(FREE PDF Sample) The Semitic Languages An International Handbook Handb Cher Zur Sprach Und Kommunikationswissenschaft Hand Stefan Weninger Ebooks

Full download ebook at ebookname.
com
The Semitic Languages An International Handbook

Handb Cher Zur Sprach Und
Kommunikationswissenschaft Hand Stefan Weninger
https://ebookname.com/product/the-semitic-languages-an-
international-handbook-handb-cher-zur-sprach-und-
kommunikationswissenschaft-hand-stefan-weninger/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWLOAD NOW
Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Deutschland Und Israel 1945 1965 Ein Neurotisches

Verhältnis Studien Zur Zeitgeschichte German Edition
Jelinek
https://ebookname.com/product/deutschland-und-
israel-1945-1965-ein-neurotisches-verhaltnis-studien-zur-
zeitgeschichte-german-edition-jelinek/
The Surface and the Abyss Nietzsche as Philosopher of

Mind and Knowledge Monographien Und Texte Zur Nietzsche
Forschung 1st Edition Peter Bornedal
https://ebookname.com/product/the-surface-and-the-abyss-
nietzsche-as-philosopher-of-mind-and-knowledge-monographien-und-
texte-zur-nietzsche-forschung-1st-edition-peter-bornedal/
After Hardship Cometh Ease Studien zur Geschichte und

Kultur des islamischen Orients The Jews as Backdrop for
Muslim Moderation Ze'Ev Maghen
https://ebookname.com/product/after-hardship-cometh-ease-studien-
zur-geschichte-und-kultur-des-islamischen-orients-the-jews-as-
backdrop-for-muslim-moderation-zeev-maghen/
Sleight of Hand Magic Handbook Joe Fullman
https://ebookname.com/product/sleight-of-hand-magic-handbook-joe-
fullman/
Root Determinatives in Semitic Speech A Contribution to
Semitic Philology 1st Edition Solomon Theodore Halévy
Hurwitz
https://ebookname.com/product/root-determinatives-in-semitic-
speech-a-contribution-to-semitic-philology-1st-edition-solomon-
theodore-halevy-hurwitz/
The Languages of East and Southeast Asia An

Introduction Goddard
https://ebookname.com/product/the-languages-of-east-and-
southeast-asia-an-introduction-goddard/
Learned Hand the man and the judge 2nd ed Edition Hand
https://ebookname.com/product/learned-hand-the-man-and-the-
judge-2nd-ed-edition-hand/
Cultural Memory Studies An International and

Interdisciplinary Handbook 1st Edition Erll
https://ebookname.com/product/cultural-memory-studies-an-
international-and-interdisciplinary-handbook-1st-edition-erll/
Handbook of Plastic Optics 2nd Edition Stefan Bäumer

(Editor)
https://ebookname.com/product/handbook-of-plastic-optics-2nd-
edition-stefan-baumer-editor/
The Semitic Languages
HSK 36
Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 3/2/12 1:49 PM
Handbücher zur
Sprach- und Kommunikations-
wissenschaft
Handbooks of Linguistics
and Communication Science
Manuels de linguistique et
des sciences de communication
Mitbegründet von Gerold Ungeheuer (†)

Mitherausgegeben 1985−2001 von Hugo Steger
Herausgegeben von / Edited by / Edités par

Herbert Ernst Wiegand
Band 36
De Gruyter Mouton
The Semitic Languages
An International Handbook
Edited by
Stefan Weninger
In collaboration with
Geoffrey Khan
Michael P. Streck
Janet C. E. Watson
De Gruyter Mouton
ISBN 978-3-11-018613-0
e-ISBN 978-3-11-025158-6
ISSN 1861-5090
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Semitic languages : an international handbook / edited by Stefan

Weninger ; in collaboration with Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck,
Janet C. E.Watson.
p. cm. ⫺ (Handbooks of linguistics and communication science; 36)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-3-11-018613-0 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Semitic languages ⫺ History ⫺ Handbooks, manuals, etc.
2. Semitic languages ⫺ Grammar ⫺ Handbooks, manuals, etc.
I. Weninger, Stefan. II. Khan, Geoffrey. III. Streck, Michael P.
IV. Watson, Janet C. E.
PJ3014.S46 2012
492⫺dc23
2011042304
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
© 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston

Typesetting: META Systems GmbH, Wustermark
Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
Cover design: Martin Zech, Bremen
∞ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com

Foreword
This volume, which presents a comprehensive overview of the current state of research
on the Semitic languages, has undergone a long period of preparation. Our heartfelt
thanks go first of all to the authors for their cooperation and patience. We are also
indebted to the editor of the series, Herbert Ernst Wiegand for accepting this volume
in the series Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Sciences, and to Barbara
Karlson of De Gruyter Mouton for her efficient and friendly manner in dealing with
issues concerning this volume. Special thanks go to Melonie Schmierer (Cambridge)
who did a wonderful job in editing the English. Finally, thanks are due to Michael
Waltisberg (Marburg) for his help in proofreading and to the student assistents Maren
Hadidi, Temesghen Tesfu and Christina Gansloser (Marburg) for their help in copy-
editing and indexing.
The editors

Contents
1. Introduction · Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck, and

Janet C. E. Watson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I. Semitic in an Afroasiatic Context

2. Semitic-Egyptian Relations · Gábor Takács . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Semitic-Berber Relations · Vermondo Brugnatelli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4. Semitic-Chadic Relations · H. Ekkehard Wolff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. Semitic-Cushitic/Omotic Relations · David L. Appleyard . . . . . . . . . 38
II. Reconstructing Proto-Semitic and Models of Classification

6. Proto-Semitic Phonetics and Phonology · Leonid Kogan . . . . . . . . . . 54
7. Reconstructive Morphology · Stefan Weninger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
8. Proto-Semitic Lexicon · Leonid Kogan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
9. Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification of the Semitic Languages ·
John Huehnergard and Aaron D. Rubin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
III. The Semitic Languages and Dialects I: Their Typology

10. Morphological Typology of Semitic · Orin D. Gensler . . . . . . . . . . . 279
11. Syntactic Typology of Semitic · Michael Waltisberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
IV. The Semitic Languages and Dialects II: East Semitic

12. Akkadian in General · Bert Kouwenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
13. Eblaite and Old Akkadian · Michael P. Streck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
14. Babylonian and Assyrian · Michael P. Streck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
15. Akkadian and Sumerian Language Contact · Gábor Zólyomi . . . . . . 396
16. Akkadian as a Diplomatic Language · Wilfred H. van Soldt . . . . . . . 405
17. Akkadian and Aramaic Language Contact · Michael P. Streck . . . . . . 416
V. The Semitic Languages and Dialects III:

