- The Phonology and Morphology of Royal Achaemenid Elamite. xi-119 pp. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1955. A few trivial misprints may here conveniently be noted in passing: p. 14, for pár-ru-sa-na-iš-be-na read -ṣa- etc.; p. 28, for ṣu-iṣ-ṣa read su-iṣ-ṣa p. 33, for si-iš-šá-an-tak-ma read ṣi- etc.; p. 38, for ha-is-sa-iš-ni read ha-iṣ-ṣa-iš-ni; p. 39, for dun- read iun-; p. 52, for ap-py-ka-da read ap-pu-ka-da; p. 94, for ø-accussatives read ø-accusatives. There are also a few harmless omissions of the diacritic wedge from Elamite /č/.
- I take mild exception to Paper's use of punctuation within diagonals; I suspect that I have also been guilty of the same myself.
- An unfortunate connotation of Hjelmslev's term ceneme.
- For example, the Latin verb-class suffixes determine the selection of allomorphs for the suffixes of the future and the subjunctive.
- The above conclusions were arrived at on the basis of the above reasoning alone; for that reason, it was thought to be worthwhile presenting the reasoning at some length. R. T. Hallock, in a review of this book (JAOS 76. 43–6, 1956), has presented a radically different analysis of the verb. No account of his analysis is, however, taken in the critique which follows, and for three reasons: (1) The present reviewer does not control at first hand the materials in which Hallock is an expert of the first order, and certain matters involve questions of fact and refined philology into which it would be presumptuous and foolish for your reviewer to plunge.
- It seems that more ultimate good may come by the exercise of independent analytical insights as each argument is followed to its conclusion wherever that leads.
- Hallock draws on materials which by definition Paper overtly excluded from his corpus of data. This is not to say that the system that Hallock sketches does not have a great deal in the way of elegance (quite apart from questions of fact) to recommend it. However, Hallock makes a few statements that call for comment here.
- Hallock credits (44) the wrongness of Paper's analysis, as he finds it, to preconceptions; it would appear that the very last of Paper's sins, if sins they be, is that of preconception. Few have tried harder to apply a hard-headed methodology. Hallock believes that the question of the final vowel is central to the problem; that Paper's differing analysis of this aspect has put him on the wrong path. While agreeing that the problem of the final vowel is clearly important, one cannot claim that Paper's handling of this feature has affected the rest of his segmentation; in fact, upon reflexion it will be seen that the independence of these two aspects is a corollary of the morpho- phonemic status pointed out above for this final vowel—i. e. what Paper has claimed to segment does not really impinge on any part of the morphemic structure.
- If Hallock's analysis is to be preferred over Paper's, it would seem to be so on two other grounds: (1) Hallock has detected some subtle contrasts and correlations (‘meanings’) that have escaped Paper; (2) Hallock has succeeded in extracting a more elegant and balanced patterning by choosing an alternate segmentation of the remaining suffix material.
- For attestation of the usage of these, see Hamp, A Glossary of American Technical Linguistic Usage, 1957.
- For use of this symbol, which has not yet gained great currency, see G. L. Trager, Language 31. 512, 1955. C. F. Hockett earlier (IJAL 14. 3–4, 1948) used the symbol, but for sequences NOT containing otherwise self-evident morphophonemic symbols.
- Used, for example, by H. A. Gleason, Jr., in An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, p. 302.
- If the second person suffix was & lcub-ti~-ta⟩, as Paper meticulously showed, it is not clear why this relative is not also {-ti~-ta⟩. However, in what follows we will note it without a closing⟩, following Paper's statement.
- For simplicity's sake, these alternatives are ignored in the tabulation below.
- √N/ stands for homorganically assimilated nasal phoneme.
- The tilde is here being used throughout in an imprecise manner, for which your reviewer apologizes, to include (apparent) free variants; he knows of no agreed or obviously acceptable convention to cover this gap in our notation practices. Perhaps, in addition to the infinity-sign (∞) for morphologically conditioned variants, and the tilde (~), for phonologically conditioned variants, a double-headed arrow (↔) might be used for free variants.
- If the zero nominative is rejected, in this and the following forms no hyphen is then required, since the base may stand alone. It should be noted, however, as a matter of accuracy, that we may cite the personal singular |upi-| only with a hyphen since it is attested only in combination with the ‘substantive’ |-r|d alternatively, this base in the personal singular has the allomorph /upir (i)⟩.
- The attested material gives us no indication that such a category applied here.
- Inspection of this allomorphic tabulation may lead us to revise the criticism levelled at 7.0. By eliminating the distinction of non-pers. and pers. for ‘here’ and ‘there’, thus reducing these two bases to an opposition simply of singular vs. plural, we restore a formal distinction, based on categories, between deictic and relative.
- 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