American Journal of Philology

Exactly one hundred years ago the seventeenth volume of AJP contained, besides articles about Avestan, Sanskrit, Propertius, and Pliny, an article by Carl Darling Buck called Some General Problems of Greek Ablaut. In later years C.D. Buck went on to become the English–speaking classical linguist's great and trusty friend producing a string of invaluable handbooks and textbooks. Finest among these, to my mind, is his Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian, which remains unsurpassed in its combinations of firm linguistic judgment and sound pedagogical method. The same excellent virtues are also found in abundance in Buck's Greek Dialects. But undoubtedly Buck's best–known book is A Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, which has introduced generations of classicists to the field of comparative grammar. In addition to Buck's other virtues this book was also characterized by a wholesome conservativism. By this I mean 1) that Buck did not present what in 1933 was the "cutting edge" line, but instead what the majority of linguists could then have agreed to be generally well–established and 2) that Buck did not burden the beginner with long discussions of his own views on certain controversial points. The end result was a book of long–lasting value. But as time passed the gap between what was generally accepted by the majority of linguists and what was presented in Buck's book widened. The pages on ablaut, for example, are now hopelessly outdated. A replacement of Buck has for many years now been an urgent desideratum. In my own teaching I have foregone the use of Buck entirely relying instead on handouts and the blackboard.

It was with great eagerness, therefore, that I looked forward to the publication of Andrew L. Sihler's New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (NCGGL) and I should state at the outset that Professor Sihler deserves the gratitude of all classical linguists for having undertaken the daunting task of rewriting and expanding Buck. Sihler's NCGGL does follow Buck's format very closely. Part I, an introduction (1–34), covers the Indo–European family of languages, the external history of Greek and Latin, and the Greek and Latin writing systems. Part II (35–242) covers the historical phonology in the order made traditional by Buck. Part III (243–368) deals with nominal morphology. Part IV [End Page 670] (369–401) discusses the pronouns in much greater detail than Buck. Part V (402– 441) is about the numerals and prepositions. Part VI (442–629) discusses verbal morphology. I will use this book the next time I teach comparative grammar. That said, I cannot wholeheartedly endorse Sihler's book. For it suffers from many serious flaws both pedagogical and scientific.

In general terms, the absence of a single bibliographical reference is unfortunate. This makes NCGGL a dead end for the self–teaching student. Even when it would have cost Sihler little space, he avoids mentioning scholars by name and sticks to formulations like "some see evidence . . ." (38) or "one view holds . . ." (45). In contrast, Buck's book, although not generous with footnotes, did at least have a basic bibliography. Would five pages or so of bibliography have added too much bulk to a book that is already almost 700 pages long?

Another overarching problem is the great deal of space spent on Sihler's personal views (and on those of Warren Cowgill, Sihler's acknowledged master). For example, most of 176 is devoted to a discussion of Edgerton's Law and the converse of Siever's Law, which S. himself has elsewhere shown to be without basis (Language 45 [1969] 248–73).Why even mention these outmoded opinions in an introductory textbook? Sihler's discussion of Lindeman's Law (177) involves a rather more detailed analysis of Vedic metrical evidence than the average classicist needs to know. In order to accommodate these views, and also, more justifiably, to include a fuller discussion of the evidence, Sihler has eliminated Buck's sections...