Abstraction is indeed a weakness in the 60 pages I read. My own view is
that language cannot be separated from peoples or cultures. The Germanic
peoples were a visible entity and for English readersD.H. Green's Language
and history in the early Germanic world (1998: CUP) can be highly
recommended.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Briggs" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:40 PM
Subject: [EPNL] Ringe's "From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic"
> It's most commendable of Keith to draw our attention to Don Ringe's book,
> though having read the first 60 pages on the OUP site, I'm not sure of its
> direct relevance for English onomasts. All the same, it would be most
> useful if Keith, in his inimitable fashion, could provide those of us not
> prepared to shell out 65 quid on trust with a synopsis of what Ringe has
> to
> say about Germanic.
I would agree that it's not of direct relevance* for English onomasts. I
mentioned it because of the discussion about Proto-Germanic that came up,
and I thought anyone interested in language would want to know about this
book.
I have not read it all and in any case there's a huge amount of detail here
which would be hard to summarize. Nevertheless, I think it's an important
book as for the first time we have in one place (and in a reasonably
accessible form for the non-professional) a detailed description of the IE
to Proto-Germanic stage. A weakness is perhaps that no context is given -
not a single time or place has been mentioned in the parts I have read so
far. Linguistic evolution is presented as an abstract process. Also,
there is no index apart from word-lists, so if you want to find out the
definition of amphikinetic or proto-vrddhi, you're in trouble. A highlight
for me was the convincing explanation of the English weak preterite (yes,
it's from "did", but it only works if you get all the details right).
Keith
* though perhaps consider the recent duro- discussion - could its odd
combining properties have anything to do with the underlyingly (a favourite
word of Ringe) dual nature of the etymon (PIE *d^hur 'double door', Ringe
p190, 197 etc.)? I.e. the borrowers had no dual and could not get the
inflection right?
|