1488 zyxwvutsrqp AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST zyxw [74,1972] ciple of marked and unmarked linguistic categories, the discussion of the relation between syntactic and semantic structures, and linguistic change in social contexts, are three examples of such important new devel- opments. The reviewer agrees with the author that the orientation of the book, on the whole, has not suffered. An under- standing of the development which has occurred since and which will be made in the future will presuppose an insight into the relations described in the book. The Indo-European and Semitic Languages. SAUL LEVIN. Albany: State University of New York Press, zyxwvut 1971. xlii + 775 pp., illustrations, chapter notes, appendix, index. $25.00 (cloth). Reviewed by GEORGE zyxwv CARDONA University o f Pennsylvania and Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences This work attempts to establish a relation between Indo-European (IE) and Semitic by considering, in greater detail than any com- parable work known to me, morphologic and syntactic materials. The author treats nominal stems (Chapter 2, pp. 116-366), a particular dual ending (Chapter 1, pp. 34-115), and several verbal formations (Chapters 3-4, pp. 367-680). The central chapters are followed by a summary of conclusions (Chapter 5, pp. 681-730) and preceded by an introduction and statement of method (pp. 3-33). An appendix, in which Levin notes some problems for future investigation (pp. 731-737), and an index (pp. 739-775) complete the work. Although previous scholars who worked in this area compared proto-systems, Levin asserts “that a worthwhile comparison should not rest upon proto-IE and proto- Semitic, which have no objective existence” (p. 7), so that he compares only forms of particular languages, principally Hebrew (H), Sanskrit (S), and Greek (G). How Levin carries out such comparison can be illus- trated by what he says concerning two major formations. The Hebrew plural of most masculine nouns has an absolute form in -im (-iym according to Levin, whose transliteration is here followed); e.g., b’m-prn “children.” The dependent plural stem ends in -ey; e.g., b’”ney-hem‘ “the children of them (masc.).” Levin compares the plural morpheme -ey with the -e- which appears in such oblique forms as S deue-su (locative pl. of deua- “god”) and the -oi- of the G dative plural ending -ois(i) (e.g., Homeric 6moisi “on the shoulders”). In S the stem deve- occurs only in certain oblique forms of the plural such as the locative and the dative-ablative Ideve- bhyah); contrast the nominative devih, ac- cusative deuin, and genitive devinim (archa- ic deuiim). Levin notes: The plural morpheme which we are com- paring is always replaced in certain other plural forms of a given word by some other morpheme. The most important limitation is the one shared by H and S. In H the {Vy} comes with a possessive pronoun-suffix, or in the construct state followed immediately by a word signify- ing the possessor. In S the {.&} comes with the suffixes of certain ob ique cases, but not the genitive, the accusative, and (what is most notable) the nominative. H has no cases, and S has no possessive construction quite like the H; but they agree upon restricting this plural mor- pheme to syntactically dependent situa- tions in opposition to the H absolute plural and the S nominative plural [p. 1241. In his summary he says: “The great majority of masculine nouns have in H and Am [Aramaic] a construct plural in i4y} , to which possessive suffixes are adde , and in S a stem in { zyxw .F-} (actually the same sound lei1 as in I-I and A m ) , to which case affixes are added” [italics mine] (p. 699). Among the verb types he compares is the perfect, concerning which he says, “A fruit- ful comparison of the H with the S and G perfect rests especially upon the second and third person singular” (p. 560). In addition to patterns of vocalic alternation, Levin con- siders and emphasizes two particular points which bear noting, since they are the type of details important in comparing languages. Thereduplicated syllable YJ occurs in several H verbs; e.g., ySq8 “he (has) sat, remained.” This Levin compares with the ja- of S ja- bhar-a (3rd sg. pfct. of bhr “carry”), remark- ing that the correspondence “seems too good to be accidental” (p. 565). He also considers a peculiarity of the root vocalism in the perfect of the S root type hy “do,” where the third singular has a root vowel .71-