HARALD BICH LMEIER

Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg

Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig

Mainzer Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur

Research areas: Indo-European studies, onomastics (place and water names), Old Iranian studies (syntax).

Jürgen Udolph (ed.)

EUROPA VASCONICA – EUROPA SEMITICA? CRITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE QUESTION OF THE BASQUE AND SEMITIC SUBSTRATE IN EUROPE

(Contributions to Lexicography and Onomastics 6)

Hamburg: Baar 2013. Paperback, 386 Seiten + 3 Seiten unpaginiert (mit Angaben zu den Beiträgern des Bandes) ISBN: 978-3-935536-06-6

This collected volume presents itself as a response to the thesis repeatedly advanced in dozens of articles by Theo Vennemann (and his students) over roughly three decades and supposedly supported by numerous etymologies (or what was passed off as such): that, on the one hand, a large part of the Germanic vocabulary and, on the other, a much larger part of the layer of water names commonly referred to as ‘Old European hydronymy’ are not of Indo-European origin at all, but in fact owe their existence to one or another pre-Indo-European substrate. Vennemann presented a summary of his research in the collected volume Europa Vasconica – Europa Semitica, Berlin – New York 2003, which contains 26 previously published contributions and one that had not been published until then. Vennemann’s position can be summarized as follows: there are a number of words, especially in Germanic, that lack a (good) Indo-European etymology. This is because they derive from a substrate language. In the interior, the “Vasconic” (a kind of proto-Basque) is considered the main candidate for such a substrate language, since after the last Ice Age the repopulation of Central Europe took place mainly from the southwest, that is, from the Iberian

196

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Jürgen Udolph (Hrsg.) Europa Vasconica – Europa Semitica? Kritische Beiträge zur Frage nach dem baskischen und semitischen Substrat in Europa

from the peninsula, which can still be demonstrated by certain genetic markers and their respective percentage shares, highest in the Basque heartland and decreasing in concentric rings around the core. Vasconic is thus also the oldest layer of water names accessible to us in (Central) Europe, all the more so since here, too, one often faces the problem of being unable to provide a (sound) Indo-European etymology. By contrast, numerous substrate words in coastal areas, especially in West and North Germanic, are Semitic. These were brought to this region primarily by Phoenician traders (and, ultimately, the runic alphabet also derives from the Phoenician alphabet). The search for substrate vocabulary, particularly in West Germanic, has a long tradition, which is being continued especially in the “Leiden School” of Indo-European studies. However, the basic assumptions that posit a substrate component of up to 30% in the Germanic lexicon are entirely misguided: Neumann (1971, 77–79 = 2008, 3–5) has already demonstrated that this is a concatenation of false assumptions, misunderstandings, and errors in calculation, which nevertheless found their way into various handbooks and introductions to Germanic and individual Germanic languages. In languages, the share of substrate vocabulary is generally in the range of 2–5%. From working on the EWA, Rev. can only confirm this: Of the approximately 130 main headwords (minus about 20 suffixes) that Rev. has worked on so far (words beginning with OHG i-, j-, l-, m-), an (adequate) Indo-European etymology could not be offered for just one (OHG îtal ‘vain, futile, empty’; EWA V, 226–229). The share in this lexicon sample that may(!) go back to substrate words was therefore below 1%!

The collected volume presented here in response to those works contains, following the preface (pp. 7–9), eight articles and an interview. One fundamental problem with this volume is, first, that it is a response that took ten years to formulate, and that its individual contributions are anything but homogeneous: it contains articles that had already appeared once before Vennemann’s book, others that were evidently completed soon after Vennemann’s book, and still others completed only later. Just as Vennemann’s book consists of articles from a period of about 15 years, the responses to it also span about 15 years. One cannot help wondering whether, after so many years, this book still needed to be revisited in these “critical contributions,” given that in fact it plays (or played) no role in research (as far as Rev. can tell).

