Clackson, James. 2005. Review of Kortlandt, Armeniaca. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 24-25:153-158. REVIEW OF KORTLANDT, FREDERIK. 2003. ARMENIACA: COMPARATIVE NOTES, WITH AN APPENDIX ON THE HISTORICAL PHONOLOGY OF CLASSICAL ARMENIAN BY ROBERT BEEKES. ANN ARBOR: CARAVAN BOOKS. James Clackson, Cambridge University Rüdiger Schmitt’s collected edition of Holger Pedersen’s Kleine Schriften (Pedersen 1982) is one of the essential works on Armenian historical linguistics. Through his inclusion of material from sources which are difficult to access and the addition of an index, Schmitt opened up Pedersen’s work to a wider audience. This present volume does much the same thing for Kortlandt’s articles on Armenian, which are published in journals which are not always readily accessible—although readers of the Annual of Armenian Linguistics will be the public probably most familiar with K.’s oeuvre. The added bonus of this volume is that K. has added cross-references and after-thoughts as well as an index, and we have the very valuable addition of a full survey of Historical Phonology made by Robert Beekes (of which more later). This book is dedicated to the memory of Pedersen, whose ideas and methodology flow into K.’s work. In some cases the link between the two is straightforward, as in K.’s championing of Pedersen’s idea that final *-s developed to Armenian -k‘, or *dw- gave Armenian k- not erk-, but more often it is the style and approach which link the two scholars. Both Pedersen and Kortlandt show a relentless logic in their approach to Armenian developments, taking care to use as many pieces of information as possible, including data from post-Classical dialects; both prefer a phonological explanation to a morphological one (as in the case of the development of the plural marker -k‘); both are audacious in reconstructing forms such as pronominal endings; and both bring in material not just from the older Indo-European languages but also from Albanian and the Balkan Trümmersprachen. A further similarity is that neither is keen to make concessions to the reader, who is expected to keep up. Temperamentally, I was always more attracted to the style of Meillet, who worked more closely with ancient texts and was generally happier to leave a puzzling form aside than try to explain every aspect of its development, but I can’t help admire the rigor and inventiveness of scholars such as Kortlandt, and that is all the more apparent from a collected