paul Kekai Manansala, "The Austric Origin of the Sumerian Language", Language Forum, 22, #1-2, 1996, pp. 9-28.
Impressive list of possible cognates, without sound correspondences. But maybe the only thing the list proves is that it is always possible to find a Sumerian-looking word of similar meaning in one or more of the hundreds of Austric languages (the author even includes Japanese occasionally!). Needs solid statstics, badly; or systematic sound correspondences. Skip the skull measurements.

* P. David Seaman, "Hopi dictionary -- Hopi-English, English-Hopi, Grammatical Appendix", Northern Arizona University Anthropological Papers No. 2., Dept. of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz., 1996, pp. 208.

* Peter Ladefoged, Ian Maddieson, "The Sounds of the World's Languages", Oxford, Blackwell, 1996,

* R.L. Trask, "Historical Linguistics", London, Arnold, 1996, pp.
sci.lang: If you want to know about how things like reconstruction work in real science, the best would be to read a textbook on historical linguistics. I can recommend Larry Trask's "Historical Linguistics", which also discusses "long range" matters such as Nostratic and Proto-World in the final chapter.

* Marc Okrand, "The Klingon Way", Pocket Books Startrek, New York, 1996, pp. 214.

* Clive Upton, J.D.A. Widdowson, "An Atlas of English Dialects", Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996, pp. 193.

* Hugh Van Skyhawk, Hermann Berger, Karl Jetmarr, "Libi Kisar -- ein Volksepos im Burushaski von Nager", Asiatische Forschungen ; Bd. 133, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1996, pp. 231.

* Terry Crowley, "An Introduction to Historical Linguistics", 2nd Edn., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996, pp. ???.

* Cefas van Rossem, Hein van der Voort, "Die Creol Taal -- 250 years of Negerhollands texts", Amsterdam Univ. Press, Amsterdam, 1996, pp. 325.
Negerhollands, like Afrikaans, derives from the colonization by the Dutch, in this case of the island of St. Thomas in the Caribbean. The Dutch arrived around 1670, imported slaves, but abandoned the island soon afterwards. The slave population continued to use Dutch, which now developed independently of Dutch. The language was thought to have died out in the 1940s, but around 1980 a last speaker, Mrs. Alice Stevens, was found, and research was reopened.
Negerhollands differs about as much from Dutch as Afrikaans does, and has undergone some similar simplifications; it is about equally readable to a Dutchman as Afrikaans is: 80% of the text is understood immediately, and another 10% can be figured out. Remarkably, the handwriting specimens are easily readable.
The book features a historical introduction, some linguistic considerations, and all known texts with morphological and English translation; no grammar, no dictionary.

* John Mook, Kimberley O'Neil, "Trekking in the Karakoram and Hindukush", Lonely Planet, Hawthorn, Australia, 1996, pp. 322.
Contains short (about 50 words, 30 phrases and 20 numerals) vocabularies of Urdu, Balti, Burushaski, Kalasha, Khowar, Shina, and Wakhi (Xikwor). And of course descriptions of dozens of foot trips and tons of advice.

* Jonathan Lotan, "From A to Aleph -- 3 steps to Writing in Hebrew", Qualum Publ., London, 1996, pp. 182.
The Hebrew alphabet explained as a contorted Roman alphabet and vice versa.

* E.J. Furnée, "Etruskische etymologie; de Kartveelse these bevestigd", in Dutch: Etruscan Etymology -- The Kartvelian Hypothesis Confirmed, Furnée, Den Haag, 1996, pp. 186.
Mainly a list of 752 etyma, about 90% of them proper names. The Kartvelian hypothesis is explained in previous books by Furnée (1993, 1992, 1992, and primarily 1990): Proto-Kartvelian (reconstructed Proto-Old-Georgian, about 1800 BC) and Etruscan (oldest forms about 600 BC) are hypothesized to have a not too distant common ancestor, Proto-Tyrrhenian (perhaps 3000 BC or so), which can be reconstructed by examining the children.
Source of Proto-Kartvelian was Fähnrich and Sardzhveladze, "Etymological Lexicon of the Kartvelian Languages" (in Georgian) (Tbilisi, 1990), of Etruscan Rix "Etruskische Texte" (Tübingen, 1991).
Two dominant features of the Kartvelian hypothesis.
1. As in Georgian and Svan, sa-, a- and la- are prefixes, which are followed by the stem; often this stem is again followed by some suffix, which leaves it in zero grade. As a result the root of an Etruscan word is often the consonant cluster in the middle; this is also suggested by the not infrequent occurrence of names with identical consonant clusters, for example Nucrtele, \('Sacrtuna, Cretlu, and Crutlunia; or Secne, Lecne; and many others. As an example, the Etr. name Satre is analysed as sa-tr-e, and the root -tr- is identified as tur- = to give, which leads to the meaning of the name: Giver, Giver of Gifts. With a different suffix this yields sa-tr-ne, from which Lat. Saturnus is then derived, for which a Proto-Indo-European derivation seems to be lacking (etymon 488).
Another example is the Etr. name Acle = a-cl-e, from PKartv. -k.l- = to kill, which makes Acle = Butcher; this may find confirmation in two known E. words: Calu = god of death (with part. pres. in -u, and cleva = sacrifice (cp. Georg. sa-k.l-avi = sacrificial animal), and in the name Thevruclna (thevru-cl-na = bull-kill-family name = Bullkiller) (etyma 23, 119, 162; and pg. 164, Ad p, 22 of Furnée 1993).
An example not involving a name is na-per (a surface measurement) and per-as =? the act of measuring, cp. Georg. per- = to fit (etymon 677).
2. When a PTyrrh. root contains a guttural preceded by a stop, the stop gets aspirated and the guttural disappears (reasonably enough). Example: Etr. auth =? lightning is derived here from PKartv. -deγ- = to shine, or more in particular auth = a-u-th = a-u-dγ = that-which-shines.
The reconstructed meanings of the names are unverifiable; those of the nouns fit. All examples are from word formations; Etr. morphology is based in suffixes and leaves the word intact, as far as we know. So Etruscan is structurally similar to Georgian in word formation only; no skreeves.

* Viacheslav A. Chirikba, "Common West Caucasian", PhD Thesis, Research School CNSW, Leiden, 1996, pp. 452.
Reconstruction of the phonological system and parts of the lexicon and morphology of Common West Caucasian, starting from reconstructions of Common Abkhaz, Common Circassian and Ubykh; since the latter had no direct relatives, external reconstruction of its predecessor is not possible. The above reconstructions are also by the same author, and are based on detailed information about the present languages and dialects, including the Sadz dialect of Abkhaz, recently recovered in Turkey by the author. These reconstructions are also described in the thesis, all in great detail and with many (all?) examples.
In a final chapter the author argues that Hattic was a West-Caucasian language, supplies some 100 etymologies with extensive comments and suggests some new interpretations, especially for some pronouns.

* Tej K. Bhatia, "Colloquial Hindi -- The Complete Course for Beginners", Routledge, London, 1996, pp. 343.
Lots of explanation, and a slow introduction to Devanagari.

* Allan R. Bomhard, "Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis", Charleston, SC, Signum Desktop Publishing, 1996,

* Joseph Biddulph, "Northumbrian and Other Languages of the Old North", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 1995, pp. 36.
History of the languages of North Britain from Roman times to the 13th/14th century, based in part on place names and local inscriptions. Aside from Pictish, which is treated very scantily, the primary dialects of the Old North were Old North Welsh, the precursor to present-day Welsh. In the first centuries AD is gave way to (Irish) Gaelic from the west and Anglo-Saxon from the east. This Old North Welsh is discussed using a poem by Taliesin. The Gaelic was often written in the Ogham alphabet, which is discussed, and Old North welsh and Gaelic are compared.
Northumbrian was the version of Anglo-Saxon spoken in the Old North (different from Mercian in the South). It is written in runes, and discussed using the inscription on the Ruthwell Cross.
The next arrivals were the Vikings, who spoke Old Norse. It is compared to Anglo-Saxon, and the variety of runes in which it was written, including the twig runes, is discussed.
Then came the Normans from Normandy, who spoke Norman French. That language penetrated to the North, witness many Scottish surnames. It is discussed using three stanzas from the Jeu d'Adam (c. 1150).
The last change was effected not by migration but by diffusion, which brought Middle English. A section on the modern dialects of the North close the booklet.

* David Crystal, "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language", Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995, pp. 489.

* Dick Grune, "Hopi -- Survey of an Uto-Aztecan Language (Arizona)", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 1995, pp. 26.
Treats the general structure, phonetics and details like nouns, adjectives, verbs, sentence particles and numerals in an informal fashion.

* "Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik", Wolfram von Soden, 3d ed., Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995, pp. ???.

* George L. Campbell, "Concise Compendium of the World's Languages", Routledge, London, 1995, pp. 670.
Excerpt from Campbell's Compendium of the World's Languages (1991), covering 108 languages.

* Scott Rutherford, "On the Move in Japan", Yenbooks, Tokyo, 1995, pp. 159.

* Antonio Loprieno, "Ancient Egyptian -- A Linguistic Introduction", Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995, pp. 322.
[ with lots of Coptic ]

* Kan Qian, "Colloquial Chinese", Routledge, London, 1995, pp. 345.
Entirely in Pinyin, with tones.

* Mario Cangioni, "Vocabolario della Lingua Italiana", Orsa Maggiore, Rimini, 1995, pp. 470.

* Helma van den Berg, "A Grammar of Hunzib: (With Texts and Lexicon)", München, Lincom Europa, 1995,

* Václav Bla\(vzek, D. Bengtson, "Lexica Dene-Caucasica", Central Asiatic J., 39, 1995, pp. 11-50,161-164.
A set of 219 etymologies linking Basque, Caucasian, Burushaski, Yeniseian, Sino-Tibetan, Na-Dene and occasionally Sumerian, Nahali and Kusunda. The etymologies generally involve 3 to 4 members of the groups mentioned. The time depth of the Dene-Caucasian family is estimated at some 11000 years. A table of sounds correspondences is given. The literature references are ample, to say the least.

* Jacques B.M. Guy, "The incidence of chance resemblances on language comparison", Anthropos 90, 1995, pp. 223-228.
A program is presented that attempts to simulate the mass language comparison process as performed by Greenberg, Ruhlen et al. on random data. The program includes the option to allow semantic shift inside a notion. Parameters of the program are: the number of languages compared, the size of the notion list (called "word list" here), the probability of chance resemblance between two unrelated words, and the size of the semantic domain (the number of subnotions allowed in a notion).
The result shows that when comparing 20 languages, using a notion list of 200 notions, a resemblance chance of 1/250 and a semantic domain of 8 subnotions per notion, we will find about 80 instances of words attested by 4 languages, 12 attested by 5 languages, 1 by 7 languages and next to zero chance of words attested by more than 7 languages. Other parameter sets yield similar results.
The author draws the conclusion that "strongly attested, yet spurious resemblances are certain to occur", and that "language comparison based on a small number of different possibles(!) instantiations, such as word order, tonality, etc., are also certain to yield abundant false evidence for classification". Greenberg, Ruhlen, et. al. would probably agree; as far as I can see they use only words that are attested by at least half the languages, and they certainly do not consider word order or intonation as evidence for classification.

* Jacques B.M. Guy, "Merritt Ruhlen: On the Origin of Languages", book review, Anthropos: revue internationale d'ethnologie et de linguistique, 90, #4-6, 1995, pp. 638-639.
Devastating critique of Merritt Ruhlen: On the Origin of Languages. The author's main gripe is lack of explicit methodology.

* Vladimiro Macchi, "Collins-Sansoni Italian Dictionary: English-Italian-English", Sansoni Editore, Firenze, 1995, c1975, pp. 2277.
Very extensive dictionary, both ways. The author has clearly made a considerable effort to create a dictionary that can be used equally well by English and Italian users. Some features are: extensive examples of word usage, stress indicated in all words; fully bilingual instructions; irregular English and Italian verb lists; full pronunciation of the English and indication of open and closed e and o in the Italian part. It seems to me that the English is predominantly British English.

* B. George Hewitt, "Georgian: a structural reference grammar", Amsterdam, Benjamins, 1995,

* Alice C. Harris, Lyle Campbell, "Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective", Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995,

* Martin B. Atchison, "Dobuan Grammar", ed. by Raoul Zamponi, Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 1995, pp. 56.
Remarkably detailed grammar (36 pages) of Dobuan, followed by 14 pages of "How to Say it Dobuan". Dobuan is a Melanesian language spoken on the islands at the easter-most tip of Papua New Guinea. Its relatedness to Hawaiian can be recognized, but not easily; Dobuan seems more complicated.
Name: Dobuan
Affiliation: Melanesian / Milne Bay
Location: D'Entrecasteaux Islands, Papua New Guinea
Phonetics: all syllables have the form CV; consonants: usual + glottal stop; b, g, k, m, p, and the glottal stop can be labialized in front of a and e; vowels: the usual 5 + some diphthongues.
Nouns: gender/classes: none; number: 2, expressed only when not obvious otherwise; cases: see pre/postpositions. possessor indication: there are 3 levels of possession, just ownership, indicated by possessive pronouns of the i- series (i-gu kedewa = my dog), personal items, using pronouns of the a- series (a-gu masula = my food), and inalienable, using suffixes (deba-gu = my head).
Pre/postpositions: by suffixes; these suffixes also combine with the pronouns: eguya = to me, emuya = to you for the suffix -ya = towards.
Pronouns: ya = I, u = you, i = he, she, it, ta = we (I+you), a = we (we-you), wa = you all, si = they (m), they (f), they (n).
Adjectives: most derive from verbs; they follow the noun, except for the demonstratives.
Verbs: three tenses, past, present, future; the "regular" verb with root R has past R-na, present RR, and future rR, where r is the reduplicated first syllable of R: sapina, sapisapi, sasapi = to hit; the object is suffixed to the verb using the possessive suffixes.
Word order: sentences tend to end in SV, but other parts of speech may surround them.

* J. Dubois, H. Mitterand, A. Dauzat, "Dictionnaire étymologique et historique du français", Larousse, 1995,c1964, pp. 824.

* Martin Orwin, "Colloquial Somali -- A Complete Language Course", Routledge, London, 1995, pp. 295.
Fourteen extensive lessons, each containing a dialog, grammatical explanations, vocabulary, reading and translation exercises and notes. With tables of conjugations (which clearly show its relation to Hebrew) and a 30-page dictionary.

* Ho-Min Sohn, "Korean", Routledge, 1994, pp. 584.
Encyclopedic work on the modern Korean language, couched in terms of the Lingua Questionnaire (such descriptions are usually published in the Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars Series, but this book does not mention them). Its main --but very serious-- drawback is the use of the Yale transcription in the total absence of Hangeul. (See Sohn's 1999 book for my opinion of the Yale transcription.)

* David Cohen, "Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques", Fascicule 1: '/H - 'TN, Peeters, Brussels, 1994, pp. xxxiv + 36.
Not an etymological dictionary, but does not claim to be one; it's a list of almost exclusively triliteral roots, with their occurrences in the Semitic languages where they exist; occasionally possible Egyptian and/or Berber cognates are given. Much material for study, nothing in the way of analysis; lots and lots of references, though.

* P.J. Hillery, "Georgian -- The Kartvelian Literary Language", Languages Information Centre, Pontypridd, Wales, 1994, pp. 32.
Compact but comprehensive account of the Georgian grammar, with a very accessible treatment of the verb, in 24 pages, all in the Latin alphabet. Next come 5 pages of sample text, in Georgian and in transcription, fully analysed. Material on Old Georgian and a bibliography conclude the book. Unsurprisingly, the print is very small.

* Patrik Bye, "Basque the Mysterious", Languages Information Centre, Pontypridd, Wales, ~1994, pp. 33.
Broad and occasionally in-depth information about the Basque dialects, where Batua ("official Basque") is treated as just another dialect. This approach allows some comparisons, but is more often confusing. Includes thoughts about the provenance of the Basques, and affiliation of the language (tentatively Caucasian).
Name: Basque
Affiliation: unknown
Location: Spain/France
Phonetics: consonants: simple, but x = sh, z = sharp (English) s, s = broad (Spanish) s; vowels: the usual 5.
Nouns: gender/classes: none; number: 2; cases: many (11 to 16), among which an ergative and many location-related ones, as suffixes; possessor indication: using a genitive; nouns are easily formed by suffixes and/or composition, thus limiting the number of roots needed.
Pre/postpositions: covered by the cases.
Pronouns: ni = I, hi = thou, zu = you, hura = he, she, it, gu = we, zuek = you all, haik = they.
Number: 2.
Adjectives: noun + following adjective(s) form a unit to which all suffixes are appended.
Verbs: there are 6 tenses times 4 moods, for a total of 17 combinations. Normally the verb is in an infinitive form, and the auxiliary "to have" or "to be" scoops up subject, indirect object, direct object, tense and mood, all in a single form. This is the basis of the saying "A Basque verb can have 2000 forms", but only the auxiliaries have full conjugations. Only 9 other verbs ("to go", "to take", etc.) have some conjugation. The rest has 4 (regular) infinitives only. The conjugated verbs have different forms for masc. and fem. 2 sg. Using the auxiliary "to be" with a transitive verb constructs a passive form.
Word order: strict, actor (ergative) - indirect object - direct object - infinitive - finite synthetic auxiliary; different, equally strict orders exist for negative sentences and questions.

* Mrs. Sinclair Stevenson, "An Outline of Gujarati", Languages Information Centre, Pontypridd, Wales, ~1994, c1927, pp. 28.
A compilation of rules and tables from Mrs. Sinclair Stevenson book, summarizing the Gujarati grammar; rich in information. The language is similar to Latin or Russian in complexity.
Name: Gujarati
Affiliation: IE/Indic
Location: India
Phonetics: like Hindi
Nouns: gender/classes: masc./fem./neuter; number: 2 cases: 7: nom., acc., erg., dat., abl., loc.; possessor indication: by a genitive which has 3 forms depending on the gender of the object possessed.
Pre/postpositions: post-, preceded by a genitive, but since the postpositions are actually nouns and thus have gender, the form of that genitive depends on the gender of the postposition.
Pronouns: hum = I, tum = you, te = he, she, it, ame = we (excl.), aapane = we (incl.), tame = you all, teo = they.
Adjectives: precede the noun, with which they agree in gender and number, but not in case.
Verbs: many tenses, both indicative and subjunctive; tenses that use the past participle use the ergative construction, as in Hindi.

* "A grammar of Kenya Luo (Dholuo)", Archibald Norman Tucker, Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, Köln, 1994, pp. 626, in 2 vol..
Note: Luo has a complicated phonetic structure and is written in an extended form of the Latin alphabet richly sprinkled with diacritics. The spelling used here is a coarse approximation and should be ignored.
The language --
Name: Luo, Dholuo = Luo language.
Affiliation: West-Nilotic; it is described as "lacking the exotic features of some of its relatives"...
Location: Near Lake Victoria.
Phonetics: Distinguished between dental d and t (written dh and th) and alveolar (d and t). Has the usual 5 vowels, short and long, but in two "categories", open and closed (raised). The the vowels in the root, which is usually CVCV, are of the same category, and prefixes and suffixes match them (category harmony). Luo has 7 tones in long syllables and 8 in short ones, for a total of 9 tones. This gives 150 combinations, all distinguished in the orthography by using diacritics over (for tone), after (for length), and under (for quality) the five vowel letters.
The tonal pattern of Luo is complicated by Downdrift, the gradual lowering of the pitch through a sentence; and Downstep, a syntactic device that for example marks the transition between subject and imperfect verb.
Pronouns: an = I, in = you, en = he/she/it, wan = we, un = you all, gin = they. Forms without the -n are used as prefixes (for subjects) and suffixes (for objects and possessors).
Nouns: have no gender or cases. They can be modified with one of several prefixes to obtain new meanings: dho-luo = Luo language, ja-luo = Luo person. The possessor is indicated by a suffix: leep = tongue, leew-a = my tongue.
Prepositions also get suffixes: kood = with, kood-a = with me, kood-i = with you, kood-e = with him/her/it, kod-wa = with us, kood-u = with you all, kod-gi = with them.
Verbs can be modified with one of several suffixes to obtain a gamut of related meanings. Verbs have prefixes indicating the subject and suffixes for the object: riinggo = to run, a-riinggo = I run, o-riinggo = he/she/it runs, wa-riinggo = we run, etc. With different tones they mean "I ran", etc. With an object: o-nen-a = he/she/it sees me.
Word order: mainly SVO
The book -- Meticulous description of the language, with variants and pronouncements on the certainty of some observations, in technical prose, for the specialist. Part 2 contains a thorough analysis of the tones, a more formal grammar and a word list.

* Rossana McKeane, "Italian Vocabulary Handbook", Berlitz, Oxford, 1994, pp. 245.
Subject-oriented word lists.

* "Langenscheidts Universal-Wörterbuch Rumänisch -- Rumänisch-Deutsch, Deutsch-Rumänisch", Pocket Dictionary, Langenscheidt, Berlin, pp. 397. 1994; c1968,

* R. Alcalay, "The Complete English-Hebrew Dictionary -- A-L, M-Z", Chemed Books -- Yedioth Ahronoth, Brooklyn, N.Y., 1994, pp. 1-2208, 2209-4270.

* R. Alcalay, "The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary", Chemed Books -- Yedioth Ahronoth, Brooklyn, N.Y., 1994, pp. 2932.

* Merritt Ruhlen, "The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue", New York, Wiley, 1994, pp.
In defense of the broad classification of languages of Greenberg and Ruhlen, for the educated layman. Using tables of about 12 words in about 12 languages, the author guides the reader to classify first the families of the Indo-European phylum, then the languages of Asia (including Yukagir as Uralic), Africa, the Americas. Next the reader can identify the super-phyla Eurasian, Dene-Caucasian, Austronesian and Khoisan, the latter two as phylum-isolates. And finally a table (Table 10) shows that all languages of the world are related. The resulting structure is supported by comparison with population DNA data.
There is a polemic discussion of why these ideas have not been universally accepted. The obvious reason, difference over acceptable methodology, is mentioned but not pinpointed precisely. What is lacking in this entire discussion is good statistics. Of course there are correlations, but are they significant?

* "Volume 4, The North East Caucasian Languages, Part II", ed. by Rieks Smeets, in The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Caravan Books, Delmar, N.Y., Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints, 1994,

* Georgij A. Klimov, "Einführung in die kaukasische Sprachwissenschaft", Hamburg, Buske, 1994, pp. 405.

* Laura Lepschy, Giulio Lepschy, "La lingua italiana", translation of: The Italian Language Today, Bompiani, Milano, 1994, 1981, 1977, pp. 234.

* Stefano Lanuzza, "Storia della lingua italiana", Tascabili Economici Newton, Roma, 1994, pp. 93.

* Vincenzo Lo Cascio, Annelies Kooijman, "De taalvos -- Valstrikken in the Italiaanse taal", in Dutch: The Language Buff -- Pitfalls of the Italian Language, Thomas Rap, Amsterdam, 1994, pp. 96.
Humorous account of pitfalls of the Italian Language for the Dutch, including gestures.

* Dana Gall, "Beginner's Romanian", Hippocrene Books, New York, 1994, pp. 105.
[ Type-written ]

* Allan R. Bomhard, John C. Kerns, "The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship", Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 1994, pp. 932. Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs; 74,

engels/duits trefwoord: Nostratic hypothesis; Comparative linguistics
DDC-code: 410
1 plaatsnummer: UBM: H 95-712 (UB Magazijn)
aanvraaginformatie: Uitleenbaar

* Corriejanne Timmers, "Timmers over taal", Auctor, Apeldoorn, 1994, pp. 231.

* Merritt Ruhlen, "On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy", Stanford University Press, Stanford, Ca., 1994, pp. 342.
A collection of fourteen papers of varying nature and polemic content: considerations about genetic classification in general, in which the enemy is not spared; specific etymology lists of the Khoisan, Yeniseian, Na-Dene and Amerind language families; a world-wide pronoun list and a list of 27 world-wide etymologies, some of which are very convincing; and several papers on Amerind, including some very specific etymologies. All this amounts to large quantities of very interesting data, but it is up to the reader to judge their quality; but then, it always is. Zillions of literature references.

* R.W. Renton, J.A. MacDonald, "Scottish Gaelic-English / English-Scottish Gaelic (Dictionary)", New York, Hippocrene Books, 1994, 1979,
Recommended by (MC Morrison).

* Victoria Martsinkyavitshute, "Lithuanian-English/English-Lithuanian Dictionary", Hippocrene, New York, 1993, pp. 382.

* "La langue maltaise -- études syntaxiques d'un dialecte arabe "périphérique"", Martine Vanhove, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1993, pp. 533.

* Etienne Tiffou, et. al., "Hunza proverbs", Calgary, University of Calgary Press, 1993,

* E.J. Furnée, "Etruskisch en Burushaski: vijf opstellen", in Dutch: Etruscan and Burushaski -- Five Essays, Leiden, The Hakuchi Press, pp. 172. 1993,
Compilation of five earlier essays by the author: Etruscan -- Once More (1990), Four understandable lines of Etruscan? (1991), Burushaski -- Member of a Family? (1991), Prefixing in Proto-Burushaski (1992), and Proto-Tyrrhenian -- Precursor to Etruscan and Lemnian (1992).

* Martin Haspelmath, "A Grammar of Lezgian", Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1993,

* Boyd Robertson, Iain Taylor, "Gaelic: A Complete Course for Beginners", Teach Yourself, 1993, London, Hodder & Stoughton,
Recommended by (MC Morrison). This book also comes with two audio tapes.
B.Lueke ( writes: This is an excellent book for beginners....assumes you know nothing but is very thorough. Comes with two cassettes to accompany the pronunciation exercises in the book. I just recently got this and I'm really impressed with its thoroughness.

* Bernard Leeman, "Ongamoi (KiNgassa) -- A Nilotic Remnant of Kilimanjaro", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 1993, pp. 20.
In spite of its title, out of the 20 pages of this booklet, 5 pages are about Kanuri (Nilo-Saharan), Luo (West Nilotic) and Karamojong (East Nilotic); 5 are about Nandi (South Nilotic); 4 contain a word list of Ongamoi (again East Nilotic); and 3 are comparative word lists of Chagga (a Bantu language(!)). Each of them interesting enough, but it took me some detective work to find all this out.

* Winfred P. Lehmann, "Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics", London, Routledge, 1993, pp. 324.
For each aspect of our knowledge of Proto-Indo-European, historical backgrounds, present opinions and Lehmann's own opinion are given. His own main point is that Proto-Indo-European (or even Pre-Indo-European) was an active language (distinguishing between active and stative verbs and nouns), and that properties of such languages shed valuable light on the Indo-European dialects.

* Roderick Mackinnon, "Gaelic", Lincolnwood, Ill., NTC Pub. Group, 1993, pp. 324.
Successor to Roderick Mackinnon, Gaelic (Teach Yourself Books), Hodder and Stoughton Ltd?

