Review: Russian Etymological Dictionary

[Andrew Jameson]

Russian Etymological Dictionary
Terence Wade
Bristol Classical Press, 1996
Paper #14.95, 266pp.
ISBN 1-85399-414-X

This unique work, an etymological dictionary of Russian written in English, has
 been produced by perhaps Britain's foremost
specialist in (and lover of) the Russian language.
It has something for everyone. It is described as the first book in English to
 provide a systematic analysis of Russian word
derivations, and it provides, in short articles, the derivations of about 1,500
 Russian words chosen for their frequency or
intrinsic interest. A quick random check against the Routledge Russian Learners'
 Dictionary frequency list (5 hits from a possible
15) shows that the intrinsic interest principle is probably to the fore.

There is a ten page introduction, designed for the non-specialist, on the
 development of the Russian lexical fund, its distinctive
features, the influence of Church Slavonic and the enrichment of Russian through
 borrowing from other languages, and this is a
feature other etymological dictionaries lack. Although some transliterations are
 given, it is assumed throughout that the reader
can read Cyrillic and knows a little about the history of Russian orthography.
 There is a glossary of terms, explained in layman's
language, and a five page bibliography. The articles are fairly technical and,
 for the non-specialist reader, demand the mastering
of terms and abbreviations.

A typical article contains the following: header word in Cyrillic; the same in
 transliteration (ISO system); the meaning; usually a
date of first occurrence; the putative origin, going back to Indo-European if
 necessary; comparisons with other Slav languages;
similar imagery or usages in other relevant languages; cultural or historical
 commentary. The coverage of Greek, Latin, Baltic and
Turkic comparisons is most impressive and there are many interesting excursions
 into Germanic/Scandinavian, Arabic and Chinese. One
may wonder whether the precise renderings of Classical Greek breathings are
 needed when Russian borrowings were from Byzantine
Greek, although we still respect the scholarship which provides them.

The content of the dictionary is, of course, impeccable and there many gems of
 succinct interpretation and historical explanation.
We learn for example how squirrel skins were used as currency (belka), how
 trousers arrived in Russia (bryuki), how the Goths wrote
their runes (bukva), and how early paper was made (bumaga), and that's just the
 "B"s. It is instructive to learn that for example
pole does not mean a field, or that the word chuzhoi is of the same origin as
 deutsch. Important cultural terms such as den'gi,
izba, kazak, korol', nedelya, pobeda, pravda, slavyanin, tsar', chai, are there,
 although some of my favourites, orda, vodka,
yamshchik, yarlyk, important in Russian history, are missing. Perhaps there
 should be an entry for boyar, with cross reference to
barin, and perhaps more could have been made of tuman/tyumen'/t'ma with its
 interesting numeral connection. But these are only
minor points, and after all my years in Russian studies, I have been pleased to
 find much that was new and interesting.

Etymology can be an infuriating subject, beset as it is by well-meaning amateurs
 who propose the strangest derivations and links
without a leavening of common sense or historical context. This makes it all the
 more difficult to place a word in its context, and
to that extent, we run the risk of losing some of the cultural history of the
 Russian language. As Boris Unbegaun used to say, the
more origins are proposed for a particular word, the more likely it is that no
 one knows which is the correct one. For this reason
there are often several "explanations" of word origins. Professor Wade has of
 course weighed up these issues and only included
alternatives where they are plausible.

I am glad to see Professor Wade introducing in his glossary the term "popular
 etymology", although I would like to suggest that
this phenomenon is actually of two types. The first type would be the
 traditional language lore of native speakers when talking
about the language. Then there is the type which operates at a more instinctive
 level and is applied to words by native speakers,
usually rounding off forms that have been logically derived but present
 difficulties in pronunciation, or have accidentally come to
resemble other common words (e.g. blizorukii). The term "contamination" needs to
 be reconciled with "popular etymology" here. My
major comment on the dictionary would be that Professor Wade might have
 increased our insights into how language operates, by
expanding the theoretical section at the start of the book, and showing us, on
 the basis of materials from the dictionary itself,
how words and their meanings appear, develop, "ebb and flow" and sometimes die,
 and how this reflects the cultural history of the
society using the language. But perhaps he has already done this in his
 forthcoming work on the contemporary Russian language.

The likely market for this book is teachers and students of Russian on full-time
 courses, possibly adult learners with an academic
interest in the language. The academic level of the introduction is well judged
 to meet this market, although cast very much in
classic philological language. The introduction in English on Russian vocabulary
 is the selling point for the thoughtful student,
and this perhaps could be further developed so as to stimulate the interest of
 such students in the language sciences.

ANDREW JAMESON