leschber - latin tree names and the european substratum

7/27/2019 Leschber - Latin Tree Names and the European Substratum

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leschber-latin-tree-names-and-the-european-substratum 1/10

Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 129 (2012)

DOI 10.4467/20834624SL.12.008.0597

CORINNA LESCHBERInstitute or Linguistic and Crss-Cultural Studies, [email protected]

LATIN TREE NAMES AND THE EUROPEAN SUBSTRATUM

Keywords: etymology, Indo-European languages, substratum words, Latin language

Abstract

Generally, we can observe in European languages a high percentage o plant namesamong the words with unclear etymology. Many designations or plants – like or trees –

derive rom pre-Indo-European languages. Latin tree names are in most cases ar roman unambiguous etymological assignment.

In many languages certain semantic elds are dominated to a large extent by wordswith unclear etymology, predominantly plant names, animal names, customs, andphenomena rom nature and the countryside. As an example, in Greek several thou-sand substratum elements can be ound in the semantic areas o plant names, animal

names, and textile production. Many dialectal Greek words are o substratum origin.

Te Greek substratum was denitely o pre-Indo-European origin (Beekes : ).Above all, we can nd a high number o pre-Indo-European substratum elements inthe toponymy and in the hydronymy o the Aegean area. According to Haarmann(7), the pre-Indo-European population in southeast Europe was assimilated by immigrating Indo-Europeans; genetically both ethnical components were interbred.

Te number o substratum elements in Bulgarian is comparably high. Words o un-known origin in Bulgarian show a high concentration in the semantic areas o customs

and traditional dress, plants, the human body (usually part o the basic vocabulary o a language) and diseases, designations or individuals and amily members, ood,

housekeeping and traditional cra technologies, agriculture, animals and the naturalworld. An example o a Bulgarian tree name o unknown origin rom the Strandžaarea is muskura ‘medlar’ (ruit and tree, BER IV: ).

Specic phonetic traits can very oen be ound in the case o Bulgarian wordswith unclear origin, as is the case or mi-, mu-, mă-, pă-, păr-, părc-, păc- etc., listed in



118 CORINNA LESCHBER

the BER IV. For specic phonetic combinations, e.g. in the case o našt- the amounto etymologically unclear elements is around %. Te phonetic traits o substra-tum elements could have been the reason or characteristic phonetic changes in theBulgarian language (Leschber : ). In an investigation o Bulgarian wordmaterial o unknown etymology, several characteristics were discovered: they occur

in isolated, inaccessible areas, requently mountain regions, since mountain rangesprotect relic vocabulary rom innovations. Tis vocabulary is likely to originate rom

unknown contact languages or substratum languages (Leschber ). Generally,we can observe in European languages a high percentage o plant names among the

words with unclear etymology. Many designations or alpine plants – like or trees –

derive rom pre-Roman languages (Hubschmid : –). Some can be oundagain in distant areas, such as in the Basque Pyrenees region or the Carpathians.

Te island o Sardinia was indo-Europeanized relatively late by the Romans. Inter-mediate pre-Roman, but Indo-European linguistic strata are lacking. For this reason,

pre-Roman words in Sardinian derive rom pre-Indo-European times (Hubschmid: ). Tese interesting-or-substratum-research acts emerged in the work o Blasco Ferrer (). For a long time Sardinian was a language in relative isolation.Many Sardinian words cannot be explained etymologically. At least eighteen areplant names o pre-Roman origin with unclear etymology, such as designationsor herbs, grass, bushes and shrubs, and trees. Many other words o unclear originare designations or landscape phenomena. In his study o pre-Roman word-stock

in Sardinian, Wagner () underlined parallels to the Basque language. Alessio(, –) even proved parallels o Sardinian words with Berber words. Bout-kan, Kossmann (: 7.) discussed some striking parallels o Berber words withEuropean substratum words belonging to a core vocabulary. Among others, they mentioned words or berry, oak and lentil.

It is very likely that languages closely related to palaeo-Sardinian language wereonce spoken over a vast territory (Alessio : 7, Hubschmid : ).

