Re: Stacking up on standard works

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:
>
> From the Brill series, I've got original PDFs of Derksen's Slavic
> dictionary (which I uploaded here) and Kloekhorst's Hittite dictionary
> (too big to be uploaded). I've also got scanned copies of Matasovic's
> Proto-Celtic and De Vaan's Latin+Italic, the latter being IMHO a
> comparatively mediocre work.
>
I'm going to summarize the weakness I've found in De Vaan's work. As indicated by its title, this is a Latin dictionary where other Italic languages and Proto-Italic itself play a minor role. Secondly, in the introduction he sticks to the *outdated* Italo-Celtic hypothesis, in despite of being rejected by his colleague Matasovic.

Although he says his is a dictionary of "inherited lexicon" (thus excluding Greek loanwords), he includes some likely Etruscan borrowings, often with a shameless laziness. For example, he thinks Latin ferrum 'iron' < PItalic *ferso-m might be a loanword from some Phoenician dialect, because the word is attested in Semitic (e.g. Akkadian persillum). In fact, this is a Wanderwort of ultimate Luwian origin from the root *bherg´- 'to shine', introduced to Italy by the Etruscans (Villanova culture).

Also some of De Vaan's etymologies, e.g. Latin vitrum 'glass; woad' from IE *wed-ro- 'water-like' are rather inventive, to say the least.

Tavi, you amazed me this time by what seems to be impeccable logic. Wasn't the Anatolian expansion due to the discovery of how to forge iron in Anatolia? If the development of iron technology can be linked to the Anatolians, then it looks like you nailed this one