* Joseph Biddulph, "A Short Ibo Grammar", Languages Information Centre, Pontypridd, Wales, 1992, pp. 20.
Short but very concentrated sketch of the grammar of Ibo. Tones are explained in the last few pages, but used sparingly elsewhere in the booklet.
Name: Ibo
Affiliation: Atlantic Niger-Congo (i.e. very remotely related to the Bantu languages).
Location: Nigeria
Phonetics: consonants: usual + gb, kp; vowels: 7: open and closed e and o; tones: 2, high and low.
Nouns: gender/classes: no gender, but can be expressed when needed; number: a few words have a number distinction, but plural can be expressed when needed; cases: none, but many prepositions; possessor indication: juxtaposition or with nke = "of".
Pre/postpositions: Pre.
Pronouns: mu = I, ngi = you, o = he, she, it, ayi = we, unu = you all, fa = they.
Adjectives: a few important ones precede the noun, most follow it.
Verbs: The verb system is three-dimensional: it has tenses: indefinite, present, past, perfect, pluperfect and future; a continuous and non-continuous aspect; and positive or negative. This leads to 12 combinations, each expressed by suffixes to the verb. In addition there is a subjunctive, an irrealis, and a positive and negative imperative. The verb form is not conjugated for subject, except in the first person singular (!); the object pronoun can, however, be suffixed. There is an impersonal, which is used to produce a passive: a-kpò-lu-m = someone call perfect-tense me = I was called.
Word order: SVO
Relative clauses: using na = that, ka = so that, or leaving the particle out, like in English.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Meet me at Windhoek: Notes on Four Bantu Languages of Namibia -- Herero, Ndonga, Kwanyama, Dhimba", Languages Information Centre, Pontypridd, Wales, 1992, pp. 24.
As it says in the title, fairly unsystematic notes on the subject languages.

* E.J. Furnée, "Proto-Tyrrheens -- Voorloper van Etruskisch en Lemnisch", in Dutch: Proto-Tyrrhenian -- Precursor to Etruscan and Lemnian, E.J. Furnée, Den Haag, 1992, pp. 35.
Part I: As a rebuttal to Gordeziani's argument that it is unlikely that Etruscan is related to Kartvelian because K. works with prefixes and E. does not (a dubious argument, it seems to me), the author suggests 10 Etruscan prefixes, used in 20 etyma, and relates them to Proto-Tyrrhenian (closely related to Proto-Kartvelian) forms.
Part II: A few more Proto-Tyrrhenian to Etruscan sound laws, of which initial z1 → Etr. \(vs seems the most promising.

* E.J. Furnée, "Prefigering in het Proto-Buru\(vsaski", in Dutch: Prefixing in Proto-Burushaski, E.J. Furnée, Den Haag, 1992, pp. 37.
The hypothesis is that the Proto-Kartvelian prefix s1a- is represented by s- or l- in Burushaski (as it is represented by sa- or la- in the Kartv. language Svan); (the nature of the Proto-Kartv. s1 series is controversial, but lateral sibilants is not an unreasonable suggestion).
On the basis of this, initial s- or l- is removed from Burushaski words or stems, and Proto-Kartv. cognates are sought for the remainder. This yields between 45 and 50 etyma.

* "Korean-English English-Korean Dictionary", Hippocrene Practical Dictionary, Hippocrene, New York, 1992, pp. 364.
Actually English-Korean (pg. 7-273) Korean-English (pg. 276-343). Much more limited (certainly in the Korean-English department) than Minjung's Pocket dictionary. Its only advantage over Minjung is its somewhat larger and very clear Korean type font. No transcription; no explanations in English.

* David C. Gross, "English-Yiddish Yiddish-English Dictionary", Hippocrene, New York, 1992, pp. 146.

* Jacqueline Picoche, "Dictionnaire étymologique du Français", Le Robert, Paris, 1992, pp. 619.

* Vladimir Bagatelj, Toma\(vz Pisanski, Damiana Ker\(vzi\(vc, "Automatic clustering of languages", Comp. Linguistics, 18, #3, Sept. 1992, pp. 339-352.

* Jack Halpern, "NTC's New Japanese-English Character Dictionary", National Textbook Comp. / Kenkyusha Ltd., Lincolnwood, Ill., 1993, pp. 1992.
Contains 3587 character descriptions. For each character the following information is given in about half a page: The printed character, stroke composition, Chinese version, frequency/radical information, basic meaning, a dozen or so ON compounds, some KUN constructions, synonyms and homonyms, information about usage.
The access system does not use radicals but is based on the general pattern of the character. An index using radicals is provided. Many other appendices and indices.
Fewer characters than Nelson and far fewer compounds, but more information on the character itself. More a dictionary of characters than a dictionary of Japanese. A useful addition to Nelson.

* H. Beem, "Resten van een Taal -- Woordenboekje van het Nederlandse Jiddisch", in Dutch: Remains of a Language -- Glossary of Dutch Yiddish, Nederlands-Israelitisch Kerkgenootschap, Van Gorcum, Assen, the Netherlands, pp. 154. 1992,

* Marijke van der Wal, Cor van Bree, "Geschiedenis van het Nederlands", in Dutch: History of the Dutch Language, Het Spectrun, Utrecht, 1992, pp. 494.

* A. Turnbull, "Nepali Grammar & Vocabulary", Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1992, c 1927, pp. 185.

* Bríd Bean Oireachtaigh, "Foclóir -- English-Irish-English Dictionary", C.S. Ó Fallúin, Baile Átha Cliath, 1992, pp. 80.
Entirely in Irish; includes some Irish verb paradigms, for speakers of Irish.

* Marc Okrand, Michael Dorn, "Conversational Klingon", Audio CD, Audioworks, Simon & Schuster, London, 1992, pp. 1h.

* John J. Torikashvili, "Georgian-English English-Georgian Dictionary", Pocket Dictionary, Hippocrene Books, New York, 1992, pp. 347.
Rather a vocabulary than a dictionary. Georgian-English in Georgian script + transcription, English-Georgian in Georgian script only. No grammar.

* Allan R. Bomhard, "The Nostratic Macrofamily (with special reference to Indo-European)", Word, 43, pp. 61-83. 1992,

* Fred C. Woudhuizen, "Linguistica Tyrrhenica: A Compendium of Recent Results in Etruscan Linguistics", Amsterdam, Gieben, 1992, pp. 117.
Actually, an interpretation of existing Etruscan texts based on the hypothesis that it is almost Indo-European (but more removed than Hittite). This yields reasonable translations which, however, deviate from the traditional ones. For one thing, it yields a different mapping for the numbers: zal = 1 (cf. semel), whereas main stream has zal = 2.

* Johanna Nichols, "Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time", 1992,

* Henry Cyril Dieckhoff, "A pronouncing dictionary of Scottish Gaelic", Gairm Publications, Glasgow, 1992, 1932, pp. 186.
Based on the Glengarry dialect. Contains 32 pages of phonetic introduction. For each word it gives the traditional spelling, the pronunciation in a special code (explained in the 32 pages), and a translation.

* Tomas De Bhaldraithe, "English-Irish Dictionary", Dublin, An Gum, 1992, 1987, 1959,
Recommended by (MC Morrison).

* Niall O. Donaill, "Foclóir Gaeilge-Bearla", Irish-English Dictionary, Dublin, An Gum, 1992, 1977,
Recommended by (MC Morrison).

* Orrin W. Robinson, "Old English and Its Closest Relatives: A Survey of the Earliest Germanic Languages", Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1992, pp. ???.

* Hermann Berger, "Das Burushaski: Schicksale einer zentralasiatischen Restsprache", in German: Burushaski: Fate of a Central-Asian Language Remnant, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse; Jahrg. 1992, Bericht 1., Heidelberg, 1992, Winter, pp. 25.

* Fred Woudhuizen, "The Language of the Sea Peoples", Amsterdam, Najade Press, 1992, pp. 236. Publications of the Henri Frankfort Foundation; vol. 12,

* Michael Coulson, "Sanskrit -- An Introduction to the Classical Language", Teach Yourself Books, Hodder & Stoughton, Sevenoaks, Kent, 1992, c 1976, pp. 513.
Does not make any effort to make the language any easier: 1. Hardly explains the underlying structure, e.g., does not tell that visarga (h-dot) derives from earlier s, but further on assumes you know. 2. Does not show the paradigms in the text but has them collected in an appendix and talks about them without referring to them (also shows other signs of gross editing). Almost (????) all text is also transcribed. Not suitable for first contact.

* F.A.M. Wiggerman, "Aan de wieg van het schrift -- Mesopotamische spijkerschrifttabletten", Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 1992, pp. 44.

* "The evolution of human languages: proceedings of the Workshop on the Evolution of Human Languages, held August, 1989 in Santa Fe, New Mexico", ed. by John A. Hawkins, ed. by Murray Gell-Mann, Redwood City, Calif., Addison-Wesley, 1992, pp. 361.
Contents: On complex adaptive systems. Complexity and complex adaptive systems / Murray Gell-Mann.
Brain and speech physiology in language evolution. On the evolution of human language / Philip Lieberman
Brain-language coevolution / Terrence W. Deacon
Innateness and function in language universals. / John A. Hawkins
A brief presentation of the generative enterprise / Joseph Aoun
The evolution of linguistic diversity and language families. Preliminaries to a systematic comparison between biological and linguistic evolution / Joseph H. Greenberg
An overview of genetic classification / Merritt Ruhlen
The evolution of complexity in language change. Before complexity / Bernard Comrie
The evolution of linguistic complexity in Pidgin and Creole languages / Suzanne Romaine
Ontogeny and phylogeny. Complexity and language acquisition: influences on the development of morphological systems in children / Elaine S. Andersen.
An approach to the phylogeny of the language faculty / James R. Hurford
Ontogeny and phylogeny: what child language and archaeology have to say to each other / E.J.W. Barber and A.M.W. Peters.

* "Mangajin", Vol 9: The Manga Market, in Japanese/English, Oct. 1991, pp. 80.

* "Dene-Sino-Caucasian languages", in First International Interdisciplinary Symposium on Language and Prehistory, Ann Arbor, 8.-12., Nov. 1988, ed. by Vitaly Shevoroshkin, Bochum, Brockmeyer, 1991, pp. ???.

* R.S.P Beekes, L.B. van der Meer, "De Etrusken spreken", in Dutch: The Etruscans speak, Coutinho, Muiderberg, Neth., 1991, pp. 111.
All authors of books on Etruscan have their own limits to the amount of guessing they are willing to do: Kruse (2008) is very conservative, giving very few translations; Facchetti (2000) is quite liberal, with many almost complete translations; the present authors strike a sober middle, with several translations with many dot-dot-dots in them.
Like Kruse (2008) this book covers the languages of ancient Italy, Etruscan, inscriptions, origins, and a short grammar.

* E.J. Furnée, "Burushaski -- Member of a Family?", E.J. Furnée, The Hague, 1991, pp. 16.
With minimal introduction, the author's technique of finding cognates between Basque and Kartvelian (F. 1989) and between Etruscan and K. (F. 1990) is now applied to Burushaski, resulting in 100 etyma. Example: Bu. tham (= king) cmp. Kartv. txem- = head. The list ends with a few etyma between Burushaski and Etruscan, without Kartv. relations. Furnée would have loved the recently determined Etr. un = you, cmp. Bur. un = you.

* E.J. Furnée, "Vier begrijpelijke regels Etruskisch?", in Dutch: Four understandable lines of Etruscan?, E.J. Furnée, Den Haag, 1991, pp. 12.
Attempt to shed light on two Etr. words of unknown meaning by exploiting the Kartvelian hypothesis put forward in Furnée (1990): mur-ce and tlech-e. It is suggested the latter is related to a Kv. stem t.lik. = to run away; mur-ce from Kartv. mo-rc.-a = to become rich. These meanings lead to a reasonable translation of a 4-line Etr. epitaph. In a very terse appendix the author suggests Kv. relatives for dozens of Etr. words; example: Etr. cleva (= sacrificial animal) with Geo. sa-k.lav-i (id.) from stem k.lav (= to slaugher) from root k.l (= to kill).

* Ekkehart Malotki, "Language as a Key to Cultural Understanding -- New Interpretations of Central Hopi Concepts", Baessler-Archiv, XXXIX, 1991, pp. 43-75.

* Terry Doyle, Paul Meara, "lingo -- How To Learn A Language", BCC Books, London, 1991, pp. 192.

* "English-Cantonese Dictionary", New Asia-Yale in China, Chinese Language Center The Chinese University of Hong Kong Shatin, Hong Kong, 1991, pp.
sci.lang: I have lived in Asia for the past 12 years and am a fluent cantonese speaker. Recommended.

* Greville G. Corbett, "Gender", Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 383.
Publisher's blurp: Gender is a fascinating category, central and pervasive in some languages and totally absent in others. In this new, overall account of gender systems, over 200 languages are discussed, from English and Russian to Archi and Chichewa. More detailed analysis of individual languages provides clear illustrations of specific types of systems. Gender distinction is often based on sex; sometimes this is only one criterion and the gender of nouns depends on other factors (thus "house" is masculine in Russian, feminine in French and neuter in Tamil). On occasion there are equivalent distinctions such as human/non-human, animate/inanimate, where sex is irrelevant.

* Alice C. Harris, "The Kartvelian Languages", The indigenous languages of the Caucasus; vol. 1: Anatolian and Caucasian studies, Delmar, N.Y., Caravan Books, 1991, pp. 556.

* Geoffrey K. Pullum, "The great Eskimo vocabulary hoax, and other irreverent essays on the ...", University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991,

* H. Rix, "Etruskische Texte, 1-2", Tübingen, 1991,

* Natela Sturua, "On the Basque-Caucasian hypothesis", Studia Linguistica, 45, #1/2, 1991, pp. 164-175.
Non-committal inventory of the existing hypotheses.

* Karina Valming, "Introduction to Georgian morphology and simple sentence structures", Studia Linguistica, 45, #1/2, 1991, pp. 2-17.
Name: Georgian (Sakartveli).
Affiliation: South-Caucasian.
Location: Georgia, Caucasus.
Phonetics: plosives and affricates have a voiced / glottalized / aspirated opposition. The usual five vowels.
Nouns: have no gender nor class. Plural formed by suffixing -eb. Seven cases: nominative (stative subject), ergative (active subject), oblique ((in-)direct object), genitive, instrumental, adverbial, vocative; all through suffixes. The case system is bizarre: each of the skreeves (see below) has its own case usage; the above indications are a kind of majority vote.
Pre/postpositions: post.
Pronouns: 3 singular + 3 plural. Some verbs distinguish animate and inanimate subjects and/or objects.
Adjectives: follow nouns, and have their own declination.
Verbs: The full verb form consists of: <preverb> <subject/object> <version> <root> <auxiliary> <tense> <subject/object plurality>. <preverb>+<root> determine the meaning, <version> determines the beneficiary (subject, indirect object or otherwise), <auxiliary> is determined lexically by the <root> and the <tense>. As usual, actual usage varies and these are again majority votes. All forms that share the same <preverb>* <version> <root> <auxiliary> <tense>* are together called a skreeve.
Word order: mainly SOV and SVO

* Reinhard F. Hahn, "Spoken Uyghur", Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1991,

* Joseph Biddulph, "Lithuanian -- A Beginning", Languages Information Centre, Pontypridd, Wales, 1991, pp. 24.
As is the case with much of Biddulph's writings, this booklet has several aims. One is to explain the nature of a highly inflecting language to an English-speaking audience; the author states with some amazement / admiration that words like "bigger" and "biggest" have separate form for two genders, three numbers, and seven cases, in spite of already having a suffix. Another is to show the beauty of the Gothic or German blackletter script, in which older Lithuanian texts are printed, and which features amply in calligraphed form in this booklet. And last but not least some aspects of Lithuanian are presented.
Name: Lithuanian.
Affiliation: Baltic.
Phonetics: consonants: with palatalized versions of most; vowels: five, long and short.
Nouns: 2 genders (masc. fem.), 3 numbers (sing. dual. plur.), 7 cases (nom. gen. dat. acc. voc. instr. loc.).
Pre/postpositions: pre-, but mostly cases.
Pronouns: most with 7 cases: asz = I, tu = you, jis = he, ji = she, mudu = we two (m), mudwi = we two (f), judu = you two (m), judwi = you two (f), més = we, jús = you all, jie = they (m), jos = they (f).
Adjectives: with forms for all genders, numbers and cases.
Verbs: similar in structure to and about as complex as the French verb.
Word order: SVO

* "The Coptic encyclopedia", ed. by Aziz S. Atiya, New York, Macmillan, 1991,

* Philip E. Ross, "Hard Words", Scientific American, #264.4, April 1991, pp. 138-147.

* Henri Adamczewski, "Le Français Déchiffré", in French: French Decrypted, Armand Colin, Paris, 1991, pp. 415.

* Jan-Olof Svantesson, "Språk och skrift i Öst- och Sydöstasien", in Swedish: Language and Writing in East and Southeast Asia, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 1991, pp.
poser@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: Provides an introductory survey of the languages and writing systems of East and Southeast Asia. Deals with the geographical distribution of the languages, their linguistic relationships, language structure, and writing systems. Concludes with a brief but helpful and very up to date chapter giving pointers to further reading on the various languages and language families as well as to general works on the languages and writing systems of the world and to relevant bibliographies, in Swedish, English, German, and French.

* George L. Campbell, "Compendium of the World's Languages -- Vol. 1. Abaza to Lusatian, Vol 2. Maasai to Zuni", Routledge, London, 1991, pp. 1574.
Covering about 300 languages.

* Colin P. Masica, "The Indo-Aryan Languages", Cambridge Language Surveys, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991, pp. 539.

* Robert Wright, "Quest for the Mother Tongue", Atlantic, #267.4, April 1991, pp. 39-68.

* Robert Parkin, "A Guide to Austroasiatic Speakers and Their Languages", Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication No. 23, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1991, pp.
poser@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: Gives information on classification, number of speakers, intelligibility with related languages, location and culture. Has extensive bibliography and a dozen maps.

* Merle Horne, ???, "The Caucasian languages", Studia Linguistica - Vol. 45, N, Scandinavian University Press, Lund, 1991,

* Marie-Louise Thomsen, "The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to Its History and Grammatical Structure", 2nd ed., Mesopotamia 10, Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen, 1991, pp. ??.

* Raymond Bloch, "Les Étrusques", in French: The Etruscans, Que sais-je? #645, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1990, c1954, pp. 125.
The eighth edition has copyright 1990, but has not been updated well: the Pyrgi tablets, discovered in 1964 and published in 1970, are mentioned as a recent find without any further explanation.
Covers the origin, history, language, public and private life, religion, and art of the Etruscans. The book is very high-level: it tells about the story, it does not tell the story itself. For example, it makes the point that jewelry from Etruria and from Asia Minor shows considerable similarities, but does not tell what these similarities are. And the language is discussed in 24 pages, but all it shows from the language itself is one short sentence. There is no index.

* J. M. Sadock, "Autolexical Syntax: A Theory of Parallel Grammatical Representations", University of Chicago Press, 1990, pp. 254.
I find it difficult to give a fair summary of this book since I don't particularly like GPSG. My main gripe is that GPSG is so awfully complicated. Since the book regularly explains something and then continues with a phase like "the elucidation of which will also occupy much of what is to follow" (p. 42, bottom), I will only summarize what I understand.
A traditional CF grammar which is capable of describing a large part of a natural language almost inevitably also generates a lot of garbage. F.e., a grammar which generates 'Fido seems to bark' and 'It seems that Fido barks' almost certainly also generates 'Fido seems that he barks'. To prevent such horrors, Autolexical Syntax proposes three grammars for the production of a sentence: a morphological one, a syntactic one, and a semantic one. For a sentence to be acceptable (= well-formed), the three productions must match somehow. The 'somehow' is the problem, and is the subject of the rest of the book. Why this approach is called 'Autolexical' is not explained; and I have no idea.
The following shows how two regular expressions and a matching procedure can produce a context-free (i.e. stronger than regular) result. One regular expression is R1 = a^m b^n, the other R2 = (cd)^k; and the matching procedure is that every a should match a c and v.v.; and likewise for b and d. The first requirement forces m=k and the second n=k. So m=n and the system produces a^n b^n, a context-free set.
Through a similar process the notorious (awkward) Dutch subordinate clause '... dat Jan Piet Marie laat helpen zien' is derived, where R1 is the syntactic component (aaabbb) and R2 the semantic component (ababab).
The matching criteria are specified in an arcane formalism that is not (sufficiently) explained.
The bulk of the book examines many language phenomena, often curious ones, and, after shooting down other proposals, shows how they can be interpreted in Autolexical Syntax. Especially clitics are the author's favorites; why doesn't "Haven't you left" expand to "Have not you left" but to "Have you not left"?
Often the problems solved by Autolexical Grammar seem to me to originate from an upside-down view of the phenomenon. For example, if you take the Russian sentence Fido sabaka (= Fido is a dog) as the basic form, and then claim that the past tense is expressed by a suffix -l, you have no place to put the suffix and you have to bring in "some semantically neutral verb like byt'" (page 36, top) to carry the -l. I prefer the traditional explanation that the present of the copula byt' is ε. (Also, when speaking Hebrew I hear a gap at the place of the ε in my head when I say Bubi kelev = Bubi is a dog.) And calling the English auxiliary verb had in I had not seen him an 'anticipatory clitic' (pg. 67) borders on obfuscation.
Another example is the Japanese word sugiru, which is described as a "derivational suffix" meaning "excessively" (pg. 125). But it is actually just a verb, meaning 'to overdo', with all the properties of a verb, including a past tense sugita (sample text 80). There is a problem/discrepancy only because English usually translates it using an adverb, 'too', or 'excessively'.
Probably the point is that if you view these phenomena in this way, they can be given a place in Autolexical Syntax.
The formalism shows its full strength (morphology, syntax, semantics) in the description of the French particle du, which contracts de and le, even through quotation: Le roi s'amuse => l'auteur du "Roi s'amuse".
It seems to me that much and perhaps all of this is an application of the theorem from Formal Languages which says that any Type 0 language can be generated as the intersection of two CF languages followed by the application of an erasing homomorphism (Salomaa, Formal Languages, 1973, p. 103).
In the weird-construction department I missed the illogical English I can't seem to get it right, where it's not the seeming that you can't do but the getting it right; and the similar Finnish talo-ssa-ni = house-in-my = in my house (cf. Hung a ház-am-ban = the house-my-in).
(And the plural of Dutch vlag (= flag) is vlaggen, not vlagen (p. 187).)

* H.A. Maniku, J.B. Disanayaka, "Say It in Maldivian", Lake House Investments, Male, 1990, pp. 357.
Delightful little book, mainly about the language, but with lots of cultural and historical information.
Name: Dhivehi (Maldivian).
Affiliation: Indic, closely related to Sinhala.
Location: Maldives.
Phonetics: consonants: retroflex s and l, nasalized b, d, dh, g; vowels: 5.
Nouns: gender/classes: animate/inanimate; number: 2; cases: a few postpositions; possessor indication: magey = me-of = my.
Pronouns: ma = I, tha = you, but also aharen = I, kaley = you, plus a three-level politeness system.
Verbs: no conjugation for person, but tens of modi: "because it is said he may not ...", etc. Verb forms are both finite and participle.
Word order: SOV
Relative clauses: using participles.

* E.J. Furnée, "Nogmaals: Het Etruskisch", in Dutch: Etruscan -- Once More, E.J. Furnée, Den Haag, 1990, pp. 42.
In a 4-page introduction the author puts forward the hypothesis that the Kartvelian languages, Etruscan, and Basque are related, roughly in the same way as the Keltic languages, Lydian, and Armenian, and suggests that if the latter three were the only remainders of the IE languages, we would experience the same situation as we now have with Kartvelian, Etruscan, and Basque.
This hypothesis is then supported by 40 lemmata for Etr. words, with their possible Proto-Kv., Georgian/Svan and occasionally Basque relatives. Examples that require little explanation are (1) Etr. sval (= to live), with Geor. sul-i (= soul, ghost), from Proto-Kv. root s1w- = to blow, to breathe, with suffix -al. (36) Etr. tiu (= moon), with Geor. tve (= month). But most have longer explanations.

* Stephen R. Willson, "Verb agreement and case marking in Burushaski", M.A. Thesis, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, 1990,

* Teresita V. Ramos, Resty M. Cena, "Modern Tagalog", University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1990, pp. 173.

* G.B. Milner, "Fijian Grammar", Government Press, Suva, Fiji, 1990, pp. 195.

* John F. Healey, "The Early Alphabet", Reading the Past, British Museum Press, London, 1990, pp. 64.

* William F. Allman, "The Mother Tongue", U.S. News and World Report, 5, Nov. 1990, pp. 60-70.

* John L. Hayes, "A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts", Malibu, Undena, 1990,
Peter D Banos <> writes:
It uses authentic texts from the first lesson; so much of the corpus is formulaic and repetitive that Hayes can get away with this, using lots of examples of the same sentence pattern, introducing variations gradually so before you know it you've learned a fair amount. And there are lots of illustrations to show how the texts look in their original setting.

* Robert Nicolai, "Parentes linguistiques: a propos du Songhay", Paris, Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1990, pp. 209.
basisclassificatie : 18.91 Afrikaanse negertalen plaatsnummer: 110: ATW XI SONGHAY 1; Inst.110: Alg. Taalwetenschap UvA aanvraaginformatie: Uitleenbaar

* Lothar Lutze, Bahadur Singh, "Teach Yourself Hindi -- Patterns and Grammatical Notes", Radhakrishna Prakashan, New Delhi, 1990, pp. 92.
Note: This is NOT the TYH from the Teach Yourself series!
This is another example of the idea that a study book need not be a text book. This is a series of teacher's notes, including an 8 page introduction on how to use this book as a teacher. It contains several hundred sets of sentence patterns in Devanagari, with words to substitute; no translation, no transliteration, very little explanation (wide margins, though). Table of contents, no dictionary, no index.

* Larissa Bonfante, "Etruscan", Reading the Past, British Museum Publications, London, 1990, pp. 64.
Conservative introduction to Etruscan, with a 4-page word list.

* S.N. Sridhar, "Kannada", Descriptive grammars, London, Routledge, 1990, pp. ???.

* Clive Holes, "Gulf Arabic", Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars Series, London, Routledge, 1990, pp. ???.

* Monier Monier-Williams, "A Sanskrit-English Dictionary", Motilal Banarsidass Publ., New Delhi, 1990, c1899, pp. 1333.
Very thorough, with an entertaining preface. The listing is not fully alphabetical, but follows a logical and reasonably convenient four-level structure. Roots and non-compound words only are in Nagari, the rest (compounds and all other occurrences) are in transcription; this IS handy.

