Balto–Slavic: what Meillet was Thinking, or, what “was” Meillet “Thinking”?!

40 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI BRIAN D. JOSEPH The Ohio S a e Uni e si y Fields o esea ch: Bal o-Sla ic con o e sy, his o y o linguis ics, Meille biog aphy. BALTO-SLAVIC: WHAT MEILLET WAS THINKING, OR, WHAT WAS MEILLET THINKING?! Bal ų i sla ų p okalbė: ką manė Meille , a ba ką Meille spėjo?! ANNOTATION An oine Meille was as se ious an Indo-Eu opeanis as he e e e was, and ye no e e y hing he w o e is uncon o e sial. His ake on Bal o-Sla ic, om Les dialec es in- do-eu opéens (1908, 2nd edn. 1922), is one such case – see Szeme ényi 1957 – and spe- ci ically Meille ’s claim ha he e is no compelling e idence o a Bal o-Sla ic subg oup wi hin Indo-Eu opean. I explo e he e jus wha Meille mean by “‘dialec ’ o Indo-Eu o- pean” in ela ion o Bal o-Sla ic, e.g. wha ga e ise o he 10 (o so) b anches (b anches as “dialec s”) wi hin he Indo-Eu opean amily, o dialec a ia ion wi hin P o o-Indo-Eu- opean i sel . Fu he , in he 1922 “a an -p ôpos”, Meille e e s o he Indo-Eu opean uni y as “na ional” in na u e, aising he ques ion o he ele ance o Meille ’s sense o he ela ionship be ween language and na ion (Mo e 2013) o he issue o a possible Bal- o-Sla ic uni y. KEYWORDS: An oine Meille , Bal o-Sla ic, dialec , his o y o linguis ics, In- do-Eu opean, I alo-Cel ic, language and na ion, ANOTACIJA An oine’as Meille bu o ienas iš s a biausių indoeu opeis ų, ačiau kai ku ie jo eika- lai y a p ieš a ingi. Pa yzdžiui, jo nuomonė apie bal ų i sla ų p okalbę knygoje Les dia- lec es indo-eu opéens (1908, an asis leidimas 1922) – ž . Szeme ényi 1957 – i ypač Meille įsi ikinimas, jog ūks a į ikinamų į odymų, pa i inančių bal ų i sla ų p okalbės eg- zis a imą indoeu opiečių kalbų šeimoje. Šiame s aipsnyje aiškinamasi, ką Meille u ėjo omenyje kalbėdamas apie „indoeu opiečių kalbų dialek ą“bal ų i sla ų p okalbės kon ek- s e, pa yzdžiui, kas lėmė be eik dešim ies šakų (šakas su okian kaip dialek us) a si adimą S aipsniai / A icles 41 Bal o-Sla ic: wha Meille was Thinking, o , wha was Meille Thinking?! indoeu opiečių kalbų šeimoje, a ba dialek ų a iacijas pačioje indoeu opiečių p okalbėje. Vėliau, 1922 m. leidimo p a a mėje, Meille adina indoeu opiečių kalbų ieno ę au ine, pab ėždamas sa o su okimo apie kalbos i au os san ykį (Mo e 2013) s a bumą, nag inė- jan galimą bend os bal ų i sla ų p okalbės egzis a imo klausimą. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: An oine’as Meille , bal ų i sla ų p okalbė, dialek as, ling is ikos is o ija, indoeu opiečių, i alų i kel ų p okalbė, kalba i au a. 1. INTRODUCTION An oine Meille (1866–1936), he g ea F ench his o ical linguis , is qui e igh ly emembe ed as one o he gian s o Indo-Eu opean linguis ics; he was a s uden o Fe dinand de Saussu e and eache o Émile Ben enis e, so he is pa o adi ion o schola ship ha is among he mos impo an in his ield, bo h in he pas and in o he p esen day.1 He was a p oli ic schola , au ho ing some 50 o mo e books (some in mul iple edi ions and ansla ed in o a ious o he languages) and li e ally hund eds and hund eds o a icles. He p oduced many s anda d, ounda ional wo ks on a ious ancien Indo-Eu opean languages and language b anches ha ha e been aken se iously by Indo-Eu opeanis s o decades and a e s ill ele an , including he ollowing, gi en wi h he da es o i s edi ions: (1) a. Ape çu d’une his oi e de la langue g ecque (1913) b. Al a menisches Elemen a buch (1913) c. Ca ac è es géné aux des langues ge maniques (1917) d. Le sla commun (1924) e. Esquisse d’une his oi e de la langue la ine (1928) . Dic ionnai e é ymologique