153 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — SEMITICA 154 SEMITICA WENINGER, S., et al. (ed.) — The Semitic Languages. An International Handbook. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 36). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin & New York, 2011. (24,5 cm, IX, 1287). ISBN 978-3-11-018613-0. ISSN 1861-5090. / 329,-. The present reviewer of this volume will quickly run out of adjectives of praise to describe the marvelous, monumen- tal, and magisterial achievement found within the covers of this mighty and massive book (to use only words commenc- ing with ‘m’). Stefan Weninger and his associate editors, Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck, and Janet C. W. Watson, not only have conceived the brilliant project, which far sur- passes comparable volumes in the scope of languages and topics covered, but have also assembled the best scholars in the world to produce the superb results. Those who labour in the field of Semitic Studies are familiar with similar volumes already available, and hence this new volume invites comparison (fairly or unfairly) with the following: a) Robert Hetzron, ed., The Semitic Lan- guages (London/New York: Routledge, 1998); b) Roger D. Woodard, ed., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); and c) the two volumes edited by Alan S. Kaye, Phonologies of Asia and Africa (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997); and Morphologies of Asia and Africa (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007). By definition, the Woodard volume is limited to the ancient Semitic lan- guages; while the Kaye volumes treat only phonology and morphology, without entering into the domains of syntax and lexis, never mind areas further afield, such as sociolin- guistics and the like. The Hetzron book is the one that would come closest to the Weninger reference work, but the former does not com- pare in scope to the latter. To give two examples: a) this new work includes six essays covering 95 pages devoted to Akkadian, in contrast to a single chapter of 31 pages in the older; b) while an astonishing 17 essays spanning 201 pages 155 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXX N° 1-2, januari-april 2013 156 present Aramaic in all its varieties (ancient and modern), in Hebrew and Aramaic essays. When such occurs, the font is contrast to but two chapters (one for ancient, one for mod- the standard Hebrew one, sometimes with transliteration ern) comprising 61 pages in the Hetzron volume. accompanying the original, sometimes without – though All of the aforementioned works include grammatical “Christian Palestinian Aramaic” (ch. 33), by Matthew Mor- sketches of the individual languages, as does the current genstern, includes several words in the Syriac-derived script, work naturally. But what distinguishes the scope of the vol- though I must comment that said font is not very attractive, ume produced by Weninger and his colleagues is the array and/or the typesetters faced spacing problems, producing the of additional essays, on such interesting topics as the inter- result of CPA words difficult to read at times. Happily, the relationship between Semitic and each of the other language Syriac alphabet chart (presenting all three styles [Ser†o, families within the Afroasiatic phylum; the reconstruction Es†rangela, and Eastern/Nestorian]), just a few pages on (p. of proto-Semitic phonology, morphology, and lexicon; and 641) is a model of clarity. morphological and syntactic typology of Semitic (nine Of great value are the lists of references which accom- essays altogether; more on most of these anon). pany each chapter. Here again, it appears, the editors have And then there are such unexpected and fascinating arti- placed no restrictions on the authors, as some of these lists cles on such sociolinguistic themes as “Akkadian as a Dip- comprise very comprehensive bibliographies. The longest of lomatic Language” (Wilfred H. van Soldt), “Hebrew as the them (for a single language; see further below) attends the Language of Judaism” (Angel Sáenz-Badillos); “The Re- superb entry on “Arabic Dialects (general article)” (ch. 50), Emergence of Hebrew as a National Language” (Yael by Janet C. E. Watson; no doubt due to the amount of mate- Reshef); “Imperial Aramaic as an Administrative Language rial surveyed in the article, the bibliography spans 17 pages! of the Achaemenid Period” (Margaretha Folmer); “Syriac as Needless to say, this review cannot comment on each of the Language of Eastern Christianity” (Françoise Briquel the 74 individual entries to this work; nor would it be wise Chatonnet); “Arabic as the Language of Islam” (Muhammad even to list them all here. To answer to the second of these A. S. Abdel Haleem); “Creating a Modern Standard Lan- remarks, I direct the reader to the publisher’s website, where guage from Medieval Tradition: The Nah∂a and the Arabic the full Table of Contents is provided: http://www.degruyter. Academies” (Dagmar Glaß); “Tigrinya as National Lan- com/viewbooktoc/product/175227. As to the first remark, I guage of