Three of the collected volume’s articles in Indo-European studies (and onomastics) had already been printed earlier: Michael Meier-Brügger, “Historical Linguistics and Its Limits” (pp. 151–158 = Meier-Brügger 2010, 166–172), Lutz Reichardt, “Successors of Hans Bahlow” (pp. 159–167 = Reichardt 1996)

Recenzijos / Reviews

197

HARALD BICHlMEIER

and Wolfgang P. Schmid, “Methodological Remarks on the Classification of Old European” (pp. 169–180 = Schmid 1998). The two contributions from the 1990s are, of course, entirely outdated from the perspective of Indo-European studies, even though there is generally nothing to object to in the underlying argumentation: Reichardt emphasizes above all that Vennemann follows Bahlow’s proposals on hydronymy to a considerable extent, although they have generally met with little acceptance, while Schmid points above all to regularities in ablaut and word formation that are precisely characteristic of Indo-European, and therefore render speculation about any substrate unnecessary. However, the argumentation—and especially the examples on which it is based—contains various factual errors, for instance in the table on p. 174, where formations associated with supposedly three Proto-Indo-European roots are compiled, although, according to current understanding, they belong instead to at least six roots (that is, twice three), and where ablaut grades are posited for (Late?) Proto-Indo-European that, according to a view already widely held in Indo-European studies twenty years ago, never existed.

Meier-Brügger’s contribution is more general and theoretical in its approach and, especially toward the end, also touches on questions concerning the (relative) chronology of the sequence of language strata in Europe. But he—as do all the other contributors to this collected volume—concludes that, of course, one will have to reckon with one or more pre-Indo-European or non-Indo-European languages in Europe, but that, given the current state of research and especially the nature of Vennemann’s research, there is not even the slightest evidence linking this substrate to any other language family or families.

The Indo-European studies contributions also include the volume’s opening article, Peter Anreiter, “Thoughts on Theo Vennemann’s Book, Europa Vasconica – Europa Semitica” (pp. 11–63). This very cautiously worded contribution is the only one in this book to offer Indo-European studies at something approaching today’s customary level and according to today’s customary standards. All the etymologies presented are correct (though not always the only ones conceivable). It should be added, however, that this contribution, too, treats root (final) variants, mobile ablaut, and the like rather casually, which could easily leave a reader without a background in Indo-European studies with the impression that anything goes. Such unmotivated variants are generally no longer accepted as possibilities today. Another problem is that root meanings are sometimes not given; instead, Proto-Indo-European transpositions are simply generated from the attested word material according to familiar rules, sometimes without correlating them with other material attested elsewhere (or with reconstructions). Nevertheless, the contribution clearly shows that Vennemann’s assumptions and conjectures are entirely

198

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Jürgen Udolph (Hrsg.)

Europa Vasconica – Europa Semitica? Kritische Beiträge zur Frage nach dem baskischen und semitischen Substrat in Europa

dispensable, thereby also consistently contradict any etymological probability and consequently being just as superfluous as they are bound to be wrong. Truly worth considering is Anre’s conclusion regarding the “aqual a” (which was also expressed, albeit more cautiously, by the reviewer; cf. Bichlmeier, forthcoming d), namely that this is not a reflex of any non-Indo-European substrate layer, but rather belonged to an Indo-European layer that exhibited the change *o > *a. If this occurs in an area where languages that do not exhibit this change were subsequently spoken or are still spoken (such as Celtic and Italic), two different Indo-European layers must be assumed; ultimately, therefore, at least two waves of immigrants speaking Indo-European languages must be taken into account (pp. 57f.). What is striking about this contribution, however, is that, apart from occasional references to (mostly directly quoted) literature, it dispenses almost entirely with secondary literature. This considerably diminishes the contribution’s value.

The longest contribution to be described as Indo-Europeanist (in the broader sense) is that by the volume’s editor, Jürgen Udolph: “Vasconic and Semitic in Europe from the Perspective of Onomastics” (pp. 211–324). It displays, however, the typical weaknesses of numerous works by this author, to which the reviewer has already drawn attention repeatedly (cf. most recently Bichlmeier 2013a, 2013b), the most serious of which is this: the specialist literature in Indo-European studies from the last 50 years is practically not taken into account. Consequently, all the author’s remarks on Indo-European studies ultimately remain at a prewar level. This is particularly evident in his wholly outdated views on the phonological system of Proto-Indo-European, word formation at this stage of the language, and phenomena of accent and ablaut, as well as the related questions concerning the semantics of the formations in question. It is not possible here to discuss all the problematic passages in the contribution that fall within this area. That would require a separate, longer article. Even so, an astonishing parallel with Theo Vennemann’s approach is already apparent here: relevant literature is not (adequately) taken into account. This is an accusation that Udolph himself levels repeatedly at Vennemann in his contribution. For instance, Udolph cites several cases of “consonant alternation,” including once again his favorite example, Modern High German Hass vs. Hader (pp. 241, 264, 306). By “consonant alternation,” he means an apparently unrestricted alternation of consonants (especially at the ends of roots), while the roots have the same meaning. His citing Hirt in this connection (p. 256) merely once again demonstrates how outdated his remarks are. A lengthy section of his monograph on the Germanic problem is devoted to this phenomenon (Udolph 1994, 51–118), and he refers to it several times in his contribution. But