de la langue la ine (1932, wi h A. E nou ) g. La mé hode compa a i e en linguis ique his o ique (1925) h. In oduc ion  l’é ude compa a i e des langues indo-eu opéennes (1903) A u he such wo k, he ocus o he p esen s udy, is Les dialec es indo-eu- opéens (1908; 2nd edn. 1922), wi h an English ansla ion, The Indo-Eu opean Dialec s, p oduced by Samuel Rosenbe g (1967). This las -men ioned wo k is especially impo an o showing ha no e e y hing Meille w o e is uncon o e sial and aken o be co ec by mos schola s, due o his posi ion on Bal o-Sla ic. Bal o-Sla ic is a possible 1 On a pe sonal no e, because one o my men o s, Cal e Wa kins, s udied wi h Ben enis e du ing an ex ended pe iod in he 1950s when he was li ing in Pa is, I am hono ed o be a pa mysel o his adi ion. BRIAN D. JOSEPH 42 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI subg ouping wi hin Indo-Eu opean ha has been con o e sial as o whe he Bal ic and Sla ic cons i u e a legi ima e subg oup o ins ead ep esen wo dis- inc b anches wi hin he la ge amily. Meille ’s posi ion on Bal o-Sla ic can be summa ized as ollows: (2) a. he e is no compelling e idence o a Bal o-Sla ic subg oup wi hin Indo-Eu opean, ha is, o a Bal o-Sla ic “dialec ” wi hin he amily b. all o he simila i ies be ween Bal ic and Sla ic ha look like hey migh be signi ican sha ed inno a ions in ac a e ei he inhe i ed ea u es om P o o-Indo-Eu opean o ep esen “deux dé eloppe- men s pa allèles, mais depuis long emps au onomes” (“ wo pa allel bu long au onomous de elopmen s”). Se e al schola s, mos no ably Al ed Senn, ha e emb aced Meille ’s posi- ion; see especially Senn 1966. S ill, Meille ’s pa icula claim abou he lack o e idence o a Bal o-Sla ic subg oup has come in o mo e han i s sha e o c i icism. Especially de as a ing is he c i ique o be ound in Szeme ényi 1957, whe e he e is a ca e ul assessmen o each o Meille ’s poin s. Mo eo e , Sze- me ényi adds some poin s o his own, ul ima ely concluding ha he e a e se - e al non i ial sha ed inno a ions ha poin o a p ehis o ic Bal o-Sla ic uni y. O he s ha e no ed addi ional such inno a ions (e.g. Olande 2009). Mos cu - en schola ship seems o side wi h Szeme ényi in accep ing Bal o-Sla ic uni y, hough he e a e some schola s who ollow Senn. While he e a e nume ous in e es ing ques ions o conside ha a e pu e- ly linguis ic in na u e wi h ega d o he Bal o-Sla ic con o e sy, my conce n he e is o explo e, o he ex en possible, he hinking ha lay behind Meille ’s posi ion on Bal o-Sla ic wi h ega d o wo key no ions: (3) a. he sense o “‘dialec ’ o Indo-Eu opean” ha in o med Meille ’s po- si ion on Bal o-Sla ic b. Meille ’s iews on “na ion” and how hey may ha e in e sec ed wi h his ake on Bal o-Sla ic. Explo ing he mind o a schola is a icky en e p ise, bu Szeme ényi (1957: 103) opened he doo o such an unde aking: A compa ison wi h he c i e ia deemed su icien o es ablish I alo-Cel - ic (: l’uni é i alo-cel ique n’es pas dou euse, p. 12 o he 2nd ed. o Dial.) would h ow in e es ing ligh on he schola ’s mind a wo k; he imp ession is s ong ha he admission o communi y in he one case, denial o i in he o he , is no eally based on he e idence, bu some mo e emo e (psycho- logical) g ounds. S aipsniai / A icles 43 Bal o-Sla ic: wha Meille was Thinking, o , wha was Meille Thinking?! I hus a emp o o e some insigh in o jus wha hese “mo e emo e (psy- chological) g ounds” migh be. I conside he e jus wha no ions o “‘dialec ’ o Indo-Eu opean” – and o P o o-Indo-Eu opean i sel – and o “na ion” we e a wo k in Meille ’s posi ion on Bal o-Sla ic. In pa icula , i appea s ha he e a e some inconsis encies ha could lead one o wonde jus wha he was hink- ing when he w o e wha he did abou Bal o-Sla ic. I may end up ha he e a e mo e ques ions han answe s bu , as is o en he case, jus asking he ques ions in i sel would seem o ad ance ou unde s anding somewha . 