North-West Semitic
18. Northwest Semitic in General · Holger Gzella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
19. Amorite · Michael P. Streck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
20. Ugaritic · Dennis Pardee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460
21. Phoenician and Punic · Wolfgang Röllig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
22. Biblical Hebrew · Lutz Edzard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
23. Mishnaic Hebrew · Moshe Bar-Asher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
24. Modern Hebrew · Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
25. Hebrew as the Language of Judaism · Angel Sáenz-Badillos . . . . . . . 537

viii Contents
26. The Re-Emergence of Hebrew as a National Language · Yael Reshef 546

27. Old Aramaic · Frederick Mario Fales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
28. Imperial Aramaic · Holger Gzella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
29. Imperial Aramaic as an Administrative Language of the Achaemenid
Period · Margaretha Folmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
30. Late Imperial Aramaic · Holger Gzella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598
31. Jewish Palestinian Aramaic · Michael Sokoloff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610
32. Samaritan Aramaic · Abraham Tal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619
33. Christian Palestinian Aramaic · Matthew Morgenstern . . . . . . . . . . . 628
34. Syriac · John F. Healey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
35. Syriac as the Language of Eastern Christianity · Françoise Briquel Cha-
tonnet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652
36. Jewish Babylonian Aramaic · Michel Sokoloff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660
37. Mandaic · Bogdan Burtea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670
38. Western Neo-Aramaic · Werner Arnold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685
39. Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥsô · Otto Jastrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697
40. North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic · Geoffrey Khan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708
41. Neo-Mandaic · Charles G. Häberl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725
42. Language Contact between Aramaic Dialects and Iranian · Olga Kapeliuk 738
43. Aramaic-Arabic Language Contact · Stefan Weninger . . . . . . . . . . . 747
VI. The Semitic Languages and Dialects IV:

Languages of the Arabian Peninsula
44. Ancient North Arabian · Hani Hayajneh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756
45. Classical Arabic · Jan Retsö . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 782
46. Arabic as the Language of Islam · Muhammad A. S. Abdel Haleem . . 811
47. Middle Arabic · Geoffrey Khan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
48. Creating a Modern Standard Language from Medieval Tradition:
The Nahḍa and the Arabic Academies · Dagmar Glaß . . . . . . . . . . . 835
49. Modern Standard Arabic · Karin C. Ryding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
50. Arabic Dialects (general article) · Janet C. E. Watson . . . . . . . . . . . 851
51. Dialects of the Arabian Peninsula · Janet C. E. Watson . . . . . . . . . . 897
52. Arabic Dialects of Mesopotamia · Shabo Talay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
53. Dialects of the Levant · Samia Naïm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920
54. Dialects of Egypt and Sudan · James Dickins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
55. Arabic in the North African Region · Christophe Pereira . . . . . . . . . 954
56. Arabic Sociolinguistics · Jonathan Owens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970
57. Arabic Urban Vernaculars · Catherine Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982
58. Arabic-based Pidgins and Creoles · Xavier Luffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
59. Berber and Arabic Language Contact · Mohand Tilmatine . . . . . . . . 1001
60. Arabic-Persian Language Contact · Dénes Gazsi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
61. Language Contact between Arabic and Modern European Languages ·
Lutz Edzard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022
62. Maltese as a National Language · Albert Borg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
63. Ancient South Arabian · Peter Stein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
64. Modern South Arabian · Marie-Claude Simeone-Senelle . . . . . . . . . 1073

Contents ix
VII. The Semitic Languages and Dialects V:

Ethio-Semitic Languages
65. Ethio-Semitic in General · Stefan Weninger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114
66. Old Ethiopic · Stefan Weninger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1124
67. Tigre · Didier Morin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1142
68. Tigrinya · Rainer Voigt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1153
69. Tigrinya as National Language of Eritrea and Tigray · Rainer Voigt . . 1170
70. Amharic · Ronny Meyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1178
71. The Role of Amharic as a National Language and an African lingua
franca · Ronny Meyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1212
72. Gurage · Ronny Meyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1220
73. Harari · Ewald Wagner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1257
74. Ethiosemitic-Cushitic Language Contact · Joachim Crass and Ronny
Meyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1266
Terminological index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1277

1. Introduction
1. Scope of the volume
2. Technical and formal aspects
3. References
1. Scope of the volume

The present volume, Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, is meant to serve
as comprehensive reference tool for Semitic Linguistics in its broad sense. In contrast
to Brockelmann (1908⫺1913), Moscati (1964), Lipiński (1997), Stempel (1999), Kienast
(2001) and Haelewyck (2006), it is not restricted to comparative Grammar, although
it covers also comparative aspects. On the other hand, the Handbook is not a collection
of grammatical sketches, as e.g. the works of D. Cohen ([ed.] 1988, 31⫺159), Berg-
strässer (1928/1983) or Hetzron (1997). By comprising a section on typology (see chs.
10 and 11), chapters with sociolinguistic focus (see chs. 16, 25, 26, 35, 46, 48, 56, 62, 69,
and 71) and chapters on language contact (chs. 15, 17, 42, 43, 59, 60, 61, 74) the concep-
tion of the book aims at a comprehensive, unbiased description of the state of the art
in Semitics. The articles on language contact are especially welcome within the frame-
work of the HSK series, because the HSK volume on language contact (Goebl et al.
[eds.] 1996⫺1997) concentrates its examples in the second volume on languages of
Europe and the former Soviet Union. The articles on individual Semitic languages and
dialect groups give basic facts on location, numbers of speakers, scripts, size and nature
of text corpus, attestation etc., where appropriate, basic facts of the grammar and an
overview on the research.
At the beginning of the Handbook, the greater genealogical context of Semitic is
discussed (Section I), reconstruction and classification (Section II), and typological
aspects of Semitic (Section III). In the following chapters, research on the individual
Semitic languages and dialects is presented. As the internal classification of Semitic is,
at least partly, still open to discussion due to several conflicting isoglosses, the organisa-
tion of the chapters is based on largely non-technical, admittedly rather traditional,
geographical principles (Sections IV⫺VII).
1.1. Semitic in an Afroasiatic context
It is commonly held by Semitists and Afroasiaticists that the Semitic language family
forms part of the macro-family of Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic) languages, although
the sub-classification of the Afroasiatic families is disputed. A notorious problem of
Afroasiatic studies is the vast variety of languages that makes it virtually impossible
for an individual researcher to cope with the whole of Afroasiatic. The articles of this
chapter sum up the traits that might be part of the common heritage of Semitic and
Egyptian (ch. 2), Semitic and Berber (ch. 3), Semitic and Chadic (ch. 4), and Semitic
and Cushitic-Omotic (ch. 5). Problems of language contact are not the focus of this

