209 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — HETTITOLOGIE 210 HETTITOLOGIE KIMBALL, S.E. — Hittite Historical Phonology. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Innsbruck, 1999. (24 cm, 456). ISBN 3-85124-674-8. ATS 1.800,-. This much-heralded book (hereinafter referred to as HHP) lives up to expectations as regards content. Kimball independently undertook a project similar to Melchert’s Anatolian Historical Phonology (= AHP), limiting herself however to Hittite. Though as it is impossible to do any- thing with Hittite’s ancestor without considering the other Anatolian languages, K. cites them fairly often to illustrate Hittite forms. According to AHP’s introduction, the two authors were careful not to read each other’s manuscripts, although they of course consulted each other’s previous work. AHP came out in 1994, while this book carries the date 1999. HHP has however been rather long in the edit- ing (with commendable results), so that in reality the text stems from more or less the same time as AHP, which it cites on occasion. K. states (p. 35) that her work is aimed not only at students of Anatolian and IE phonology, but also at scholars of other branches of Hittitology and Ancient Near East studies. It therefore has to be readable and clear to non-specialists. It seems successful in this regard, in the presentation of indi- vidual entries, though a basic familiarity with Indo-European phonology and phonetic/phonological terminology is neces- sary to use it. K. starts with an extensive discussion of the Hittite writ- ing system, and the problems in interpreting it, since it is hardly a clean reflection of how Hittite was actually pro- nounced. She establishes (p. 106), among other things, that the signs with S are to be pronounced with a dental/alveo- lar sibilant: in other words, they contained plain S, not the sound English writes as SH. It is devoutly to be hoped that this will have an effect on the field, since for some reason many scholars don’t accept this, and would still hail vari- ous Hittite kings as Shuppiluliumash, Murshilish, and Hat- tushilish, and the Hittite capital as Hattushash. There is nat- urally also extensive discussion of the representation of voiced and voiceless as against possibly geminate stops; and of the relatively recently established fact that plene writings indicate vowel length and (less clearly) accent/tone, much of the original work having been done by K. herself. 211 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LVIII N° 1-2, januari-april 2001 212 K. then lists the reflexes of PIE phonemes, each in vari- just happens on — there is no other way to find them. Under ous combinations and environments, which are explicitly *nh2 (gemination section, p. 415 or p. 411), one finds no listed in the Table of Contents, and thus are easy to find for cross-ref. to the treatment of sanh- (I finally found it, under consultation. Under each entry she provides Hittite examples n, p. 334). walh- was even worse: after not finding it on p. for each combination, with cognates or PIE/PA reconstruc- 413 under *-lh2 (gemination again), I tried under l, having tions, and generally other scholars’ discussion, doubts and learned from sanh-. There (p. 352) it was barely cited, with suggestions, as appropriate. This discussion, as she explains, a good cross-ref. to the lowering of the vowel (p. 165), and revolves around the most recent work on phonology; older a derivation from *welh3-. *-lh3 doesn’t exist in the gemi- treatments are generally cited only when they have to be nation section, so I tried *h3, postconsonantal: walh- was modified or when they have been confirmed by further there (no cross-ref.s). Someone who doesn’t know how to research. look would probably get lost or give up. It is a pity, because K.’s treatment is almost universally painstaking and care- this sort of thing is tiring, and yet everything seems to be ful, and her arguments and writing are clear and easy to fol- there, somewhere. low.1) She organizes a vast and complex set of data and prob- At first blush, one might in fact get the impression that lems into a coherent and understandable system, in a masterly there are gaps in K.’s coverage — this turns out generally fashion. not to be the case.2) E.g., there is no section on final stops, The main problem with HHP is its arrangement, which is but then one discovers some treatment under the headings suited more to a linear presentation of a new theory, than to Loss and Devoicing (p. 300ff.). The unresolved argument a reference work that is likely to be used by different peo- about whether accented PIE short vowels lengthened only ple for different purposes. Too often one needs to read in open or also in closed syllables is not even mentioned around in the book to gain the proper perspective. This dif- in the evidence sections on those vowels (p. 129ff.), where ficulty is seriously aggravated by the omission of an index one might be most likely to look for the discussion. There, of Hittite forms treated, which would seem essential to a K. begins with her usual one-line synopsis of the relevant work of this kind. From any point of view, but certainly from sound-change rule, but this in fact represents her own view: that of the varied readership which K. wishes to attract, the one has to look back to p. 125ff. to learn that it is disputed lack of an index diminishes the usefulness, and certainly the (there the presentation of the argument is particularly user-friendliness, of the book. HHP is arranged essentially thorough). The “basic” changes illustrated in this chapter from the vantage point of PIE. So if one doesn’t know what are not all you need to know, by the way: it may come etymology K. favors, it is impossible to find a Hittite word, as a shock to discover that the analysis here has to be coor- and one cannot trace the genesis of a given Hittite sound. dinated with the next chapter (Ch. 3), which details all Since her ideas are not necessarily the same as those of other kinds of special but important changes regarding the scholars (which is what makes the book interesting), she may vowels. well have put a form where one does not expect it. Even if It might also have been nice to have a section on the rel- one does guess right, she may not have put it in the relevant ative chronology of various sound changes: the information section. And once in a while she is not consistent, and puts is dotted around in the book, but it would have been helpful one derivation in one place and another in a second. Some to gather it together somewhere. The book does not attempt examples below. Complications of this ilk could have been a total picture of Proto-Anatolian as distinct from PIE, though avoided with an index, even if it gave just the negative infor- some sections deal with this directly. mation that certain forms are not treated. The lack makes The field has clearly paused to take stock of where it is HHP to a great extent of use to a passive rather than an and where it has to go, with this book and AHP, which com- active reader. plement (and often contradict) each other. Great progress has Cross-references, which might partially alleviate this been made in our understanding of Hittite phonology in the problem, are erratic: sometimes they are good, sometimes last decades, but things are still quite unsettled: these com- missing. Examples: on p. 306, under n (alternating with d/l), pendia are valuable, probably even necessary guideposts for K. gives two possible derivations for le: *leh1 (she seems further study. to favor this), and the more standard *ne(i). The dissimila- Not so very long ago, most of the Hittite vocabulary was tion *n-> l- is then treated in another section altogether not thought to be IE at all. IE etymologies have slowly been (p. 336), without mention of a possible similar change with worked out for the bulk of the lexicon, but many forms are le, and without cross-reference. In the section on final laryn- still impenetrable, and the rest are mostly debated, some in geals (discussed below), the derivation from *leh1 alone is essence, some in details. Obviously cognates are not immedi- given, again without cross-ref. Experts may not have prob- ately recognizable. Data are generally not copious, with the lems, but an inexperienced reader will get a wrong impres- result that theories are often assumed on the basis of a hand- sion, if (s)he lands in a section where only one possible ful of sometimes isolated examples — that is, if one is lucky: derivation is mentioned. This sort of complication happens sometimes we have one lonely specimen. Understandably, dis- frequently in the book. Just to stick with examples from the agreements are systemic. It therefore is worth recalling that discussion at the end of this review: cf. at least four dis- even when there is general agreement, reconstructions are cussions of the -u of assu (p. 56, 123, 125, 426), which one often only plausible, not proven. The book tries to bring this out, but quite often sounds as if it is stating facts. E.g., the Dir. 1) Sometimes, by the way, there are strange parsings, as when she takes da-ah-hu-us-ma-as-ta of StBoT 8 IV 39 as the verb dahhun + -sma (direc- 2) She misses things like I-J.