2. ON THE NOTION OF “INDO-EUROPEAN DIALECT” Wi h ega d o “dialec ”, Meille appea s o use se e al di e en possible in- e p e a ions o he no ion “dialec e indo-eu opéen”/“Indo-Eu opean dialec ”. Fi s , he e is he sense whe eby i e e s o he de elopmen o speech- o ms/ speech-communi ies ha led o he eme gence o he 10 (o mo e o less de- pending on I alo-Cel ic and Bal o-Sla ic) subg oups/b anches wi hin he In- do-Eu opean amily; his iew iden i ies b anches as “dialec s”, e e ing o di isions wi hin P o o-Indo-Eu opean ha ended up being ecognizable en i- ies in la e imes, a e he b eakup o he p o o-language in o he indi idual b anches. Second, he e is he sense whe eby his no ion e e s o he di u- siona y o “Wa e- heo y”-like sp ead o ea u es, a e ha b eak-up o P o- o-Indo-Eu opean, in ways ha cu ac oss he speech communi ies ha led o he ecognizable b anches; his pa icula no ion is highly ele an in ha un- de s anding hese simila i ies con ibu es o an unde s anding o Indo-Eu o- pean dialec ology, pe haps bes by sepa a ing ou “bo owings” om “sha ed inno a ions”. Finally, he e is he sense whe eby i e e s o a ia ion wi hin he P o o-Indo-Eu opean language i sel ha is no linked o he g oups gi ing ul ima ely iden i iable subg oups/b anches, bu a he is mo e like he so o a ia ion associa ed oday wi h quan i a i e a ia ionis sociolinguis ic s udies o he Labo ian ype.2 2 Admi edly, a u he ques ion is how o econcile inno a ion and di usion wi h adi ional no- ions o sha ed inno a ions. Meille was no eally in a posi ion o say much ega ding di usion, as ad ances in ou unde s anding o ha a ea (e.g. à la Labo ) ha e come only well a e Meil- le ’s ime, bu he none heless had an idea abou how di usion wo ks; s ill, he e is inconsis ency in ha while he ecognizes ha no speech communi y is en i ely uni o m, i is also he case ha inno a ions ha e o sp ead in o de o be pa o some sub-sec o , i.e. “dialec ”, wi hin a speech BRIAN D. JOSEPH 44 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI As no ed, Meille seems o u ilize all h ee in e p e a ions in his s udy on Indo-Eu opean dialec s. Tha is, wi h ega d o he i s in e p e a ion, he book i sel includes discussion o di e en b anches, e.g. a he le el o Ge - manic o Indo-I anian, and includes subg ouping ha goes beyond he ob ious, e.g. I alo-Cel ic, and Meille calls hese “dialec es” (1928: 3). Howe e , he e is also discussion o ea u es whose p esence o absence c osscu s he 10 (o so) b anches, such as he *o/*a me ge , which he e e s o as “lignes d’isoglosses” (“lines o isoglosses”), a e m associa ed wi h he iden i ica ion o dialec s, o “lignes dialec ales” (“dialec al lines”), a usage which associa es wi h he second in e p e a ion. Finally, a leas in he case o he de elopmen o he syllabic so- nan s (see §3 below), which he calls “un ai dialec al de da e indo-eu opéenne” (“a dialec al ac o IE da e”), he hi d in e p e a ion would seem o be a issue. 