2 1. Introduction
section, but are treated in chapters that follow where appropriate (see ch. 59 on Berber-
Arabic contact and ch. 74 on Ethio-Semitic – Cushitic contact). The editors firmly
believe that the inclusion of Afroasiatic in larger families such as ‘Nostratic’ cannot be
justified. The topic therefore is not covered in the volume.
1.2. Reconstructing Proto-Semitic and models of classification

This section is devoted to Semitic studies as a historical-comparative discipline. There
is one section on the reconstruction of Proto-Semitic phonetics and phonology (ch. 6),
one on the morphology of Proto-Semitic (ch. 7), and one on the lexicon (ch. 8). Due
to the lack of research on this area to date, reconstructive syntax is excluded here (But
see below ch. 7 on syntactic typology). The internal classification of Semitics has been
subject to particularly hot debate since the very beginning of comparative Semitics.
The various models and the assumptions on which they are based are the subject of a
separate section (ch. 9).
1.3. The Semitic languages and dialects I: Their typology

In addition to the historic-genetic perspective of the previous section, this section cov-
ers typological aspects of Semitic languages. Both morphological typology (ch. 10) and
syntactic typology (ch. 11) are covered. As this section is of special relevance for typol-
ogists without a Semitic background, the authors paid extra attention to ensure the
readability of the articles for the non-Semitist.
1.4. The Semitic languages and dialects II: East Semitic

The introductory section (ch. 12) provides an overview of the Akkadian language, its
history and attestation, including sections on cuneiform writing. Then the oldest varie-
ties of Akkadian, i.e. Old Akkadian and Eblaite are treated (ch. 13). After this, the
two main dialects of Akkadian, i.e. Assyrian and Babylonian, their distinctive features
and their development through the ages are covered in a contrastive perspective by a
central section (ch. 14). Akkadian is heavily influenced by Sumerian, which was trans-
mitted by speakers of Akkadian as a classical language after its extinction as a spoken
language. Therefore, a section on Sumerian-Akkadian language contact is necessary
(ch. 15). Akkadian was used as a language of diplomacy in wide areas of the Middle
East. A further chapter gives an overview of the role of Akkadian in history outside
Babylonia and Assyria (ch. 16). Later, during the first millennium B.C., Akkadian was
finally replaced by Aramaic. This justifies an additional section on Akkadian-Aramaic
language contact (ch. 17).
1.5. The Semitic languages and dialects III: North-West Semitic

In the introductory section, the notion ‘North-West Semitic’ is discussed, including
internal classification, an overview of Aramaic, N.-W. Semitic alphabets, contacts with
Egyptian, Tell Amarna and treatment of the smaller varieties of North-West Semitic

1. Introduction 3
that are not covered by the other sections such as Moabite, Ammonite, and Edomite
(ch. 18). This is followed by a section on the oldest attestation of NW-Semitic, i.e.
Amorite (ch. 19). The first NW-Semitic language with textual attestation is Ugaritic
(ch. 20). Then the Canaanite languages are covered, first with a section on Phoenician
and Punic (ch. 21) and one on Biblical Hebrew (ch. 22). The later stages of Hebrew
are covered by a section on Rabbinic Hebrew (ch. 23), and on Modern Hebrew (ch.
24). Historical aspects of Hebrew as the language of Judaism are also described (ch.
25). The unique case of a language revival from written sources is analyzed in a chapter
on the emergence of Modern Hebrew (ch. 26). Aramaic is treated in a series of chap-
ters, first on Old Aramaic (ch. 27) and Imperial Aramaic (ch. 28). The role of Imperial
Aramaic as an administrative language and its role in history is described in a special
section (ch. 29). A chapter on Late Imperial Aramaic examines varieties such as Naba-
taean or Palmyrene (ch. 30). This is followed by articles on several Western Middle
Aramaic varieties, i.e. Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (ch. 31), Samaritan Aramaic (ch.
32), and Christian Palestinian Aramaic (ch. 33). The part on Eastern Middle Aramaic
begins with a section on Syriac (ch. 34), that is complemented by a section on Syriac
as the language of Eastern Christianity and its role in history (ch. 35). Then the other
Eastern Middle Aramaic varieties, Babylonian Talmudic (ch. 36) and Mandaean (ch.
37) are covered. The next part of the chapter is devoted to Neo-Aramaic, that can be
classified into Western Neo-Aramaic spoken in Syria (ch. 38), Ṭuroyo (with Mlaḥso)
(ch. 39), North Eastern Neo-Aramaic (ch. 40) and Neo-Mandaean (ch. 41). The rest
of the section consists of two chapters on language contact, one on contact between
Aramaic dialects and Iranian languages (ch. 42), and one on Aramaic-Arabic language
contact (ch. 43). The latter covers both directions, to avoid repetition in section VI.
1.6. The Semitic languages and dialects IV: Languages of the Arabian
Peninsula
This section covers the varieties spoken on the Arabian Peninsula and adjacent islands,
and those that have their historical origin on the Peninsula (i.e. Arabic dialects outside
the Peninsula). Beginning with Ancient North Arabian (ch. 44), the structure of Classi-
cal Arabic (ch. 45) and its role as the lingua sacra of Islamic culture (ch. 46), it then
covers Middle Arabic (ch. 47), the modernization of Arabic and the role of the Arabic
academies (ch. 48), Modern Standard Arabic, the differences between Classical Arabic
and MSA, registers and regional varieties of MSA (ch. 49). Arabic dialects in general
and their geography are treated in an introductory chapter to the second part of the
section (ch. 50). This is followed by chapters on the Arabic dialects of the Arabian
Peninsula (ch. 51), the dialects of Mesopotamia (ch. 52), the dialects of the Levant (ch.
53), of Egypt and Sudan (ch. 54), and of North Africa, including Maltese (ch. 55).
Spoken Arabic is treated in a systematic, non-geographic way in chapters on sociolin-
guistics (ch. 56) and Arabic urban vernaculars (ch. 57). This is followed by a chapter
on Arabic-based pidgins and creoles (ch. 58). Three chapters treat the contact of Ara-
bic with other languages in this section: Arabic-Berber (ch. 59), Arabic-Persian (ch.
60), and Arabic and modern European languages (ch. 61). Aramaic-Arabic language
contact is treated above in the context of Aramaic (ch. 43). This is followed by a