Te oldest linguistic substratum in southern Europe is the Euro-Arican substra-

tum. It has been proved to have existed in Upper Paleolithic (Hubschmid 3: ). It is

ollowed by the Hispano-Caucasian substratum, which may have borrowed severalloans rom the Euro-Arican substratum. Many o the words are designations orlocal plants, or they can be ound in the toponymical system. Tis is valid especially or Sardinian. New studies, such as Vennemann (4, 3) and Mailhammer ()

described in detail which kind o substrata we can expect or Europe, and how andapproximately when they developed. Tere is even evidence or their relatively closerelatedness. Vennemann (: 7–7) criticized Hubschmid or his incompleteconclusions about European substratum languages – but we have to acknowledgeHubschmid’s in-depth and careul etymological studies in the domain o the Romance

lexicon, based on his outstanding specialized knowledge in the eld.Mailhammer (orthcoming: 7) stated that “it is clear, that the Indo-European

languages did not move into a linguistically blank continent. Consequently, it has to

be assumed, that there was contact between the new comers and the already existinglanguages”. Drinka (: 3) added that “our knowledge o language contact in the



Latin tree names and the Eurpean substratum 119

past is limited by the act that some languages have le no written documentation.Tus, intererence rom substratum is oen hard to evaluate when the substratumis constituted by an unknown language”. Schrijver pointed to a linguistically ho-mogeneous layer o non-Indo-European loanwords, linking Asia Minor to CentralEurope, via Greece and the Balkans. Tese loanwords can be ound in Italo-Celtic,Germanic and Balto-Slavic, Albanese, Greek and Anatolian. Words rom the Non-Indo-European language amily have been borrowed into the later-arriving Indo-European (Schrijver 7: ). In avour o the assumption o widespread languageamilies in prehistory, see Bellwood (7), and Vennemann (: 7–).

Pre-Indo-European, Alpine Indo-European and Celtic inuences belong tothe pre-Roman substratum o the Eastern Alpine region (Anreiter, Hasslinger: ). Among the old lexical elements resulting rom the Celtic-Roman lin-

guistic contact, are many Celtic name words such as or trees, ruit and berries,plant species (oak, strawberry, heather, blueberry, raspberry, wild plum, juniper,willow trees), bushes, shrubs, hedges and cereal (Grzega : –); others arerom pre-Celtic or much older origin (Anreiter, Hasslinger : , –), andname dierent kinds o pine trees.

Some o the pre-Indo-European words rom the Pyrenees region seem to be iso-

lated since no parallels could be ound within the stock o alpine words. Among them

are designations or gorse, wild rose, rhododendron, oak, raspberry, thorn bushes.Some Mediterranean word amilies deriving rom substratum have no parallels in

Basque, such as designations or grapes, tree bark, erns, rock rose (Cytinus hypo-cistis), clover, rushes und roots. Parallels between alpine words and words rom thePre-Greek stratum have been ound among popular designations or raspberries,plums, rhododendron errugineum, vaccicium myrtillus, juniper, pine and oak spe-

cies, liana plants, and shrubs (Hubschmid : 43–4). For more about substratum

words see Hubschmid (: –, –). Hubschmid (: ) underlined thesimultaneous existence o old Mediterranean words in Latin and Greek, mainly plant

names (see Meillet –: –). Tere is a comparable situation regardingnames o cereals: many can only be ound in the Indo-European languages o Eu-

rope. As or peas, beans and poppy – these plants have been known in southeastEurope since Neolithic times. It is very likely that these names persisted and havebeen borrowed into Indo-European languages (Gimbutas : ).

Against this background, we will pay attention to some o the Latin tree names.Latin tree names are in general etymologically difcult to explain (Groševa : 7).In her study on the Indo-European heritage o Latin tree names, Groševa (: )

admitted that some o these tree names have only limited – exclusively Europe-an – distribution in other Indo-European languages. Lat. acer ‘maple tree’ is parto a limited Italic-Germanic isogloss, and Lat. pōpulus ‘poplar tree’ is part o an

Italic-Greek isogloss, or even conned to Italic. Te highest rate o correspondencesthat she was able to nd was between the Italic and the Germano-Celtic languages(seven tree names), between the Italic and the Greek languages (six tree names) andbetween the Italic and the Balto-Slavic languages (six or ve tree names). Latin treenames ormally look like masculine nouns, but they are all (except Lat. acer ) o




eminine gender. In some cases Groševa (: 7) observed an oscillation in view o the gender. A comparable morphological oscillation regarding the gender o nouns could be observed both in Bulgarian and Romanian substratum material(Leschber , ).

