- Berne: A. Francke, 1954; lxviii, 993 double-column pages.
- This elaborate section is an, at least partial, attempt at a « bibliographie raisonnée » and contains not a few valuable bits of information, tentative datings and localizations of crucially important texts (including the Alexandre, of disputed background), analyses of dissertations unpublished or thought by Corominas to be unpublished (Willbern's appeared in 1953), appeals to publishers to make available certain inquiries so far preserved in manuscript form (s. v. Hill), and queer complaints about inadequate recognition of the author's own share in works credited to fellow scholars (s. v. Castro).
- Timely tabulation of these deletions would have been most useful; for one example that caught my eye see gasaja (52b). But I am afraid that the author has inadvertently allowed unauthentic formations to infiltrate his book. What degree of reality attaches to cegarrita (749a), also listed as cegarrilo (791b) ‘contracting the eye to see at a distance’, if only the fixed phrase a ojos cegarritas (parallelling a pies juntillas ‘firmly’, both with adverbial -as overruling the agreement of gender) is on record?
- For an example of incredible rudeness see the insinuations against G. Rohlfs s. v. bruja. Whether Corominas is right or wrong in disagreeing with J. Hubschmid on the classification or some putative offshoots or cueto (974a), he is patently guilty of rash and unkind generalization in accusing his opponent of never guarding against certain pitfalls; in general the pervasive use of such phrases as “que todos citan”, “todo el mundo”, “al alcance de todos”, “que nadie duda” (xiii, xvii, xviii, 985a et passim), aside from being journalese at its least attractive, strikes me as inexcusably offensive, whoever Corominas' current victim. His comment on the writer of these lines s. v. cosecha (838b) is not onlf rude but beside the point, given A. Alonso's simultaneous interest in cogecha-eosecha and a private comment received from J. Jud, with whom Corominas has so little in common despite his assertion to the contrary (xxviii).
- Small wonder, under these circumstances, that one should detect regrettable gaps; thus, there is no mention s. v. anatema of OJud.-Arag. alalma, aladma, traced simultaneously by two scholars to this Graeco-Latin base a decade ago.
- This assumed sequence of events confirms my earlier suspicions, as stated in MLN 56.34–42 (1941) and RR 32.278–295 (1941). On adj. -ido sec Lang. 22.302–309 (1946) and BICC 9.65–66 (1953–55).
- Of course, the volume is not letter-perfect, even if one deducts from his marginal notes the author's own list of errata (995). Occasional errors have crept into German titles (Ixviii), into proper names (333a, 683b), and into phonetic symbols (865b); there are quite a few misleading punctuation marks (620b, 683b, 686a, etc.) and just plain uncorrected misprints (xvii: r. sinopsis; 509: r. compuesto). But all in all the progress has been very remarkable and worthy of praise.
- Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
- Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
- Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
- Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research