The classification of the Semitic languages family is a topic frequently dealt with by Semitists and very often in search of a reconstruction of Proto-Semitic. The present volume applies to this purpose the method of the Russian linguistic school with the Swadesh wordlist as the initial lexical pattern. The book is organized into an introduction and eight chapters that check the results of this methodology in the Semitic sub-families and languages more significant for this issue: Proto-Semitic, West-Semitic, Central Semitic, North-West Semitic, Ugaritic, Old and Modern Aramaic, Ethiopian Semitic and Modern South Arabian.
As might be imagined, such an aim will meet the reticence, if not the outright opposition, of many Semitists and linguists in general who, sceptical of the usefulness of linguistic genetic classification, have considered almost as a dogma that lexicon is the less suitable tool to achieve a reliable classification in contrast to morphological innovation and other structural features like phonology and syntax. The author is conscious of this state of affairs and in the “Introduction” seeks to break a path through this scepticism. In this regard an overall view of the main problems involved is set out, along with an overview of earlier work in the field and a criticism of the morphological dogma whose shortcomings are made patent. The confluence of both methods is favoured as the right attitude.
The method based on vocabulary (lexicostatistics/glotto-chronology) as well as the analysis of isoglosses have been used by relevant scholars, among whom Militarev stands out. The author defends its validity, analysing the different degrees of retention/loss/innovation of basic semes, trivial or not, that are pertinent for classification.
In chapter 1 the author develops the description and justification of the tool chosen to carry out the genetic classification of Semitic, namely the Swadesh wordlist. The operation in fact implies the reconstruction of the basic vocabulary of Proto-Semitic, for which suitable criteria are pointed out: “the same basic meaning in all major Semitic languages” and “the basic concept in several geographically distant languages”. Applying both types of criteria, half of the basic wordlist is established for the proto-Semitic vocabulary. Their distribution by semantic field becomes very instructive, the series of body parts assuming an outstanding position. The linguistic situation of all these lexemes in the different subgroups and language is analysed with high objectivity. The conclusion is the expected: “the older a language's textual attestation, the more trivial retentions are preserved”, Hebrew and Syriac showing themselves to be the most conservative languages.
From chapter 2 onwards, the subject of classification of Semitic branches is taken up, beginning with West Semitic (WS), which is supposed to include all the Semitic languages excepted Akkadian and Eblaite. The subdivision of West Semitic in Central Semitic, Ethiopian Semitic and Modern South Arabian is assumed. After the failed search for morphological features witnessing the specific linguistic character of WS, work begins on the search for lexical features that can certify such character – this is the author's main concern. First, the Swadesh’ wordlist is scrutinized, arriving at the conclusion that it provides rather limited evidence for the historical unity of West Semitic as will be the case with the other Semitic subgroups. To override this limitation the analysis is then applied to a much larger number of lexemes. It is from this lexical selection that the innovating character of PWS may be ascertained. The same procedure is then applied to obtain the possible particular links relating the three assumed branches of WS to each other, concluding to their complete mutual independence. A certain genealogical link between CS and EthS could be accepted, and at the same time the absence of genealogical proximity between EthS and MSA, as well as the non-existence of the “narrow South Semitic” (Arabic, OSA, MSA, EthS) group or family.
Particular attention is devoted in chapter 3 to Central Semitic (CS), which comprises OSA and NWS (Aramoid and Canaanite). The analysis moves also here from the insufficient morphological shared features to the lexical support, first taken from Swadesh’ and finally from a list of some 110 isoglosses shared by Arabic with Canaanite and Aramaic and that separate Arabic from Akkadian, EthS and MSA.
In chapter 4 we enter into the discussion of different subgroups as genealogical unities, beginning with NWS (Ugaritic/Canaanite and Aramaic), arriving at the conclusion that the lexical analysis does not support the existence of NWS as a genealogical linguistic unity. Particular attention is given to the lexical analysis of Ugaritic and its comparison with other languages. It proves Ugaritic to be a Canaanite language, even the “Canaanite par excellence”, closely connected with Phoenician (North-Canaanite) and without any particular relationship with Arabic, not to mention Akkadian. As for Aramaic, the unity of the linguistic family is defended, although enhancing at the same time the lexical discontinuity between Old Aramaic and later Aramaic dialects. As for Ethiopian Semitic, the linguistic analysis is rather difficult due mainly to the strong Cushitic influence. Nevertheless it suggests the existence of one relatively homogeneous Prot-EthS language.
Finally, chapter 8 offers perhaps the most significant contribution of this volume, based on the author's original field research in MSA (Mehri, Jibbali, Soqotri). The lexical evidence leaves the general impression of “lexical oddness”, that prompts the hypothesis of a common genealogical source for these languages, ascertaining at the same time the proximity between Soqotri and Jibbali.
A couple of pages of conclusions, along with a rich bibliography and a multilingual lexical index which is very worthwhile consulting, close the volume.
As a general assessment I agree with the author's emphasis on the bearing of lexical analysis for the genetic linguistic classification. But a sound methodology cannot disregard either lexicon or morphology (+ phonology): both must go “side by side”, as the author points out. In this case the lexical significance was the main interest of the research, carried out with great professional competence. The result is a volume worth perusing by Semitists.