Sihler (: 34) explained that “in the classical languages, some gender variations

were routinized, as in the typical use o a neuter noun or ruit beside a similarly ormed but eminine noun or the name o the plant”. By way o illustration the au-thor mentioned, or example, Gr. ἄπιον ‘pear’, Gr. ἄπιος (.) ‘pear tree’, Lat. mōrum ‘mulberry’, mōrus (.) ‘mulberry tree’, cerasum ‘cherry’, and cerasus (.) ‘cherry tree’.However, a eminine noun like Lat. pirus ‘pear tree’ with a masculine-looking end-ing became masculine in Italian: pero ‘pear tree’ vs. pera (.) ‘pear’. According toDe Vaan (: ) Latin “o-stem tree names tend to be eminine”.

Some examples or Latin tree names are given in alphabetical order, which arein most cases ar rom an unambiguous etymological assignment:

Lat. abiēs (.) ‘silver r, r-tree’; it resembles the dialectal Greek ἄβιν ‘r-tree’, in Mal-

lory, Adams (: ) listed among the Proto-Indo-European tree names which

are only West Central in distribution, related to PIE *haebi- ‘r-tree’. De Vaan(: –) pointed out that “the act that *abi- is conned to the Mediterranean,

and the extreme rareness o the phoneme *b in PIE, point to a non-Indo-European

origin. Moreover, it is uncertain that ἄβιν is Greek”; see REW (4). Beekes (: )

explained Greek ἄβιν (acc. m./.) ‘silver r, pine’ as a probable loanword, the rootderiving rom a non-IE language in Europe. According to Genaust (: 3) it has

an unclear etymology, and is a relic word, limited to Italy and the Balkan area.

As mentioned above, Lat. acer (n.) ‘maple tree’, is the only tree name, which is nota eminine noun. Te word has Indo-European cognates in Germanic (De Vaan: –), but has no urther connections. See a similar Gr. orm ἄκαστος ‘maple’ (< *ἄκαρ-στος?): “this may well be a non-Indo-European tree name, which

was borrowed into Greek and Latin” (De Vaan : –). In Beekes (: )the word is explained as a Pre-Greek word, assuming the word is a cognate

with the Latin orm: “Since plant names are oen borrowed, and the ormationis unclear, we may envisage a substrate origin”. Te alternative explanation o the Latin word can be given through Gr. ἄκαρνα ‘laurel tree’ (Beekes : );see REW () Lat. acer < *acaru, labelled as phonetically difcult.

Lat. alnus (.) ‘alder’ has Indo-European cognates (De Vaan : –). Derksen(: 37–37) argued or an originally non-Indo-European loanword in Balto-

Slavic, Germanic and Italic: “[…] Te above-mentioned peculiarities o the ety-mon strongly suggest, that we are dealing with a word o non-Indo-European ori-

gin”. See REW (37) alnus with no cognate in Greek. Mallory, Adams (: )

mentioned the possibility o Latin alnus being a “substrate term picked up by the Indo-Europeans in Central and Western Europe”. Vennemann (: )suggested “that several Indo-European names o trees, among them that o thealder, are loanwords, borrowed rom pre-Indo-European Vasconic languages o Central Europe […]”, see Genaust (: ).




Lat. farnus (.) ‘ash-tree?’ De Vaan (: 3), with unknown etymology, according

to Schrijver (: , ., ). See REW () farneus . ‘belonging to theash tree’, see Old Italian fargna ‘broad-leaved oak’, without urther explanation,possibly connected to:

Lat. fraxinus (.) ‘ash tree’, with Indo-European cognates, but with phonetic di-culties, not attested in Greek. See REW () fraxĭnus ‘ash tree’, its widedistribution suggests an early ormation.

Lat. mālus (.) ‘apple tree’, mālum ‘apple’, also ‘quince, lemon’, a Doric-Greek loan-word rom a Mediterranean language, not mentioned in De Vaan’s () ety-mological dictionary. See REW (7) . malum ‘apple’, . mēlum < Greek. Beekes

explained Greek μῆλον () ‘apple’ (also o other stoneruits), with unclear origin;a derivative is μηλέη, resp. μηλέα ‘apple tree’ (Beekes : –), a Medi-

terranean word, see Genaust (: –). From Greek stems Lat. mālum,mēlum […]. But nevertheless in Mallory, Adams (: 7–) connected toProto-Indo-European *meh2lom ‘apple’, Lat. mālum, and connected to Hittite,a solution, rejected by Beekes (: ).