4 1. Introduction
chapter on Maltese as a national language (ch. 62). In the third part of this section,
the non-Arabic languages of the Arabian Peninsula are covered. As the attestation of
the four varieties of Ancient South Arabian is rather unbalanced, the editors thought
it best to treat them together (ch. 63). This is followed by an extensive overview of the
Modern South Arabian languages of Yemen and Oman (ch. 64).
1.7. The Semitic languages and dialects V: Ethio-Semitic languages
In an introductory chapter (ch. 65), the distinctive features of Ethio-Semitic in general

are covered, together with its internal classification to avoid repetitions in the following
articles. This chapter also touches briefly varieties without special articles. This is fol-
lowed by a chapter on the classical language of Ethiopia and Eritrea, Gәәz (ch. 66).
Chapters on the modern North-Ethiopic languages Tigre and Tigrinya then follow (ch.
67 and ch. 68). In a chapter with a more sociolinguistic focus, the role of Tigrinya as a
written language and a language of Eritrea is described (ch. 69). A rather large chapter
treats Amharic together with Argobba (ch. 70). A further chapter (ch. 71) elucidates
the role of Amharic as a national Language and an African lingua franca. The follow-
ing chapter covers the Gurage dialect bundle (ch. 72). In the next section, Harari is
treated (ch. 73). Due to widespread multilingualism, phenomena of language contact
are especially salient in Ethio-Semitic. The research and its perspectives on Ethio-
Semitic–Cushitic contacts are covered by the last article (ch. 74).
1.8. Limits
Needless to say that even a book of this size cannot cover all aspects of the subject.
Chapters originally planned but unwritten for different reasons include Diachronic
Typology of Semitic Languages, Middle Aramaic in general, and Sociolinguistic aspects
of Neo-Aramaic. Apart from single chapters, three further aspects are systematically
neglected:
This volume focuses on the structure of the Semitic languages themselves, their
history and their roots in societies. Hence, there is no special section on the history of
Semitic studies. The reader is referred to the relevant chapters in the HSK volume
History of the Language Sciences (Auroux et al. [eds.] 2000⫺2006) where both the
indigenous traditions are covered (Aroux et al. [eds.] 2000⫺2006, 1⫺5, 215⫺344), as
well as the European tradition of Semitic studies since the age of Humanism (Aroux
et al. [eds.] 2000⫺2006, 673⫺680, 728⫺734, 1311⫺1325).
For similar reasons, no chapter is devoted to the writing systems of Semitic langua-
ges in this volume. Instead, the reader is referred to the HSK volume Writing and Its
Use (Günther/Ludwig [eds.] 1995⫺1996) where several aspects of written language and
writing systems of Semitic languages are covered (Günther/Ludwig [eds.] 1995⫺1996,
274⫺288, 297⫺321, 491⫺510, 525⫺536). Needless to say, information on the script of
individual languages are given where their attestation and rooting in society is covered.
Onomastics is a field that is important in Semitic studies. Names of persons, tribes
and places reveal valuable information on social, religious and linguistic history, espe-

1. Introduction 5
cially for periods and regions where other sources are scarce or missing (cf. as an
example the articles in Streck/Weninger [eds.] 2002). Nevertheless, as there is a HSK-
volume especially devoted to name studies (Eichler et al. [eds.] 1995⫺1996) that com-
prises several articles on Semitic onomastics as part of the section on the historical
development of names (Eichler et al. [eds.] 1995⫺1996, 854⫺879), the editors of the
present volume decided not to include a special section on onomastics here, the chapter
on Amorite (see ch. 19) being a necessary exception for obvious reasons.
2. Technical and formal aspects
The editors had a long discussion on the question whether they should attempt to
impose a unified transcription on the whole volume. They finally decided that it is
impossible to devise a transcription that reconciles all the necessities of synchronic
descriptions of individual Semitic languages with those of diachronic reasoning. For
example, it is communis opinio, that the Proto-Semitic source of Hebrew q (‫)ק‬, Classi-
cal Arabic q (‫)ق‬, Egyptian Arabic , Muslim Baghdadi Arabic g and Geez ḳ (ቀ) most
probably was an ejective velar stop [*ḳ] that approximately can be symbolized by IPA
k{. But is anything gained in using the etymological symbol in the attested languages?
The idea to present data of, e.g. Modern Arabic dialects in etymological writing would
be clearly inappropriate. On the other hand, the use of IPA-symbols instead of the
time-honored Semitological transcription is also problematic. IPA-symbols are meant
to represent very precise phonetic sounds. How should, e.g., Ugaritic ṣ be transcribed
in IPA, when all we know about this phoneme is that it is the product of the merger
of *ṣ, * and *? Finally the editors agreed not to impose a unified transcription, but
to leave the decision on how to transcribe the individual languages to the respective au-
thors.
The editorial responsibilities have been distributed like this: S. Weninger: Semitic
in an Afroasiatic Context (chs. 2⫺5), Typology (chs. 9⫺10), Ancient North Arabian
and Classical Arabic (chs. 44⫺47), Ethio-Semitic (chs. 65⫺74). M. P. Streck: Compara-
tive Semitic (chs. 6⫺9), Akkadian (chs. 12⫺17), and part of ancient North-West-
Semitic (chs. 18⫺21 and 27⫺30). G. Khan: North-West-Semitic (chs. 31⫺43). J. C. E.
Watson: Ancient South Arabian, Modern South Arabian, and Modern Arabic, both
standard and dialect (chs. 48⫺64).
3. References
Auroux, S. et al. (eds.)

2000⫺2006: History of the Language Sciences / Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften / Histoire
des sciences du langage: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study
of Language from the Beginnings to the Present / Ein internationales Handbuch zur
Entwicklung der Sprachforschung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart / Manuel inter-
national sur l’évolution de l’étude du langage des origines à nos jours (HSK 18.1–18.3)
Berlin–New York: de Gruyter.