* Oswald J.L. Szemerény, "Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics", Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, Oxford University Press, 1990, pp. 352.
A book in the best German scholar tradition, i.e. 30% of the text consist of footnotes, mainly supplying further details and literature references. And the term 'Introduction' in the title should be taken very, very literally: the author states facts, with one or two arguments, but for the rest immediately refers the reader to the literature, often citing papers that comment on other papers, etc. Also, although the main text is usually very conservative (f.e. hardly any laryngeals), the footnotes often refer to Semitic, Chinese, and even Nostratic.
Remarkably, S. does not believe in the difference between tonal and non-tonal languages (page 73), claiming that stress and pitch are always related and that the rising and falling accents of Greek and Lithuanian can be explained as stress+pitch on the first half of the (long) syllable (=mora) or on the second. This may be (probably is) true for the IE languages, but 1. does not account for level-pitch differences as found in many languages; 2. does not allow pitch in short syllables; 3. does not account for languages without noticeable stress differences, f.e. Chinese. In short, S. seems to be provincial here.
Much information about the PIE accent is obtained from Lithuanian: PIE kōrdós, Lith. \(vsirdìs.
On laryngeals: after giving an extensive and objective account of the three-laryngeal theory and slightly ridiculing systems with more than four laryngeals, the author gives his own conclusion: a, e, and o are honest vowels, just as i and u; and there was only one laryngeal, the simple h. So there was no (to give), there was no deh3, there was just doh. Makes PIE sound a lot less grim.
Since no IE language features more than two gutturals, S. accepts at most two gutturals for PIE: velars, with palatalized variants, and labio-velars; and even the latter developed from normal velars by absorbing a following w or u. So in Pre-PIE there was only one velar.
Morphology. It appears that some PIE roots come in series of CVC_1, CVC_2, CVC_3, etc., all with (vaguely) related meanings. This suggests that in Pre-PIE these roots consisted of two parts, a basic root CV- and a root determinative -C; several root determinatives have been isolated, but no semantics has been suggested for any of them. (Remarkably a similar situation obtains in Hebrew. DG)
The noun: The ending -bh- of dat., abl., and instr., derives from a postposition related to Eng. by (p. 165) (and the alternative -mo from meta/met?) (and by extension do the other weak case endings also derive from postpositions?).
The paradigms of the nouns as shown are somewhat confusing because forms equal to previous ones are left out: already in PIE the genitive and ablative singular are equal; and so are the dative, ablative , and instrumental dual; and the dative an ablative plural. So the ablative is never shown since it is always equal to a previous form.
Adjectives: basically nouns with adaptable gender. PIE had several suffixes for forming comparatives, superlatives, etc.: -yes- (Lat. senior from sen-yos) and -tero- for comparatives; and -isto-, -mo- (Lat. summus from sup-mos), and -sama- (Lat. maximus from mag-simos) for superlatives. But it is unclear what the difference was originally.
Also, there is a surprising variety of words for value concepts: Lat. bonus-melior-optimus, Eng. good-better-best. And the Indic, Greek, Roman, and Germanic all have different terms for 'good'. Again there is no explanation.
Pronouns. The treatment of the 1st and 2nd pronouns is less convincing than the other sections. The reason seems to be 1. that no dual is reconstructed, and 2. that S. does not accept suppletion for the 1st sing. and plural, so eghom and wei have to be brought in line with me and nos, resp. The problems also show in the increased use of 'clearly' and 'of course', as f.e. in "The dat. -ebhi has, of course, nothing to do with the instr. -bhi." (p. 218), without further explanation.
But some things make sense, f.e. why in Old Latin the acc. of egō is mēd instead of mem. In the 2nd the acc. started as tem, which reduplicated to tētetēd. Now mēd already existed as the abl., and by analogy to tēd, mem changed to mēd.
Numerals. PIE seems to have had two words for 'one', one which meant 'alone' and requires three versions to explain the forms in the daughter languages, oinos, oiwos, and oikos; and one, sem, which meant 'single', as in Lat. semel = once.
Interestingly PIE penkwe = 5 is explained as penk-kwe = 'fist-and', as in counting "1, 2, 3, 4, and fist". A very complicated explanation is given for the ending -ty in 'thirty', 'forty', etc. PIE 1000 was probably gheslo-, leading to Gr. khilo. Germ. tusant- is probably from tuso-kmtom = 'a strong (swollen) hundred'.
The verb. S. supplies another explanation for the Lat. 2pl pass. ending -minī. Several plural endings show an additional -n: Gr. -men, Hitt. -weni, -teni, and in Ved. -thana occurs next to -tha. This suffix particle is reconstructed as -noi, and a 2pl middle ending -dhwe-noi is assumed next to the traditional -dhwe. With Lat. dwb this gave -b(e)nei-mnei-minī. More plausible than the plural of a passive participle.
Unfortunately S. does not give an explanation of the 1s ending . (Personal pet theory: PIE had two forms for the 1s pronoun (in suppletion): m and h3; the first led to eghem, Ved. aham, and the -mi ending; the second to eghoh, Lat. egō, to the ending and perhaps to the Hitt. 1s middle -ha ending.)
Since the Hitt. -hi conjugation does not occur in Luwian, S. concludes that it is an innovation of Hitt. only; but the paradigms seem to allow the idea that Luw. had -hilike endings, but not as a specific conjugation.
S. gives a good explanation of the fact that the future imperative forms are the same for 2s, 3s, and 2p, and almost the same for 3p: they derive from the normal imperatives + tōd = 'from there', by assimilation of the two ts in the forms.
In the active, as a rule the accent was on the root in the singular and on the ending in the plural, but there are also verbs in which the accent is always on the root; these are called acrostatic. They are thought to have had original long root vowels; an example is tāks- = 'to work wood'.
Short definition of the difference between active and middle: the active describes the action as is, objectively; the middle as how the subject experiences it, subjectively; alternative names could be 'objective' and 'subjective' voice.
The treatment of passive and stative voice is short and inconclusive. No word about the perfect as a stative, although the hesitantly presented endings for the latter are almost equal to those of the first.
Indicative: the athematic verbs get nothing, the thematic ones get -e- (the th. vowel). Subjunctive: the ath. verbs get a th. vowel, the th. ones get an extra th. vowel. Optative: the ath. verbs get ye/i, the th. ones get -oye, i.e. ye/i with a th. o.
There is discussion about whether there was an 'injunctive' mood in PIE or not. S.: there was a tendency to use a 'residual/neutral/indefinite' verb form if an earlier verb form already specified mood and tense; the injunctives in Vedic are remnants of these.
Verb stem formation. PIE had several methods for verb stem formation, of which three stand out: the infix -n-, and the suffixes -sk- and -yo.
Three theories are given for the origin of the infix -n-, all in the small print. 1. A root suffix -no- or -nu-, related to a word for 'now', and subsequent metathesis (but why only with this suffix? DG). 2. Doubling of the final consonant for emphasis, with subsequent -CC--nC- (but kl̩w (to hear) + emphasis → kl̩wwkn̩wkl̩nu (as in Ved. sr̩nu-, with double w? DG). 3. if we believe in root determinatives there is third explanation: the -no- from 1. got in between the basic root and the root determinative.
The suffix -sk- indicated repetition/habit; it survives f.e. in Eng. wash from PIE wod-sk-, 'repeated water action'. The suffix -yo- and its variants implied making or doing things; it still shows in English fill from full. Other suffixes are -t- and -s-, but it is unclear in how far they can be distinguished from root determinatives.
The endings of the perfect were 1s -a, 2s -tha, 3s -e, 1p -me, 2p -?, 3p -or, and had the tendency to erode. To keep the perfect, it had to be strengthened. Methods included: 1. reduplication (Indic, Gr., some Lat.); 2. long grade throughout (Gmc.; according to S. the Goth. difference brak - brēkum does not go back to PIE); 3. addition of more tangible suffixes: -k- in Gr. (related to Hitt. past -ha?), -vi- in Lat.(from a part. wos?), -f- in Osc.-Umbr. (from -dh-?), -n\(vs- in Umbr. (from -n-ky-?), and -t/d/tt- in Osc., Cont. Celtic, and Gmc. (and in Hung., Jap., and several other Eurasian languages; DG) (from a part. -to-? or from -dh-?). Only very tentative explanations of these suffixes are available.
There is no reason to assume the existence of aspect in PIE: it exists only in Gr. and the Slavic languages, but the realizations have little in common.
The participle. The active present participle suffix is well known from many languages: -nt. It may derive from the root em- = 'to take', and the actor suffix -t-. This would then be appended to the noun form of the verb: bhér = 'the carrying' + em- = 'undertake' + -t- = doer → bhér-em-t-bhéront- = 'who undertakes the carrying'.
The perfect participle suffix is much less widely spread: -wos-, which occurs in Vedic and in the Gr. eidoosweidwos = 'knowing'. Like the present participle it may derive from a verb root: wes- = 'to stay'.
The reconstructible passive participle suffix is -meno-, well known from Gr. (pheromenos = 'carried'), but also present (but not productive) in Lat.: alumnusalo-menos = 'pupil (i.e. fed)'. It may derive from the root men- = 'to remain'.
Further passive participle endings are -to- (Lat. laudatus) and -no- (Eng. take-n). It is not clear if these are original PIE or later developments.
The infinitives in the daughter languages are varied in nature; probably PIE had no explicit infinitive, just verbal nouns. They all derive from forms root + nominalizing suffix + case ending, usually the dative, -i: suffix -tu-, f.e. PIE doh-tu-i → Ved. dātavē = Old Pr. dātwei = 'to give', but Lat. datū with abl. ending; suffix -es-, PIE gwīw-es-a-i → Ved. \(vjīvasē = Lat. vivere; suffix -no-, PIE bher-o-no-m (acc.) → Goth. bairan = 'the carrying'.
In total the following endings are reconstructed for PIE. 1. Non-stative endings 1s -m, 2s -s, 3s -t, 1p -me(s), 2p -te(s), 3p -nt, possibly followed by -o- for medio-passive, possibly followed by -i for 'here and now',except that 1p and 2p get -s. 2. The quite different static endings 1s -ha, 2s -tha, 3s -e, 1p -me, 2p -?, 3p -r.
Basically one would expect the non-stative endings to be postfixed pronouns, as they are f.e. in the Uralic and Semitic languages. For 1s -m, 1p -me(s), 2p -te(s) and even the tentative 1d -we(s) this is easy. But for 3s and 3p this is problematic, and for 2s it is hopeless: there is no believable way to turn -tu into -s. Various (pseudo-)solutions are reported. S. seems to be somewhat partial to the 'ergative explanation': in an (early) ergative state of PIE the verb forms were actually nouns + possessor suffix. The noun was formed from the verb root by the action suffix -t-. So we get: bher-t-m = 'carry-action-mine' = 'my carrying exists', bher-t-t, bher-t, bher-t-me, which contracted into bher-m, bher-s, bher-t, bher-me, with -tt-s, which is kind of acceptable. (Against: then why didn't 2p bher-t-te contract into bher-se?) (Against: in ergative languages the possessor usually corresponds to the object rather than the subject: 'the carrying I get/have'. DG.) (It seems more reasonable to suppose bher-t-m = 'carry-actor-am' = 'I am carrier'. DG)
The endings of the perfect are also used in Vedic for the imperf. passive (which is not surprising considering it represents a stative: "exist" means roughly the same as "was created"; this is finally confirmed on page 338, the last page of the text).
No credible explanation of the perfect endings is given. (Personal pet theory: they are forms of a very old and otherwise lost verb 'to be'. The traditional regular verb hes- cannot have been the standard verb for 'to be' in PIE; no language has a regular verb 'to be'. DG)
Next to the personal endings, there are the subj. and opt. suffixes to be explained. The opt. suffix -o-ye may derive from the verb root ei- = 'to go': PIE po-o-ye-empōyēm = 'drink-go-I' → I go to drink → I want to drink → may I drink. No reasonable origin of the extra thematic vowel for the subj. is suggested.
In the last paragraph the author warns against 'reduction ad infinitum'.

* Masayoshi Shibatani, "The Languages of Japan", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1990, pp. 411.
Part 1: 85 pages of Ainu grammar. Part 2: some 300 pages of information about Japanese: genetic affiliation (hesitantly Eurasian), history (including information about Old Japanese), lexicon, phonology, dialects (with pitch differences), word formation, and grammatical structure (130 pages).
Ainu (Classical Ainu and the several modern dialects described here) is a relatively simple language of the agglutinative and incorporating type, with limited morphological and syntactic complexity, unlike the surrounding Japanese and Korean languages. Its main special features are the semantics of the verb and the use of applicative particles.
The basic meaning of the verbs is static, i.e., verbs describe states. For descriptive verbs this is natural, but for action verbs this means that the basic form has past-tense meaning. This works well with the property that possessive pronouns are the same as subject pronouns; so "This ring - my gift" is indistinguishable from "This ring - I gave", both morphologically and semantically.
An applicative particle prefixed to a verb changes a noun+preposition into the object of the verb. English has no applicative particles, but uses different verbs (Germanic/Latin) for the feature: "I go with him" (prep.) vs. "I accompany him" (appl.); "We live in this house" (prep.) vs. "We occupy this house" (appl.); "I talked to him" (prep.) vs. "I addressed him" (appl.); etc. Ainu has three applicative particles, e-, which replaces "at" and "with an instrument"; o-, which replaces "towards" and "from"; and ko-, which replaces "to" and "with a person".
Since only objects can be incorporated in verbs, applicative particles greatly widen the opportunities for noun incorporation: "I talked to the teacher" → (appl.) "I addressed the teacher" → (incorp.) "I teacher-addressed".
Japanese emerges from the description not as a single language but as a language group consisting of between 30 and 50 mutually unintelligible dialects, which in many cases might as well be called separate languages. For example the East-Japanese kuwana (= do not eat!) is pan in the local dialect/anguage around Kagoshima, through kuwanakwanpan, with kwp. Note that in spite of the name this is not on an island, but on the mainland of Kyushu. This is very reminiscent of the Romance language group, which also contains outliers like Rhaeto-Romance, except that there are no "big" languages like French or Spanish in the Japanese group.
Japan is full of small regions with various archaic features surrounded by more modern ones, especially south and west of the Japanese Alps. This is explained by assuming that around the year 700 Japan was covered with Old Japanese, and that then innovations spread from the cultural centers, first from Nara and later from Kyoto, leaving islands of the old speech. The innovations were somewhat blocked by the J. Alps, but later some spilled over to Tokyo.

* V.V. Shevoroshkin, "The Mother Tongue", The Sciences, Spring 1990?,

* R.C. Pathak, "Bhargava's Standard Illustrated Dictionary Anglo-Hindi / Hindi-English", 12th Edn., Bhargava Book Depot, Chowk, Varanasi, 1995 / 1994, pp. 1432 / 937.

* Harry Guest, "Mastering Japanese", Macmillan, London, 1989, pp. 339.

* L.J.M. van Moergestel, C.T. van Schaik, "Taalgids voor Thailand", Nangsue, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 125.

* Gomi Taro, "An Illustrated Dictionary of Japanese Onomatopoeic Expressions", no page numbers, Japan Times, Tokyo, 1989,

* Thomas Egenes, "Introduction to Sanskrit", San Diego, Calif., Point Loma Publications, 1989, pp. ???.
Someone wrote: On the other hand, Thomas Egenes's "Introduction to Sanskrit" seems the one to choose, judging from the reviews, which appear well-informed.

* Ronald Wright, "Quechua Phrasebook", Language Survival Kit, Lonely Planet Books, Oakland, Ca., 1989, pp. 93.

* Hans Frede Nielsen, "The Germanic Languages: Origins and Early Dialectal Interrelations", Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press, 1989, translated from Danish, c 1979, pp. ???.

* S.D. Houston, "Maya Glyphs", British Museum, London, 1989, pp. 64.

* E.J. Furnée, "Urbaskisch und Urkartvelisch -- Indizien für eine Verwandtschaft", in german: Proto-Basque and Proto-Kartvelian -- Indications of a Relationship, Leiden, The Hakuchi Press, 1989, pp. 201.
Unlike the previous publications of the author, which were concerned with loans and did not imply a relationship, this one is intended to prove a relationship between Basque and the Kv. languages. More in particular, both are claimed to derive from a common language, called Proto-Basque (Urbaskisch) in the book, and apparently supposed to be the same as Proto-Kartvelian; at least it seems to say so on page 21. The split is supposed to have occurred about 5000 to 6000 years ago.
Since the phonemes of this common language PB-PK (abbrev. mine) are much like those of the Kv. languages (pg. 19, middle), the step from PB-PK to Basque is much larger than that from PB-PK to Kv., and this is reflected in the form of the lemmata, of which there are about 300.
Each lemma starts with a Basque word, of which the PB-PK form is then given; most of these forms come from Michalena and/or Löpelman. Next the derivation of the present-day Basque form is shown, followed by derivations of the same PB-PK form in the Kv. languages.
Some rules are surprising/bizarre, for example PB-PK x → Basque rr, but the author gives no less than 15 occurrences. Some lemmata seem to support each other: (62) B. hortz (= tooth) < PB-PK γrd\(vz > Georg. γod\(vzi (= canine tooth), and (64) B. hur (= water) < PB-PK γur > Georg. γvar (= to pour). And there is of course (255) B. herri (= land, region) < PB-PK e-r-i > Georg. e-ri (= people). (The actual lemmata are much more extensive.)
The list contains many basic words, and there are quite a number from agriculture. Only after the research was finished the lemmata were compared to Swadesh's list of the 100 most stable words, and 33 were found to be explained in the book; this suggests the split took place between 7000 and 8000 years ago, which seems much more acceptable than the original author's estimate given above (appendix, pg. 186).

* G. Charachidzé, "Ubykh", in The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus -- Vol 2., ed. by B. George Hewitt, New York, Delmar/Caravan Books????, 1989, pp. 359-459.

* H. Berger, "Die Burushaski-Sprache von Hunza und Nager, 1: Grammatik", computer-copy, Heidelberg, 1989,

* K. Srinivasachari, "Learn Sanskrit in 30 Days", National Integration Language Series, Balaji Publ., 103 Pycrofts Road, Madras, 1989, pp. 212.
Quickly instills some sense of what Sanskrit is, by using a minimal vocabulary and trivial sentences; all text is in Devanagari and transcribed. Spending 30 full days with this book will give you an excellent start for studying Sanskrit for real. Definitely worth its money (1 pound). English-Sanskrit glossary (15 pages), table of contents, no index.

* J. Colarusso, "Proto-Northwest Caucasian -- or How to Crack a Very Hard Nut", ed. by Howard Aronson, in The Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR, Linguistic Studies, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society, 1989, pp. 20-55.

* Étienne Tiffou, Jurgen Pesot, "Contes du Yasin -- Introduction au bourouchaski du Yasin avec grammaire et dictionaire analytique", in French: Tales from Yasin -- Introduction to Yasin Burushaski with Grammar and Analytical Dictionary, AMI 16, Peeters, Paris, 1989, pp. 159.
Assumes that the reader has read Berger's book, and extends it with more and new material. Paradigms given in full, more about vowel lengths, more stories. The dictionary is a word list to the stories only.

* Yves Charles Morin, Etienne Tiffou, "Dictionnaire complementaire du Bourouchaski du Yasin", in French: Supplemenary Dictionary of Yasin Burushaski, Asie et monde insulindien; 17., Etudes bourouchaski; 2., Societe d'etudes linguistiques et anthropologiques de France; 304., Paris, Peeters/SELAF, 1989, pp. 58.
Notes: "Ce dictionnaire veut etre un complement a l'excellent travail lexicologique accompli par Berger (1974) dans sa description du bourouchaski du Yasin"--P. 1. Summaries in French, English, German, and Russian. Includes bibliographical references (p.9) Subjects: Burushaski language -- Dictionaries -- French. Yasin (Pakistan) -- Languages.
Additions and corrections to the dictionaries of Lorimer and Berger. The main difference with Berger is that the authors take vowel length as significant.

* Francesca Merlan, "Mangarayi", Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars Series, London, Routledge, 1989, pp. ???.

* Jean Perrot, "La linguistique", in French: Linguistics, Que sais-je? #570, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1989, pp. 128.

* J.P. Mallory, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth", Thames and Hudson, New York, N.Y., 1989, pp. 288.

* Julius Pokorny, "Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch", in German: Indo-European Etymological Dictionary, 2nd Edn., 2 Vols., Francke, Bern, 1989, pp. ???.

* Jan Gijsbert Pieter Best, Fred Woudhuizen, "Lost languages from the Mediterranean", E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1989, pp. 179. Publications of the Henri Frankfort foundation; vol. 10,

* Kenneth Katzner, "Languages of the World", Routledge, London, 1989 (c 1977), pp. 376.
37 pages of language family tree, followed by about 190 language samples. List of literature references to books about specific languages.

* Toby B. Griffen, "Nostratic and Germano-European", General Linguistics, 29, #III, 1989, pp. 139-149.

* Stephen J. Gould, "Grimm's Greatest Tale", Natural History, Feb. 1989,

* Haruhiko Kindachi, "The Japanese Language", Tuttle, Rutland, 1989, c1957, pp. 295.

* Jon Philip Dayley, "Tumpisa (Panamint) Shoshone grammar", Berkeley, Calif., University of California Press, 1989, pp. 522.
There is also a corresponding dictionary.

* Howard Aronson, "Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR -- Linguistic Studies", Chicago Linguistics Society at the University of Chicago, 1989 / 1994, pp. 302 / 309.

* ???, "And the language is half Basque", Anthropological Linguistics, 31, 1989, pp. 117-147.

* Günther Drosdowsky, "Etymologie -- Herkunftswörterbuch der deutschen Sprache", in German: Etymology -- Etymological Dictionary of the German Language, Duden Verlag, Mannheim, 1989, pp. 839.

* Ryooichi Ikegami, Kazuo Koike, "Akai hato Apiru", in Japanese: Red Dove Apiru, Vol. 3, Shogakukan, 1989, pp. 212.
Religious manga, with (almost) correct Hebrew on the cover(!).

* Kobayashi Makoto, "What's Michael?", Vol. 8, in Japanese, Kodansha, 1989, pp. 135.
Comic strip about an unruly cat.

* William Dwight Whitney, "Sanskrit Grammar", 2nd ed., Jan. 1989, Harvard University Press,

* Pieter van Reenen, Karin van Reenen-Stein, "Spatial and Temporal Distributions -- Manuscript Constellations", John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1988, pp. 277.
Contains 15 papers on language variation and 5 about stemmatology, computer-assisted; partly in French.

* Richard Caplice, "Introduction to Akkadian", Biblical Institute Press, Rome, 1988, pp. 106.
With fold-out paradigm table.

* Douglas Q. Adams, "Tocharian historical phonology and morphology", Handbuch der Orientalistik, New Haven, American Oriental Society, 1988, pp. 199.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Sango -- An Esperanto of Africa.", Languages Information Centre, Pontypridd, Wales, ~1988, pp. 24.
Sango is an isolating language. It is unusually easy to learn, which has given it its position as the common language of the Central African Republic, although it is the native language of only a small group. The booklet gives a short introduction + a short annotated bible text. The tones are not explained.
Name: Sängö.
Affiliation: Niger-Congo/Adamawa.
Location: CAR.
Phonetics: consonants: many combinations like kp, mv, ngb; vowels: 7 + 5 nasalized; tones: 3 (H, M, L), Sängö is MM.
Nouns: gender/classes: none; number: none - plural can be indicated by prefixing a-; cases: none - uses prepositions; possessor indication: with preposition ti = "of".
Prepositions: used heavily.
Pronouns: mbi = I, mo = you, lo = he, she, it, ani = we, i = you all, al = they.
Adjectives: indeclinable - common ones precede the noun, other follow it.
Verbs: largely immutable, but get a prefix a- when uses without a pronoun. Tenses and aspects expressed by particles of auxiliary yèké = "to be".
Word order: SVO.

* Clyde Winters, "Tamil,Sumerian and Manding and the Genetic Model", International Journal Of Dravidian Linguistics, 18, #1, 1988, pp. ???-???.
sci.lang: Linguistic evidence about Tamil, Sumerian, Manding.

* Ira Spar, "Tablets, Cones and Bricks of the Third and Second Millennia B.B.", Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vol. 1, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1988, pp. 193+133.

* Kenneth G. Henshall, "A Guide to Remembering Japanese Characters", Tuttle, Rutland, Vt., 1988, pp. 675.

* Louis-Jacques Dorais, "The Inuit language in southern Labrador from", Mercury Series, Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, 1988,

* J.Muh. Arath Ro'is, "Bahasa Indonesia -- Practisch leerboek voor beginners", in Dutch: Bahasa Indonesia -- Practical Text Book for Beginners, Keesing, Amsterdam, 1988, pp. 261.

* Seok Choong Song, "201 Korean Verbs", Barron's, New York, 1988, pp. 208.
With 22-page grammar, detailing all the ins and outs of the verb including the assimilation rules, with a very clear description of the speech levels.

* John Colarusso, "The Northwest Caucasian Languages -- A Phonological ...", New York, Garland, 1988, pp.

* Florence Abena Dolphyne, "The Akan (Twi-fante) language -- its sound systems and tonal structure", Accra, Ghana Universities Press, 1988, pp. 199.
Akan is a South-Central Niger-Congo language spoken in Ghana; it is also known as Twi or Chwee and it is related to Ewe and Yoruba. It consists of three dialects, Akuapem, Asante and Fante. The book analyses and compares the phonetics and grammar of the three dialects extensively, with the aim of explaining the rationale behind the spelling unification of 1978. This spelling adheres almost to the Latin alphabet, except that IPA symbols for open e and open o are used; tones, of which Akan has two, are not indicated.
The unification capitalizes heavily on the fact that many phonetic changes in the three dialects are automatic (but different). The unified spelling is to be augmented by a set of reading rules that is different for each of the dialect, and which allows each speaker to read the text in his own dialect.
As is usual in such projects, tones are badly short-sold. It is argued that the tones (which differ more than the rest of the phonetics between the dialects) can be supplied easily by the reader. This leaves us with homographs like `onda'[LLH] = `he does not sleep' and `onda'[HHH] = `he should sleep' (the o is open and the n is syllabic). The negative optative is however distiguished by a double n: `onnda'[LLLH] = `he should not sleep'.

* Yves-Charles Morin, Etienne Tiffou, "Passives in Burushaski", in Passive and Voice, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, pp. 493-524. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 1988,
Affirmation and description of passive voice in Burushaski. Most ergative verbs have a passive counterpart. Identification of a pathetive construction. LFG analysis for both phenomena.

* "The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology -- The Core Vocabulary of Standard English Produced by American Scholarship", ed. by Robert K. Barnhart and Sol Steinmetz, Bronx, N.Y., H.W. Wilson Comp., 1988, pp. 1284.
More or less narrative entries, which usually stop at Old German or Latin. Very few Indo-European roots.

* Bertil Tikkanen, "On Burushaski and other ancient substrata in northwestern South Asia", Studia Orientalia, 64, 1988, pp. 303-325.
The influence of Burushaski, the Indo-Iranian, Tibeto-Burman, Dravidian and Austroasiatic languages on each other is examined in moderate detail. The conclusion is that they together cannot account for more than two thirds of the observed phenomena. Although very carefully worded, the author suggests the existence of an entirely lost substratum in this area.

* David Crystal, "Cambridge Encyclopedia of Languages", Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp.

* Jan Gijsbert Pieter Best, Fred Woudhuizen, "Ancient scripts from Crete and Cyprus", E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1988, pp. 131. Publications of the Henri Frankfort foundation; vol. 9,

* Mark Kaiser, Vitalij Shevoroshkin, "Nostratic", Annual Review of Anthropology, 17, 1988, pp. 302-329.

* Masayoshi Shibatani, "Passive and voice", Amsterdam, Benjamins, 1988,
Introductions to and a collection of articles on passive, antipassive, etc., from some twenty languages, including Austrailian languages, Hungarian, etc.

* Ariel Shisha-Halevy, "Coptic grammatical chrestomathy: a course for academic ...", Leuven, Peeters, 1988,

* Graham Furniss, Philip J. Jaggar, "Studies in Hausa language and linguistics: in honour of F.W. Parsons", London, Kegan Paul International in association with the International African Institute, 1988, pp. 282.

* Mario Saltarelli, Miren Azkarate, et al., "Basque", Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars Series, London, Croom Helm, 1988, pp. 311.

* John Hinds, "Japanese", Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars Series, London, Routledge, 1988, pp. ???.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Fernandian -- The Bubi Bantu Language of Bioco/Fernando Po", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 1988, pp. 24.
The author shows how far Bubi is removed from the mainstream Bantu languages by examining a number of words in a string of languages from Bubi to Zulu; only the personal pronouns are clearly and unequivocally Bantu: na, nne = I, oe = you, boe = he/she (personal class), tue = we, lue = you all (of unclear provenance), ba = they (personal class, plural). The Bantu class system is absent or frozen (i.e. the prefixes, predominantly b- and l-, are just part of the words) in Bubi. Bubi itself consists of several dialects, which seem to differ from each other at least as much as the Scandinavian languages.
See also: National Geographic, Aug. 2008, pp. 68-91.