Lat. ornus (.) ‘kind o ash tree’, according to De Vaan (: 43) with Indo-European

cognates, c. Gr. ὀξύα (.) ‘beech, Fagus silvatica’, with unclear origin. See in Beekes

(: ) “the Indo-European character o these words is ar rom sure, despite

the tradition to compare them [= with Indo-European cognates] […] the ormsare unclear”. Tis is probably a Pre-Greek word.

Te ollowing word has been discussed intensively: Lat. pīnus ‘pine tree, pine-wood’,as in pīnus romana – ormally a masculine noun, but with a eminine gender.De Vaan (: 7) expressed the opinion that “this may well be a non-Indo-European tree name […], or the same root as Gr. πίτυς (.) ‘pine tree’”. Beekes(: –) classied it as probably “Pre-Greek. Gr. πίτυς resembles Lat.

pīnus (.) ‘r, pine’ and Albanian pishë ‘r, pine’, both with an unclear basis […]”.

See REW () pīnus ‘pine tree’. In contrast, Mallory, Adams (: 7, )compared this word to Proto-Indo-European * pit(u)- ‘(some orm o) conier’ –Lat. pīnus, Greek pítus, Sanskrit pītu-, […]. Finally, * pít(u)- ‘pine’ is to be seen

in Lat. pīnus, Alb. pishë ‘spruce, pine, r’, Greek pítus ‘pine, spruce’, and Sanskrit pītu- ‘deodar tree’ […]”.

Lat. pirus (.) ‘pear tree’, pirum ‘pear’, according to De Vaan (: 7) a loan-word rom a Mediterranean language. Indo-European cognates are Gr. ἄπιος (.)

‘pear tree’ and Gr. ἄπιον ‘pear’, in Beekes (: ) the Greek word is o un-clear etymology. Hubschmid (3: ) explained it as Mediterranean loanword,

see Genaust (: ), REW (, ) pĭrum ‘pear’, pĭrus ‘pear tree’.Lat. pōpulus (.) ‘poplar tree’ or which De Vaan (: –) and Genaust

(: ) suggested no etymology; it is doubtul whether the “Greek orms

πτελέα […] are cognates, […] no regular correspondence can be discovered”.See REW () pōpulus ‘poplar tree’. Beekes (: 7) shared the skepticismin terms o Greek πτελέα ‘elm tree’, with the sufx -έα being requent in treenames. Tis is a word o Pre-Greek origin; the Latin orm (see above) cannotbe related.




Lat. prūnus (.) ‘plum tree’, in REW () considered as a Greek loanword withorigin rom Asia Minor, prūnum ‘plum’, not mentioned in De Vaan (). Pei-

er explained Latin prūnum ‘plum’ < Greek προῦμνον; see it (Peier 7: )or a detailed history o this loanword. According to Beekes (: ) Greek προύμνη (.) ‘plum tree, Prunus’ has a Pre-Greek origin or is an Anatolian loan-word, see Genaust (: ).

Lat. quercus (.) ‘oak tree’, De Vaan (: –7) indicated Indo-European cog-nates only in Germanic languages, relating it to the German Föhre ‘pine tree’.Tis word is unrelated according to Kluge-Seebold (). See REW () Lat.quercus ‘oak tree’, see Vennemann (: ).

Lat. ulmus (.) ‘elm tree, elm-wood’, in De Vaan (: 7) described as word withrestricted Indo-European cognates “in Italo-Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, and the di-

culty to reconstruct a Proto-Indo-European orm suggest non-Indo-Europeanorigin”. See in Genaust (: 7), in REW () ŭlmus ‘elm tree’. Compare inDerksen (: ) slav. * jьlьmъ ‘elm’ (ÈSSJa VIII –, Peier 7: ),related to PIE *h1 -mo-?

Aer this brie overview reerring to thirteen tree names, which is ar rom reect-

ing the complete semantic eld o Latin tree names (or this, see Groševa )a critical look should be taken at able .. “rees” in the Chapter Indo-Euro-pean Flora in Mallory, Adams (: 7). Te question is whether it is justied to

display all the listed tree names, since many show only correspondence to someEuropean languages, and whether they should be linked to reconstructed Proto-Indo-European proto-orms, which have possibly never existed. Tese words more

likely have been borrowed on the (Western-)European territory. Tis is valid orsome o the above-discussed tree names, such as Latin abiēs, Latin alnus, the words

or ‘apple’: Latin mālum and Proto-Indo-European *haebVl-, as in English apple (or an etymological discussion see Vennemann (: .)), Latin ornus, Latin

farnus/ fraxinus, Latin pīnus, Latin acer , but also or Lat. mōrum ‘blackberry’ < Greek

μόρον ‘black mulberry, blackberry’ (Mallory, Adams : 7, Beekes : ).

