Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robert S. P. Beekes. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. (© 1995). Revised and corrected by Micluel de Vaan. Leiden: John Benjamins, 2011. xxiv, 415 pp. $158.00, cloth. $54.00, paper.This volume is the second edition of a comprehensive introduction to Indo-European (IE), by Leiden-based Robert Beekes, one of the foremost contemporary Dutch IndoEuropeamsts. A review for a Slavic-oriented journal, however, should mainly concentrate on how Beekes handles Slavic (SI) data in an IE context. Beekes usually provides a full discussion, albeit with some omissions. In this context, we should note that Beekes's index lists slightly more Baltic fonns than SI (pp. 394-397), winch makes sense from a purely IEoriented point of view. I have several minor quibbles regarding some of Beekes's Celtic or Germanic data, winch, however, would be better left to Celticists or Germanists in tins context.Tins work provides a generally good, theoretical IE-based introduction to and linguistic reconstruction, citing many examples, plus ftill descriptions of changes, which makes it possible to trace the developments of individual IE languages step by step, followed by discussions of developments of all the morphological categories of Proto-IE, plus the latest in scholarly insights into more specialist areas of IE studies, which are systematically integrated into the overall treatment.The overall organization of the work, however, is a bit odd. It is not at all clear, for example, why sound change is not grouped under the overall heading of language change. Neither is the publisher's blurb all that helpful in that, for example, it fails to mention a fairly good section (pp. 75-83) on morphological analogy, absolutely essential for considering developments in SI, and surfacing all over the book, while citing the glottalic theory, with only two pages (pp. 128-129). The treatment of the laryngeal theory, a centerpiece of much detailed work earned out in Leiden, and to which Beekes devotes an eight-page section (pp. 146-153), plus further comments scattered throughout the book, taken as a whole, leaves a mild feeling of overextension.Sixty-six new exercises enable the student to practise the reconstruction of IE phonology and morphology. These are generally well conceived; Beekes's idea of homing in on just one segment per form (p. 122, passim; with some exceptions, for example, for Grassmann's Law and Vemer's Law) is an excellent way of getting points across for students.Any study of IE should cite copious etymologies, and this book offers an excellent selection of items overall. Examples where the SI data are essential for the reconstruction of IE include, for example, *tauros, usually 'bull'; for SI, however, the earlier attested meaning of tun (
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.015 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".