Eritrea and Tigray” (Rainer Voigt); and “The Role here segue to specific comments on most (though not all) of of Amharic as a National Language and an African lingua the individual essays. As the reader will recognize, the franca” (Ronny Meyer). These contributions should attract majority of these are based on my own expertise in a spe- scholars from disciplines beyond linguistics (such as history, cific subset of the Semitic languages (namely, Northwest government, religion, sociology, anthropology, etc.). Semitic), though I also will attempt to do justice to essays As to the presentation of the individual languages them- in other areas. selves, the editors, wisely to my mind, have given each con- tributor considerable leeway in the presentation of his/her “Semitic-Egyptian Relations” (ch. 2), by Gábor Takács material. To be sure, the most widely studied classical lan- (pp. 7-18): guages are given the most comprehensive treatment – “Bab- While this entry, understandably so, presents only “exam- ylonian and Assyrian” (38 pp.), by Michael P. Streck; “Bib- ples of the common Afro-Asiatic” pronominal system (p. lical Hebrew” (35 pp.), by Lutz Edzard; and “Classical 10), one particularly noteworthy item is missing, to wit, the Arabic” (30 pp.), by Jan Retsö. By contrast, other languages existence of a 1st person common dual suffix -ny, known are presented with less depth, even though, in theory at from Old and Middle Egyptian, with cognates in Eblaite and least, there is a comparable amount of data which could be Ugaritic (further afield see also Homeric n¬fl). Happily, the presented; thus, for example, “Ugaritic” (13 pp.), by Dennis Semitic forms are noted by Streck on p. 344 (see below). Pardee; “Jewish Babylonian Aramaic” (11 pp.), by Michael (The Modern South Arabian languages also have 1st person Sokoloff; and “Tigre” (11 pp.), by Didier Morin. For common dual pronouns [both independent and suffixed], but another very long entry, this time for a modern language, these are extensions from the 2nd person forms [see the here I may note “Amharic” (35 pp.), by Ronny Meyer. chart on p. 1083].) Typically, these entries proceed as expected, through pho- Oddly, given the author of the present entry and his role nology, morphology (with ample paradigm charts, clearly as editor of the article to be cited, missing from the Refer- presented), and syntax. Many (especially the longer ones) ences is: Aaron D. Rubin, “An Outline of Comparative include a section on lexicon (something not normally found Egypto-Semitic Morphology,” in Gábor Takács, ed., Egyp- in comparable reference works), with attention to loanwords, tian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies in Memo- distinct vocables which differentiate one dialect from related riam Werner Vycichl (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 454-486. dialects, and other matters. In a few instances, to be honest, one is disappointed to Semitic-Berber Relations (ch. 3), by Vermondo Brugnatelli find not a grammatical sketch of a language, but rather more (pp. 18-27) conversation about the given language than paradigm charts, By citing W. M. de Slane’s pathfinding essay of 1856, in convenient presentation of forms, and so on. Here I must which the author “highlighted a number of ‘points de res- single out “Phoenician and Punic” (ch. 21), by Wolfgang semblance’ between Berber and Semitic” (p. 19), Brugna- Röllig; and “Mishnaic Hebrew” (ch. 23), by Moshe Bar- telli gives the impression that said scholar was the first to Asher – notwithstanding the erudition shown in the latter identify such common elements. The reader may be inter- especially. I will have more specific comments on these two ested to learn, accordingly, that Yehuda ibn Quraysh (9th contributions below. century C.E.) noted not only the obviously close relation- Almost always the material is presented in transliteration, ships between and among Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic though there are exceptions, especially for many of the (and thus may be considered the first comparative Semitist), 157 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — SEMITICA 158 but this remarkable scholar also identified some shared fea- “Proto-Semitic Lexicon” (ch. 8), by Leonid Kogan tures between Semitic and Berber. (pp. 179-258): “Proto-Semitic Phonetics and Phonology” (ch. 6), by Leo- With this essay we return to another tour-de-force by nid Kogan (pp. 54-151): Kogan, presenting the most comprehensive treatment of the proto-Semitic (PS) vocabulary, adducing approximately 450 The pagination given here is not a misprint; indeed, this items from across the spectrum of semantic fields: the phys- chapter comprises 98 pages, which includes 21 pages of ical world, colours, plant names, animal names, body parts, References. But beyond the sheer quantity of material con- food, etc. – along with corresponding verbs. Among the veyed, this essay is simply brilliant, allowing the reader to familiar items, *dam ‘blood’ will serve as a good illustration investigate in an easily accessible manner, with clear sub- (p.