All o the connected ‘mulberry’ words in the European languages possibly go back to the Greek word, thus ar without any etymological explanation. It should becareully distinguished, beyond conventions, whether a word can be labelled Proto-

Indo-European or not in the case o limited attestations in European languages.Mallory, Adams (: ) underlined that “i one does not accept some o themore dubious Eastern cognates, some o the Proto-Indo-European tree names areonly North-Western or West Central in distribution. Tere are also many regionalwords in their own right”.

Generally speaking, many PIE roots are hypothetic reconstructed orms. Prob-

lematic in view o their value o evidence are above all those cases, based exclusively on linguistic material o (Western)European origin. Latin tree names representgood examples or this. Indo-European linguistics should tolerate a critical distancetowards the plausibility o some o its reconstructed orms, to the same extent as to-

wards reconstructed orms, based on alternative attempts o explanation, or example,




based on substrate inuences or so-ar-unclear loan processes. Europe was a relatively

completely populated continent previous to its – linguistic – Indo-Europeanization.

Haarmann (7: ) expressed this clearly: “Until the Neolithic, the proportions o

non-Indo-European and Indo-European languages in Europe were the oppositeo modern times, with Palaeo-European languages o non-Indo-European afliation

dominating the linguistic landscape”. It has been shown that the Indo-Europeangenetic inuence among the European population is relatively small: Europeansshow to a large extent the genetic prole o their Palaeolithic ancestors (Haarmann

: ). Te Indo-European newcomers arrived on a continent settled by humans,

bearing old European cultures. In the long-term usion processes, which ollowed,cultural and linguistic elements were adopted (Haarmann 7: ). Te eatureo ambiguity in view o the etymological assignment can be ound in many words

rom the every-day lie-sphere, being probably o old European, respective pre-Indo-European origin, as e. g. Latin cāseus ‘cheese’, see De Vaan (: 7) with unknown

etymology, see Vennemann (3: 737.), (Gallic) Latin pottus ‘pot’, see Peier (7:

3) and REW (7) * pŏttus, as in German Pott , English pot , and Late Latin cattus,catta ‘cat’, in Peier (7: 3), with European or Arican origin. Te attempt to ex-

plain the origin o such words with the help o a Proto-Indo-European reconstructed

orm, can be labeled as a method, based on mere conventions.Te established doctrine in Indo-European linguistics is quite prepared to ac-

cept broader perspectives, see, or example, in Mallory, Adams (: –) the

discussion o a possible Nostratic linguistic pre-stage o Proto-Indo-European.A broader view on sparse testied linguistic substrata is desirable as well. Wordswhich can be ound exclusively in western Indo-European languages are likely tobe later loan words. I such a word is assigned to Proto-Indo-European language,it is no longer suitable or the reconstruction o European substratum languages,since it was adapted to the predominant Indo-European pattern. It can be assumed

that a higher degree o permeability o the scientic approach will lead to deeperinsights into the European linguistic prehistory.

Bibligraphy

BER = Bălgarski etimologičen rečnik. 191. Soa.ÈSSJa = Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov . 194. Mоskva.REW = Meyer-Lübke W. 2009. Romanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. [th edition].

Heidelberg.

Alessio G. 1944. Suggerimenti e nuove indagini sul problema del sostrato mediterraneo. –Studi Etruschi 18: 93–15.

Alessio G. 1948–49. Vestigia etrusco-mediterranee nella ora oscana. – Studi Etruschi 20:109–149.

Anreiter P., Haslinger M. 2005. Zu den vorrömischen Komponenten des (ost-)alpinen Wort-

schatzes. – Schweiger G. (ed.) Indogermanica. FS G. Klingenschmitt . aimering: 23–43.Beekes R. 2009. Pre-Greek Names. – Te Journal o Indo-European Studies 3.1–2: 191–19.




Beekes R. 2010. Etymological dictionary o Greek. [Leiden Indo-European etymological dic-tionary series 10]. Leiden, Boston.