3. MEILLET ON BALTO-SLAVIC Thus Meille had h ee senses o “dialec ” a play in his ea men o In- do-Eu opean dialec s. I is ai o ask whe he he can ha e i all h ee ways, whe he all h ee a e alid. The answe would seem o be a i ma i e, gi en wha we know abou he phenomena embodied in hese senses o “Indo-Eu o- pean dialec ”. Fo ins ance, Meille alks abou Indo-I anian, I alo-Cel ic, and Bal o-Sla - ic; a e hey all o he same ilk? In a sense hey a e, in ha i such subg oups a e jus i ied, each ep esen s an in e media e node be ween P o o-Indo-Eu opean and he ele an a es ed languages. Howe e , i mus be admi ed ha in e ms o e idence, hey a e quali a i ely di e en . In pa icula , o Indo-I anian, be- sides he linguis ic e idence, he e a e nume ous aspec s o sha ed cul u e be- ween Indic and I anian, o ins ance commonali ies in eligion and my hology in he o m o sha ed names o di ine igu es – e.g. he Vedic Sansk i win gods known as he Nsa y ha e a di ec pa allel in he A es an demon3 name communi y. Thus one has o ask wha , o Meille , cons i u ed a “common/sha ed inno a ion” as opposed o a ea u e ha sp eads (in a “con ac ”-like, di usiona y, way). 3 Tha he Vedic en i ies he e a e gods whe eas he A es an en i y is a demon e lec s he in e - sion o good and bad cha ac e is ic o he eligious uphea al embodied in Zo oas ianism, he eligion ha A es an is associa ed wi h. Bu he o m o names like his and o he eligious e - minology shows he common cul u al he i age o Indic and I anian. S aipsniai / A icles 45 Bal o-Sla ic: wha Meille was Thinking, o , wha was Meille Thinking?! Nŋhaiθya – and sha ed my hology.4 Such e idence o sha ed cul u e is lacking o I alic and Cel ic, on he one hand, and o Bal ic and Sla ic, on he o he . Mo eo e , he e a e nume ous di usiona y de elopmen s wi hin Indo-Eu- opean ha mus be ecognised. This is de ini ely he case in mo e ecen imes, as shown by he con e gence o he Indo-Eu opean languages in he Balkan Sp achbund (c . Sand eld 1930), bu i was also almos ce ainly so in ancien / p ehis o ic imes as well; he ea men o he cen um/sa əm spli gi en in Hock & Joseph (1996/2009: 338–9) would be a case in poin , wi h he di usiona y sp ead o sa əm assibila ion o he P o o-Indo-Eu opean pala al s op se ies *k’ *g’ *g’h. Finally, i we belie e ha p o o-languages we e eal languages spoken by eal people, a posi ion mos i no all p ac icing his o ical linguis s would ake, hen we ha e o eckon wi h Labo ian s uc u ed a ia ion in hese cons uc s; see Joseph 2006, 2013 o some ele an discussion. Meille himsel was well awa e o his ac abou language, as he w o e (1908: 1) “On ne encon e nulle pa l’uni é linguis ique comple e” (“Nowhe e is comple e linguis ic uni y o be ound”). S ill, we can ask u he , e en i i is clea ha Bal o-Sla ic, wha e e i is, as a linguis ic cons uc is di e en in some espec s om Indo-I anian, whe he hese senses o “dialec ” a e applied e enly. Rele an he e is Meille ’s ea men o he syllabic sonan s, whe e he goes o g ea leng hs o deny ha he e is any so o sha ed inno a ion be ween Bal ic and Sla ic, and in ac b ings in p o- o-language a ia ion. The issue is ha he ou comes o syllabic sonan s in he Indo-Eu opean b anches a e qui e a ied as o he quali y o he ocalism hey show, bu wi h pa allel ocalism in Bal ic and in Sla ic; o ins ance, P o o-In- do-Eu opean *ṛ ends up as ǝ ǝ in Indo-I anian, αρ in G eek, o in La in, u in Ge manic, and i in Bal ic and i in Sla ic. Meille ’s posi ion he e is essen ial- ly o claim ha he e was a ange o ocalism in P o o-Indo-Eu opean, saying (1908: 41–42) ha “il semble que le imb e de la oyelle accessoi e qui se join à la sonan e oyelle ai é é ixé dès l’indo-eu opéen, e qu’il y ai là un ai di- alec al de da e indo-eu opéenne” (“i seems ha he imb e o he p op owel ha a aches i sel o he syllabic sonan had been ixed since (P o o-)Indo-Eu- opean, and ha in his case i was a dialec al ac o Indo-Eu opean age”). Meille hus appea s o be in oking wha is an amoun o p o o-language a i- a ion. The e o e, e en hough no o he b anches ha e exac ly he Bal ic and he Sla ic ou come, a ac which especially in he ligh o he di e ences in ocal- ism