* Charles Brucker, "L'étymologie", in French: Etymology, Que sais-je? #1122, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1988, pp. 125.

* Edward Delavan Perry, "A Sanskrit Primer", Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1988, 1936, pp. 230.
Complete Sanskrit grammar in 45 lessons of in total 508 (daily?) portions, with 42 exercises, 22-page Sanskrit-English and an 11-page English-Sanskrit glossary. The first third is also transcribed and then it tapers off into Devanagari only.

* Vasudeo Govind Apte, "The concise English-Sanskrit dictionary", Sri Satguru Publ. / Indian Books Centre, Delhi, 1988, pp. 360.
No transcription of the Devanagari. Up to date; shows the word for telephone; has a separate section for international terms (bona fide, tète-a-tète, etc.)

* J.C. Catford, "A Practical Introduction to Phonetics", Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988, pp. ???.

* Kevin Chambers, "Korean Phrasebook", Language Survival Kit, Lonely Planet Books, Oakland, Ca., 1988, pp. 93.

* H.J. Lindt, "Kramers Woordenboeken -- Italiaans-Nederlands, Nederlands-Italiaans", Kramers Glossary Italian-Dutch, Dutch-Italian, Van Goor Zonen, Den Haag, pp. 303+285. 1987,

* "Langenscheidts Universal-Wörterbuch Tschechisch -- Tschechisch-Deutsch, Deutsch-Tschechisch", Pocket Dictionary, Langenscheidt, Berlin, pp. 396. 1987; c1966,

* Frederick Bodmer, "The Loom of Language", The Merlin Press, London, 1987, c1944, pp. 669.

* Jan Kuitenbrouwer, "Turbo-taal", Aramith, Amsterdam, 1987, pp. 91+.

* Hans Joachim Störing, "Taal: het grote avontuur", in Dutch: Language -- The Great Adventure, from the German: Abenteuer Sprache, Het Spectrum, Utrecht, 1987, pp. 414.

* Georges Jean, "Writing -- The Story of Alphabets and Scripts", New Horizons, Thames and Hudson, London, 1987, pp. 207.

* R.I Page, "Runes", Reading the Past, British Museum Press, London, 1987, pp. 64.

* "Japanese Phrase Book", Hugo, London, 1987, pp. 128.

* David Bradley, "Burmese Phrasebook", Language Survival Kit, Lonely Planet Books, Oakland, Ca., 1987, pp. 124.

* Robert Leonard, "Swahili Phrasebook", Language Survival Kit, Lonely Planet Books, Oakland, Ca., 1987, pp. 101.

* Albert Dauzat, Jean Dubois, Herni Mitterand, "Nouveau dictionnaire étymologique et historique", Librairie Larousse, Paris, 1987, pp. 805.
Disappointing, like its English counterpart, in that it stops at Latin and does not make any connection to Indo-European.

* J. Chadwick, "Linear B and Related Scripts", British Museum, London, 1987, pp. 64.

* J.H. Hutton, "Chang Language -- Grammar and Vocabulary of the Chang Naga Tribe", Gian Publ., New Delhi, India, 1987, c1929, pp. 120.

* "The world's major languages", London, Croom Helm, 1987,

* Ekkehart Malotki, Michael Lomatuway'ma, "Stories of Maasaw, a Hopi God", Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Ne., 1987, pp. 347.
Sixteen stories plus 80 pages of glossary, all fully bilingual.

* A.H. Kuipers, "Diachronic notes on North-West Caucasian", Studia Caucasica, 7, 1987, pp. 86-105.

* Mary Catherine O'Connor, "Topics in Northern Pomo Grammar", UC Berkeley, Ph.D. dissertation, 1987,

* Mark Kaiser, Vitalij Shevoroshkin, "On Recent Comparisons between Language Families: The Case of Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic", General Linguistics, 27, #I, 1987, pp. 34-36.

* Frederik Otto Lindeman, "Introduction to the 'Laryngeal Theory'", Oslo, Norwegian University Press, Oxford: Distributed by Oxford University Press, 1987,
??? writes: This is a mid-1980s synthesis of the state of our knowledge. It is fairly technical; you should have at least some background in linguistics and the classical languages to appreciate it. However, it is intended as a classroom text for students of Indo-European linguistics, and is one of the books you should read.

* John R. Roberts, "Amele", Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars Series, London, Croom Helm, 1987, pp. ???.

* Brian D. Joseph, Irene Philippaki-Warburton, "Modern Greek", Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars Series, London, Croom Helm, 1987, pp. ???.

* Joseph H. Greenberg, "Language in the Americas", Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif., 1987, pp. 438.
This work is a collection of four papers of very different sizes and structures rather than a book.
The first part is concerned with the existence of Amerind as a group. The author points out that if it is our purpose to show the existence of the Indo-European group rather than to set up a genealogy tree or to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European, a small number (say 10) of clearly related words in a large number (say 20) of languages suffice. The forms of the words for one, two, three and tooth in various Indo-European languages show unmistakably that these languages form a group. This method is called the horizontal method as opposed to the vertical method, which compares a small number of languages in depth.
Using this much less stringent but still sufficient criterion, the author first shows the existence of 11 major stocks in the Americas by listing words common to the members of the stocks. The relationship between these 11 stocks is then proved by showing 281 words that occur in two or more stocks in similar forms; a few words occur in all 11 stocks. A separate section shows 48 morphological features that are common to more than one stock. Two such features are common to all 11 of them: the occurrence of forms with n- for the first person, and that of forms with m- for the second person.
The second part addresses the so-called "Na-Dené" problem, the question whether Haida is a "Na-Dené" language. The author investigates the imaginary situation in which modern Irish, Albanian and Armenian were the only known Indo-European languages, to find what kind of evidence could still be detected. He then shows that a similar situation obtains between Haida, Tlingit and Athabaskan.
The third part tries to determine the dates of arrival of the various phylums in the Americas. It suggests that Amerind is related to Eurasiatic and shows a possible structure for Proto-Sapiens.
The fourth part extends the glottochronological method to more than two languages (actually to four), in spite of the fact that the author claims the glottochronological method is actually too weak to be used.
The book closes with a full classification of about 1300 Amerind languages and groups.

* Oda Buchholz, Wilfried Fiedler, Gerda Uhlisch, "Wörterbuch Albanisch-Deutsch", in German: Dictionary Albanian-German, VEB Verlag Enzyklop, Leipzig, 1987, pp.
Also contains chapter "Grammatik".

* Merritt Ruhlen, "A Guide to the World's Languages: Volume 1: Classification; with a postscript on recent developments", Edward Arnold, London, 1987; 1991, pp. 463.
poser@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: The most recent reference on language classification. In addition to classification, gives brief histories of classificatory work on the various families. Contains no information on language structure. Should be used with caution at higher levels of classification since Ruhlen accepts the radical views of Joseph H. Greenberg and presents as established such families as Indo-Pacific and Amerind which in fact are extremely controversial and are not generally accepted.

* Colin Renfrew, "Archaeology and Language -- the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins", J. Cape, London, 1987, pp. 346.

* Francoise Grillot-Susini, Claude Roche, "Eléments de grammaire élamite", in French: Elements of Elamite Grammar, Paris, Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987, pp. 79.
Nouns: A striking property of the language is the classification of nouns into classes that include the first and second persons: sunki-k = I who am king, sunki-t = you who are king, sunki-r = he who is king = the king, sunki-p = they who are kings = the kings, sunki-me = that which is of the king = kingdom. Such forms are called appellatives. Much of Elamite text consists of this kind of appellatives; adjectives and relative clauses are also appelative constructions.
Verbs: There is one simple conjugation for the verb, consisting of 3 persons singular and plural, plus 3 compound attributive constructions based on an active participle, a passive participle and an infinitive, loosely speaking.
Only one numeral is known: ki- = one, of course with the usual ki-k = I alone, ki-r = the one person, etc. The others are known as graphic numerals only.

* Tae Moriyama, "The Practical Guide to Japanese Signs", 2nd part, Kodansha, Tokyo, 1987, pp. 176.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Guide to Visigothic -- An Introduction to the Script and Basic Grammar", Languages Information Centre, Pontypridd, Wales, 1987, pp. 24.
The first 13 pages are dedicated to a calligraphed exposition of the Gothic alphabet. Next the declinations of a few nouns are given. A much too short 2½ page segment covers the verb, and the booklet concludes with two pages of annotated sentences and one page of the Gospel of St. Mark.
Name: Gothic.
Affiliation: East-Germanic.
Phonetics: consonants: the usual + kw, hw, th vowels: 5, both short and long.
Nouns: gender/classes: masc., fem., neuter; number: 2; cases: 4, nominative, accusative, genitive and dative; possessor indication: genitive.
Pre/postpositions: pre-.
Pronouns: feature a dualis for 1st and 2nd person: ik = I, thu = you, is = he, si = she, ita = it, wit = we two, yut = you two, weis = we, yus = you all, eis = they (m). iyoos = they (f). iya = they (n).
Adjectives: like nouns, but with weak and strong declensions.
Verbs: many conjugations.

* Hans Joachim St\("orig, "Aberteuer Sprache", in German: Adventure Language, Langenscheid, Berlin, 1987, pp. 400.
Survey of the languages of Europe (chapters 1-9), of the rest of the world (10-13), and artificial languages (ch. 14). Tells more about the languages than that it shows of them; often lacks detail. Cf. Fischer Lexikon Sprachen (1961).

* S. Robert Ramsey, "The Languages of China", Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1987, pp.
poser@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: Divided about equally into sections on Chinese and on the minority languages of China. Contains both structural information and information on distribution and classification.

* Judith Goedbloed, "Kompakt Grammatik Niederländisch", in German, Ernst Klett Verlag, C Stuttgart * pp. 137. 1986,
Effective, terse summary of the grammar of Dutch, brightened by the sample sentences, which are always on target, and stylistically correct Dutch, which is more than one can say for many other text books on Dutch.

* Kirsten Refsing, "The Ainu Language -- The Morphology and Syntax of the ...", Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 1986, Thesis: University of Copenhagen, 1985, pp.
sci.lang: Kirsten Refsing has written a very good grammar of a now extinct dialect of Hokkaidoo. Kirsten Refsing was formerly professor at the University of Copenhagen and last year I heard she is lecturing in Hong Kong. I don't remember the title of her grammar, but it won't be to difficult to find. DG: Yes, at $350!

* The Japan Foundation, "Basic Japanese-English Dictionary", Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986, pp. 958.
Relatively few (2873) entries, each with elaborate explanation and examples of use. The dictionary is in two columns, the left one giving the Japanese, in characters and in transcription, the right one giving the parallel English translation. As it says on the cover, "easy to use".

* E.J. Furnée, "Paläokartvelisch-pelasgische Einflüsse in den indogermanischen Sprachen -- nachgewiesen anhand der spätindogermanisch-griechischen Reflexe urkartvelischer Sibilanten und Affrikaten", Paleo-kartvelian/Pelasgian Influences in the IE Languages, Leiden, The Hakuchi Press, 1986, pp. 238.
Two-hundred Kartvelian (Georgian + family) roots with their derived stems, leading to etymologies of words in IE languages that lack an IE derivation. Most of these words are found in Greek and the Germanic languages, but some are from Latin, Armenian, Russian, etc. The etymologies are based on the sound shifts described by the author in his doctoral thesis (1972).
Examples are (just from the beginning of the list): (9) Kv zaγwa (= sea) → ProtoGerm. saiγwa = Eng. sea, a well-known non-IE word; (10) Kv z1e-s- (= heavenly, the highest) from Kv z1e (= up) → ProtoGr. dheso- → Gr. theos = god, which is known not to be related to Latin deus (z1 is the z from the ProtoKv. middle series of sibilants); (16) Kv sw-ar- (= dirty, black) from Kv sw- (= to spread grease etc.) → Goth. swarts, Germ. schwarz = Eng. black, another famous word without IE background. (Did the author miss (9) Kv zi-k- (= feeling sick) from Kv zi- (= to vomit etc.) → Eng. sick, Dutch ziek = ill, yet another word without IE background? DG)
Note that this says nothing about a relatedness between Kartvelian and Indo-European: all these words are solid Kv. words and are considered loans in IE. The author points out that there are no IE loans in Kv.; also his sound shifts are one-way only.

* Nicholas Awde, Putros Samano, "The Arabic Alphabet -- How To Read and Write It", Saqi Books, London, 1986, pp. 95.

* William St. Clair Tisdall, "A Simplified Grammar of the Gujarati Language", Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1986, c 1892, pp. 189.

* David Fairchild Sherwood, "Maliseet-Passamaquoddy verb morphology", Mercury Series, Toronto, National Museums of Canada, 1986,

* Jorundur Gardar Hilmarsson, "Studies in Tocharian phonology, morphology and ...", Reykjavik, [s.n.], 1986,

* Igor' Michajlovic Diakonov, S.A. Starostin, "Hurro-Urartian as an eastern Caucasian language", München, Kitzinger, 1986,

* J.C. Catford, "The classification of Caucasian languages", in Sprung from a Common Source, Texas, Rice University, 1986, pp. 232-268.

* Wolfgang Hadamitzky, "Lehrbuch und Lexikon der Japanischen Schrift -- Kanji und Kana", in German: Text Book and Lexicon of the Japanese Script -- Kanji and Kana, Langenscheidt, Berlin, 1986, @1980, pp. 385.
Large versions of the 1945 tooyoo kanji, with stroke order and direction, ON, KUN, meaning and 5 compounds which use earlier kanji only, seven to a page. The layout of the entries is such that parts can be covered for various self-tests. Use and construction of the kana and kanji is discussed. With (limited) lists of radicals, and kanji indexes according to radicals, stroke count and reading.

* Ariel Shisha-Halevy, "Coptic grammatical categories: structural studies in ...", Roma, Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1986,

* Sheveroshkin, Markey, "Typology, Relationship, and Time", Ann Arbor, Karoma, 1986,

* T.F. Hoad, "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology", Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986, pp. 552.
Meager, but admittedly better than nothing. Gives relationships inside Germanic, but hardly ever outside of it. No Proto-Indo-European references.

* Graham Mallinson, "Rumanian", Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars, London, Croom Helm, 1986, pp. ???.

* Henri Rinnen, Will Reuland, "Kleines Deutsch-Luxemburgisches Wörterbuch", in German: Small German-Luxemburgish Dictionary, Sankt-Paulus Druckerei, Luxemburg, 1986, pp. 178.
Includes orthography guidelines.

* Andrew Nathaniel Nelson, "Japanese-English Character Dictionary", 2nd Edn., Charles E. Tuttle, Rutland, Vt, 1986, @1962, pp. 1109.
Very extensive and efficient. For each of the 5446 characters, the following information is given: ON pronunciation + meaning, KUN pronunciations + meanings in combination with hiragana, extensive lists of compounds.

* Timothy Montler, "An outline of the morphology and phonology of Saanich, North Straits Salish", Missoula, Mont., 1986, pp. 264.

* William A. Foley, "The Papuan Languages of New Guinea", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986, pp.
poser@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: Contains both structural descriptions of Papuan languages and information on classification and prehistory.

* G.F. Diercks, N.H.C. van Loenen, "Kleine Latijnse grammatica", in Dutch: Small Latin Grammar, Unieboek, 1986, pp. 135.

* Sakae Saito (??), "Dictionary of foreign words to facilitate the Japanese", Saburo, 1986, pp. 469.
All-Japanese dictionary of foreign, mostly English, words, in katakana, explained in Japanese.

* "Van Dale Groot Woordenboek Nederlands-Engels", in Dutch: Van Dale's Major Dictionary Dutch-English, Van Dale Lexicografie, Utrecht, 1986, pp. 1560.
The first serious Dutch-English dictionary (after Jansonius). With grammar.

* Marc Okrand, "The Klingon Dictionary -- English-Klingon, Klingon-English", with Grammar and Phrase Book, Pocket, New York, 1985, pp. 172.

* Michel Paoletti, Ross Steele, "Civilisation Française Quotidienne", Hatier - Klett, 1985, pp. 256.

* "New Concise English-Japanese Dictionary", Sanseido, 1985, pp. 1362.
For Japanese speakers.

* Hideichi Ono, "Everyday Expressions in Japanese", The Hokuseido Press, Tokyo, 1985, c1963, pp. 53.

* Kristoffer Nyrop, "Manuel phonétique du français parlé", Gyldendal, 1963, pp. 243.

* Wolfgang Hadamitzky, Kimiko Fujie-Winter, "Praktisches Lehrbuch Japanisch -- Band 1", in German: Practical Text Book Japanese -- Vol. 1, Langenscheidt, Berlin, 1985, pp. 200.

* Elena Bashir, "Toward a semantics of the Burushaski verb", in Conference on Participant Roles: South Asia and Adjacent Areas, ed. by Arlene K. Zide, David Magier, Eric Schiller, pp. 1-32. Bloomington, Indiana, IULC, 1985,
??? writes: Bashir ascribes some predictable features of Burushaski nominal and verbal morphology to semantic parameters such as degree of activity (of verbs and of actors), relative affectedness (of actors), and state/process- vs. actor-oriented verbal conceptions.

* George Muscat S.J., "Santali -- A New Approach", Santali Book Depot, Bihar, 1985, pp. 103.

* F. Max Müller, "A Sanskrit Grammar", Asian Publications Services, New Delhi, 1985, 1870, pp. 300.
[ fully transcribed, fully accented ]

* Joseph Biddulph, "Bornuese for Beginners", Languages Information Centre, Pontypridd, Wales, ±1985, pp. 24.
This completely handwritten booklet describes 19th-century Kanuri. Kanuri is a West-Saharan language, very remotely related to Luo; it is called Bornuese in the title because it was the language of the Bornu kingdom (±1400-1893). Nouns have no gender, and have a Hungarian-like conjugation: the function of a noun is indicated by a "case" suffix, -bee for the possessor, -gaa for the object, -roo for the indirect object, etc. Like in Latin and German, verbs can govern such cases: sobaantsu-roo dig\o|-i|rts\o|-i|gin = [to] his friend he praises. The is an -optional- suffix, -yee, for the subject too, which is unusual. Possessive pronouns are suffixes, as in Hungarian, and can be followed by case endings.
Pronouns: wu = I, ni = you, shi = he/she/it, andi = we, nandi = you all, sandi = they.
The verb is marked for mode (active, causative, reflexive, and relative(?)), tense (stative, present-continuous, past-punctual, past-continuous, future), subject, object, and negation, all expressed by particles around the stem, in very irregular patterns. Often particles are modified by phonetic changes. The text gives many verb forms, but without analysis, and the analysis is by no means always obvious.
Four and a half pages of annotated Bornuese text and a short vocabulary conclude the booklet. Unlike Luo Kanuri shows little or no traces of Semitic influence.

* Joseph Biddulph, "An Introduction to Luo, with Brief Remarks on Acoli", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 1985, pp. 20.
Luo is a West-Nilotic language. It can structurally best be described as Hebrew-like without triliteral roots. Of course the language, being Nilo-Saharan, is not noticeably related to the Afro-Asiatic Hebrew, but the structural similarity is striking; every turn one takes one finds things to recognize. The vocabulary is totally un-Semitic; the Semitic words in Luo are obvious loans ("malaika" - angel, "dhahabu" - gold, "roho" - spirit).
The noun has an absolute and a construct state, singular and plural, and is declined for possession by suffixing the personal object endings; the absolute often has a somewhat different stem than the declined forms. There is no gender in Luo.
The conjugated verb form consists of a subject prefix, a tense infix, the stem, a mode suffix and optionally an object suffix. Relative clauses are marked by a prefix "ma-/mo-" on the verb, forming very Hebrew-like words, e.g., "motho" - dead = who died, from "tho" - to die. Many adjectives are of this type.
For a complete description see "A grammar of Kenya Luo (Dholuo)", by A.N. Tucker (1994).

* Joseph Biddulph, "Introduction to Bushman", Joseph Biddulph Publisher, Pontypridd, Wales, 1985, pp. 20.
Starts with four pages on the structure and phonetics of the Khoisan language family. Next comes a 13-pages introduction to the Northern Khoisan language Tshumkwe !Kung, based on a translation of the Gospel according to Mark in that language. Tshumkwe !Kung is, like most Northern Khoisan languages, an isolating monosyllabic language, almost like Chinese. It has a general connective particle -a- used to connect a possessor to the possessed, thus producing a pseudo-genitive; to connect a noun to the verb of a relative clause (±"which"); to connect a verb to its indirect object, which immediately follows the verb; and often to connect an adjective to a noun. Tshumkwe !Kung has tones, but these are not indicated in the text, since regrettably none were given in the gospel translation. A three-pages comparison of the closely related Ekoko language concludes the booklet.

* Roy Albert, David Leedom Shaul, "A concise Hopi and English lexicon", J. Benjamins, Philadelphia, pp. 204. 1985,

* P. David Seaman, "Hopi dictionary -- Hopi-English, English-Hopi, grammatical appendix", Northern Arizona University anthropological paper; no. 2., Dept. of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz., 1985, pp. 603.
See Revised Edition, 1996.

* Charles Taylor, "Nkore-Kiga", Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars, London, Croom Helm, 1985, pp. 254.

* Willi Schaub, "Babungo", Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars, London, Croom Helm, 1985, pp. 401.

* Peter Cole, "Imbabura Quechua", Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars, London, Croom Helm, 1985, pp. ???.

* R.E. Asher, "Tamil", Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars, London, Croom Helm, 1985, pp. ???.
See Asher, Tamil, 1982.

* Makoto Sugawara, "Nihongo - A Japanese Approach to Japanese", The East Publications, Inc., 19-7, Minami-Azabu 3, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan, 1985, pp. ???.

* Alice C. Harris, "Diachronic syntax: the Kartvelian case", Syntax and semantics; vol. 18, Orlando, Academic Press, 1985, pp. 463.
Thesis-like historical reconstruction of the Series I and and Series II screeves and the cases they govern, based on data from Old Georgian, Laz and Svan, partly from field research by the author; no Modern Georgian. The reconstruction is based on a set of Demotion Rules for the various operands.

* "Japan As It Is", bilingual, English-Japanese, Gakken, Tokyo, 1985, pp. 368.

* Edward A. Schwarz, Reiko Ezawa, "Everyday Japanese", Passport Books, Lincolnwood, Ill., 1985, pp. 208.

* "The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots", Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1985, pp. ???.

* ????, "Toki no Gaijin", in Japanese: Time Stranger, ???, pp. 266.

* Niki Etsuko, "Doo no Sakana", in Japanese: The Copper Fish, Kadokawa Bunko, 1984, pp. 299.
Short stories.

* Shinichi Hoshi, "?? ?? Isopu", in Japanese: Esop's Fables, ???, pp. 272.

* Tanabe Son (??), "Joze to Tora to Sakana tachi", in Japanese: Jose, Tiger, and Fish, 1984, pp. 265.
A novel (romance).

* Jack Steward, "Japanese in Action", Weatherhill, New York, 1984, c1968, pp. 217.

* O. Tekin Ayba\(,s, Ayla Ayba\(,s-van Stokhem, "Woordenboek Turks-Nederlands Nederlands-Turks", van Goor, 1984, pp. 386.

* "Van Dale Groot Woordenboek Engels-Nederlands", in Dutch: Van Dale's Major Dictionary English-Dutch, Van Dale Lexicografie, Utrecht, 1984, pp. 1594.

* "A Guide to Reading & Writing Japanese", Tuttle, Rutland, 1984, c1959, pp. 312.

* Ann Kathleen Farmer, "Modularity in Syntax -- A Study of Japanese and English", MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1984, pp. 238.
Standard Theory considers the syntax of a language as a monolithic block. The author discerns more or less independently operating modules in the syntax of Japanese and possibly of English. As usual with modularity, she achieves simplification in doing so, it seems. Most ideas are expressed in examples only. I don't understand it well enough to comment; not for the faint of heart.

* "Van Dale Groot Woordenboek Frans-Nederlands", in Dutch: Van Dale's Major Dictionary French-Dutch, Van Dale Lexicografie, Utrecht, 1984, pp. 1579.
The first serious French-Dutch dictionary. With grammar.

* "Hittite etymological dictionary", Vol. 1-4, Jaan Puhvel, Berlin, Mouton, 1984-1997, pp. ???.

* Rudy Kousbroek, "Opstellen over taal", Meulenhoff, Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 183.

* Michael Fortescue, "West Greenlandic", Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars, London, Croom Helm, 1984, pp. 381.

* Boutros Hallaq, "Arabe -- 40 Leçons", Les langues pour tous, Presses Pocket, Paris, 1984, pp. 290.
All new words in transcription; writing exercises.

* Lin Miaoling, Michael Pye, "Everyday Chinese Characters -- A Guide to the Written Language", Duckworth, London, 1984, pp. 86.

* Allan R. Bomhard, "Toward Proto-Nostratic", Amsterdam Studies in History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 27, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 1984,

* Laurel J. Watkins, "A Grammar of Kiowa", Studies in the anthropology of North American Indians, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1984, pp. 268.

* H.F. Nater, "The Bella Coola language", Toronto, National Museums of Canada, 1984, pp. 170. Mercury series. Paper / Canadian Ethnology Service; no. 92,

* Henry R. Stern, "Essential Dutch Grammar", Dover, New York, 1984, pp. 107.
Excellent booklet on the Dutch language, with very few mistakes. Highlights the main points and goes beyond that. With one or two exceptions all examples are normal, colloquial Dutch, stylistically correct.
Whoever thought it was a good idea to put the word "Dutch" on the cover in *Gothic* letters should have his/her head examined.

* Rudy Kousbroek, "De logologische ruimte -- Opstellen over taal", in Dutch: The Logologic Space -- Essays on Language, Meulenhoff, 1984, pp. 183.

* K.D. Schönfeld Wichers, "Woordenboek Twents Nederlands", Stichting voor Oud-Twentse Volkstaal, Rijssen, 1983, pp. 343.
Describes the Rijssen dialect.

* Joseph Biddulph, "Guide to Ge`ez", Languages Information Centre, Pontypridd, Wales, 1983, pp. 20.
A two-page sketch of the Ge`ez (Amharic) alphabet, unvocalized, followed by 26 transliterated and translated sentences + the Lord's Prayer. The other 14 pages contain the extracted Ethiopic contents of Genesius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

* Victor Stevenson, "Atlas van de Europese talen", from the English: Words, Het Spektrum, Utrecht, 1983, pp. 224.

* Makiko Haruna, "Getting by in Japanese", Barron, Woodbury, 1983, pp. 88.

* Glyne L. Piggott, A. Grafstein, "An Ojibwa lexicon", Mercury Series, Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, 1983,

* "Irish-English English-Irish Dictionary and Phrase Book", Hippocrene Books, New York, 1983, pp. 72.
[ Pronunciation in English approximation ]

* "Ägyptisch-Arabisch", Langenscheidts Sprachführer, Langenscheidt, Berlin, 1983, pp. 208.
With full Arabic script and full transcription.