Bellwood P. 199. Prehistoric cultural explanations or widespread language amilies. [ Archae-ology and linguistics: Aboriginal Australia in global perspective]. Oxord: 123–134.

Blasco Ferrer E. 2010. Paleosardo. Le radici linguistiche della Sardegna neolitica. Berlin,New York.

Boutkan D., Kossmann M.G. 1999. Some Berber parallels o European substratum words. –

Te Journal o Indo-European Studies 2.1–2: 8–100.Derksen R. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. [Leiden Indo-Euro-

pean etymological dictionary series 4]. Leiden, Boston.De Vaan M. 2008. Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages. [Leiden

Indo-European etymological dictionary series 7 ]. Leiden, Boston.Drinka B. 2010. Language contact. – Luraghi S., Bubenik V. (eds.) Continuum companion

to historical linguistics. London, New York: 325–345.Genaust H. 2012. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der botanischen Panzennamen. [3rd edition].

Hamburg.Gimbutas M. 1994. Das Ende Alteuropas. – [Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaf ].

Budapest.Groševa A.V. 2005. Indoevropejskoe nasledie v latinskich nazvanijach derev‘ev. – [Hrda Ma-

nasa. Sbornik statej k 70-letiju so dnja roždenija pro. L. G. Gercenberga]. St-Peterburg:252–22.

Grzega J. 2001. Romania Gallica Cisalpina. Etymologisch-geolinguistische Studien zu den oberitalienisch-rätoromanischen Keltizismen. übingen.

Haarmann H. 200. Indo-Europeanization – the seven dimensions in the study o a never-ending process. – Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV. Neolithic Studies 14: 155–15.Haarmann H. 2010. Die Indoeuropäer. Herkunf, Sprachen, Kulturen. München.Hubschmid J. 1951. Alpenwörter romanischen und vorromanischen Ursprungs. Bern.Hubschmid J. 1953. Sardische Studien. [Romanica Helvetica 41]. Bern.Hubschmid J. 1954. Pyrenäenwörter vorromanischen Ursprungs und das vorromanische

Substrat der Alpen. Salamanca.Hubschmid J. 1960. Mediterrane Substrate – mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Baskischen

und der west-östlichen Sprachbeziehungen. [Romanica Helvetica 70]. Bern.Hubschmid J. 1963. Tesaurus Praeromanicus. Bern.

Kluge F., Seebold E. 1999. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. [23rd edition].Berlin, New York.

Leschber C. 2006. Schwierige und unklare Etymologien und ihre Häuung in Bedeutungs-eldern und im geograschen Raume. – imuška A. (ed.) Proceedings of the 4th inter-

national congress o dialectologists and geolinguists. Riga: 319–335.Leschber C. 2009. Rekonstruktion und Substrat. – Studia Etymologica Brunensia 6. Praha:

201–209.Leschber C. (in print) 2012. Die Bienenzucht im Balkanraum – zu Mythologie und Etymolo-

gie. – Contrastive Linguistics / Săpostavitelno ezikoznanie 2.Mailhammer R. 2011. Te prehistory o European languages. – Auwera J.v.d., Kortmann B.

(eds.) Te languages and linguistics o Europe. Berlin, New York: 61–682.Mailhammer R. (orthcoming). Diversity vs. uniormity. – R. Mailhammer, Vennemann .

(eds.) Linguistic roots o Europe. Copenhagen.Mallory J.P., Adams D.Q. 2006. Te Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the

Proto-Indo-European world . Oxord.




Meillet A. 1908–1909. De quelques emprunts probables en grec et en latin. [ Mémoires de lasociété de linguistique de Paris 15]: 161–164.

Peier W. et al. 199. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. [2nd edition]. München.Schrijver P. 1991. Te reexes o the PIE laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam, Atlanta.

Schrijver P. 200. Keltisch en de buren: 9000 jaar taalcontact [= Celtic and its neighbors:9000 years o language contact. Lecture]. Utrecht.

Sihler A.L. 1995. New comparative grammar o Greek and Latin. Oxord.Vennemann . 1994. Linguistic reconstruction in the context o European prehistory. –

ransactions o the Philological Society 92: 215–284.Vennemann . 2003. Europa Vasconica, Europa Semitica. [rends in Linguistics. Series,

Studies and Monographs 138]. Berlin, New York.Wagner M.L. 1931. Die vorrömischen Bestandteile des Sardischen. – Archivum Romani-

cum 15: 20–24.

leschber - latin tree names and the european substratum

Documents