Recenzijos / Reviews

199

HARALD BICHLMEIER

his aforementioned favorite example is already wrong: this word pair has for a long time (for at least 20 years) been traced back to two roots that were originally different in meaning (*kat- ‘strife, fight’ and *kad- ‘fall’ [LIV² 318], possibly also ‘fall upon’; or Proto-Indo-European *kȇh₂d- ‘be emotionally upset’ [LIV² 319], related to Greek κῆδος ‘care, grief’), whose derivatives have merely grown closer in meaning in Germanic (Kluge/Seebold 1995/1999, 346, 359; 2002, 381, 395f.; 2011, 383, 398; EWA IV, 871–873). A systematic review of the aforementioned section from Udolph 1994 would surely reveal quite a few more comparable misjudgments.

Further weaknesses, also observable elsewhere, are inaccuracies in citing other authors (which Udolph likewise accuses Vennemann of) and in presenting examples. For instance, on p. 253 Bichlmeier (2010, 16f.) is represented in a heavily abridged form, as though he fundamentally disputed the existence of a root *el-/ol-. What is correct is that, according to the current view in Indo-European studies, a root with the structure VK- can never have existed in Proto-Indo-European; roots always had the minimum structure KVK-, so in this case Proto-Indo-European *Hel(H)- must be reconstructed. The same naturally applies to the root “*er-/*or-” invoked on pp. 225ff.: rather than one, at least two roots of the structure *Her(H)- must be assumed (the most likely candidates are *h₁er- ‘come to be somewhere’ (LIV² 238) and *h₃er- ‘set oneself in motion (upward)’ (LIV² 299f.), but others may also be relevant, depending on whether the term denotes a body of water or a mountain; in any case, deriving Arn- from “*er-(n)- ‘hill, elevation’” [p. 240] is wrong). But since Udolph has not taken account of the research in Indo-European studies of recent decades and has also stated, “I do not discuss matters at this level” (Udolph 2013: 438), this remark, alongside a presentation apparently intended to discredit the person cited, once again reveals his lack of specialist competence in Indo-European studies.

A language is incorrectly identified, for example, in the case of mati- ‘promontory’ or the like (p. 278), which is not Old Indian but rather Avestan (Bartholomae 1904: 1112f.). At least the etymology (Proto-Indo-European *mñ-ti-) is correct.

That Udolph is also not particularly well acquainted with older research in Indo-European studies is evident from his references on pp. 220f. and 303, in connection with the river name Oder and related matters (cf. Greule 2008: 70f. [which Udolph does not even mention...]) and, more recently, Bichlmeier forthcoming a, b, as well as DGNB 384f., to the Caland-Wackernagel suffix system (without naming it), and his citation of a 1925 article by Bloomfield, which plays de facto no role in the history of research, but not of the beginnings of the recognition that the Proto-Indo-European suffixes *-ro- and *-u- are related (and

200

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Jürgen Udolph (Hrsg.)

Europa Vasconica – Europa Semitica? Kritische Beiträge zur Frage nach dem baskischen und semitischen Substrat in Europa

(further) already in the 1890s (cf. Bichlmeier 2008, Bichlmeier in press c).

Udolph also makes errors at the theoretical level, as when he writes on p. 275: “Only when a satisfactory explanation from High German, Germanic, Celtic, or Old European cannot be provided may one resort to an even older linguistic stratum.” The correct point would be that one must not do so (a more accurate formulation appears on p. 303); of course, one may do so, since it always remains possible in principle that an older name form underwent a ‘folk-etymological’ resemanticization, which can no longer be securely demonstrated solely because no earlier attestations of the name are available (cf. Bergmann 2011).

Much else could be added, particularly regarding a number of detailed questions about etymologies, but that would definitively exceed the scope of this review.