* Thomas O. Lambdin, "Introduction to Sahidic Coptic", Macon, Ga., Mercer University Press, 1983,

* Giuliano Bonfante, Larissa Bonfante, "The Etruscan Language: An Introduction", Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 174. 1983,

* Yves-Charles Morin, Etienne Tiffou, "Les tournures passives en Bourouchaski", in XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, ed. by Shiro Hattori and Kazuko Inoue, Tokyo, 1983,

* Ekkehart Malotki, "Hopitutuwutsi = Hopi Tales: a Bilingual Collection of Hopi Indian Stories", University of Arizona Press, 1983, pp. 213.
English and Hopi. Narrated by Herschel Talashoma; recorded and translated by Ekkehart Malotki; illustrated by Anne-Marie Malotki.

* "Kenkyusha's New Little Japanese-English Dictionary", 4th Edn., Pocket Dictionary, Kenkyusha, Tokyo, 1983, pp. 599.
Intended for a Japanese-speaking audience; preface and instructions in Japanese. Each lemma contains the Japanese word in hiragana or katakana with accent, the kanji version, the English translation, and constructions with the word in kanji only.

* Jorge Alberto Suarez, "The Mesoamerican Indian Languages", Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983,

* "Langenscheidts Universal-Wörterbuch Isländisch -- Isländisch-Deutsch, Deutsch-Isländisch", Pocket Dictionary, Langenscheidt, Berlin, pp. 426. 1983; c1964,

* T. Bolelli, A.Z. Bolelli, "Dizionario dei dialetti d'Italia -- A-C", La Domenica, 1983, pp. 80.

* Michel Malherbe, "Les languages de l'humanité -- une encyclopédie des 3000 langues parlées dans le monde", in French: The Languages of Mankind -- An Encyclopaedia of the 3000 Languages Spoken in the World, Seghers, Paris, 1983, pp. 443.
poser@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: An encyclopedia of 3000 languages from all over the world.

* H. Oosthoek, Ülker Meys-Yi\(ugito\(uglu, "Turks op reis", Elsevier, 1982, pp. ±110.

* E.J. Furnée, "Georgisch-vorgriechische, georgisch-vorromanische und georgisch-vorindogermanische Materialien", Beiträge zur georgischen Etymologie, 1, 1982, Peeters, Leuven, pp. 1-87.
In a sense somewhat of the reverse of Furnée 1979. Etymologies of: 1. non-Kv Georgian words with relations in 1a. Greek (58 words; e.g. abzinda (Eng. absinth)); 1b. Roman (8 words; e.g. k.ap.ano = big boat (Fr. cabane = hut)); 1c. other IE languages (12 words; e.g. lat.ani = long thin rod (Germ. Latte = slat)); 2. genuine Kv words with relations in IE (11 words; e.g. = worm (Germ. Made = maggot)).

* Jan Holub, "Concise Etymological Dictionary of the Czech Language", pp. 536. 1982, French & European ????,

* Howard I. Aronson, "Georgian -- A Reader", Slavica, Columbus, Ohio, 1982, pp. 526.
Extensive description of the language, with much reading material and exercises. Seems an excellent course book. Georgian text is always (and after the fifth chapter exclusively) in Georgian script, which makes it less useful as a reference grammar. In 15 decidedly non-trivial lessons, with 37 pages of vocabulary.

* Leonard Newmark, Philip Laurence Hubbard, Peter Prifti, "Standard Albanian -- a reference grammar for students", Stanford, Calif., Stanford University Press, 1982, pp. 347.

* Howard I. Aronson, "Georgian: a reading grammar", Columbus, Ohio, Slavica, 1982,

* Etienne Tiffou, Yves-Charles Morin, "A Note on split ergativity in Burushaski", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 45, pp. 88-94. 1982,
Data regarding stress and vowel length, phonological aspects often missed by Lorimer in his transcriptions, reveal that the ergative split in Burushaski is much narrower (at least for the Hunza dialect) than Lorimer believed it to be. Ergative case is the norm for transitive subjects, but first and second person pronouns show a split in the future tense.

* "Kenkyusha's New Little English-Japanese Dictionary", 4th Edn., Pocket Dictionary, Kenkyusha, Tokyo, 1982, pp. 566.
Intended for a Japanese-speaking audience; preface and instructions in Japanese. Each lemma contains the English word with pronunciation, with translation or explanation in Japanese (kanji).

* M.A. Smirnova, "The Hausa Language", translated from Russian: IAzyk khausa, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1982, c1960, pp. 112.
Does not bother with tones, although the author admits that tones are significant.

* Elizabeth A. Edwards, "The importance of pragmatic factors in Haida syntax", Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash., 1982, pp. 168.

* Vic Abens, "Rieden op lëtzebuergesch -- eng nei Kollektioun mat Texter op lëtzebuergesch", in Luxemburgish: Speeches in Luxemburgish -- A New Collection with Texts in Luxemburgish, Haffdréckerei Victor Buck, Lëtzebuerg, 1982, pp. 119.
Twentysix speeches in Luxemburgish, mostly concerned with local politics.

* Claude Hagège, "La structure des langues", in French: The Structure of Languages, Que sais-je? #2006, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1982, pp. 128.

* Charles Berlitz, "Native Tongues", New York, Grosset & Dunlap, 1982, pp. 340.

* Mary Valentine Kroul, "The phonology and morphology of the Central Outer Koyukon Athapaskan language", Ann Arbor, Mich., University Microfilms International, 1982, pp. 238.

* Kaptan Pawlu Bugeja, "Kelmet il-Malti, Dizzjunarju Malti-Ingliz.-Malti", in Maltese: Vocabulary of Maltese -- Maltese-English-Maltese Dictionary, Gulf Publications, Malta, pp. 536. 1982,

* Melvyn C. Goldstein, "Tibetan for Beginners and Travellers", Ratna Pustak Bhandar Bhotahity, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1982, pp. 82.

* R.E. Asher, "Tamil", Lingua Descriptive Series, North-Holland Publ., Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 265.
Detailed description of colloquial Tamil, in Latin transcription.

* B.A. Phythian, "A Concise Dictionary of English Slang", Hodder and Stoughton, London, pp. 208. 1981, c1955,

* M.S. Beeler, "Venetic Revisited", in Bono Homini Donum, ed. by Y.L. Arbeitman, 1981, pp. 65-72.
After summarizing all arguments on the question whether Venetic is closely related to Latin or is a separate branch of PIE, the author concludes that the evidence is contradictory: the identical and specific treatment of the aspirates in Latin and Venetic prove that they are closely related, but the lexicon shows that Oscan and Umbrian are much closer to Latin than Venetic is, but they don't share the specific treatment of the aspirates.
It is clear that the tree model does not work here, but the problem is worse: what was the mechanism that led to this situation? Once we know the mechanism, the model will follow.

* Paul J. Hopper, "Decem and Taihun Languages: An Indo-European Isogloss", in Bono Homini Donum, ed. by Y.L. Arbeitman, 1981, pp. 133-142.

* W.R. Schmalstieg, "Ergativity in Indo-European", in Bono Homini Donum, ed. by Y.L. Arbeitman, 1981, pp. 243-258.
The author uses the term 'diathesis', which apparently means the axis active, passive, medium. Some languages have no diathesis: a sentence like 'carrying man-X horse-Y' can then be interpreted/translated in several ways: 1. actively, as 'the horse carries the man', with -Y as -nom. and -X as -acc.; 2. passively, as 'the man is carried by the horse', with -X as -subj., and -Y as -agent; 3. Ergatively, with -Y as -erg. and -X as -abs.; 4. Genitively, as 'horse's carrying for the man', with -X as -gen. and -Y as -benefic . Note that the sentence does not contain a verb: 'carrying' is at most a verbal noun.
The author starts with the fourth interpretation for an early form of PIE: bhr-to patr-os wir-om = 'the carrying of the father for the man', where -to is a determinative, -os is the subjective genitive ending, and -om the benefactive one. Later this was reinterpreted as active: the -t became a verb ending, the -os became a nominative ending, and the -om became an accusative ending. This explains why nominative and genitive both end in -s.

* Allan R. Bomhard, "Indo-European and Afroasiatic: New Evidence for the Connection", in Bono Homini Donum, ed. by Y.L. Arbeitman, 1981, pp. 351-474.

* J. Colarusso, "Typological Parallels between Proto-Indo-European and the Northwest Caucasian Languages", in Bono Homini Donum, ed. by Y.L. Arbeitman, 1981, pp. 475-558. Summary of Sect. 10-16. The behavior of laryngeals in the North-Caucasian languages is analyzed and the results are used to get a new view on the PIE laryngeals. More in particular, the phonemes are decomposed in their features--low, lax, back, aspirated, etc.--, and the effects of these on vowels and assimilation are analyzed and compared to effects observed in the IE languages.
On the basis of this the author arrives at the following most likely phonemes for the PIE laryngeals: h1 = χ, h2 = ħ, h3 = ħw, and h4 = h, the first three of them with their voiced counterparts.

* George Dunkel, "Typology versus Reconstruction", in Bono Homini Donum, ed. by Y.L. Arbeitman, 1981, pp. 559-569.
Strongly opposes the view that the reconstruction of PIE should coute que coute conform to typological standards, on the grounds that typology only summarizes what has been observed, and cannot deal with what could be. So, if reconstruction says that PIE had a series p, b, bh, then that reconstruction cannot be overthrown by typological considerations.

* Cyrus H. Gordon, "The Semitic Language of Minoan Crete", in Bono Homini Donum, ed. by Y.L. Arbeitman, 1981, pp. 761-782.
Shows many examples of Eteocretan fragments that can be interpreted as some form of North-West Semitic. An example from a bilingual is: ihia = 'it will be' (Hebr. yhiye), corresponding to Greek genoito = 'let there be'; another, from Linear A: su-pa-la next to a picture of a cup (Hebr. sefel). But ΣΦA is equated to Hebr. sheva' = seven, which seems to be stretching it a bit. One could also point out that the Minoan (= Linear A) a, i, and u look believably like an ox (aleph), a hand (yad), and a hook (waw), resp.
Full transcriptions of the Minoan (Linear A) and Greek (± 500 B.C.) texts would be needed to be convincing (or is the reader expected to just be able to read both?)

* Thomas V. Gamkrelidze, "Language Typology and Language Universals and their Implication for the Reconstruction of the Indo-European Stop System", in Bono Homini Donum, ed. by Y.L. Arbeitman, 1981, pp. 571-613.

* Benjamin Schwartz, "The Phaistos Disk Again?", in Bono Homini Donum, ed. by Y.L. Arbeitman, 1981, pp. 783-799.
Resumé of the author's papers of 1959 concerning the Phaistos disk. We compare the decipherment to that of S.R. Fischer (Glyphbreaker). 1. They both read the disk in the same direction: outside-in, from right to left. 2. S. assumes it to be a stamp, so the actual pictures are mirrored; F. takes them on face value. 3. Both agree that is a syllabary. 4. Both agree that the language is Proto-Greek. 5. Both assume the script is related to Linear A/B. 6. S. bases the character values mainly on first-middle-last frequency distribution; F. uses several techniques(see Glyphbreaker), among which using the first syllable of the (Proto-)Greek word for the depicted object. 7. In the end they agree on only two characters, PD 12 = qe and PD 35 = te, and a half, PD 01, where S. has ro and F. has ri. 8. According to S. the disk is a "a Baedecker's Guide to some of the holy places in Greece"; F. arrives at the conclusion it is a call to arms against the Carians. 9. They somehow seem to agree that it is a "shopping list".

* Yo\("El Arbeitman, "The Hittite is thy Mother", in Bono Homini Donum, ed. by Y.L. Arbeitman, 1981, pp. 761-1016.
Book-size article, arguing/proving that the Hittites from the bible are the same as the Hittites from linguistics.

* G.J. de Haan, G.A.T Koefoed, A.L. des Tombes, "Basiskursus algemene taalwetenschap", Van Gorcum, Assen, 1981, pp. 220.

* Battus, "Opperlandse taal- & letterkunde", in Dutch: Upperlands linguistics and literature, E.M. Querido, Amsterdam, 1981, pp. 203.
Word games, nonsense verse, etc. of the Dutch and un-Dutch language.

* David W. McAlpin, "Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The Evidence and Its Implications", American Philosophical Soc., Philadelphia, 1981, pp. 155.
Starts with a 40 page introduction to Dravidian, followed by a 27 page introduction to Elamite. Part of the evidence is based on 81 lexical entries of Proto-Elamo-Dravidian, from which the Dravidian and Elamite representatives are derived by more or less solid phonetical correspondences. Given the shortness of both Dravidian and Elamite roots, some are not too convincing (PED it.- = to put → E. ta-, Dr. it.-, both to put), but many are stronger. The other part of the evidence, the endings ("morphological etyma"), however, is fully convincing: the appellative endings are (Proto-Elamite / Proto-Dravidian): sing.: -k0/-k0, -t0/-ti, -r0/-anr0; plur. -un(k0)/-kum, ?/-tir, -p(0)/-pa; and the isolated pronouns are only slightly less good. This alone seems evidence enough to me.
Futhermore, an attempt is made to determine the position of Brahui in the Proto-Elamo-Dravidian tree: is it (Elamite Brahui) Dravidian, Elamite (Brahui Dravidian), or (Elamite) (Brahui) (Dravidian)? The author's conclusion is that not enough Elamite is known to decide the question; for the moment three independent branches seems to be the best working hypothesis.
Some implications of the common vocabulary for the prehistory of South-Asia are pointed out, mainly that PED has words for goat herding.

* John C. Rath, "A practical Heiltsuk-English dictionary with a grammatical ...", Mercury Series, Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, 1981,

* Alice C. Harris, "Georgian Syntax: A Study in Relational Grammar", Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981,
Uses the weird properties of Georgian grammar to test the hypothesis, provided by relational grammar theory, that subject, object and indirect object are basic terms in any language, regardless of appearances. Although the book provides much insight, the style is quite argumentative, which makes one suspicious. The usual technique is to examine a number of language phenomena (of which there are enough in Georgian!), to generalize a rule from them, then to move to another language feature and to apply the rule to it. Perhaps this is good methodology but it makes the layman worry what would have happened if the features were considered in a different order.

* J. Colarusso, "Typological parallels between Proto-Indo-European and North-West Caucasian languages", in Bono Homini Donum: Esseys in hisiorical linguistics: In memoriam of Alexander Kerns, Amsterdam, pp. 475-557. 1981,

* Georges Charachidze, "Grammaire de la langue avar: langue du Caucase Nord-Est", Saint-Sulpice de Favieres, Favard, 1981, pp. 209. Documents de linguistique quantitative ; no. 38,

* John P. Hutchinson, A. Neil Skinner, "A reference grammar of the Kanuri language", Madison, University of Wisconsin, African Studies Program, Boston, Boston University, African Studies Center, 1981, pp. 363.

* H. Schuurkes, G. Germeyan, "Turks voor beginners", in Dutch: Turks for Beginners, Educaboek, Tjeenk Willink/Noorduijn, Culemborg, 1981, pp. 100.
Turkish for beginners; simple but good.

* Judith Olmsted Gary, Saad Gamal-Eldin, "Cairene Egyptian Colloquial Arabic", Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars, London, Croom Helm, 1981, pp. ???.

* H. Christoph Wolfart, Janet F. Carroll, "Meet Cree: a Guide to the Cree language", Edmonton, University of Alberta Press, 1981,

* V. Tams Jorgensen, "Snaak Friisk!: interfriisk Leksikon:", Braist, Nordfriisk Instituut, 1981,

* Olov Bertil Anderson, "Bushu -- The Radicals of the Japanese Script", Curzon Press, London, 1981, pp. 87.

* Capt. Paul Bugeja, "Maltese -- How to Read and Speak it", Gulf Publications, Valletta, Malta,, pp. 120. 1981,

* Bernard Comrie, "The Languages of the Soviet Union", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981, pp.
poser@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: Contains both structural information and information on the distribution and classification of the languages.

* Franz Delitch, "HaBrit HaChadasha", in Hebrew: The New Testament, Bible Society of Israel, ±1980, pp. 486.

* Rudi Kousbroek, Sarah Hart, "Wat moet ik zeggen en Hoe zeg ik het in het Kats", in Dutch: What to say in Cat and How to say it, De Harmonie, Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 85.
Hilarious Dutch-Cat Phrase Book. Example: "Have you got any brothers or sisters?" => "Dount tellme therare morevyou".

* Crysten Fudge, Graham Sandercock, "Kernewek Mar Plek! -- A First Course in Cornish", title in Cornish: Cornish Please!, Truran Publ., Trewolsta, ±1980, pp. 66.

* Crysten Fudge, "Kernewek Mar Plek! -- A Second Course in Cornish", title in Cornish: Cornish Please!, Truran Publ., Trewolsta, ±1980, pp. 66.

* "A concise etymological dictionary of the English language", Walter W. Skeat, New York, N.Y., Putnam's Sons, 1980, pp. 656.

* "Langenscheidts Universal-Wörterbuch Neugriechisch -- Neugriechisch-Deutsch, Deutsch-Neugriechisch", Pocket Dictionary, Langenscheidt, Berlin, pp. 447. 1980,

* Peter M. Bergman, "The Basic English-Chinese Chinese-English Dictionary", New American Library, New York, 1980,
A list of "1000 most useful words", in various listings; not a dictionary.

* Adolf Friedrich Stenzler, "Elementarbuch der Sanskrit-Sprache -- Grammatik, Texte, Wörterbuch", in German: Elementary Text Buch of the Sanskrit Language -- Grammar, Texts, Dictionary, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1980, pp. 122.
A compendium of paradigms, rules and ligatures using the traditional Panini approach, rather than a text book. No transcription, no exercises. Not for the faint of heart; this is excellent support material for the very serious student, though. Sanskrit-English dictionary (30 pages), minimal table of contents, no index.

* Paolo Ramat, "Linguistic reconstruction and Indo-European syntax", Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Vol. 19, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 1980, pp. 236.
There is much disagreement on the subject, but two things seem to be more or less clear. 1. We do not have the theory and the techniques to reconstruct syntax with the same confidence as we reconstruct lexicons and morphology. 2. The syntax of Proto- (Pre-?) Indo-European is SOV.

* Paul Kent Andersen, "On the reconstruction of the syntax of comparison in Proto-Indo-European", in Linguistic reconstruction and Indo-European syntax, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Vol. 19, ed. by Paolo Ramat, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 1980, pp. 225-236.
A very systematic approach which confirms the form adjective--yes + standard-ablative. Since this form is doubly marked -- the -yes and the ablative -- there was room for development and later dialects could come up with differing forms.

* Catherine A. Callaghan, "An `Indo-European' type paradigm in proto Eastern Miwok", in American Indian and Indoeuropean studies, ed. by Kathryn Klar, ed. by Margaret Langdon, ed. by Shirley Silver, Trends in Linguistics, #16, Mouton, The Hague, 1980, pp. 31-41.
The pronominal series for nouns and some verbs in proto Eastern Miwok (-ma, -s, -, -mas, -tok, -phu) shows remarkable similarity to the Indo-European sequence, but can be shown to be a relatively new development. Other series show no similarities.

* Victor Golla, "Some Yokuts-Maidun comparisons", in American Indian and Indoeuropean studies, ed. by Kathryn Klar, ed. by Margaret Langdon, ed. by Shirley Silver, Trends in Linguistics, #16, Mouton, The Hague, 1980, pp. 57-65.
108 proto-Yokuts-Maidun roots are given, with their forms in various languages, to support the claim that Yokuts and Maidun are more closely related to each other than to the other Penutian languages.

* Mary R. Haas, "Notes on Karok internal reconstruction", in American Indian and Indoeuropean studies, ed. by Kathryn Klar, ed. by Margaret Langdon, ed. by Shirley Silver, Trends in Linguistics, #16, Mouton, The Hague, 1980, pp. 67-76.
Hundreds of seemingly monolithic Karok verb stems are decomposed in an instrumental prefix and a root, e.g. 'aktif = to shove aside, from 'ak- = with the hands, and =tif = to move aside. This has two purposes: to facilitate comparison of Karok to other Hokan languages, and to construct new verb stems based on these components and ask Karok speakers if they exist.

* Marc Okrand, "Rumsen II: An evaluation of reconstruction", in American Indian and Indoeuropean studies, ed. by Kathryn Klar, ed. by Margaret Langdon, ed. by Shirley Silver, Trends in Linguistics, #16, Mouton, The Hague, 1980, pp. 170-182.
In 1957, Broadbent designed methods to compare and cross-relate historical material on extinct languages to squeeze out the last drop of information; she applied these methods to Rumsen, a southern Costanoan language. Later, a large amount of data recorded earlier by Harrighton became available. The present article compares the results of Broadbent with the newly discovered material and find Broadbent's reconstruction largely confirmed.

* Jesse O. Sawyer, "The non-genetic relationship of Wappo and Yuki", in American Indian and Indoeuropean studies, ed. by Kathryn Klar, ed. by Margaret Langdon, ed. by Shirley Silver, Trends in Linguistics, #16, Mouton, The Hague, 1980, pp. 209-219.
The author shows that the fairly evident relationship between Wappo and Yuki is an optical illusion: Wappo and Yuki are not closely related but have exchanged a large number of words in the past. 1. Correlation between long words is much higher than between short words; 2. Often such longer words are analysable in one language and seem primitive in the other. A relationship with a much greater time depth is of course still possible.

* William Shipley, "Rumsen derivation", in American Indian and Indoeuropean studies, ed. by Kathryn Klar, ed. by Margaret Langdon, ed. by Shirley Silver, Trends in Linguistics, #16, Mouton, The Hague, 1980, pp. 237-244.
Rumsen has a di- and triliteral root system strongly reminiscent of the Semitic languages, in which the meaning of the stem derives from insertion in the root and/or doubling of its consonants. Some twenty `themes' are identified.

* Martha B. Kendall, "The unethical dative", in American Indian and Indoeuropean studies, ed. by Kathryn Klar, ed. by Margaret Langdon, ed. by Shirley Silver, Trends in Linguistics, #16, Mouton, The Hague, 1980, pp. 383-394.
An amusing collection of expressions that use the `unethical' dative, of the type: `Man hat mir mein Fahrrad geklaut', in many Indo-European languages.

* Hasmig Seropian, "Indo-European, Classical Armenian, and Modern Armenian", in American Indian and Indoeuropean studies, ed. by Kathryn Klar, ed. by Margaret Langdon, ed. by Shirley Silver, Trends in Linguistics, #16, Mouton, The Hague, 1980, pp. 469-476.
Shows that Modern Armenian is not derived from Classical Armenian, but is rather an independent development of Proto-Armenian, by showing several features which are present both in Proto-Indo-European and in Modern Armenian, but which are absent in Classical Armenian. These features include word order, suffix composition and the tendency to omit the subject of a sentence.

* John James Enrico, "Masset Haida phonology", Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1980, pp. 455.

* Neville John Lincoln, John C. Rath, "North Wakashan comparative root list", Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, 1980,

* Robert W. Young, William Morgan, "The Navajo Language: a Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary", Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press, 1980, pp. 471+1069.
A revision and expansion of the authors' `The Navaho language and A vocabulary of colloquial Navaho'.

* Qudratullah Beg, "Burushaski qa'idah aur huruf-i tahajji = Burushaski base harputs fas mamimiyen", 1980, Rawalpindi, Karina Printers, pp. 22.
A primer of the Burushaski language for Urdu speakers. In Burushaski (roman) and Urdu.

* William R. Schmalstieg, "Indo-European Linguistics: A New Synthesis", University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980, pp. 210.

* "Kirans Concise Hindi-English Dictionary", Kiran Publications, New Delhi, ±1980, pp. 806.

* J. Buitkamp, "Zo leer je Hebreeuws", in Dutch: This is the way to learn Hebrew, Spectrum, Prisma 1903, 1980, pp. 198.
Unlike its companion "Hebreeuws op reis" (1975) this is a solid text book(let) on Modern Hebrew. The Hebrew text is stiff but not clumsy, and was already old-fashioned when the book was printed, but the explanations are clear and the examples good.

* Eila-Liisa Bakker-Hallberg, "Fins op reis", van Goor, Den Haag, 1979, pp. 78.

* "Handbook of Australian languages", Amsterdam, Benjamins, 1979-1991, 4 volumes,

* Ives Goddard, "Delaware verbal morphology -- a descriptive and comparative study", Thesis Cambridge, Mass., Garland, New York, N.Y., 1979, c1969, pp. 199.

* Hamish Rae Stuart, "Scottish/English, English/Scottish -- A Glossary", Celtic Educational (Services), Swansea, England, pp. 48. 1979,

* E.J. Furnée, "Vorgriechisch-Kartvelisches -- Studien zum ostmediterranen Substrat nebst einem Versuch zu einer neuen pelasgischen Theorie", Louvain, Peeters, 1979, pp. 65.
Etymologies of a hundred non-IE Greek words found in the Kartvelian languages, 50 of which have solid Kv. etymologies and 50 of which have not, with an introduction that ties them together.

* Ronald W. Langacker, "Studies in Uto-Aztecan Grammar -- Vol 2: Modern Aztec Grammatical Sketches", Summer Institute of Linguistics / University of Texas, Dallas, 1979, pp. 380.
Concerns four Nahuatl dialects: Tetelcingo, North Puebla, Huasteca and Michoacán.

* Desmond C. Derbyshire, "Hixkaryana", Lingua Descriptive Series, North-Holland Publ., Amsterdam, 1979, pp. 199.
Hixkaryana is a Carib language spoken in northern Brasil.
Nouns: no cases; no gender; possessor prefixed on possessed, which is also marked with a constant suffix; postpositions.
Pronouns: various combinations, e.g. we, we+you-them, we-you+them.
Number: group indication.
Adjectives: don't exist, but adverbs do, in plenty; additional properties of a noun are expressed by choosing an appropriate verb and modifying it with an adverb.
Verb: subject and object prefixed; tense and aspect suffixed; one irregular verb: `to be'.
Basic word order: OVS (although the sample sentences give the inpression that subjects are often only mentioned as an afterthought).
Relative clauses: don't exist, gerunds are used instead.

* B.G. Hewitt, "Abkhaz", Lingua Descriptive Series, North-Holland Publ., Amsterdam, 1979, pp. 283.
Abkhaz is a North-west Caucasian language, spoken near the eastermost coast of the Black Sea. It has 53 consonants (normal, glottalized, voiced, labialized or palatalized, on seven positions in the mouth) and two vowels. Nouns: no cases; no gender; possessor prefixed on possessed; postpositions. Pronouns: 1 sing., pl.incl, pl.excl.; 2 sing.masc, sing.fem, pl.incl, pl.excl; 3 sing.masc+non-human, sing.fem, pl. Number: sing./pl.human/pl.non-human. Adjectives: they are verbs. Verbs: consist of a preverb and a root; object, indirect object, preverb and subject are prefixed to the root, in that order; various tense and aspect particles are inserted between the indirect object and the end of the verbal complex; no irregular verbs, but a few phonetic transformations apply. Word order: basically SOV, although any order is allowed. Relative clauses: marked by a special pronoun in the verb: he-sits/who-sits.

* Ekkehart Malotki, "Hopi-Raum -- Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Analyse der Raumvorstellungen in der Hopi-Sprache", in German: `A linguistic analysis of space representations in the Hopi language', Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen, 1979, pp. 406.
Whereas English has only two built-in location words, `here' for things near the speaker and `there' for things elsewhere, Hopi has some 42 words, including words for `in the north' and `at the foot of the mesa'. Each of them can occur in three motion forms, indicating `at', `towards' and `away from', orthogonally combined with three field forms (`in a point', `diffusely over a field' and `in the middle of') and again distinguished for `normal distance' and `extreme distance'. This book analyses the concepts and gives some 1800 (numbered) examples. Includes an exhaustive list of Hopi endings.