seen in he ou comes in he o he languages looks e y much like a sha ed 4 See, o ins ance, such s udies as Ben enis e 1969, Wa kins 1995, Mallo y and Adams 1997, F ame 2009, among o he s. BRIAN D. JOSEPH 46 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI inno a ion, Meille loca es he a iable quali y o he ocalism in a ia ion ha he el was p esen in he P o o-Indo-Eu opean speech communi y. Howe e , in he case o I alic and Cel ic, Meille akes se iously a pa icula ou come in ol ing labio ela s ha each o hese b anches shows. The speci ic de elopmen is he dis an assimila ion o *p…kw o kw … kw , seen in a hand- ul o examples, mos no ably *penkwe > La in quinque (= [kwinkwe]), Welsh pimp, I ish coic. Meille akes his o be a sha ed inno a ion, and hus signi - ican e idence in a o o I alo-Cel ic uni y, la gely because i is unique and no ound in any o he Indo-Eu opean language.5 Mo eo e , he akes his iew e en hough assimila ions a e na u al6 and e en hough labio ela s a e inhe - en ly uns able and a e highly ma ked sounds ha in almos all languages in he amily excep Ana olian end up being in ol ed in some so o changes.7 I he e o e seems ha some hing mo e was a wo k in Meille ’s assessmen o Bal o-Sla ic. This ma e is explo ed in he sec ion ha ollows. 4. LANGUAGE AND NATION AND ITS RELEVANCE HERE I is a his poin ha Meille ’s ideas abou language and na ion may be ele- an . In he “a an -p ôpos” o he 1922 edi ion, Meille e e s o he Indo-Eu- opean uni y as “na ional” in na u e (“l’uni é indo-eu opéenne é ai une uni é na ionale”), aising he ques ion o he ele ance o Meille ’s sense o he ela- ionship be ween language and na ion (on which see Caussa 1988, Mo e 2013) o he issue o a possible Bal o-Sla ic uni y.8 Fo he mos pa , Meille ’s wo ks dealing wi h “na ion” and language we e w i en in he e a a ound Wo ld Wa I – see Meille 1918a, 1918b, 1919 – and deal wi h con empo a y ma e s. Howe e , i is ai o assume ha e en i he did no con on hem in w i ing un il his e a, hese we e ma e s ha he had hough abou p io o ha ime. He was a sup eme s uden o language a e all, and his in e es in A menian, which showed up in his w i ings on na ion 5 No e ha Ge manic deal wi h ‘ i e’ di e en ly, wi h *penkwe > *pempe (as shown by Go hic im ). 6 One can e en iew he assimila ion he e as a way o lessening he ma kedness o he sounds as single on segmen s in a wo d, he eby enhancing he na u alness o his change. 7 I may well be ha had Ana olian languages su i ed pas he i s millennium BC, hei labi- o ela s migh ha e unde gone some change o o he . Mycenaean G eek a es s labio ela s, bu in G eek o he i s millennium BC, labio ela s unde wen signi ican changes. 8 I hank Michiel de Vaan o b inging he Mo e a icle o my a en ion. S aipsniai / A icles 47 Bal o-Sla ic: wha Meille was Thinking, o , wha was Meille Thinking?! and language, p eda ed he wa yea s by a leas a decade. Mo eo e , one migh ex apola e om his ideas abou “na ion” in wha o him was he p esen and apply hem o his use o simila e ms in he dis an pas . In ha ega d, his quo e om Meille (1918a: 8) is pa icula ly elling: Il y a na ion là ou un ensemble d’hommes a le sen imen e la o- lon é de o me un g oupe à pa , ayan ses adi ions, ses usages e ses aspi a ions d’a eni . Rien ne ma que plus ne emen l’exis ence d’une na ion que la possession d’une langue qui lui soi p op e. One has a na ion whe e a collec ion o people has he eeling and he desi e o o m a sepa a e g oup, ha ing i s (own) adi ions, i s (own) uses, and i s (own) u u e aspi a ions. No hing ma ks he ex- is ence o a na ion mo e nea ly han possessing a language which is p ope o i . Fu he , i seems o be