Despite the shortcomings mentioned and others in that contribution, it is of course clear that Vennemann’s works do not meet the standards one is entitled to expect, either methodologically or in terms of scholarly practice (engagement with and assessment of the relevant secondary literature, evaluation of primary sources where appropriate, etc.). The parallels between Vennemann’s and Udolph’s approaches are, however, equally unmistakable.

Although the survey of the Indo-European contributions should have made clear to every reader what kind (or rather, what poor quality) of work Vennemann produces in the field of onomastics, it must nevertheless also be observed that the contributions in the present book, rooted in the Indo-European tradition, all fall more or less short, in one respect or another, of what is standard in Indo-European studies today.

In addition to the Indo-European aspects, the volume also includes assessments by experts on Hamito-Semitic languages and Basque of Vennemann’s statements about these languages and of the comparative words he draws from them. These are the following three contributions: Joseba L. Lakarra, On Ancient European and the Reconstruction of Proto-Basque (pp. 65–150), Hayim Y. Sheyim, Indo-European, Old-European, and Afrasian, or Contra Vennemann (pp. 181–210), and Rainer Voigt, Europa Semitica? Remarks on Vennemann’s Semit(o-Hamit)istic-(Indo-)Germanic comparative linguistics (pp. 325–359). These three articles make clear that Vennemann’s competence in these fields is rather cause for concern. It is comparable, for instance, to Udolph’s knowledge of Indo-European studies: the relevant literature is unknown; instead, outdated material, long since rejected by the scholarly community, is cited and made the basis of the argument. Much more troubling, however, is Vennemann’s method(olog)ical

Recenzijos / Reviews

201

HARALD BICH LMEIER

approach, which earlier authors have criticized on several occasions: he freely compares reconstructed forms here with forms attested today there, without considering the appearance of the earlier forms underlying those attested today.

The reviewer considers it entirely commendable to search for remnants of the pre-Indo-European languages of Europe. But if one then wishes to compare Indo-European in Europe with Basque or Semitic, one must do so at the same chronological stage (as the authors of the three contributions also point out); that is, one must compare them all at the level of the first or even second millennium BCE. Otherwise, nothing correct can result—or at most something correct by chance. Anything else would be like comparing apples and oranges.

From the perspective of Indo-European studies, it should also be added that the problem already mentioned above remains: if one can make an Indo-European etymology for a name plausible, one cannot, strictly speaking, (any longer) prove that the name must or may originally have been non-Indo-European. There is no point in denying that many of these names resist straightforward Indo-European etymologization, but that may simply be because we are dealing with a linguistic stratum that has not survived in the languages attested today, but was overlaid by their antecedent forms (cf. the remarks above on Anreiter’s contribution), and which we therefore do not yet know well enough. Yet by using the methods of present-day Indo-European studies, we can make some progress.

The volume concludes with a contribution on questions of genetics (Jürgen Udolph, Questions for Genetic Research, pp. 361–386), consisting of an introduction by Udolph presenting Vennemann’s remarks on this issue and those of several other authors, as well as an interview Udolph conducted with two geneticists. Unfortunately, we are told neither when the interview took place nor in what form it was conducted (it appears to have been a written interview, since the interviewees refer to “above” several times). The two interviewees differ considerably in how forthcoming they are. The conversation concerns the evaluation of the genetic research invoked by Vennemann and his students in support of their argument.

The upshot may be that these studies should really be used only with the greatest caution, since quite different results emerge depending on which markers are examined, and those results can in turn be interpreted in different ways. In any case, the crux of the whole matter is inadequately addressed: the presence or absence of certain genes, markers, or blood-group characteristics may indeed

202

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX

Jürgen Udolph (Hrsg.) Europa Vasconica – Europa Semitica? Kritische Beiträge zur Frage nach dem baskischen und semitischen Substrat in Europa

say something about the probability that an individual/group of individuals belongs to a particular population at a particular point in time; naturally, none of this says anything about the language spoken by this group of individuals, unless this group of individuals has also left written records. (And this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.) Since the case of, for example, the (coining of the) ‘Old European hydronymy’ concerns a preliterate period, the probability that one can infer the language of this group from the probability of group affiliation inferred from a genetic constellation is, after all, quite low.