* Jul Christophory, "Who's Afraid of Luxembourgish? / Qui a peur du luxembourgeois? -- Bilingual Guide to Luxembourgish Conversation", Bourg-Bourger, Luxembourg, Lux., 1979, pp. 130.
In spite of its corny title, a thorough booklet, including grammar, word lists, sentence lists, exercises, etc. Most of the format is trilingual columns of the type "Deeg vun der Woch" / "Jours de la semaine" / "Days of the week", with grammatical annotations. Literature lists and references to more advanced books.

* Jean Haudry, "L'indo-européen", in French: Indo-European, Que sais-je? #1798, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1979, pp. 128.

* W.B. Lockwood, "Überblick über die indogermanischen Sprachen", translated from English: `A Panorama of Indo-European Languages', Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen, 1979, c1972, pp. 319.
Fairly superficial treatment of the 13 (!) branches of Indo-European, describing for each branch its history, the history of its research, some morphological details and short sample texts. The structuring is extremely conservative: Osco-Umbrian and Venetic are considered separate branches and the Indo-Hittite hypothesis is not mentioned. No literature references. Not a serious book.

* John Asher Dunn, "A Reference Grammar for the Coast Tsimshian Language", Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 55, National Museum of Man, Ottawa, 1979, pp. 91.

* Jacques Allieres, "Manuel pratique de basque", Paris, Picard, 1979,

* Kenneth Clair Shields Jr., "The Origin and Development of Gender in the Indo-European Language Family", Ann Arbor, Mich., University, 1979, pp. 168.

* Malcolm Malclennan, "A Pronouncing and Etymological Dictionary of the Gaelic Language -- Gaelic-English, English-Gaelic", Aberdeen, Aberdeen University Press, 1979, pp. 613.

* Talmy Giv'on, "On Understanding Grammar", Academic Press, New York, 1979, pp. 379.

* L.T. András, M. Murvai, "How to Say it in Hungarian", Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest, pp. 238. 1979,

* Lyle Campbell, Marianne Mithun (Eds.), "The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment", University of Texas Press, Austin, 1979, pp. 1034.
Seventeen papers about the state of the art in research in native American language families. Little information about the languages themselves.

* Beijing Foreign Languages Institute, "The Pinyin Chinese-English Dictionary", Commercial Press, Hong Kong, 1978; reprint 1984, pp. 976.
The translation of Chinese characters is mostly in complete sentences (of a decidedly Peoples Republic flavour!).

* Jim Allan, "An Introduction to Elvish and to Other Tongues and Proper Names and Writing Systems of the Third Age of the Western Lands of Middle-Earth as Set Forth in the Published Writings of Prof. John Ronald Reuel Tolkien", Bran's Head Books, Hayes, Middlesex, pp. 303. 1978,

* Aino Wuolle, "Suomi-Englanti-Suomi Taskusanakirja", in Finnish: English-Finnish-English Pocket Dictionary, Werner Söderström, Osakeyhtiö, pp. 200+191+78. 1978,

* "Klein Zweeds Woordenboek", in Dutch: Small Swedish Dictionary, Van Goor Zonen, 1978, pp. 450.

* H.F.A van der Lubbe O.F.M., "Woordvolgorde in het Nederlands", in Dutch: Word Order in Dutch, Van Gorkum, Assen, 1978, pp. 377.
A famous work, but more limited than the title suggests: the subject is the order of words within a word group, rather than the order of word groups in a Dutch sentence, which is so confusing to foreigners. So it analyses and and answers questions like why one says "beautiful red flowers" rather than "red beautiful flowers" (the adjectives are ordered from most subjective to most objective).
Many examples are analysed in minute detail and ordered in a taxonomic structure. A striking example is that one can say "met een garage opzij", "met opzij een garage", "zonder een garage opzij", but not "zonder opzij een garage" (= with/without a lean-to garage) (no explanation given, as far as I can see).
The subtitle, "A Synchronous Structural Dissertation", is taken literally: no attempt is shown to explain anything from a historic viewpoint. The book is written in a meticulous but sometimes heavy Dutch.

* "The written languages of the world: a survey", Quebec, Les Presses de l'Universite Laval, 1978-...,

* W. Sidney Allen, "Vox Latina -- A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin", 2d ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 132.
Motivated account of our knowledge of the pronunciation of classical Latin, especially geared to the speaker of English. There is a lot of information about the pronunciation of Latin: the Romans themselves wrote about it, they made puns and mocked "funny" accents, they copied Greek words phonetically, they made spelling errors, etc. All this information is collated and analyzed.
Salient points: -- Most sounds are like in Italian, except that vowel length must be distinguished; a chapter is dedicated to explain the methods by which vowel lengths (not indicated in Latin writing) were reconstructed. -- c is always pronounced k, far into the 4th century A.D. -- Double consonants are pronounced long, as in Italian. -- p, t, and c were unaspirated or lightly aspirated; ph, th and ch (Etruscan influence) were aspirated, not fricatives (not like in Eng. "photo", "think" and "loch"). -- The h was on its way out; it was even spelled ch for emphasis by the 3rd century A.D.: michi for mihi. -- qu and gu are single sounds, labio-velars, not composites as in Eng. or It. -- ae is as in Eng. "high", au is as in Eng. "how"; the pronunciation of ae as long e and of au as long o is rural, not a development of Roman Latin. -- There was an "intermediate vowel", shwa-like, sometimes written i and sometimes u: consul / consilium. -- Many contractions happened at vowel junction; a complete chapter is dedicated to them. -- Accent is a stress accent (Italian-style, not the heavily centralized Eng. stress accent); the Romans themselves described it as pitch, but the author shows that they copied a description of Greek and forced it on their own language.
The author points out that not until the beginning of the 19th century did grammarians correctly establish the mechanism of voicing. The difference between voiced and voiceless was a mystery until then; people could of course hear the difference but could not find out what caused it.
Appendix A contain selected quotes from classical grammarians. Appendix C gives the alphabet and the names of the letters as used in ancient Rome.

* Roger Gilstrap, "Algonquin dialect relationships in ...", Mercury Series, Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, 1978,

* Milo Kalectaca, "Lessons in Hopi", The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Ariz., 1978, pp. 234.
Evenly paced set of 30 lessens, by a native speaker. Contains a modest dictionary.

* R.P. Botha, "Inleiding tot generatief taalonderzoek", vertaald uit het Afrikaans, Wolters-Noordhof, Groningen, 1978, pp. 438.

* Erma Lawrence, "Kiilang sk'at'aa: Haida reading book", Ketchikan Indian Corp., Ketchikan, Alaska, 1978,

* Theodora Bynon, "Historical Linguistics", Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1977, pp. 310.

* Xabier Gereño, "A New Method for Learning Basque -- Euskara ikasteko metodoa", CINSA, Bilbao, 1977, pp. 176.
Elementary but thorough book using Euskara Batua, Unified Basque. The first 83 pages consist of 40 two-page lessons, with equal amounts of vocabulary, grammar and phrases; these include 12 synthetic verbs. The other pages contain 41 tables of nor-nori, zer-nork and zer-nori-nork conjugations, with roughly 40 forms in each.

* Kevork H. Gulian, "Elementary Modern Armenian Grammar", Ungar, New York, Fotomech. herdr. van de uitg.: London : D. Nutt, 1902, [Repr.], 3rd print, 1977, pp. 196.

* K.M. Elisabeth Murray, "Caught in a Web of Words", Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1977, pp. 386.

* J.C. Catford, "Mountain of tongues: the languages of the Caucasus", Annual Review of Anthropology, 1977, 6, pp. 283-314.

* Etienne Tiffou, "L'effacement de l'ergatif en bourouchaski", Studia Linguistica, 31, #1, pp. 18-37. 1977,
???@??? wrote: My understanding of this article is shaky, at best. As far as I can tell, Tiffou maintains that ergativity is no longer "bi-directional" between verbs and their arguments, although it probably once was. So there is a diminution of the scope of ergativity in Burushaski.

* Ronald W. Langacker, "Studies in Uto-Aztecan Grammar -- Vol 1: An Overview of Uto-Aztec Grammar", Summer Institute of Linguistics / University of Texas, Dallas, 1977, pp. 199.
Actually a grammar of Proto-Uto-Aztecan, with reflexes in the various Uto-Aztecan languages.

* Marc Okrand, "Mutsun Grammar", Thesis (Ph.D. in Linguistics), University of California, Berkeley, June 1977, pp. 349.
From the author of Klingon.
Mutsun is (was) a Costanoan (Ohlonean) language, spoken in San Juan Bautista near San Francisco. It has several sibilants and the usual 5 vowels. Nouns: 2 cases: absolute/oblique; no gender; possessor pre-fixed on the possessed; postpositions. Pronouns: 1,2,3, sing./plural. Number: sing./pl, almost all regular. Adjectives: they are verbs. Verbs: verb stem + a few suffixes; subject and object as separate words; final suffix indicates both non-past/recent past/remote past, and active/passive; no irregular verbs. Word order: basically SOV, although variants occur.

* Robert Detrick van Valin Jr., "Aspects of Lakhota Grammar", Ph.D. Thesis, University of Calfornia, Berkeley, 1977, pp. 254.
The book starts with a 50 page introduction to Lakhota. The bulk of the book consists of an argued interpretation of the identification of Actors, Goals, etc., in Lakhota, from a role and reference grammar point of view. Comparisons to Tunica, Tagalog, Dyirbal, Basque, and many others are made.

* Erma Lawrence, "Haida dictionary", Society for the Preservation of Haida Language and Literature, 1977,

* Charles F. Voegelin, Florence M. Voegelin, "Classification and Index of the World's Languages", Elsevier, New York, 1977, pp.
poser@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: The most recent comprehensive classification that can be said to reflect mainstream views, in contrast to Ruhlen (1987). Contains only classificatory information.

* David McC. Grubb, "A Practical Writing System and Short Dictionary of Kwakw'ala (Kwakiutl)", Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 34, National Museum of Man, Ottawa, 1977, pp. 251.

* Robert Daigon Levine, "The Skidegate dialect of Haida", Thesis, 1977,

* Meic Stephens, "Linguistic Minorities in Western Europe", Gomer Press, Llandysul, Wales, 1976, pp. 796.

* Labat, "Manuel d'épigraphie akkadienne", P. Geuthner, Paris, 1976, pp. 332+.
Contains the sign shapes for all the periods, from Old Akkadian to Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian. The signlists by Wolfram von Soden (*Akkadisches Syllabar*, Rome, 1961) and Riekle Borger (*Assyrisch-babylonische Zeichenliste*, [don't know the details]) show the standard Neo-Assyrian shapes.

* "English-Hindi Conversation Guide", Central Hindi Directorate, New Delhi, 1976, pp. 176.
[ with full transcription ]

* Muhammad Kabir Mahmud Galadanci, "An Introduction to Hausa Grammar", Longman Nigeria, Ikeja, 1976, pp. 113.

* E.A. Wallis Budge, "Egyptian Language -- Easy Lessons in Egyptian Hieroglyphics", Dover, New York, 1976, c1910, pp. 246.

* John Priestley Hutchison, "Aspects of Kanuri Syntax", 1976,

* Jaroslav ^Cern'y, "Coptic Etymological Dictionary", Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1976,

* Yves-Charles Morin, "Naissance d'une constrainte de structure morphematique en bourouchaski", Recherches linguistiques a Montreal, 7, pp. 157-162. 1976,

* David S. Rood, "Wichita Grammar", Garland studies in American Indian Linguistics, Garland, New York, 1976, pp. 310.
An almost complete grammar of the Caddoan language Wichita, still spoken by some hundred people. The author takes great pains to present a very difficult language as simply as possible. Wichita is a heavily incorporating language and the verb is analysed to have 34 positions, to be filled with morphemes for subject, object, number of both, mood, tense, place, degree, pieces of the verb root, and what not. This defines the morphemic shape; then a number of phonological rules come along which turn this construct into a surface structure, which can then be pronounced. Hundreds of examples of this process are given, followed by annotated texts. The book ends with a Wichita-English morpheme index and an English-Wichita gloss list.

* Paula Ferris Einaudi, "A Grammar of Biloxi", Garland studies in American Indian Linguistics, Garland, New York, 1976, pp. 184.
The author has collected all known material about the Siouan language Biloxi (extinct since around 1940), and assembled it into a well-arranged grammar and syntax. Ample literature references and a number of annotated sentences are given.

* "American Indian languages and American linguistics", in Golden Anniversary Symposium of the Linguistic of California, Berkeley, on November 8 and 9, 1974, ed. by Wallace L.Chafe, The Peter de Ridder Press, Lisse, 1976, pp. 133.

* Wallace L. Chafe, "The Caddoan, Iroquoian, and Siouan languages", Mouton, The Hague, 1976, pp. 98. Trends in linguistics #3,
In spite of its title, this monograph describes only those parts of the subject matter that have not been described satisfactorily elsewhere. These include a history of the research on the three groups (chapter 1), the remote relationships between the groups (chapter 2) and a summary grammar of Caddo (chapter 3). The author considers the Siouan-Iroquian relationship beyond doubt on lexical grounds and spends no text on it. In 9 pages the author presents some material to support the Siouan-Caddoan and Iroquian-Caddoan relationships; the material for the first is meagre (mainly structural) but the second is more or less convincing (similarities in pronouns).

* Daniel M. Berry, Moshe Yavne, "The Conway Stones -- What the original Hebrew may have been", Mathematics Magazine, 49, #4, Sept. 1976, pp. 207-210.
In the book "Surreal Numbers" (Addison-Wesley, 1974), D.E. Knuth describes two drop-out students who discover an old Hebrew stone tablet, which they decipher explains Conway's number arithmetics axioms. The book produces the translation of the "Conway Stones" in biblical-style English.
From that, the authors hypothetically reconstruct the original Hebrew text, puns and all (unvocalized). For example, J.H. Conway, already transformed into J.H.W.H. Conway, appears in the "original Hebrew" as KNWY YHWH, and is then read as 'kanuy yhwh', which means "named Yahweh". Great fun.

* Maurice Pope, "The Story of Decipherment", Thames and Hudson, London, 1975, pp. 216.
Densely packed and detail-rich history of the decipherment of Egyptian Hieroglyphs, the Palmyra Script, Persian Cuneiform, Babylonian/Hittite Cuneiform, the Ugaritic Alphabet, the Cypriot Syllabary, Hittite Hieroglyphs, and Linear B.
Two notes: 1. The author is much more interested in the process of decipherment than in its result, with the perhaps logical consequence that sometimes the final tables are missing. 2. The author often tells us that some early conclusion is wrong, without telling what the conclusion should have been. In combination with 1 above this can make for serious puzzling.
And then there is the mystery that Tacitus would write utter nonsense about the hieroglyphs, when at that time (about AD 100) there were lots of people who new better in the Serapea all over Italy.

* J. Buitkamp, "Hebreeuws op reis", van Goor, Den Haag, 1975, pp. 70.

* Dick Stevens, "Japanse conversatie-gids", in Dutch: Japanese Conversation Guide, Nelissen, Bloemendaal, 1975, pp. 146.

* "Redhouse Elsözlü\(ugü \(.Ing\(.il\(.izce-Türkçe Türkçe-\(.Ing\(.il\(.izce", In Turkish: Redhouse' Hand Dictionary English-Turkish Turkish-English, Redhouse, \(.Istanbul, 1975, pp. 503.
[ For Turkish speakers ]

* Peter Ladefoged, "A Course in Phonetics", New York, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1975, pp. ???.
IPA Handbook

* Ellen Schauber, "The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in Navajo", Thesis MIT Cambridge, Mass., Garland Publ., New York, N.Y., 1975, c 1979, pp. 313.
Proves the existence of unbounded forward movement in WH-questions. Makes use of extremely complicated examples.

* Anne Anderson, "Cree -- A Book of Verbs and Endings", ISBN #0-919864-34-1, Alberta, Canada?, 1975, pp. 128.

* John Batchelor, "An Ainu-English-Japanese dictionary and grammar", Kokusho Kankokai, Tokyo, 1975, c1920?, pp. ???.

* George F. Aubin, "A Proto-Algonkian Dictionary", Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 29, National Museum of Man, Ottawa, 1975, pp. 210.

* Zoltán Bánhidi, Zoltán Jókay, Dénes Szabó, "Lehrbuch der Ungarischen Sprache", in German: Text Book of the Hunagrian Language, Max Hueber, München, 1975, pp. 495.
Excellent text book for self-study, extensive explanations and many exercises, fully annotated. A pleasure to use.

* Maria Zagorska Brooks, "Polish Reference Grammar", The Hague, Mouton, 1975, pp. 580.
As the title says, a full account of Polish in all its hairy detail.
Name: Polish.
Affiliation: Slavic.
Location: Poland.
Phonetics: consonants: the usual set, all unpalatalized and palatalized, plus sh; some palatalized consosnants are written with subsequent i (for example pi, mi), others with diacritical marks: c' for /tsy/ (as opposed to /tsh/, written cz). vowels: a, e, i, o, u, I (spelled y), o'(pronounced u), all short.
Nouns: gender/classes: sing.: m/f/n; plural: human masc. / others number: singular, plural cases: nom., gen., dat., acc., loc., instr., voc. possessor indication: adjective declinations: 4 classes with in total 28 declinations + many irregularities.
Pre/postpositions: pre.
Adjectives: with their own declinations.
Verbs: 4 conjugations with many subconjugations + irregularities; verbs have different forms for imperfect and perfect aspect. I cannot find "the regular verb".
Word order: SVO
Relative clauses: with the relative pronoun kto'ry (30 forms).
Conjugation of the word 'ten' - 'this':

      |    masc.      |   fem.    |   neut. / others
      | sg.| sg.       | sg.     pl.
nom   | ten     ci    | ta        | to      te
gen   | tego    tych  | tej       | tego    tych
dat   | temu    tym   | tej       | temu    tym
acc   | ten     tych  | te,       | to      te
loc   | tym     tych  | tej       | tym     tych
ins   | tym     tymi  | ta,       | tym     tymi

* Isidore Dyen, David F. Aberle, "Lexical reconstruction: the case of the Proto-Athapaskan kinship system", London, Cambridge University Press, 1974,

* Hermann Berger, "Das Yasin-Burushaski (Werkchikwar): Grammatik, Texte, Wörterbuch", in German: Yasin Burushaski (Werkchikwar): Grammar, Texts, Dictionary, Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1974, pp. 228.
Although the book has the same structure as the three-volume work by Lorimer on Hunza Burushaski, the grammar is a real grammar, with rules and text in phonemic writing. The book is far from a text book, though; the material is presented in a linguistic rather than a pedagogical order, and requires several readings. The Burushaski texts contain some amusing and some X-rated stories. The dictionary is Burushaski-German, with a German-Burushaski index.

* Carl D. Buck, "A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian", Olms, New York, 1974, pp. 371.

* Winfred P. Lehmann, "Proto-Indo-European Syntax", University of Texas Press, 1974,
alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson) writes: The data are well presented; the question is in the syntactic theory adopted as the basis for explaining them. It is very much a generative treatise in a historical mode, using an interpretative semantics model; it further relies on typological universals that aren't viewed as quite so universal any more. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European assumed in the book is that of Lehmann's 1952 book.

* Samuel E. Martin, "Easy Japanese", Tuttle, Rutland, Vt, 1973, c 1957, pp. 272.

* I. Scibilia-Trojan, "Italiaans op reis", van Goor, Den Haag, 1973, pp. 91.

* W. Harrison, Svetlana Le Fleming, "Russian-English and English-Russian Dictionary", Routledge, London, 1973, pp. 568.

* Vibiane Alleton, "Grammaire du Chinois", Que sais-je? #1519, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1973, pp. 127.

* Roy Stephen Hagman, "Nama Hottentot grammar", Ann Arbor, Mich., University, 1973,

* William Thalbitzer, "The Eskimo Language", Seattle, Wash., The Storey Book Store, 1973,

* Gunther Michelson, "A thousand words of Mohawk", Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 5, National Museum of Man, Ottawa, 1973, pp. 186.

* "Sprachführer Rätoromanisch für Graubünden", in German: Language Guide to Raeto-Romance for the Graubünden Area, Polyglott, München, 1972, pp. 32.
Short travel guide to Sursilvan and Ladin, with some grammar.

* Edzard Johan Furnée, "Die wichtigsten konsonatischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen: mit einem Appendix über den Vokalismus", Thesis Leiden Univ., Janua linguarum. Series practica #150, in German: The Main Consonantal Phenomena in Pre-Greek., The Hague, Mouton, 1972, pp. 461.
This doctoral thesis is written in the best/worst tradition of the North-West European pre-WWII universities: it's in German; it features an introduction of 70 pages, with a 1-page introduction to the introduction; the object of the thesis is not revealed until page 50 of the introduction; and the main body consists of 280 pages with ±500 densely written lemmata. Quotes from papers in French, Italian, and Spanish, and words in Latin and Greek are not translated (but words from Tocharian, Armenian, and Georgian mercifully are).
It has long been noticed (middle of the 19th century) that there are a considerable number of Classical Greek words for which no Proto-Indo-European derivation can be found using the traditional PIE-to-Greek rules, and it is on this part of the vocabulary that the author concentrates, calling it Pre-Greek. There are two theories about these words:
1. They are from an unknown extinct IE language, by unknown rules; for example, in this theory Gr. kithara (Eng. zither) is from PIE kwetwora (Eng. four) (p. 42, n. 76). The idea was strengthened by the discovery that "mysterious" languages like Hittite and Minoan (Linear B) turned out to be IE. Several proposals have tried to identify the unknown language in this theory. 1a. Minoic. 1b. An unknown Hittite-related language; this might make, for example, Gr. aphenos (Eng. rich) related to Hitt. happinant- (p. 62). 1c. Psi-Greek, a hypothetical Greek-like language in which p, t, and k are often followed by an s; in this proposal Gr. ksanthos (Eng. blonde) is related to Lat. candidus (Eng. white) (p. 66). The author criticizes all these proposals.
2. They are from an unknown non-IE language. This idea has led to an avalanche of doubtful and unverifiable theories in the first half of the 20th century (e.g. Alarodic???).
In view of the prevailing chaos, the author shelves the identification of pre-Greek, and instead tries to determine its properties. The most striking, and well-known, property of the pre-Greek words is that consonants in them show alternations. For example, Gr. polemos (Eng. war), no PIE derivation known, also occurs as ptolemos (hence the name Ptolemaios) (p.317). Going through Hesychius' 50000-entry Greek vocabulary, which gives all known variants, the author identifies 27 such systematic alternations. This analysis forms the main body of the book.
The most popular explanation for these alternations is that pre-Greek had phonemes that differed so much from those of Greek that the Greeks heard them differently on different occasions. This leads to postulating sounds like [pt] and [mb]. The author rejects this theory on the grounds that no language in the region, not even the North-Caucasian languages with their 50 to 80 consonants, has such sounds, but instead suggests (without being very direct) that different variants may derive from different stems of the same root. A diagram on p. 91 shows, for example, how the word for "bison" (root bona-) may have come to appear as bonassos (from a stem bonass-), bolinthos (from a stem boninth-), monapos, monaipos, monōtos (from a stem bonap-), and monoops (from a stem bonōp-). Each of these forms is derived by using rules from the above set of systematic alternations.
An appendix discusses Linear A, in which the author discerns evidence of the same alternations.

* S.A. Wurm, "Languages of Australia and Tasmania", The Hague, Mouton, 1972,

* Eung-Do Cook, "Sarcee verb paradigms", Mercury Series, Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, 1972,

* V. Tams Jorgensen, "Kort sprakeliir foon daat Mooringer Frasch", Braist, [s.n.], 1972,

* Hans Krahe, "Grundzüge der vergleichenden Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen", in German: Fundamentals of the Comparative Syntax of the Indo-European Languages, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Institut für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaften der Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 1972, pp. 136.
Series of lectures on same, published by his pupils. Very detailed but eclectic information; in spite of its title Albanian, Armenian and Tocharian are not even mentioned. It is remarkable to see the author, a big name in Proto-Indo-European, show on several occasions that he thought of Proto-Indo-European as more primitive than present languages, for example on p. 85, where he turns to child language to adduce properties of Proto-Indo-European.

* Jan de Vries, "Nederlands Etymologisch Woordenboek", in Dutch: Dutch Etymological Dictionary, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1971, pp. 977.
Thorough, taking on related words from all Indo-European languages, and supplying information about Indo-European where available. With indexes to English, German, Middle Dutch, North Germanic (Scandinavian) and East-Germanic (Gothic). Wish all etymological dictionaries were this thorough.

* Emir N. Nadzhip, "Modern Uigur", translated from Russian, Moscow, Nauka, 1971,

* H. Meurig Evans, W.O. Thomas, "Y Geiriadur Mawr -- Complete Welsh-English English-Welsh Dictionary", 5th edition, LLyfran'r Dryw, Llandybie, Carms, Wales, pp. 492+367. 1971,

* H. Vogt, "Grammaire de la langue géorgienne", Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1971, pp. ???.

* Saul Levin, "The Indo-European and Semitic Languages", Albany, SUNY Albany Press, 1971,

* Gordon Innes, "A Practical Introduction to Mende", University of London, London, 1971, pp. 228.

* Ramkrishna Gopal Bhandarkar, Shridhar Ramkrishna Bhandarkar, "First/Second Book of Sanskrit", Karnatak Publ. House, Bombay - 69, 1971, pp. 224/295.
These books drive home the realization that student books in other cultures are not necessarily text books; these books are unusable without a teacher. For instance, in lesson 1, verb endings are given, and verbs are given, but it is left up to the teacher to show how they are connected. Later lessons occasionally give full paradigms. Contains good sets of sandhi rules, though. Sanskrit-English and English-Sanskrit glossaries (68/58 p.) Tables of contents, no indexes.

* Eric Partridge, "Usage & Abusage", Penguin Reference, Middlesex, pp. 387. 1971, c1947,

* Svend E. Holsoe, "A case of stimulus diffusion? A note on possible connections between the Vai and Cherokee scripts", Language Sciences, April 1971, pp. 22-24.

* L. Dezso, P. Hadju, "Theoretical Problems of Typology and the Northern Eurasian languages", Amsterdam, Gruner, 1970, pp. 184.

* "Italiaans voor op reis", Berlitz, 1970, pp. 192.

* Georgii Andreevich Klimov, Dzhoi Iosifovna Edel'man, "IAzyk burushaski", in Russian: The Burushaski Language, IAzyki narodov Azii i Afriki, Moskva, Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut vostokovedeniia, 1970, pp. 115.

* Hermann Moller, "Vergleichendes indogermanisches/semitisches Wörterbuch", Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1970, pp. 316.

* Villiana Hyde, "An Introduction to the Luiseño Language", Malki Museum Press, 1971, Banning, Calif., pp. 236.
Consists of 45 lessons interspersed with 10 text sections, covering a large part of the language; answers to the exercises and Luiseño-English and English-Luiseño word lists conclude the book. The author teaches Luiseño to students who are not expected to know any other language besides English. She manages the difficult task of introducing and explaining grammatical notions while at the same time teaching Luiseño by cleverly exploiting the regularity available in the language. For example, the rules somewhat evident in the object forms of the pronouns are extended to nouns, and so they come less as a surprise.

* Ann Mari Falk, Hwyl Darllen, "Paid  Beio Cochyn", in Welsh:, Burke, Llundain -- London, 1969, pp. 23.

* Oreste Vaccari, Enko Elisa Vaccari, "Brush up your Japanese", Vaccari's Language Institute, Tokyo, 1969, c1960,

* Daniel Jones, "English Pronouncing Dictionary", Everyman's, London, pp. 544. 1969,

* Julius Pokorny, "Altirische Grammatik", De Gruyter, Berlin, 1969, pp. 128.