especially signi ican ha he quo e abou Indo-Eu- opean uni y being “na ional” in na u e comes in he second edi ion o Les dialec es indo-eu opéennes, which came ou in 1922, ha is a e he u moil o Wo ld Wa One and he econ igu a ion o he map o Eu ope ha eme ged in i s wake and in he wake o he disman ling o wo empi es, he Aus o-Hun- ga ian Empi e and he O oman Empi e. Clea ly, he no ion o “na ion” was on Meille ’s mind in ha pos -wa pe iod, as his w i ings show, and hus i is no su p ising ha a s a emen o ha so would wo k i s way in o his commen a y ( ia his P e ace) o his book on how language indi idua ion ook place wi hin Indo-Eu opean. The ques ion o ask now is how hese conside a ions apply o Bal o-Sla ic and o s a emen s made a decade and a hal ea lie in he i s edi ion o he book. Can i be assumed ha Meille had hough abou he no ions o na ion and language well be o e he w o e abou hem o e ly? I so, hen wha e e un- easiness he migh ha e el abou Bal o-Sla ic on linguis ic g ounds – an un- easiness which, while pe haps no ully jus i ied, would none heless ha e been enhanced by he ac ha Bal ic and Sla ic a e no as ob iously connec ed as Indic and I anian a e9 – mos likely esona ed wi h he absence o any so o sha ed cul u e ha migh be aken as collec i e “ adi ions … usages … aspi a- ions”. And, he di e ence be ween Meille is-à- is Bal o-Sla ic and Meille is-à- is I alo-Cel ic, e en hough he e a e also no signs o sha ed cul u e in his la e g oup, is ha Meille began as a Classicis and had an especially deep 9 No e in his ega d Szeme ényi (1959: 103): “Meille ’s hesis [was] ha he A yan uni y was ob ious bu he BS no ”. BRIAN D. JOSEPH 48 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVI knowledge o La in and I alic (no e his 1928 and 1932 wo ks on La in in he lis in (1)), enabling him o see a connec ion wi h Cel ic a a a he deep ch ono- logical le el. 5. CONCLUSION To conclude, a close eading o he way in which Meille alks abou Bal- o-Sla ic oge he wi h indica ions om o he w i ings o his o e s a basis o some easonable in e ences as o he hinking behind his in e p e a ion o he ac s conce ning simila ea u es ound in bo h Bal ic and Sla ic. Bal o-Sla - ic hus seems o ep esen an a ea o Meille ’s schola ship ha is a om he clea es o he many o he wise e y sha p and acu e se o insigh s in o In- do-Eu opean ha he pu o h. And ha is why I wonde , as in my i le, jus wha was Meille hinking, le ing nonlinguis ic sen imen s ge in he way o his linguis ic assessmen s. REFERENCES Ben enis e Émile 1969: Le ocabulai e des ins i u ions indo-eu opéennes. Pa is: Les Édi ions de Minui . Caussa Pie e 1988: Langue e na ion. – His oi e Épis émologie Langage 10 (2),19 5 –2 0 4 . F ame Douglas 2009: Hippo a Nes o (Hellenic S udies Se ies 37). Washing on, DC: Cen e o Hellenic S udies (h p://n s.ha a d.edu/u n-3:hul.ebook:CHS_F ame. Hippo a_Nes o .2009). Hock Hans Hen ich, B ian D. Joseph 19961/20092: Language Change, Lan- guage His o y, and Language Rela ionship. An In oduc ion o His o ical Linguis ics. Be lin: Mou on de G uy e . Joseph B ian D. 2006: On P ojec ing Va ia ion Back in o a P o o-Language, wi h Pa icula A en ion o Ge manic E idence and Some Though s on ‘D i ’. – Va ia ion and Recons uc ion, ed. by Thomas C a ens. Ams e dam: Benjamins, 103–118. Joseph B ian D. 2013: Demys i ying ‘D i ’ – A Va ia ionis Accoun . – Sha ed G amma icaliza ion, wi h Special Focus on he T anseu asian Languages, ed. by La s Johan- son, Ma ine Robbee s, and Hube Cuyckens. Ams e dam: John Benjamins, 43–66. Mallo y James P., Adams Douglas Q. 1997: Encyclopedia o Indo-Eu opean Cul- u e. London: Fi z oy Dea bo n Publishe s.