To sum up in conclusion what the present collected volume implies for Vennemann’s theses, one may quite properly say: They are dead. Although they do crop up from time to time in journals and the like, they have in fact found hardly any serious adherents. And this will remain so, at least as long as the proponents of these theses do not begin to bring themselves methodologically up to date with the current state of the individual subfields of historical linguistics (whether Semitic studies, Indo-European studies, or Basque studies). Interesting ideas alone are simply not enough for scholarship. It is regrettable, of course, that the collected volume presented here, which is undoubtedly necessary as a whole, appeared with such a long delay and then contained contributions of such markedly uneven quality.

Vennemann’s next collected volume has long since appeared: Germania Semitica, Berlin – New York 2012. One may be curious to see whether a comparable collected volume will once again be published in response to this book. And the publisher has already announced the next volume for the end of 2015: Robert Mailhammer, Theo Vennemann: The Semitic Component of Early Germanic Language and Culture, Berlin – Boston. If the scholarly rigor or methodological soundness of the methods applied in these books has not—or does not—improve considerably, they too will leave no mark on serious historical linguistics and onomastics beyond raised eyebrows, let alone bring about any changes.

LITERATURE

Bartolomae Christian 1904: Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg: Trübner.

Bergmann Rolf 2011: Das methodische Dilemma der Interferenz-Onomastik. Oder: Ist Altmühl ein deutscher Name? – Haubrichs, Wolfgang / Tiefenbach, Heinrich (Hgg.). Interferenz-Onomastik. Namen in Grenz- und Begegnungsräumen in Geschichte und Gegenwart.

Recenzijos / Reviews

203

HARALD BICHlMEIER

Saarbrücken Colloquium of the Working Group for Onomastic Research, 5–7 October 2006. (Publications of the Commission for Saarland Regional History and Folklore 43). Saarbrücken: Commission for Saarland Regional History and Folklore, 29–44.

B i c h l m e i e r H a r a l d 2008: Was haben Cynewulf und Kunibert mit Caland und Wackernagel zu schaffen? Oder: Der König ist tot, es lebe die Gens? – Greule, Albrecht / Herrmann, Hans-Walter / Ridder, Klaus / Schorr, Andreas (Hrsgg.). Studien zu Literatur, Sprache und Geschichte in Europa. Wolfgang Haubrichs zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet. St. Ingbert: Universitätsverlag, 229–246.

B i c h l m e i e r H a r a l d 2010: Bairisch-österreichische Orts- und Gewässernamen aus indogermanistischer Sicht. – Blätter für oberdeutsche Namenforschung 46, 3–63.

B i c h l m e i e r H a r a l d 2012: Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 66, 11–47.

B i c h l m e i e r H a r a l d 2013a: Zum sprachwissenschaftlichen Niveau der Forschungen zur ‚alteuropäischen Hydronymie’ – Eine Erwiderung auf eine Polemik. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 68, 9–50.

B i c h l m e i e r H a r a l d 2013b: Analyse und Bewertung der sprachwissenschaftlichen Standards aktueller Forschungen traditioneller Art zur ‚alteuropäischen Hydronymie’ aus der Perspektive der heutigen Indogermanistik. – Namenkundliche Informationen 101/102, 397–437.

B i c h l m e i e r H a r a l d (in press a): On the limits of what can be known through old-style research on Old European hydronymy: outdated linguistic concepts and myth-making—as illustrated by river and lake names from Bavaria and Austria (Bavarian-Austrian place and water names from an Indo-European perspective: Part 4: Attersee und Sinn). – Spannbauer-Pollmann Rosemarie / Janka Wolfgang (eds.). Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Working Group for Bavarian-Austrian Onomastic Research (ABÖN), Passau, September 2012. (Regensburg Studies in Onomastic Research 9) Regensburg: Edition Vulpes, 2014.

B i c h l m e i e r H a r a l d (in press b): Jav. adū-, ap. adū-, the Caland-Wackernagel suffix system, and Old European hydronymy. – Annick Payne and Cyril Brosch (eds.). Na-wa/i-VIR.ZI/A MAGNUS.SCRIBA. Festschrift for Helmut Nowicki on his 70th birthday. (Dresden Contributions to Hittitology 45) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014.

B i c h l m e i e r H a r a l d (in press c): The Caland System and Greek. – Giannakis, Georgios (ed.). Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2014.