* G.A. Klimov, "Die kaukasischen Sprachen", Helmut Buske Verlag, Hamburg, 1969, pp. 151 + maps.
Describes the history of and the history of the research of the Caucasian languages. Represents the now accepted view that NE and NW Caucasian are related but that any relation with S Caucasian is considerably more remote. Lists of alphabets, and maps. Little information on the languages themselves, except for some structural explanations about ergativity. Comes down heavily on another Russian linguist, N.J. Marr.

* E. Reiner, "Elamite Language", Handbuch der Orientalistik 2/2, ???, Leiden, 1969, pp. ???.

* Mary R. Haas, "The prehistory of languages", 1969, Mouton, The Hague, Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 57, pp. 108-114.

* Jacques Chaurand, "Histoire de la langue française", in French: History of the French Language, Que sais-je? #167, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1969, pp. 128.

* Walsh, "Read Japanese Today", Tuttle, Rutland, Vt., 1969, pp. 159.

* P.G. O'Neill, S. Yanada, "An Introduction to Written Japanese", English University Press, London, 1969, pp. 243.

* A.H. Kuipers, "A Dictionary of Proto-Circassian Roots", Peter de Ridder Press, Lisse, Neth., 1969, pp.

* Avraham Even-Shoshan, "Milon chadash -- menuqad umetsuyar", in Hebrew: New Dictionary -- vocalized and illustrated; in 5 volumes, Qiryat-Sefer, Jerusalem, 1968, pp. ±2200.

* Ya'aqov Bahat, Mordechai Ron, "Wedayeq", in Hebrew: And be accurate, Hakibbutz Hameuchad, Tel Aviv, 1968, pp. 344.
Advanced grammatical and stylistic notes on Modern Hebrew.

* Peter M. Bergman, "The Concise Dictionary of 26 Languages -- In Simultaneous Translations", Signet, New American Library, New York, pp. 408. 1968,

* R.C. Abraham, "The Principles of Amharic", Institute of African Studies, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, 1968, pp. 245.

* V.V. Ivanova, V.N. Toporova, B.A. Uspenskogo, "Ketskii sbornik", in Russian: The Ket Collection, Vol. 1, 2, 3, ..., Moskva, "Nauka", 1968-1982-...,

* Andrei Petrovich Dul'zon, "Ketskii iazyk", in Russian: The Ket Language, Tomsk, Izd-vo Tomskogo universiteta,, 1968, pp. ???.

* Raoul de la Grassiere, "Cinq langues de la Colombie Britannique", in French: Five Languages of Britsh Columbia, Kraus Reprint, Nendeln, Liechtenstein, 1968, c 1902, pp. 531.
Supplies grammar, vocabulary and translated and analyzed texts for Haida, Tsimshian(sp ???), Kwakiutl, Nootka and Tlingit, followed by a parallel word list of Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, Heiltsuk, Kwakiutl and Nootka.

* Takeshi Hattori, Wakako Yokoo, "Vest Pocket Japanese", Institute for Language Study, Montclair, N.J., 1967, pp. 183.

* Mateo de Ridder, "Nederlands-Spaans Spaans-Nederlands", Standaard-Boekhandel, Antwerpen, pp. 406. 1967,

* Ernest Weekley, "An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English", Vol. 1 (A-K), Vol. 2 (L-Z), 1967, pp. 1660. Dover, New York,

* A. Ashman, A. Rozen, "Ivrit qala A / B", in Hebrew: Easy Hebrew A / B, Yavne, Tel Aviv, 1967 / 1967, pp. 138 / 177.

* Roy Andrew Miller, "The Japanese Language", University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1967, pp. 428.

* "The Verb "be" and Its Synonyms", Dordrecht, Reidel, 1967-,

* Joseph Andrew Teslar, "A New Polish Grammar", Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd, 1967, c1941, pp. 469.
Conscientious and probably rather conservative grammar of Polish, with lots of explanations and lots of exercises. It is clearly intended as a class room text book; self-study is a remote second option. The first part, 220 pages, consists of 60 lessons full of Polish text. The second part, 70 pages, contains a grammar full of explanations. The third part, 11 pages, is a short language phrase book. A 90 page dictionary (both ways) closes the book. The missing 100 pages is assorted reading material, pronunciation guide, key to exercises, etc. Given the language, probably not at all an disagreeable book.

* Ronald Cohen, "The Kanuri of Bornu", New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967, pp. 115.
plaatsnummer: 176: ? UvA Inst.176: Culturele Antropologie aanvraaginformatie: Uitleenbaar

* Edward Sapir, Harry Hoijer, "The Phonology and Morphology of the Navaho Language", Los Angeles, Calif., University of California Press, 1967, pp. 124.
Strictly scientific description of same, for the initiated. Read the chapter on morphophonemics last; it contains 56 pages of assimilation rules.

* Wallace L. Chafe, "Seneca Morphology and Dictionary", Washington, Smithsonian Press, 1967, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology; v. 4, pp. ???.

* O. Szemerény, "The new look of Indo-European -- Reconstruction and typology", Phonetica, 17, #2, 1967, pp. 65-99.

* László Országh, "Magyar-Angul Szótár / Angol-Magyar Szótár", Hungarian-English Vocabulary / English-Hungarian Vocabulary, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 464 / 606. 1966,

* Capellanus, "Spreekt u Latijn? -- Moderne latijnse conversatie", in Dutch: Do you speak Latin? -- Modern Latin Conversation, J.H. de Bussy, Amsterdam, 1966, pp. 103.
Adaptation of L. Spohr, Sprechen Sie lateinisch?

* A.L.N. Kramer, Sudjito Danusaputro, "Kamus Belanda -- Nederlands-Indonesisch, Indonesisch-Nederlands", Dutch Dictionary -- Dutch-Indonesian, Indonesian-Dutch, G.B. van Goor Zonen, Den Haag, 1966, pp. 600.

* Karl Stuererwald, Cemal Köprülü, "Langescheidts Taschenwörterbuch Türkisch", in German: Langescheidt's Pocket Dictinary Turkish, Langenscheidt, Berlin, pp. 552+618. 1966,

* Cyrus Herzl Gordon, "Evidence for the Minoan Language", Ventnor Publishers, Ventnor, N.J., 1966, pp. ???.

* BBC, "Starting Chinese", BBC, London, 1966, pp. 64.

* Bidhu Bhusan Das Gupta, "Assamese -- Self-Taught", Das Gupta Prakashan, Calcutta, 1966, pp. 208.
Low on transcription (but sufficient).

* Roy L. Stafford, 1965, "An elementary Luo grammar with vocabularies", Nairobi, Oxford University Press, pp. ??.
Given a bad review by Jan Knappert for not showing the tones.

* Nicholas Poppe, "Introduction to Altaic Linguistics", Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1965, pp. 212.
The title should be taken literally: "Linguistics", not "Languages". The book is a survey of the knowledge about -- not of -- the Mongolian, Manchu-Tungus and Chuvash-Turkic languages, with a dash of Korean thrown in hesitantly. It is written for readers who do already have considerable knowledge of at least one of the languages involved; its addresses American linguistic students explicitly. No details about the languages themselves are given, except incidentally.
The first chapter introduces the 37 languages + their dialects, detailing some of their history, location and speakers. There is much emphasis on the phonetic properties that differentiate one language from its neighbors on the language tree. Special attention is paid to the various alphabets in which the languages are written, including tables of these alphabets. Short bibliographies are supplied for each language; the author regrets the fact that few of them are in English. The relationships between the languages are presented in interesting, oriental-looking drawings. Chapter 2 covers the history of the study of the three groups. Chapter 3 explains the Altaic theory as impartially as possible, although the author reveals that he thinks that those against have more to explain than those in favor; he is even sympathetic to the inclusion of Korean (and perhaps even Japanese, pg. 147).
Chapters 4, 5, and 6 try to unravel the influences of these languages on each other (4), on other languages (6), and of other languages on them (5). Much use is made of sound correspondences to distinguish loans from common origin. Chapter 7 treats the common structural features; Korean is an equal partner here. Chapter 8 gives extensive tables of sound correspondences between the Manchu-Tungus, Mongolian, Chuvash, and Turkic languages, with many examples of each. It looks like a convincing demonstration of the relationship between all four groups (and therewith of the validity of the Altaic theory), although the author does not press the point. Korean is absent here.

* W.B. Lockwood, "An Informal History of the German Language", W. Heffer, Cambridge, UK, 1965, pp. 265.
poser@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: A book with a chapter on Frisian (with a bibliography at the end of each chapter).

* Manfred Mayrhofer, "Sanskrit-Grammatik mit sprachvergleichenden Erlauterungen", Berlin, De Gruyter, 1965,
[ TE.05760.o: OR 5985 TER INZAGE ]

* Stanley Newman, "Zuni grammar", University of New Mexico publications in anthropology; no. 14, Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press, 1965, pp. 77.

* W.S. Allen, "On one-vowel systems", Lingua -- Int. Review of General Linguistics, 13, #2, 1965, pp. 111-124.

* André Malécot, "Luiseño : A Structural Analysis I: Phonology", International Journal of American Linguistics, 29, #2, April 1963, pp. 89-95.

* André Malécot, "Luiseño : A Structural Analysis II: Morpho-syntax", International Journal of American Linguistics, 29, #3, July 1963, pp. 196-210.

* André Malécot, "Luiseño : A Structural Analysis III: Texts and Lexicon", International Journal of American Linguistics, 30, #1, Jan. 1964, pp. 14-250.

* André Malécot, "Luiseño : A Structural Analysis IV: Appendices", International Journal of American Linguistics, 30, #3, July 1964, pp. 243-250.

* N.J. Lamb, "English-Portuguese, Portuguese-English", Pocket Dictionary, Livraria Bertrand, Lisboa, 1964, pp. 768.

* C.L. Barber, "The Story of Language", Pan Books, London, 1964, pp. 293.

* Ehud Ben-Yehuda, "Hebrew-English Pocket Dictionary", including English-Hebrew, Washington Square Press, New York, pp. 306 / 320. 1964,

* J.G. Christaller, "A grammar of the Asante and Fante language called Tshi [Chwee, Twi]: based on the Aknapem dialect, with reference to the other (Akan and Fante) dialects", Ridgewood N.J., Gregg, 1964, c1875, pp. 203.
Name: Twi.
Affiliation: South-Central Niger-Congo.
Location: Ghana.
Phonetics: consonants: k, g and h occur also palatalized or labialized, t and d occur also with simultaneous palatalization and labialization. Example: Chwi. There is only one nasal, which manisfests itself as n, m or ng, depending on the context. Vowels: there are ten vowel, the usual a, e, i, o and u, and the same set again with a "Hindi/English" shift. There are only seven vowel signs in the written language (the IPA symbols for open e and o were added), but due to vowel harmony restrictions, few ambiguities arise. Tone: there are three tones, L, M and H, but only the sequences LL, MM, HM, ML and LH are allowed; the usual pattern is something like LHMM. Tones are not shown in writing but few ambiguities occur. Syllables: CV or CV[nasal].
Nouns: have no gender, but do usually have one of three prefixes: o-, a- and m-; there is some distribution that suggests that a- and m- were abstracta. Plural is by various modifications, the most usual the change of o- to a-: ohene=king, ahene=kings. The nouns in o- lose the o- when directly connected to the preceeding word in a possessive relation with a noun: Israel hene = king of Israel, or in an accusative relation with a verb: wabisa hene = he has asked the king.
Pre/postpositions: postpositions, but many verbs take the place where they happen as the object: "to go places".
Pronouns: three singular and plural.
Adjectives: are nouns, and are postpositioned. The ones in o- lose the o-.
Verbs: Conjugated form: <person> <mode1> <negation> <root> <mode2>, where <person> and <root> are mandatory and <mode2> is almost always absent. There are 10 tenses: present, continuous state, past, perfect, progressive, remote future, immediate future, optative, personal imperative and impersonal imperative. Within sandhi limits, almost all forms are regular.
Word order: SVO, invariably. The object may also be a place or an infinitive.
Relative clauses: uses the word `a' in the same way as `asher' in Hebrew.

* R. van de Velde, "Het Krimgotisch - berichtgeving en problematiek", in Dutch: Crimean Gothic -- Reports and Problems, Leuvense bijdragen, LIII, pp. 102-119. 1964,
Describes part of the travels of van Busbeek and gives a critical analysis of the existinging copies of the Crimean Gothic word list collected by him.

* Andrei Petrovich Dul'zon, "Ocherki po grammatike ketskogo iazyka", in Russian: Essays on the Grammar of the Ket Language, Tomsk, Izd-vo Tomskogo universiteta, 1964-, pp. ???.

* Robert Logan, "Cree language structure, and The introduction ...", Duluth, Minn., Robert Logan, 1964,

* M.A.R. Barker, "Klamath Grammar", Berkeley, Calif., University of California Press, 1964, pp. 364.
Very precise and extremely formal description of the language, embedded in an analysis of how we can understand a language without making a priori assumptions. The author takes great pains to avoid any (Indo-European) assumptions and bases the entire description exclusively on observations. For example, the Klamath verb phrase (defined by observed distributional properties) consists of a number of morphs, in 24 slots. For most slots there are only 1 to 15 possibilities, but for 1 slot there are hundreds; this slot is then defined as containing the "root".
It is difficult to obtain an impression of the language from this extremely formal description; this summary describes the method used more than the language. Klamath words fall into several classes, the most important ones being Verbs, Nouns, and Locatives, a large set of composable words with meaning like `from the other side of the river'. A Klamath word consists of a sequence of morphs, which are manifestations of morphemes; one morpheme may appear as several different morphs in different phonetic contexts; these morphs are then called allomorphs. These morphemes fill slots, 25 for Verbs, 14 for Nouns, 9 for Locatives, etc. The root is one of the first slots, and is usually preceded only by reduplicators which specify repetition (scattering in time) and/or distribution (scattering in space). Later slots contain morphemes specifying such things as intensity, locality, completion, aspect, collective, subordination, and several others. Example: the morphemes in the morpheme sequence (word) se-'v-odiil-dk mean "reflexive"-"handle a long object (root)"-"underneath"-"having done", and means "having put a long object under his arm"; the word is pronounced soodiilatk. This is similar to the German word Verunreinigung (Eng. contamination) being analysed as ver-un-rein-ig-ung, with the morphemes "change of state"-"negation"-"clean (root)"-"causative"-"abstract noun", so the meaning is "abstract noun for removing the state of cleanness", which is about right. I'd like to see a description of German using these techniques!
I cannot from Barker's description find out which of the morphemes are productive and which are fossilized; for example, in German one cannot just produce the analogous word Verunweissigung, with the meaning "abstract noun for removing the state of whiteness" (although the word would be understood in that sense, when used anyway).
It is hard to imagine that the author of this bone-dry grammar is also the creator of the Tekumel world, Tsolyani, and many computer games.
The phoneme collection of Klamath is average Amerind: almost all sounds occur in three forms: voiceless, aspirated and glottalized, even the w and the y. In spite of its extensive morphology the verb does not specify person, subject, or object, although it can indicate plurality of subject or object; there is a benefactive morpheme, showing that one of the nouns or pronouns in the sentence is the beneficiary of the action.
The pronouns of Klamath are Amerind: I - ni, me - nis, you(subj) - 'i, you(obj) -mis. They can again be combined with many morphemes: ni-as-dan-t = "I-nonsubject-possessive-in/on" = "right up to me", pronounced noosdat.

* Paul Grebe, "Stilwörterbuch der deutschen Sprache", in German: Style Dictionary of the German Language, Duden, Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, 1963, pp. 799.

* G.H. Wanink, "Twents-Achterhoeks Woordenboek", in Dutch: Twents (East Overijssel) and Achterhoeks (East Gelderland) to Dutch Dictionary, W.J. Thieme & Cie., Zutphen, 1963, pp. 220.
With 62 pages of grammar. Grammar and vocabulary are based on the dialect of Kerspel-Goor.

* V.S. Rastorgueva, "A short sketch of Tajik grammar", International Journal of American Linguistics; vol. 29, no. 04, part 02, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind., 1963, pp. 110.

* "Kurze Elementar-Grammatik der Sanskrit-Sprache", J. Gonda, 4. verbess. Aufl., E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1963, pp. 152.

* "Armenisch und kaukasische Sprachen", G. Deeters, Georg Renatus Solta, Vahan Inglisian, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1963, pp. 272. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Abt. 1, Der Nahe und der Mittlere Osten; Bd. 07,

* Maija Hellikki Aaltio, "Finnish for Beginners", Helsingissä Kustannusosakeyhtiö Otava, Helsinki, 1963, pp. 253.

* Harry Hoijer, et al., "Studies in the Athapaskan languages", Berkeley, Calif., University of California Press, 1963, pp. 154.

* Wendell H. Oswalt, "Napaskiak: an Alaskan Eskimo community", 3rd print, Tucson, Ariz., The University of Arizona Press, 1963, pp. 179.

* Wallace L. Chafe, "Handbook of the Seneca language", Albany, University of the State of New York, State Education Dept., 1963, New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin, no. 388, pp. ???.

* Everett F. Bleiler, "Essential Japanese Grammar", Dover, New York, 1963, pp. 156.
The bare minimum, but useful. With glossary of grammatical terms.

* Eleanor Harz Jorden, "Beginning Japanese, Part 1 & 2", Yale University Press, New Haven, 1963, pp. 408 & 410.
Very, very thorough set of 35 lessons in spoken Japanese. No Japanese writing done, all text being in scientific transcription (tu for chu etc.), with meticulous indication of the intonation in each and every utterance. Full of drills (aka very repetitive). Lots of social background.

* Joseph H. Greenberg, "Languages of Africa", Indiana University/Mouton & Co, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1963, pp. 180.
This is Greenberg's famous book-size paper on the classification of the African languages into Nigor-Congo-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan, Afroasiatic and Khoisan.
Chapter I explains the methodology. In the rest of the book, the author brings proof of increasingly large clusters. Chapter II proves the existence of Niger-Congo, consisting of five western groups, the Benue-Congo group, of which the Bantu languages are a member, and an eastern group. Chapter III adduces proof for the membership of the Chad languages (Hausa, etc.) to the Afroasiatic languages, thereby consolidating that group. Chapter IV is concerned with the Khoisan languages. Two points are proved: they are not closely related to Afroasiatic; and the outlier languages Sandawe and Hatsa belong to it. Chapter V proves the existence of the Chari-Nile group (Nubian, Masai, etc.). Chapter VI is the first to construct a larger group: Nilo-Saharan, consisting of the Chari-Nile, Songhai, Saharan and other confirmed language groups. Chapter VII first consolidates the Kordofanian group and then shows its relationship to Niger-Congo.
All this is supported by word lists and correspondences of morphological particles. A small set of none too clear maps end the book.

* P.E.H. Hair, "Notes on the discovery of the Vai script, with a bibliography", Sierra Leone Language Review, 2, 1963, pp. 36-49.

* A.H. Kuipers, "Proto-Circassian Phonology: an essay in reconstruction", Studia Caucasica, 1, 1963, pp. 56-92.

* Richard David Abraham, "Conversational Japanese", Cortina Method, Cortina, New York, 1963, pp. 248.

* H. Verbruggen, G.H. Halsberghe, "Nederlands-Latijns Woordenboek", in Dutch: Dutch-Latin Dictionary, Heideland Vlaamse Pockets, Hasselt, pp. 188. 1963,

* Thomas F. Sebeok (Ed.), "Current Trends in Linguistics", Mouton, The Hague, 1963, pp.
poser@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: A multi-volume collection of papers on all aspects of linguistics, including surveys of various parts of the world and language families. Each chapter is written by a different author so the quality and views vary considerably. Some chapters are very good, and most are useful for orientation and bibliography.

* R.C. Abraham, "Dictionary of the Hausa Language", University of London Press, London, 1962, pp. 992.
Provides pronunciation and conjugation information with every word. Includes a small grammatical compendium.

* Fuishiki Okamoto, "The Simplest Universal Auxiliary Language: Babm", Fuishiki Okamoto, Tokyo, April 1962, pp.
Language fiction. Blurp from sci.lang: "Presented to any person cost free" "However if more than two copies are desired $0.40 will cover the cost of each additional copy, post-free."

* C.C. Marsack, "Samoan", Teach Yourself Books, Hodder and Stoughton, Sevenoaks, Kent, 1962, pp. 178.

* Gason H. Halsberghe, "Nederlands-Grieks Woordenboek", in Dutch: Dutch-Classical Greek Dictionary, Vlaamse Pockets, Heideland, Hasselt, Belgium, pp. 208. 1962,

* Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper, "Nahali: a comparative study", Amsterdam, Noord-Holl. Uitg. Mij., 1962,

* Vladimir Georgiev, "Hethitisch und Etruskisch: die hethitische Herkunft der etruskischen Sprache", Sofia, Académie bulgare des sciences, Linguistique balkanique / Académie bulgare des sciences; 5, fasc. 1, pp. 71. 1962,

* Pierre Guiraud, "La syntaxe du Français", in French: French Syntax, Que sais-je? #984, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1962, pp. 125.

* "Akkadisches Handwörterbuch", 3 vols., Wolfram von Soden, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1961-83, pp.

* Heinz F. Wendt, "Sprachen", in German: Languages, Fischer Lexikon, Fischer Bücherei, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 380. 1961,
Encyclopedia of the languages of the world, with entries like Slavic Languages, Hausa, Japanese, etc. Almost all foreign text comes with phonetic description. Uneven coverage: no word on the Celtic languages; 14 lines on Basque. Loads of information, though.

* P.J.T Glendening, "Teach Yourself Icelandic", Teach Yourself, The English University Press, London, 1961, pp. 190.

* John Chadwick, "De ontcijfering van Griekenlands oudste schrift", in Dutch: The Decipherment of Greece's Oldest Script, from English: The Decipherment of Linear B, Het Spektrum, Utrecht, 1961, pp. 208.

* H. Kuhn, "????", Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten, 28, #4/5/7/8/10/11/12, 1961, pp. ???.

* Miles Dillon, Donncha O'Croinin, "Irish", Teach Yourself, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1961,
Recommended by (MC Morrison).

* Herbert Pierrepont Houghton, "An introduction to the Basque Language -- Labourdin Dialect", E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1961,
Unlike some books that are called "Introduction" and which then proceed to explain the subject in full detail, this one really is an introduction. It covers case ending for nouns and adjectives, and the verbs "to be" and "to have it", in various tenses, indicative, subjunctive and imperative. No treatment of conditionals, no indirect objects, no simple verbs. The ergative nature of Basque is vaguely indicated, but is neither named nor explained.

* A.H. Kuipers, "Phoneme and Morpheme in Kabardian (Eastern Adyghe)", 's-Gravenhage, Mouton, 1960,

* A.L. Kroeber, George William Grace, "The Sparkman grammar of Luiseño", University of California Press, 1960, Berkeley, pp. 257. University of California Publications in Linguistics, Vol. 16,
Much more than promised in the title, it is an extensive description of the language, based on the Sparkman grammar (±1900) and the authors' own work on the language (1904-1907), with a comparison to and additions from Pablo Tac (1834-1841) and Harrington (1933). Consists of 177 pages of systematic language description, 43 pages of (sparsely annotated) texts, and 37 pages of appendices and bibliography. No separate vocabulary.

* Kåre Schjøll, "Klein Noors Woordenboek", In Dutch: Small Norwegian Dictionary, Van Goor Zonen, Den Haag, pp. 443. 1960,

* J.H. de Bussy, "Beknopte Afrikaans-Nederlandse Woordenlijst", in Dutch: Concise Afrikaans-Dutch Vocabulary, W.P. van Stockum, the Hague, 1960, pp. 75.

* W. Krause, W. Thomas, "Tocharisches Elementarbuch", 2 vols., Heidelberg, 1960-1964,

* John T. Bowen, T.J. Rhys Jones, "Teach Yourself Welsh", Teach Yourself Books, London, 1960, pp. 192.

* J. Kolni-Balozky, "A Progressive Russian Grammar", Pitman, London, 1960,c1936, pp. 478.

* Emil Meier, "Kiswahili-Sprachführer", Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1960, pp. 124.
33 pages of grammar, 70 pages German-Swahili and 17 pages Swahili-German. The tone of the grammar is remarkable and implies regularly that Swahili is "the language of the Negro".

* A. Cohen, C.L.Ebeling, P. Eringa, K. Fokkema, A.G.F. van Holk, "Fonologie van het Nederlands en het Fries", Marinus Nijhoff, 1959, pp. 174.

* R. Strumpen-Darrie, C.F. Berlitz, "Russian Phrase Book", Grosset & Dunlap, New York, 1959, pp. 184.

* J.H. van Beckum, "Duits Woordenboek -- Duits-Nederlands / Nederlands-Duits", School Dictionary German-Dutch, Dutch-German, J.B. Wolters, Groningen, pp. 894/1127. 1959/1958,

* Paul Grebe, "Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache", in German: Duden -- Grammar of present-day German, Der Grosze Duden, Band 4, Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, 1959, pp. 699.

* H. Kuhn, "Vor- und frühgermanische Ortsnamen in Nord-Deutschland und in den Niederlanden", Westfälische Forschungen, 12, #39??, 1959, pp. 5-44.

* A. Ernout, A. Meillet, "Dictionaire etymologique de la langue latine -- histoire des mots", in French: Etymological Dictionary of the Latin Language -- History of the Words, Klincksieck, Paris, 1959, pp. 820 (2 columns).
Very big, very thorough. Links to Latin dialects, Greek, Sanskrit and Indo-European, though hesitantly so. Cross indexes to Italic, Sanskrit, Avestic, Greek, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Etruskan and French. (TH.05006.c: 54)

* P.E. Cleator, "Lost Languages", Mentor Books, New York, 1959, pp. 192.

* Pavel Poucha, "Bru\(vza -- Buru\(vsaski?", in German, Central Asiatic J., 5, 1959, pp. 295-300.
The paper concerns two fragments in a foreign language, occurring in early Tibertan writings, that are identified as Bru-tsha and Bru-zha; the fragments date from the 4th, 5th or 6th century A.D. The Tibetan text says explicitly that the texts stem from Gilgit.
The paper is chaotic and the author assumes the reader knows both Tibetan and Sanskrit. Also, in at least one place some lines are missing in the paper. The author seems to arrive at the conclusion that Bruzha is not Burushaski, on what seem to be insufficient grounds. For one thing, no allowance is made for the time gap of 1500 years between the recorded texts and present-day Burushaski.

* C.R.C. Herckenrath, A. Dory, "Frans Woordenboek -- Frans-Nederlands / Nederlands-Frans", School Dictionary French-Dutch, Dutch-French, Wolters, Groningen, pp. 809. 1958/1960,

* "Langenscheidts Universal-Wörterbuch Russisch -- Russisch-Deutsch, Deutsch-Russisch", Pocket Dictionary, Langenscheidt, Berlin, pp. 398. 1958,

* Leon Wall, William Morgan, "Navajo-English Dictionary", Hyppocrene Books, New York, 1958; reprint 1994, pp. 164.
Minimal and fragmentary.

* Albert Thumb, "Handbuch des Sanskrit: mit Texten und Glossar", Heidelberg, Winter, 1958,
[ CC.05766.- ]

* Denise Bernot, Lucien Bernot, "Les Khyang des collines de Chittagong (Pakistan oriental)", in French: The Chittagong Hills Khyangs (East Pakistan), PLON, Paris, 1958, pp. 148.
Concerns the Khyang (Khyen), living on the coast of the north-east corner of the Gulf of Bengal in what is Bangladesh today. The book is a collection of articles: The Khyang and their Neighbours (8 pp.), Life in the Village of Gongru (21 pp.), Phonetic Considerations (18 pp.), Dictionary Khyang-French (74 pp.), French-Khyang Word List (17 pp.).