6 1. Introduction
Bergsträsser, G.
1928 Einführung in die semitischen Sprachen: Sprachproben und grammatische Skizzen.
München: Hueber.
Bergsträsser, G.
1983 Introduction to the Semitic Languages. Text Specimen and Grammatical Sketches. Trans-
lated with notes and bibliography and an appendix on the scripts by P. T. Daniels.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Brockelmann, C.
1908⫺1913 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. I⫺II. Ber-
lin: Reuther.
Cohen, D. (ed.)
1988 Les langues chamito sémitiques (Les langues dans le monde ancient et modern 3) Paris:
Éd. du CNRS.
Eichler, E. et al. (eds.)
1995⫺1996 Namenforschung / Name studies / Les nomes propres: Ein internationales Hand-
buch zur Onomastik / An international Handbook of Onomastics / Manuel international
d’onomastique (HSK 11.1–11.2) Berlin–New York: de Gruyter.
Goebl, H. et al. (eds.)
1996⫺1997 Kontaktlinguistik / Contact Linguistics / Linguistique de contact: Ein internatio-
nales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung / An International Handbook of Contempo-
rary Research / Manuel international des recherches contemporaines (HSK 12.1 – 12.2)
Berlin–New York: de Gruyter.
Gnther, H. and O. Ludwig (eds.)
1995⫺1996 Schrift und Schriftlichkeit / Writing and Its Use: Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch
zur internationalen Forschung / An Interdisciplinary Handbook of International Re-
search (HSK 10.1–10.2) Berlin–New York: de Gruyter.
Haelewyck, J.-C.
2006 Grammaire comparée des langues sémitiques: Éléments de phonétique, de morphologie
et de syntaxe (Langues et cultures anciennes 7) Bruxelles: Safran.
Hetzron, R. (ed.)
1997 The Semitic Languages. London: Routledge.
Kienst, B.
2001 Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Lipiński, E.
1997 Semitic languages – Outline of a comparative grammar (Orientalia lovaniensia analecta
80) Leuven Peeters.
Moscati, S. et al.
1964 An introduction to the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages: Phonology and
Morphology (Porta Linguarum Orientalium. N.S. 6) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Stempel, R.
1999 Abriß einer historischen Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen (Nordostafrikanisch/
westasiatische Studien 3) Frankfurt: Lang.
Streck, M. P. and S. Weninger (eds.)
2002 Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 296)
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Stefan Weninger, Marburg (Germany)

Geoffrey Khan, Cambridge (England)
Michael P. Streck, Leipzig (Germany)
Janet C. E. Watson, Salford (England)

I. Semitic in an Afroasiatic Context
2. Semitic-Egyptian Relations
1. History of the research on genetic connections between Semitic and Egyptian
2. Egyptian consonantism and its Semitic correspondences
3. Egypto-Semitic nominal morphology
4. Common elements of verbal morphology
5. Egyptian numerals in Semitic
6. Egypto-Semitic inherited lexicon
7. References
Abstract
This overview summarises the regular consonantal correspondences of Egyptian and
Proto-Semitic, the innovations and divergences of each branch, and surveys the basic
common elements of morphology shared by both Egyptian and Semitic. Problems of
research on the common Egypto-Semitic lexicon are also discussed.
1. History of the research on genetic connections between Semitic

and Egyptian
Although the hieroglyphic and demotic writing systems were deciphered and the lan-
guage identified by Champollion in 1822, some elements of the relationship with the
Semitic languages had already been recognized on the basis of Coptic, which had been
familiar to European science several centuries before. The findings of the first re-
searchers in the 19th century are summarised in the works of Erman (1892), Ember
(1930), von Calice (1936), and Cohen (1947), who laid firm foundations for the study
of regular consonant correspondences. These fundamental works contain retrospective
bibliographies.
In the second half of the 20th century, the study of Egyptian linguistics failed to
keep pace with rapid developments in Afro-Asiatic linguistics and little interest was
shown in investigating the Afro-Asiatic background of Egyptian. Until the 1990s, only
three Egyptologists (Vycichl, Ward and Hodge) carried on this work.
In 1971 the outstanding Semiticist Rössler (who erroneously regarded Egyptian as
a ‘Semitic language’) proposed a significantly different interpretation of the Old Egyp-
tian phonological system and the Egypto-Semitic phonological and lexical correspond-
ences, based on controversial assumptions and an a priori selected group of disprovable
etymologies. The currently ongoing ‘Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian’ (EDE)
project has confirmed the validity of the older conception (cf. also Takács 2003; 2006,
90ff. and 2007, 5ff.). For the literature of the diverse periods of Egypto-Semitic com
parative research, cf. EDE I 1⫺8.

8 I. Semitic in an Afroasiatic Context
2. Egyptian consonantism and its Semitic correspondences

Old Egyptian had 24 consonant phonemes that are clearly reflected in the writing, to
which can be added at least *l (which had no special sign of its own). These have been
identified with relative safety both on inner and etymological grounds (cf. Vergote
1945; 1973; Edel 1955, 47⫺66; Vycichl 1990, 39⫺71).
Old Egyptian was innovative from the perspective of historical phonology. It is
already clear that several Old Egyptian consonants represent a merger of diverse
proto-phonemes of fully different origins (EDE I 271⫺272). Thus, the high diversity
of the Afro-Asiatic system of sibilants (inherited by Semitic, South Cushitic, and West
Chadic) was radically simplified in Egyptian, e.g. OEg. z < PAA *z and *ǯ (yielding
Semitic *z and *ḏ); OEg. s < PAA *c, *s, *č, *š; or OEg. š < PAA *ŝ and *ĉ. Similarly,
OEg. ḏ < PAA *g and also *c̣ , *č̣ , *ĉ̣ (Sem. *ṣ, *, *), while OEg. ḫ < PAA *ḫ, *q, *g,
*q̇ (which had merged in Semitic also). Proto-Semitic, in turn, had the ancient system
of sibilants only slightly modified (PSem. *s, *š, *ṯ, *sß < PAA *c, *s, *č, *š., while PSem.
*ṣ, *, * < PAA *c̣ , *č̣ , *ĉ̣ ). Only the Afro-Asiatic labial triad (*b, *p, *f, preserved
intact also in South Cushitic and Chadic) was better retained in Egyptian (b, p, f) than
in Semitic (where both PAA *p and *f had merged in *p). The regular correspondences
are as follows:
Tab. 2.1: Regular Egyptian-Semitic consonant correspondences
E 3 j | w b p f m n r h ḥ ḫ ẖ z s š q k g t ṯ d ḏ
g.
S r y{ | wy b p p m n r h ḥ ḫ ḥ z s ŝ1 ḳ k g t k d g
e l l γ l l ḫ ḏ š ŝ2 ṭ ṭ ṣ
m. r ṯ 
* 
Note that Eg. 3 correspond rarely also to Sem. *{ (EDE I 67⫺78), but the conditions
of this merger with the Eg. reflex of Sem. *r and *l are not clear.
There are further peculiarities of the Old Egyptian consonant system that evidently
distinguish it from that of any of the ancient (or even several modern) Semitic lan-
guages:
– Palatalization of the PAA velars (*k and *g) as OEg. ṯ and ḏ, in certain positions
(presumably conditioned by the following vowel as supposed by Diakonoff 1965,
24⫺25, fn. 11; 1988, 39, #1.4). This process had begun well before the script appeared
and was completed in the case of k > ṯ only towards the end of the Old Kingdom.
This is why the Pyramid Texts contain both non-palatalized and palatalized varieties,
e.g. OEg. kw w/> ṯw ‘you’, kb.wj w/> ṯb.wj (dual) ‘sandals’.
– Palatalization of PAA *l and *r > j [y] (presumably under the influence of the subse-
quent vowel as with *k > ṯ and *g > ḏ). This process was long-lasting, starting well
before the written period and lasting throughout the 3rd millennium B.C.
– Erosion of PAA *l and *r (under conditions not yet satisfactorily clarified) in the
first stage as a kind of voiced alveolar (or dental) vibrant or rolled sound (‘Egyptian
aleph’), which later weakened into a real aleph (glottal stop). This process was
later repeated.