B i c h l m e i e r H a r a l d (in press d): What can be recovered from the lexical and morphological elements in the name stock of so-called ‘Old European hydronymy’

204

A c t a L i n g u i s t i c a L x x

Jürgen Udolph (Hrsg.) Europa Vasconica – Europa Semitica? Kritische Beiträge zur Frage nach dem baskischen und semitischen Substrat in Europa

gain? – An interim report. – Olsen, Birgit Anette et al. (eds.). Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the Indo-European Society “Etymology and the European Lexicon”, Copenhagen, 17–22 September 2012.

DGNB: G r e u l e A l b r e c h t: Deutsches Gewässernamenbuch. Etymologie der Gewässernamen und der zugehörigen Gebiets-, Siedlungs- und Flurnamen. Unter Mitarbeit von Sabine Hackl-Rößler. Berlin – Boston: de Gruyter, 2014.

EWA: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen. Band I: -a – bezzisto. Von A. L. Lloyd und O. Springer, Göttingen/Zürich, 1988. Band II: bȃ – ezzo. Von A. L. Lloyd, R. Lühr und O. Springer† unter Mitwirkung von K. R. Purdy. Göttingen – Zürich, 1998. Band III: fadum – fūstslag. Von A. L. Lloyd und R. Lühr unter Mitarbeit von G. Kohlrusch, M. Kozianka, K. R. Purdy und R. Schuhmann. Göttingen, 2007. Band IV: gȃba – hylare. Von A. L. Lloyd und R. Lühr unter Mitarbeit von G. Kohlrusch, M. Kozianka, K. R. Purdy und R. Schuhmann. Göttingen, 2009. Band V: iba – luzzilo. Hrsgg. von R. Lühr, erarbeitet von H. Bichlmeier, M. Kozianka, R. Schuhmann mit Beiträgen von A. L. Lloyd und K. Purdy. Göttingen, 2014.

G r e u l e A l b r e c h t 2008: Exonyme im Etymologischen Wörterbuch der deutschen Gewässernamen. – Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 13, 67–74.

Kluge/Seebold 1995/1999: K l u g e, F r i e d r i c h. Etymological Dictionary of the German Language. 23rd expanded edition by Elmar Seebold. Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 1995 [unchanged reprint 1999].

Kluge/Seebold 2002: K l u g e, F r i e d r i c h. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 24., durchges. und erw. Aufl. von Elmar Seebold. Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.

Kluge/Seebold 2011: K l u g e, F r i e d r i c h. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 25., durchges. und erw. Aufl. von Elmar Seebold. Berlin – Boston: de Gruyter.

LIV²: R i x H e l m u t u.a.: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. 2., erweiterte und verbesserte Aufl. bearb. von Martin J. Kümmel und Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert 2001.

M e i e r-B r ü g g e r M i c h a e l 2010: Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9., durchges. u. erg. Aufl. unter Mitarbeit von Matthias Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer. (De-Gruyter-Studienbuch) Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.

N e u m a n n G ü n t e r 1971: Substrate im Germanischen? – Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse Nr. 4, 1971, 77–99.

N e u m a n n G ü n t e r 2008: Namenstudien zum Altgermanischen. Hrsgg. von Heinrich Hettrich und Astrid van Nahl. (Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, Ergänzungsbände 59) Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.

R e i c h a r d t L u t z 1996: Nachfolger Hans Bahlows. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung, Neue Folge 31, 398–406.

Recenzijos / Reviews

205

HARALD BICHMEIER

Schmid Wolfgang P. 1998: Methodische Bemerkungen zur Klassifikation Alteuropäisch. – Onomastica Slavogermanica 23, 21–28.

Udolph Jürgen 1994: Namenkundliche Studien zum Germanenproblem. (Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 9) Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.

Udolph Jürgen 2013: Stellungnahme [zu Bichlmeier 2013b]. – Namenkundliche Informationen 101/102, 437f.

Received April 5, 2014.

HARALD BICHMEIER

Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg Orientalisches Institut: Seminar für Indogermanistik und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Heinrich-und-Thomas-Mann-Str. 26, 06108 Halle (Saale) [email protected]

Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig Arbeitsstelle Jena: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen Zwätzengasse 12, 07743 Jena [email protected]

Mainzer Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Digitales Familiennamenbuch Deutschlands Geschwister-Scholl-Str. 2, 55131 Mainz [email protected]

206

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXX