Pre-Indo-European, by Winfred P. Lehmann. (= Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Number 41.

) Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 2002. Pp. xvi, 287. Reviewed by ALLAN R. BOMHARD, Charleston, SC Ever so often, a book appears that breaks new ground, that stands out above all others as a singularly important contribution to the field. Lehmanns Pre-Indo-European is such a book. In this book, Lehmann attempts to sketch the fundamental features of an earlier period of the Indo-European parent language. While traditional comparative grammars reconstruct a period just prior to the disintegration of the Indo-European parent language from around 4500 BCE or so , Lehmann sets his sights on the period of 8000 to 5000 BCE. Over the past two decades, there has been a growing recognition that, in its earliest stages of development, the Indo-European parent language was an active language, and this is what Lehmann tries to show as well in this book. Indeed, Lehmann is not the first to make such a claim, nor is the book under review here the first by Lehmann on the subject. The monumental monograph Indo-European and the IndoEuropeans (Russian version 1984; English translation 1995) by Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and Vjaeslav V. Ivanov deserves special mention as one of the first to make a convincing case that Proto-Indo-European was an active language. What makes Lehmanns current book special is that every aspect of Proto-Indo-European is carefully examined for residues of earlier periods of development. In his examination, Lehmann brings to bear a knowledge of the relevant literature that is encyclopedic in scope and that clearly reflects a lifetime of learning. His conclusions are compelling. The book is divided into the following major sections: (1) the bases for reconstructing Pre-Indo-European; (2) from Proto-Indo-European to Pre-Indo-European; (3) residues in Proto-Indo-European that prompt its identification as a reflex of an active language; (4) lexical structure; (5) syntax; (6) derivational morphology; (7) inflectional morphology; (8) phonology; (9) the culture of the Pre-Indo-European speakers; and (10) Pre-Indo-European and possible related languages. Lehmann begins by discussing the methodologies employed in linguistic reconstruction, noting both the strengths and the weaknesses of these methodologies. In particular, Lehmann stresses the need for a multidisciplinary approach to reconstruction. To set the stage for what follows later in the book, Lehmann (pp. 5960) describes the salient morphological characteristics of active languages as follows: The inflections of active/animate nouns and verbs differ characteristically from those of the stative/animate counterparts in active languages. Active nouns have more inflected forms than do statives. Moreover, there are fewer inflected forms in the plural than in the singular Similarly, stative verbs have fewer inflections than do the active

As another characteristic verbal inflections express aspect, not tense, in active languages Stative verbs are often comparable in meaning to adjectives Active languages are also characteristic in distinguishing between inalienable and alienable reference in personal pronouns Moreover, possessive and reflexive pronouns are often absent in active languages Lehmann then undertakes a rigorous examination and analysis of all aspects of Indo-European in light of these characteristics this examination and analysis is the core of the book. As a result of this examination and analysis, Lehmann demonstrates that there is strong evidence that there was a distinction between animate vs. inanimate nouns, active vs. stative verbs, involuntary verbs, and particles in an earlier period of development in Indo-European in particular, Lehmann devotes a great deal of attention to a discussion of particles (pp. 8599 and 124130), tracing the development of particles into suffixes, conjunctions, adpositions, and adverbs. In other words, at an earlier period of development, which Lehmann calls Pre-Indo-European, the IndoEuropean parent language exhibited characteristics of an active language. According to Lehmann, Pre-Indo-European distinguished three fundamental stem types: nouns, verbs, and particles. Lehmann discusses in detail the development from this threefold distinction to the more complex system traditionally reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. For Pre-Indo-European, Lehmann (pp. 170171) reconstructs two sets of verb endings that distinguish the active conjugation from the stative conjugation: Active 1st person sg. 2nd person sg. 3rd person sg. 3rd person pl. *-m *-s *-t *-nt Stative *--e *-te *-e *-r

While I agree fully with Lehmanns reconstruction of an active conjugation distinct from a stative conjugation for this earlier period of development, my views differ somewhat from him on the form of the active endings. First, I believe that *-t was the original form of the 2nd person sg. active ending during the earlier period and that this was later replaced by the ending *-s. The evidence for this interpretation comes mainly from Anatolian and Tocharian: cf. Hittite (2nd sg. pret.) -ta in, for example, e-e-ta you were; Tocharian A (2nd sg. athematic) -()t, B -()t(o). In the 2nd person pl., however, *-t- is found in all of the older daughter languages: cf. Sanskrit (primary) -tha, -thana, (secondary) -ta, -tana; Avestan (primary) -a, (secondary) -ta; Hittite (primary) -teni, (secondary) -ten; Greek (primary/secondary) -; Old Latin (primary/secondary) -tis; Gothic (primary/secondary) -; Old Church Slavic (primary/secondary) -te; Lithuanian

(primary/secondary) -te. Next, I view the 3rd person sg. active ending *-t as a later replacement for original *-s. That this replacement occurred fairly early is shown by the fact that the 3rd person sg. ending *-t- is found in all of the older daughter languages, including the Anatolian languages. However, there are important indications that *-s was the original 3rd person sg. active ending. Residues are found not only in Hittite and Tocharian but in the other daughter languages as well, especially in the sigmatic aorist. The evidence is discussed at length by Calvert Watkins in his books: Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb: I. The Sigmatic Aorist (1969; Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies) and Indogermanische Grammatik. Band III: Formenlehre, Erster Teil: Geschichte der Indogermanischen Verbalflexion (1969; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universittsverlag). Finally, I consider the 3rd person pl. active ending *-nt to be a compound in which *-t has been added to original *-n. The *-t was added to the 3rd pl. ending *-n- at the same time that *-t started to be used in the 3rd person sg. Though I use different symbols for the stative endings, my views are identical to those of Lehmann. Thus, I would reconstruct the Pre-Indo-European verb endings as follows: Active 1st person sg. 2nd person sg. 3rd person sg. 3rd person pl. *-m *-t (later *-s) *-s (later *-t) *-n (later *-nt) Stative *-A-e *-tAe *-e *-r

Though Lehmann attempts to reconstruct Pre-Indo-European verb morphology in some detail, far less attention is paid to the reconstruction of Pre-Indo-European noun morphology. He does note, however, that considerably fewer case endings existed in Pre-Indo-European than are traditionally reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European and that few, if any, case endings existed in the plural (p. 184), and he does outline the development of noun inflections (pp. 183186) from a simple to the more complex system. Lehmann also notes (pp. 187188) that adjectives originally did not exist as a separate grammatical class in Pre-Indo-European, and, inasmuch as this agrees with the patterning found in active languages, it provides another piece of evidence that Pre-IndoEuropean is to be reconstructed as an active language. Finally, Lehmann devotes whole chapters to an examination of lexical structure (pp. 6499), to syntax (pp. 100133), and to derivational morphology (pp. 134166). It is gratifying to see that Lehmann (pp. 198202 and 211214) now accepts a form of the Glottalic Theory. Lehmann reinterprets *b, *d, *g, *g of traditional IndoEuropean as *p, *t, *k, *k respectively, with preglottalization. Furthermore, he reinterprets the traditional plain voiceless stops and voiced aspirates as voiceless and voiced respectively with aspirated and unaspirated allophones. As in his earlier work (Proto-Indo-European Phonology [1952; Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press], pp. 100102, 13.3), Lehmann (pp. 214216) posits only palatovelars and labiovelars for Proto-Indo-European, assuming a secondary status for the plain velars reconstructed

by the Neogrammarians. Lehmann reconstructs the following four laryngeals: *#, *h, *, *. Lehmann assumes that * and * were voiceless and voiced velar fricatives respectively and that * may have had a w-offglide. Lehmanns revised reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European phonemic system is as follows (p. 201): Vowels e a o