2. Semitic-Egyptian Relations 9
The status and the Semitic counterparts of some of the Old Egyptian consonant
phonemes have been debated by Rössler (1971) and a minor, albeit recently active
group of his followers (the trend of the so-called ‘neuere Komparatistik’: except for
Voigt, Egyptologists), who have suggested entirely new Egypto-Semitic corresponden-
ces. The arguments and especially the methods applied in this trend’s arbitrary etymol-
ogies have, however, provoked a fierce critique, cf. 6. below.
Tab. 2.2: Radically new suggestions by Rössler
OEg. 3 jwr | f z d ḏ
PSem. *d too *g, *γ, *d, *ḏ, *b *ṭ too *ṣ, *, *|, *ḳ
*| too *z, * * too
3. Egypto-Semitic nominal morphology

Similar to Semitic and some other groups of Afro-Asiatic, the vocalism of the Old and
Middle Egyptian verbal forms was apparently apophonic. The Egyptian primary nouns
(i.e. those that were not derived from verbal roots), in turn, probably had a firm root
vowel just as in Semitic ones, whereas Egyptian derived nouns were formed according
to apophonic patterns, some of which can be detected in Semitic (as demonstrated by
Osing in his NBÄ).
Most Egyptian grammatical morphemes can be traced back to a common Afro-
Asiatic heritage, but a not insignificant number of these are not shared by Semitic.
The feminine marker was in both Semitic and Egyptian nouns the well-known com-
mon Afro-Asiatic *-t. The fossilized OEg. ending of masculine nouns -w (attested only
occasionally) has, however, evident reflexes only outside Semitic, cf., i.e. Brb. *w- w
*u- ‘prefix of nouns in status annexus’ [Djk.] ||| PCu. *-u ‘morpheme of the masc.
gender’ [Zbr. 1991, 76, #2] ||| NOm.: Kafa -ō ‘masc. noun suffix’ [Crl. 1951, xxiii, #1]
(for the AA comparison cf. also Diakonoff 1986, 47⫺48; 1988, 58). Similarly, out of
the three gender markers of the OEg. demonstrative pronoun series only two have
reliable Semitic cognates: e.g. *t- (fem.) is identical with the ending -t of fem. nouns
and *n- (pl. and non-animate) is related to PAA *-n ‘plural ending of nouns’ [Sasse]
> e.g. Sem. *-ān- > Akk. -ān-ū (nom.), -ān-ī (acc./gen.), e.g. šarr-ān-ū ‘kings’ (sg. šarr-
u) || Syr. -ān-īn, e.g. rabb-ān-īn ‘masters’ (sg. rabb-ā) || Geez -ān (masc. pl. ending), e.g.
ṣādəq ‘just’, masc. pl. ṣādəq-ān (Sem.: CGSL 88) ||| Brb. *i-...-ən ‘pl. affix’ [GT] |||
SAgaw: Awngi (dial.) -Vn ‘pl. suffix’ [Dlg.] || LECu.: Oromo pl. suffixes -w-ān,
-w-ōn(i), -ēn(i), -ān(i) [Dlg. 1991, 21] = -ān, -en, -w-an [Ali-Zbr. 1990, 10] ||| NOm.:
Kafa -i-na-ō w -e-na-ō (pl. suffix) [Crl. 1951] ||| CCh.: e.g. Logone ngun, pl. ngwan-en
w ngunn-en ‘Bauch’ [Lks. 1936, 114] (AA: Greenberg 1955, 49; Sasse 1981, 141).
In Old Egyptian too, there were three grammatical numbers. The singular had no
particular marker. Both the dual and plural morphemes have Semitic counterparts.
OEg. dual marker -j- (followed by the gender marker: masc. -w-j vs. fem. -t-j) w Sem.
*-ā (nom. case), *-ay (obl. case and full form) ‘dual ending’ [GT pace Grande 1972,
285⫺287] ||| NBrb.: Shilh *-i- dual marker, cf. məraw-i-n ‘twenty’ [Djk. 1988, 64]. OEg.
plural marker -w- (preceding the gender suffix: masc. -w < *-w-w vs. fem. -w-t) w Sem.