* Arnulf Schroeder, "Die Laute des Wendischen (Sorbischen) Dialekts von Schleife in der Oberlausitz", in German: The Phonetics of the Wend (Sorb) Dialect of Schleife in the Oberlausitz, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 1958, pp. 152.
Consists of three parts: an extensive description of the phonetics; texts; and a glossary over the texts containing each word in all its morphological forms, as occurring in the texts. The texts are not translated explicitly; no grammar information given, but much can be deduced from the glossary. Doctoral thesis of the author, who was a native speaker. He died in the last days of World War II, and the thesis was published many years later.
From the looks of it, Wendish is much like Polish and Czech, and probably to some (large) extent mutually intelligible with these. But the differences are still considerable. Examples are the absence of a stress accent in Wendish, the existence of a full-fledged dual in all three genders, a plural differentiated in three genders and the use of "ten" -- "that" and "jeden" -- "one" as the articles "the" and "a". Also, Wendish has preserved the old Slavic aorist.
The orthography is loosely based on that of Polish, but all palatalization is indicated by an accent aigu on the consonant: \o|p'|, \o|m'|, etc. About 10 percent of the vocabulary is German loans, e.g.: "ufpasowa\o|c'|" -- "to watch out", G. "aufpassen". Syntax looks often rather German-like: "ja som tam \o|s^|\o|l/|a" -- "ich bin dorthin gegangen" Like other Slavic languages, it has adjectives to almost all nouns, e.g.: "bursky" -- "of farmers", from "bur" -- "farmer".
There are an open e and a closed e (not distinguished in writing), an open i and a closed i (written y and i), an open o and a closed o (not distinguished in writing), an open u and a closed u (written ó and u), and of course an a. As in Polish, all vowels are short. Any consonant can be palatalized, and special rules apply stating which vowel can follow a palatalized consonant. Also, there is no f in native words.
Collected from the glossary -- conjugation of the word 'ten' - 'the, this':

      |         masc.         |         fem.          |         neut.
      | sg.     du.     pl.   | sg.     du.     pl.   | sg.     du.     pl.
nom   | ten     tej     te    | ta              te    | to      tej     ta
gen   | togo            tych  | teje            tych  | togo            tych
dat   | tomu    tyma    tym   | tej             tym   | tomu
acc   | ten     teju    te    | tu      tej     te    | to      tej     ta
loc   | tom                   | tej             tych  | tom             tych
ins   | tym                   | teju            tymi  | tym

Collected from the glossary -- conjugation of the noun:

      |         masc.         |         fem.          |         neut.
      | sg.     du.     pl.   | sg.     du.     pl.   | sg.     du.     pl.
nom   | -               -i/-y | -a      -ej     -y    | -o              -a
gen   | -a/-u           -ow   | -y              -ow   | -a              -i
dat   | -oju                  | -je     -am     -jom  | -oju            -om
acc   | -               -y    | -u      -ej     -y    | -o              -a
loc   | -u/-je          -ych  | -ej/-i          -ach  | -je             -och
ins   | -om             -ami  | -u      -oma    -ymi  |                 -ami

There is also a vocative.

* Kita Tschenkeli, "Einführung in die georgische Sprache", In German: Introduction to Georgian, Zurich, Kotchis, 1958,

* William Bright, "The Karok language", University of California publications in linguistics, v. 13, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1957, pp. 457.

* C.L. Sibisiso Nyembezi, "Learn Zulu", Shuter and Shooter, Pietermaritzburg, 1957, pp. 151.

* W. Simon, "1200 Chinese Basic Characters", Lund Humphries, London, 1957, pp. 334.
Transcription in the Gwoyeu system.

* Thomas Burrow, "The Sanskrit Language", Faber and Faber, 24 Russell Square, London, 1957, pp. 395.

* M.A.J. van Brink, "Zweeds op reis", in Dutch: Swedish for Travelers, van Goor, Den Haag, ~1955, pp. 48.

* Cita van Santen, "Wie sagt man es auf deutsch?", in Dutch, title in German: How does one say it in German?, van Goor, 's-Gravenhage, 1955, pp. 255.

* H. Vogt, "Le basque et les langues causcasiques", BSL ????, 51, #??, 1955, pp. ??-??.

* "Sanskrit grammar, including both the classical language, and the older dialects, of Veda and Brahmana", William Dwight Whitney, 2nd ed. (1889)., Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, London, G. Cumberlege, 1955, pp. 551.
sci.lang: If you can follow the 19th-century approach, the standard remains Whitney's Sanskrit Grammar, which remains in print after well over a century.

* R.K. Harrison, "Teach Yourself Hebrew", Teach Yourself, The English University Press, London, 1955, pp. 215.
This is about Classical (Biblical) Hebrew.

* Herbert H. Paper, "The Phonology and Morphology of Royal Achaemenid Elamite", University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1955, pp. 119.
Phenomenological description of the language. Lists of forms found in texts, with some attempt at classification.

* Henri Michaud, "Op steen en klei -- Hebreeuwse inscripties en het Oude Testament", in Dutch: On Stone and Clay-- Hebrew Inscriptions and the Old Testament, from the French: Sur la pierre et l'argile, Callenbach, Nijkerk, 1959, pp. 144.

* I.A. Richards, David Weinstein, Christine Gibson, "Hebrew Through Pictures", Pocket Books, New York, 1954, pp. 297.

* K. Balkan, "Die Sprache der Kassiten", The Language of the Kassites, trans. from Turkish by R. Krauss, American Oriental Series, vol. 37, Kassiten Studien 1, New Haven, Conn., 1954, pp. 238.
Although Kassite was spoken in Babylon for at least 4 centuries, very little material has come to us. We have a 49-word Kassite-Assyrian word list, a list of 12 translated names, and several hundreds of short descriptions of horses, without translation; we have no running texts. The material probably dates from 1200 to 1000 BC. The people called themselves galdu or galzu.
The author squeezes this material to the last drop, arriving at the following, very tentative, conclusions.
Phonetics: The only vowels in the text are a, e, i, and u, but there are indications that other vowels existed. In words starting with a vowel, the initial vowel is unstable, and may have indicated a marked onset of the word. There is no vowel harmony. The language has a "normal" set of consonants: very moderate or no laryngeals; s, \(vs, and z; z fluctuates with d in some words; l and r do not occur word-initially; word-initial p/b, t/d, k/g, are unstable in some words.
Morphology: Many basic words have the form CVCCV: galdu/galzu = Kassite, ma\(vshu = god. Nouns seem to have no special form for the plural, although adjectives have; some form their plural with the suffix -ame. No signs of cases have been observed; possession is indicated by word composition: meli-harbe = slave of Harbe. Very many words are composites; often the components are just juxtaposed, but several connecting infixes exist. About a dozen suffixes are known, most of them probably forming nouns from verb stems. Nothing is known about the conjugation of the verb. The numerals are not known either.

* Bertil Malmberg, "La phonétique", in French: Phonetics, Que sais-je? #637, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1954, pp. 128.

* Fred. Muller, J.H. Thiel, "Beknopt Grieks-Nederlands Woordenboek", Concise School Dictionary Classical Greek-Dutch, Wolters, Groningen, pp. 834. 1954,

* Winfred P. Lehmann, "Proto-Indo-European Phonology", University of Texas Press, Austin, Tx., 1952, pp. 129.
After a history of and introduction to the laryngeal theory, proto-Germanic data are squeezed for effects of the laryngeals; some additional information is obtained from Greek and Indo-Iranian. All this results in the reconstruction of seven(!) stages of the phonology of pre- and proto-Indo-European: the pre-stess stage of pre-Indo-European, the stage of pre-Indo-European with phonemic stress, the period of non-distinctive stress, the stage of pre-Indo-European with distinctive pitch, the period of non-distinctive pitch, the stage with partial loss of laryngeals and with long vowels, and the proto-Indo-European phonemic system.

* L.P. Kemmeren, "Spaans voor de middelbare school", Van Goor, Den Haag, 1952, pp. 119.

* Antoine Meillet, Marcel Cohen (Eds.), "Les Langues du Monde -- 2 vols", Honoré Champion, Paris, 1952, pp.
poser@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: Somewhat dated but still very useful. Contains chapters written by experts in the various language families, describing not only classification but the history of research on these languages. Also contains structural sketches of representative languages.

* C.L. de Veer, "Zakwoordenboekje Esperanto-Nederlands, Nederlands-Esperanto", in Dutch: Pocket Dictionary Esperanto-Dutch, Dutch-Esperanto, H. Meulenhoff, Amsterdam, 1952, pp. 300, 277.

* Gladys Reichard, "Navajo Grammar", Publication #21, American Ethnological Society, ???, 1951, pp. ???.

* Erica Reiner, "A Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian",

* Edgar H. Sturtevant, E. Adelaide Hahn, "A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language", William Dwight Whitney Linguistic Series, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1951, pp.

* "Sefer Tefilin", in Hebrew: Book of Prayers, ±1950, pp. 424.

* L. Kaiser, "Phonetiek", in Dutch: Phonetics, Servire's Encyclopadie, deel B9a/5, Servire, Den Haag, 1950, pp. 205.

* J.F.L. Montijn, "Latijns-Nederlands Woordenboek", School Dictionary Latin-Dutch, Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle, pp. 673. 1949,

* Karl Bouda, "Baskisch-kaukasische Etymologien", Heidelberg, Karl Bouda?, 1949, pp. 55. Bibliothek der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft: Reihe 3. Darstellungen und Untersuchungen aus einzelnen Sprachen,

* H.L. Bezoen, "Taal en volk van Twente", in Dutch: Language and People of Twente, Van Gorcum, Assen, 1948, pp. 230.

* J. Martin Plumley, "An Introductory Coptic Grammar (Sahidic dialect)", London, Home & Van Thal, 1948,

* Jan P. Lettinga, "Oegarit", in Dutch: Ugarit, Servire, Den Haag, 1948, pp. 112.

* E. Benveniste, "Remarques sur la classification nominale en Burushaski", Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris, 44, #128, pp. 64-71. 1947,

* P.M. Boer den Hond, "Zweeds leesboek", in Dutch: Swedish Reader, Servire, Den Haag, 1947, pp. 167.
[ includes word list ]

* Leonard Bloomfield, "Algonquian", in Linguistic Structures of Native America, ed. by Harry Hoijer, 1946, New York, N.Y., Viking Fund,

* Carl Borgstrøm, "The Categories of Person, Number, and Class in the Verbal System of Burushaski", Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, 13, pp. 130-147. 1945,
The Burushaski verb endings form an extensive system in which much structure can be seen, but also much irregularity (the verb prefixes on the other hand are just the possessive prefixes of nouns). The endings are explained by three mechanisms: 1. a number of mutually non-exclusive suffixes: -a_1: 1st person; -a_2: human; -u: human feminine; -i: non-feminine; -n: plural. 2. the participle in -m followed by the above endings (or a form of the verb b- = to be), in different stages of assimilation. 3. analogy to more frequent forms.
The main text is about the Hunza dialect, but the Nagari (Yasin, Werchikwar) dialect is touched upon; it seems to show less assimilation and less analogy.
Borgstrøm makes an important observation on linguistic reconstruction: "Only one must remember that that any reconstruction of an earlier, not directly attested linguistic system implies a simplification of this system, because some features will always be irretrievably lost in the course of time."

* Henry P. Judd, "The Hawaiian Language and Hawaiian-English Dictionary", Hawaiian Service, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, 1945, pp. 117.
83 one-page lessons + 29 pages of word list. The style is very terse, and self-study seems almost impossible. Although the author emphasizes the importance of the glottal stop as a consonant in Hawaiian, there are very few occurrences of it in the text; is that correct?

* Georg Morgenstierne, "Notes on Burushaski phonology", Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, 13, pp. 67-95. 1945,

* Hans Vogt, "The plural of nouns and adjectives in Burushaski", Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, 13, pp. 96-129. 1945,

* I. Marm, Alf Sommerfelt, "Teach Yourself Norwegian", Teach Yourself, The English University Press, London, 1943, pp. 268.

* A.S.D. Smith (Caradar), "Welsh Made Easy", Hughes and Son, Wrexham, 1941, 1925, pp. 111.

* "Manuale dei verbi regolari e irregolari della lingua italiana", in Italian: Handbook of Regular and Irregular Verbs of the Italian language, Casa Editrice Sonzogno, Milano, pp. 62. 1940; reprint 1950,
All the ins and outs of the Italian verb.

* H.L. Bezoen, "Klank- en vormleer van het dialect van de gemeente Enschede", in Dutch: Phonetics and Grammar of the Dialect of the Municipality of Enschede, PhD Thesis, University of Amsterdam, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1938, pp. 86.

* A. Walde, "Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch", 3. Auflage von J.B. Hofmann, 1-2, Heidelberg, 1938-1954,

* Kaj Birket-Smith, Frederica de Laguna, "The Eyak Indians of the Copper River Delta, Alaska", København, Levin & Munksgaard, 1938, pp. 592.
Mainly about their history, culture, stories and recent remains, but also contains 38 pages of Eyak phonetics, grammar, vocabulary and texts.

* Batakrishna Ghosh, "Linguistic Introduction to Sanskrit", Calcutta, Seal, 1937,
[ TE.05762.o: OR 5985 ]

* D.L.R. Lorimer, "Burushaski and its alien neighbors", Trans. Philological Society, ???, pp. 63-98. 1937,

* D.L.R. Lorimer, "Nugae Burushaskicae", BSOS (Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies??), 8, pp. 627-636. 1936,
??? writes: This reference came out of Bashir's (1985) list of works cited. I'm not exactly sure what "BSOS" stands for, but I suspect it is the "Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies," not to be confused with the aforementioned "Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies."

* Carl Meinhof, "Die Entstehung flektierender Sprachen", in German: The Origin of Inflecting Languages, Berlin, Verlag von Dietrich Reimer, 1936, pp. 108.
Using the definition that inflecting languages are those in which the stem of a word is habitually modified in its morphology, the author delineates a region of inflecting languages on earth comprising the Indo-European, Semitic, Hamitic (in which the author includes Nama and its relatives!), Berber, etc. These are contrasted to the Bantu languages which are non-inflecting, and the West-African languages, which are an intermediate form. The author then shows many relationships between the Bantu prefixes and suffixes and the inflections of the inflecting languages, thus suggesting possible ways of development.

* C. Brouwer, G. Ras, "Schwere Wörter", in Dutch/German: Difficult Words, Wolters, Groningen, Batavia, 1935, pp. 70.
Legendary Dutch school book, listing 279 German words that are know for confusing Dutch high-school students learning German. With Example sentences.

* Emile Benveniste, "Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen", 1935,
A classic exposition of the data as known in the early 1930s.

* D.L.R. Lorimer, "The Burushaski Language -- Vol. 1, 2, 3", Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning, Oslo, 1935, pp. 464.
Part 1 contains large amounts of very carefully described data, written phonetically rather than phonemically, organised according to subject. The book is not a grammar in that the author does not present rules but only reports observations. The author deliberately makes no attempt to distinguish between the results of the inherent inaccuracy of normal speech and those of grammatical processes and just recorded what he heard. Often the recorded material fluctuates so much that precise rules are difficult to find.
Part 2 contains recorded and translated stories, part 3 is a dictionary.

* Otto Dempwolff, "Vergleichende Lautlehre des Austronesischen Ursprache", Berlin, Reimer, 1934-1938,

* Herman Hirt, "Syntax, 1. Syntaktische Verwendung der Kasus und der", Heidelberg, Winter, 1934-1937,

* Leonard Bloomfield, "Language", Allen & Unwin, London, 1933, pp. 566.
Every bit as good as its fame! Especially impressive is the way the author explains the point of view of the neo-grammarians, "sound laws have no exceptions" (although he does not endorse this formulation). When a sound law has been applied to all words that fulfill its conditions, it may appear that some words do not "obey" it: the resulting word does not match the supposedly related word which is actually found. These words are called "residual", and they require an explanation. The author specifies 4 explanations: 1. there are specific conditions under which the law has a different effect, or, in other words, the law did not apply, but one with a different condition and different result does; 2. the word is a loan from a neighboring dialect, one in which the word had a different development; 3. the word was modified in analogy to another word; 4. the word is not actually related to the word it was thought to have derived from. Finding out which of the alternatives apply results in the correct etymology of the word.
There is much, much more in this book.

* D.L.R. Lorimer, "A Burushaski text from Hunza", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 4, pp. 505-531. 1932,

* Siddheshwar Varma, "Burushaski texts", Indian Linguistics, I, pp. 256-282. 1931,

* T.G. Tucker, "Etymological Dictionary of Latin", Ares Publ., Chicago, 1931, pp. 307.
Lots of information. With index to Greek and English words.

* R. Bleichsteiner, "Die werschikisch-burischkische Sprache im Pamir-Gebiet und ihre Stellung zu den Japhetitensprachen des Kaukasus", Wiener Beitr. z. Kulturgeschishte u. Linguistik, I, pp. 289-331. 1930,

* Fang-Kuei Li, "Mattole -- An Athabaskan Language", Chicago Univ. Press, Chicago, 1930, pp. 152.

* Pierre Eyheramendy, "Methode pratique pour apprendre le basque", Paris, Maissonneuve, 1929,

* Gotthelf Bergsträsser, "Einführung in die Semitischen Sprachen", in German: Introduction to the Semitic Languages, Max Hueber, München, 1928, pp. 240.
To avoid guessing the author restricts the languages to those for which full vocalization is available. The book covers the following groups: Akkadian; Hebrew; Aramaic; South-Arabic-Ethiopian; and North-Arabic. For each group between 3 and 5 representative languages are described in narrative form (no paradigms) and reasonably well-annotated samples (usually full short stories) are given, in a uniform traditional Latin transcription; in total 22 languages are described and sampled. No attempt is made to arrange these in a tree, although there is a chapter on Proto-Semitic, and a list of about 180 common Semitic terms is given. The `sin' as a lateral fricative is mentioned in a couple of places (for example page 126, on the South-Arabic language of Mehri), but is not so indicated in the transcription.
In spite of the title it is virtually necessary to be well acquainted with at least one semitic language. The book is only an introduction in that it "introduces" the various languages to the initiated.
The section on Hebrew is of excellent quality; the author even knows that lirkosh (to acquire) is pronounced lirkhosh (pg 58, footnote 7), a fact which is not normally described in books. If the other chapters are of the same quality this is a very precise book. (Just as litpor (to sew) is pronounced litfor. 1. I think these are back-formations from rkhush (possessions) and tfira (seam). 2. The book shows that this pronunciation, which I always took to be a recent one (post-1948), is in fact much older.)
An independent discussion of the syntax of Ugaritic by Carl Brockelmann closes the book (no sample).

* I.I. Zarubin, "Vershikoe Narechie Kaudzutskogo Yakiza", Leningrad, 1927,

* Arthur Anthony MacDonell, "A Sanskrit Grammar for Students", London, Oxford University Press, 1927, pp. 264.

* Arno Poebel, "Grundzüge der Sumerischen Grammatik", in German: Fundamentals of Sumerian Grammar, Wipf & Stock, 1923, reprint 2005, pp. 324.

* H. Geurtjens, "Spraakleer der Keieesche taal", Verhandelingen Bataviaasch Genootschap van kunsten en wetenschappen, #63.2, Albrecht & Co., Weltevreden, pp. ??. 1921,

* H. Geurtjens, "Woordenlijst der Keieesche taal", Verhandelingen Bataviaasch Genootschap van kunsten en wetenschappen, #63.3, Albrecht & Co., Weltevreden, pp. ??. 1921,

* Herman Hirt, "Indogermanische Grammatik, 1. Einleitung, Etymologie, Konsonatismus", in German: Indo-European Grammar, 1. Introduction, Etymology, Consonant Stock, Heidelberg, Winter, 1921-1927,

* "The Origin of the Vai Syllabary", Harvard African Studies, 1, 1917,

* J.H.A. Günther, "A Manual of English Pronunciation and Grammar for the Use by Dutch Students", Wolters, Groningen, 1918, c 1899, pp. 383.

* Arthur Antony MacDonell, "A Vedic Grammar for Students", Low Price Publications, New Delhi, 1916, reprinted 1990, pp. 508.

* Malcolm MacFarlane, "The School Gaelic-English Dictionary", MacKey Bookseller, Stirling, 1912, pp. ±150.

* Margaret Alice Murray, "Elementary Coptic (Sahidic) Grammar", London, Quaritch, 1911, pp. ???.
Straightforward, minimal grammar with exercises (no answers) and a very small dictionary.

* Phineas Mordell, "The Origin of Letters and Numerals According to the Sefer Yetzirot", Samuel Weiser, New York, 1911, pp. 71.

* "An etymological dictionary of the Gaelic language", Alexander Macbain, Stirling, E. Mackay, 1911, pp. 412.

* Joseph Wright, "Wright's Grammar of the Gothic Language", with supplement by O.L. Sayce, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 383. 1986, c1910, 1981,
Chapter 1: Pronunciation, following Grimm; the supplement updates this to the modern view as described in the Wikipedia. Chapters 2-9: development rules from proto-Germanic and Indo-European. Chapters 10-14: morphology. Chapter 15: word formation. Chapter 16: syntax. Pages 195-291: bilingual Greek-Gothic bible books. Pages 292-383: notes, glossaries, supplements.
The bible texts show how strictly word-by-word the translation from the Greek is; it makes one wonder if they really represent the natural way of expression in Gothic.

* Gertrud Adolf Altenberg, Umberto Ubaldi, "Italiano-Tedesco, Tedesco-Italiano", in German: Italian-German German-Italian, Antonio Vallardi, Milano, pp. ???. 1964,

* Fowler, H.W., F.G. Fowler, "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English", 4th edition, Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. ???. 1959,

* Stenhus, "That Thusendigste Jar", in Old Saxon (purportedly): The Thousandth Year, Mouton & Co., Den Haag, pp. ???. 1957,
Purported Old Saxon cronicles of a well-to-do homestedder in the Bentheim region, from mid-999 to mid-1000; with Introduction, Notes and Bibliography, edited by Gerben Colmjon. Fiction, but very intersting to read.

* Wilhelm Braune, "Gotische Grammatik", Max Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. ???. 1956,

* K. ten Bruggencate, A. Broers, "Engels Woordenboek -- Engels-Nederlands / Nederlands-Engels", School Dictionary English-Dutch, Dutch-English, J.B. Wolters, Groningen, pp. ???. 1956/1959,

* "Woordenlijst van de Nederlandse Taal", Staatsdrukkerij, Den Haag, pp. ???. 1954,

* J. Nat, "Hebreeuwse Grammatica", E.J. Brill, Leiden., pp. ???. 1951,

* Simeon Potter, "Our Language", Pelican, Middlesex, pp. ???. 1950,

* C.L. Wrenn, "The English Language", Methuen, London, pp. ???. 1949,

* J. Nat, "Oefeningen bij de Hebreeuwse Grammatica", Leiden, E.J. Brill, pp. ???. 1948,

* Carl Brockelmann, "Kurzgefasste vergleichende Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen: Elemente der Laut- und Formenlehre", Berlin, Reuther & Reichard, 1908, pp. 314.

* Joh.C. Pieters, "Nos fautes de prononciation", in French: Our Pronunciation Errors, Meindert Boogaerdt Jun., Rotterdam, 1907, pp. 77.
Pronunciation guide to the French language, in Dutch. Probably old-fashioned.

* "Hè Kainè Diathèkè", British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 1904, pp. 668.

* M. de Vries, L.A. te Winkel, "Woordenlijst voor de spelling der Nederlandsche taal", in Dutch: Vocabulary for the Orthography of the Dutch Language, Martinus Nijhoff, 's-Gravenhage, 1904, pp. 485.
Early version of the "groene boekje", the official spelling bible of Dutch. Good for determining "old" spelling ("visch" vs. "vis") and the masculine-feminine distinction in gender, both of which are out of use now.

* J. Vercoullie, "Beknopt etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandse taal", in Dutch: Concise etymological dictionary of the Dutch language, J. Vuylsteke, Gent, 1898, pp. 464.
Short introduction to Indo-European, with a comparative table of sound shifts to Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and the Germanic languages. 343 pages of entries, followed by an inventory of Dutch words, catalogued by language of provenance, ranging from West-Germanic to American Indian. The book ends with indexes of Greek, Latin, French, English and German words occurring in the dictionary. Very thorough and extremely well-indexed.

* Richard Loewe, "Die Reste der Germanen am Schwarzen Meere", in German: The Remainders of the Germanic Peoples on the Black Sea, Niemeyer, Halle, 1896, pp. 270.
Gathers and carefully analyzes all that is known in 1896 about the Germanic Peoples around the Black Sea. Historical sources mention five Germanic peoples in the region: the Asia Minor Germans, the Caucasus Germans, the (possible) Germans on the Caspian Sea, the Crimean Goths and the Minor (Moesian) Goths. Substantial knowledge is available on the Crimean Goths only.
Most of the book is on the history of the assorted peoples, but 95 pages are spent on the Crimean Gothic language. Busbecq's word list is presented and analyzed in full, giving Germanic sources for many of the words that Busbecq himself set apart as "cum nostra lingua non satis congruentia" - "not sufficiently similar to our language". In addition, single words from other sources are considered, resulting in a Crimean-Gothic to German dictionary of 99 entries.
The three-line "Gothic" song supplied by Busbecq is identified as Turkish.
The author quotes liberally from Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Flemish and Swedish sources, in the original, without translation. The quotes from Slavic languages are translated, though. Shows what was expected from a gentleman-scholar in those days.

* Charles S. Halsey, "An Etymology of Latin and Greek", Aristide D. Caratzas, New Rochelle, N.Y., 1893; reprinted 1983, pp. 252.

* Rodger Wells Jr., U.S.N, "English-Eskimo and Eskimo-English Vocabularies", Tuttle, Rutland, Vt., 1890, pp. 72.

* F. van Cappelle, A. Ekker, "Nederlands-Latijnsch Woordenboek", in Dutch: Dutch-Latin Dictionary, J.B. Wolters, Groningen, 1890, pp. 1166.

* Benjamin Davies, "Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon", Asher & Co., London, pp. 752. 1889,

* A.N. Pypin, "Das Serbisch-Wendische Schriftthum in der Ober- und Niederlausitz", in German: The Serbian(!)/Wendish Literature in the Ober- and Niederlausitz, F.A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1884, pp. 64.
Lament about the miserable state of publishing in Sorbian / Wendish. One of the most successfull enterprises was at the hands of a German who did not speak a word of the language. A sticker inside the booklet corrects the title to "Sorbisch-Wendisch".

* "Testament Newydd", in Welsh: The New Testament, 1873, pp. 459.

* "Biblia Hebraica", Karl Tauchnitz, Leipzig, 1867, pp. 1392.

* Edward Slaughter S.J., Ioh. Dav. Michaelis, "Grammatica Hebraica item Chaldaica", in Latin: Hebrew and Aramaic Grammar, Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, Roma, 1843, pp. 166.

* "Bijbel -- De Gansche Heilige Schrift -- Statenvertaling", in Dutch: The Bible -- The Complete Holy Script -- Dutch Authorized Version, Nederlandsch Bijbelgenootschap, 1618/1619; printed 1886, pp. 1027+320.