Consonants Obstruents Resonants Labials Dentals Palatovelars Labiovelars Laryngeals p p t t k k k k # b d g g m w n r l y

Fricatives

For Pre-Indo-European, Lehmann reconstructs the following phonemic system (p. 218): Stops Labials Dentals Palatovelars Labiovelars Laryngeals Syllabicity p p t t k k k k # b d g g Resonants m w n r l y Fricatives

My own views are close to those of Lehmann in that I would only reconstruct three series of obstruents for Proto-Indo-European: (1) voiceless (aspirated), (2) voiced (aspirated), and (3) glottalized. I agree with him that only (palato)velars and labiovelars are to be reconstructed. I would also posit four laryngeals, though I differ slightly in the phonetic values I would assign to two of the laryngeals I interpret the laryngeals (using Kuryowiczs symbols) * and * as multiply-articulated voiceless and voiced laryngeal-pharyngeal fricatives respectively: * = * (Lehmanns *) and * = * (Lehmanns *). In my opinion, positing laryngeal-pharyngeal fricatives here makes it easier to account for the vowel coloring effects usually attributed to these laryngeals. Finally, I would reconstruct a full set of vowels for the latest period of development as well. Thus, I would reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European phonological system as follows:

Obstruents: Voiceless (aspirated): Voiced (aspirated): Glottalized: p b (p) t d t s k g k k g k

Laryngeals:

# m/i e

l/C a X r/3 (i) w/u (u) y/i

Resonants: Vowels:

n/ o e

I concur with Lehmann (pp. 209211) that Proto-Indo-European passed through several successive periods in the development of ablaut and accent. Indeed, my views are, to a large extent, derived from his views. Where I disagree with him is in the reconstruction of the feature of syllabicity, without further differentiation, as the nucleus of a syllable in Pre-Indo-European. My own research indicates that the Proto-IndoEuropean vocalic system underwent a complicated series of changes in the course of its development. These changes can be traced fairly accurately, even if all of the details are not yet completely clear. It can be shown that there was never a point in its prehistory that Indo-European did not have a full complement of phonemic vowels, though, it goes without saying that the sets of vowel phonemes to be reconstructed for the earlier periods were not identical with the sets of the later periods. For details on my views, cf. Allan R. Bomhard and John C. Kerns, The Nostratic Macrofamily (1994; Berlin and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 7385. Lehmann rounds out the book with a description of the cultural setting of PreIndo-European (pp. 219245). Lehmann examines both linguistic and archeological evidence (pp. 221223). He identifies the terms for common household animals (pp. 228232), the social and economic conditions (pp. 223226), and the terminology indicating gradual development from a hunter-gatherer society to a settled society (pp. 232236). He places special importance on the role of tokens in non-Indo-European societies of the ancient Near East and their lack of use among the Pre-Indo-Europeans (pp. 236239). On this basis, Lehmann rejects the idea of a Pre-Indo-European homeland in Asia Minor (pp. 238239). He favors a homeland in the steppe area to the north of the Black and Caspian Seas a view I wholeheartedly endorse. Next, Lehmann discusses art, literature, and religion in Pre-Indo-European (pp. 239241) and life in the Pre-Indo-European period (p. 241). He ends with an account of how and why IndoEuropeans expanded outward from their original homeland and gained dominance over a vast region stretching from Europe in the west to Iran, India, and Central Asia in the east (pp. 242245).

The final chapter in the book focuses on Pre-Indo-European and possible related languages. Lehmann mentions specifically the Nostratic Hypothesis and the proposals of Joseph H. Greenberg, according to which Indo-European is assumed to be a member of the putative Eurasiatic language family. Lehmanns work is especially valuable here, since it lays a better foundation for comparison with possible related languages than what is found in traditional comparative grammars. Lehmann is noted for his ability to present complicated ideas in a clear, easily accessible manner, and this book is no exception this is a well-written and carefully edited book. I found few typos, though it should be noted that there are a number of works cited in the body of the text that are missing from the list of references.