*-āt- < *-aw-at- (?) ‘fem. pl. ending’ [GT, cf. Grande 1972, 283⫺284] ||| PCu. *-aw w
*-wa ‘morpheme of plural’ [Zbr. 1991, 76, #5] ||| CCh.: e.g. Lame wó ‘pluralisateur’
[Scn. 1982, 297].
The system of Old Egyptian personal pronouns with all the Afro-Asiatic cognates
cannot be presented here in full (cf. recently especially Blažek 1995; also Diakonoff
1988, 70⫺79). There is a significant overlapping in the Egyptian and Semitic systems,
and examples of the common Afro-Asiatic character of these systems are presented
here.
Independent personal pronouns: OEg. jnk (the original root was *jn, to which the
personal ending -k was attached) / Cpt.: (S) anok ‘I’ ||| Sem. *{an-āku w *{an-ā/ī ‘I’
[Djk.] ||| Brb. *ənakkw ‘I’ [Prasse 1972, 179] ||| Bed. ane w aní w an ‘ich’ [Rn. 1895,
20] || ECu. *{an-i/u ‘I’ [Sasse 1982, 26] || SCu. *{an-i ‘I’ [Ehret 1980, 283] ||| NOm.: Kafa
anō ‘I’ [CR] | Maji inu ‘I’ [Bnd.] || SOm. *in-ta ‘I’ [Flm. 1976, 315] (Cu.-Om.: Dlg.
1973, 210⫺1) ||| WCh.: e.g. PRon *yin ‘I’ [GT, cf. Jng. 1970, 390].
Dependent personal pronouns: OEg. sw ‘him’ ||| Sem. *sū < *suw (?) ‘he’ [GT] = *suwa
[Djk. 1965] = *šuw- [Djk. 1988] = *šu{a [Dlg. 1990, 213] ||| Brb. *əs ‘3rd person sg.
indirect object’ [Prasse 1972, 164] ||| ECu. *{u-sū ‘he’ [Sasse 1979, 34] || SCu. *{usu ‘he’
[Ehret 1980, 295] ||| WCh.: Hausa šíí ‘he (indep.)’, cf. sá ‘him (object)’ [Abr. 1962, 808,
754] | Kulere šì ‘er (subj. Pron.)’ [Jng. 1970, 355] || CCh.: Hitkala sí ‘er, sie (sg.)’ [Lks.
1964, 109]. The fem. counterpart: OEg. sj ‘her’ ||| Sem. *iya ‘she’ [Djk. 1965] = *šiy-
[Djk. 1988] ||| ECu. *{i-šī ‘she’ [Sasse 1979, 34⫺35] || SCu. *{isi ‘she’ [Ehret 1980, 290]
||| WCh.: Mupun sét ‘3rd person fem. sg. reflexive pron.’ [Frj. 1991, 54].
Suffix pronouns: OEg. -k (2nd person masc. sg.) ||| Sem. *-ka ‘your (masc. sg.)’ [Djk.]
||| Brb. *-ak ‘2nd masc. sg. compound indirect object pron.’ [Prasse 1972, 170] ||| Bed.
(Beni Amer) -ka ‘2nd masc. sg. poss. pron.’ [Rn.] || ECu. *ka w *ku w *ki ‘your (masc.
sg.)’ [Apl. 1984, 13] || SCu. *ku ‘your (masc. sg.)’ [Ehret 1980, 245] ||| PCh. *-ka w
*-ku ‘your (masc. sg.)’ [GT].
Among the interrogative pronouns, only OEg. m ‘who? what?’ is to be explained from
a common Afro-Asiatic heritage, cf. Sem. *mī ‘1. what, 2. who?’ [GT] ||| PBrb. *mā
‘what?’ vs. *mī ‘who?’ [Prs. 1972, 216, 239] ||| Agaw *-mā (postpos. interrog. particle)
[Rn. 1884, 390] || ECu. *ma{/*mā ‘what?’ [Sasse 1982, 143, 138, 146; Lsl. 1988, 195] ||
SCu. *ma ‘which?’, *mi ‘what (kind of)?’ [Ehret 1980, 153⫺159] ||| PCh. *mV ‘who,
what?’ [Dlg. 1973, 178⫺179] = *mi/*mə ‘what?’ [Nwm. 1977, 34]. For further details
see EDE III 9⫺13. The only other Egyptian interrogative pronoun having a clear
cognate in Semitic was only preserved in Coptic (SBF) ou ‘who?’ (KHW 264). Its
Egyptian etymology has been hitherto mistakenly conceived: typically, an inner Eg.
derivation from | ‘person’ (!) has been proposed (l.c.) due to ignorance of the Afro-
Asiatic evidence. The unattested OEg. *w derives in fact from AA *{aw w *wa ‘who?’
[GT] > Bed. aû (aw) ‘who?’ [Rn. 1895: 35; Rpr. 1928, 157] || Agaw *{aw ‘who?’ [Apl.
1984, 50; 1991, 23] || ECu.: Somali āwe ‘dove?’ [Lmb. 1994, 112] ||| NOm. *ō- ‘who’
[GT] (NOm.: Lmb. 1994, 111⫺2) ||| PCh. *wa ‘who?’ [Nwm. 1977, 34]. Cf. also AA
*{ay w *ya ‘who?’ [GT]: Sem. *{ayy-u ‘welcher?’ [Zbr.] (Sem.: WUS #161) ||| ECu.
*{ay[y]- ‘who? which?’ [Sasse 1979, 46; 1982, 30] ||| Om. *ay- ‘who?’ [GT] (Om.: Flm.

1969, 321; Lmb. 1994, 112) ||| WCh.: Ngizim -yee ‘who? whom? whose?’ [Schuh 1981,
177] (AA comparison: Mukarovsky 1987, 408⫺409; Dolgopolsky 1988, 629, #3; Zabor-
ski 1989, 590, #97; Appleyard 1991, 23; Hodge 1994, 530; Starostin et al. 1995 MS, 34).
The Afro-Asiatic etymologies of some other Egyptian interrogative pronouns (e.g.
OEg. jšs.t ‘what?’, LEg. jḫ ‘what?’, OEg. ṯn ‘where?’) have not yet been thoroughly
investigated.
Non-productive distance (deictic) elements (Distanzelement) of the Egyptian de-
monstrative pronouns are also reflected in Semitic and other Afro-Asiatic branches:
(1) OEg. *-3 (closeness) preserved in |3 ‘(t)here’, p3 (m), t3 (f), n3 (pl.) ‘this’ w Sem.
*-ll-: Akk. ullū ‘jener, entfernt’ [AHW 1410] || Hbr. {ēlle(h) w {ēl ‘these’ [KB 50,
52] || Ar. {ullā-(ka) ‘ceux-ci’, ‘these’ [BK I 49] (Sem.: CGSL 111; Grande 1972,
204) ||| SCu. *la ‘there, at (a place)’, *la ‘where?’ [Ehret 1980, 202].
(2) OEg. *-f (remoteness) retained in |f ‘there’, pf(3) (m), tf(3) (f), nf(3) (pl.) ‘that’
w NWSem. *p- ‘here’ [GT]: Ug. p ‘here’ [WUS #2179], Hbr. po(h) w pō w po({)
‘1. hier, an diesem Orte, 2. hierher’ [GB 635] ||| PCu.-Om. *-pa ‘locative case end-
ing’ [Lmb. 1991, 557] ||| WCh.: Kupto fá ‘diese/-r/-s’ [Leger 1992, 18] | Pa’a fa ‘(loc.
adv.) there, here (not far)’ [MSkn. 1979, 176] || CCh.: Tera *fá- [GT], cf. fá-n ‘here’,
fá-ra ‘there’ [Nwm. 1964, 46] | Lame fí ‘(directionnel) indique un mouvement de
retour vers le point de départ’ [Scn. 1982, 290].
(3) OEg. *-n (closeness at hand) in |n ‘here’, and pn (m), tn (f), nn (pl.) ‘this’ w Sem.
*-n- ‘усилительный указательный элемент’ [Grande]: Akk. annu [< *ha-nn-]
‘that’ || Aram. -n-, cf. yawmānā ‘today’ (Sem.: Grande 1972, 204) ||| NBrb.: Shilh
*-n (remoteness), cf. γi-n ‘there’ vs. γi-d ‘here’ [Vcl.] ||| Om.: Yemsa and Ari -na
‘ ‘far’ demonstrative morpheme’ [Bnd. 1990, 678⫺679] ||| WCh.: Hausa nàn ‘this,
these (near at hand)’ [Abr. 1962, 698] | PRon *na- ‘demonstrative basis’ [GT]:
Bokkos na ‘hier(her)’, náà ‘dort’, nayí ‘dann’, Daffo-Butura nàn w nànní ‘hier’,
nǎy ‘nun, dann’ (Ron: Jng. 1970, 145, 219) || CCh.: Tera ná ‘this’ [Nwm. 1964, 46].
Ultimately cognate are PCu. *ni ‘he’ [GT] ||| SOm. *no ‘he’, *na ‘she’ [Flm. 1976,
315], etc. (Eg.-Brb.: Vycichl 1933, 171, #1; 1934, 84; AA comparison: Greenberg
1955, 50; Illič-Svityč 1976, #332; Zaborski 1984⫺1986, 505; Blažek 1989, 215;
1990, 212).
4. Common elements of verbal morphology
The Old Egyptian system is not yet fully clear. As a rule the vowels were not written,
and it is therefore difficult to discerne the apophonic patterns governing the making
of verbal forms. As in Semitic, the formation of the diverse verbal and participial stems
was affected by the class to which the underlying verbal root belonged (monoradical,
biradical, secundae geminatae, triradical, tertiae infirmae with -j or -w as 3rd consonant,
quartae infirmae, etc.).
Old Egyptian used a suffix conjugation (the so-called sḏm=f pattern and its ex-
tended varieties) for the verbs of action, where the personal endings coincided with
the possessive suffixes. In this respect, Egyptian differs radically from Semitic, Berber
or Cushitic and forms a special group with Chadic.

Both derivational morphemes of the passive voice in the Egyptian suffix conjuga-
tion have correspondences in Semitic. Thus, the OEg. passive element -tw- (w/< -tj-)
of the sḏm-tw=f pattern (and its extended varieties) might be identical with Sem. *-t-
‘refl.-pass. pre-/infix’ [CGSL 127] ||| Brb. *-ət ‘suffix of intr. and pass. verbs’ [Ajhenval’d
1987, 5⫺9] ||| PCu.-Om. *-t ‘suffix of refl., med., pass. verbs’, *tV- ‘refl. prefix’ [Dlg.
1991, 94⫺95] = *t- w *-t ‘refl.-pass. affix’ [Zbr. 1991, 78, #36] ||| CCh.: Hitkala t ‘refl.
affix’ [Stl. 1991, 364]. The Eg. marker -w- of the perfective passive sḏm-w=f form is
equivalent, for example, with Sem. *-u- ‘vowel of pass. in inner flexion’ [GT]: Hbr. -u-,
preserved in intens. act. qiṭṭēl vs. pass. quṭṭal (cf. the -o- in caus. act. hiqṭīl vs. pass.
hoqṭal) || Ar. -u-, e.g. I act. kataba vs. kutiba, II act. kattaba vs. pass. kuttiba, III act.
kātaba vs. pass. kūtiba etc. (Sem.: Grande 1972, 222) ||| NBrb.: Qabyle -u- ‘pass. marker
between the personal prefix and the stem’ [Ajh. 1987, 10] ||| WCh.: Hausa -ú ‘suffix of
pass. and refl. stems’ [Stl. 1991, 363].
Egyptian shares a special verbal paradigm with Semitic and Berber, namely the
so-called Egyptian ‘old perfect’ or ‘pseudoparticiple’ (Coptic and Berber qualitative,
Akkadian stative). This is the only exception where a peculiar set of personal endings
(entirely different from that of Eg. sḏm=f and Semitic perfective/imperfective) was
used.
Tab. 2.3: Personal pronouns common in Old Egyptian, Akkadian, Arabic, and Qabyle
Old Egyp- Old Akkadian Arabic new Qabyle

tian suffix Egyptian stative perfective qualitative
(sḏm=f) ‘old perfect’
1st sg. -j -kwj -ā-ku -tu -əγ
2nd sg. masc. -k -tj -ā-ta -ta -əḍ
2nd sg. fem. -ṯ -tj -ā-ti -ti -əḍ
3rd sg. masc. -f -w > -Ø -Ø -a -Ø
3rd sg. fem. -s -tj -at -at -at
1st pl. -n -wjn -ā-nu -na -it
2nd pl. masc. -ṯn -tjwnj -ā-tunu -tumu -it
2nd pl. fem. -ṯn -tjwnj -ā-tina -tunna -it
3rd pl. masc. -sn -w -ū -ū -it
3rd pl. fem. -sn -tj -ā -na -it
The Egyptian ‘old perfect’ (pseudo-participle, stative) and the Coptic qualitative
express a state or condition (whereby transitive verbs gain passive sense) in contrast
to the essentially dynamical suffix conjugations, which correspond to the Akkadian
stative (permansive, predicate of state).
5. Egyptian numerals in Semitic

The Egyptian numerals are clearly of Afro-Asiatic origin (for a comprehensive etymo-
logical survey see Blažek 1999, 28⫺56; cf. also Takács 1997 with additional entries),
even if sometimes these numerals are not common to all branches and out of ten, only
five have more or less reliable Semitic parallels:

(1) OEg. sn ‘two’ w Sem. *ṯin- ‘two’ [Djk. 1988, 67] ||| Brb. *sin ‘two’ [Mlt. 1991, 75]
< AA *čin- ‘two’ [Djk.] (well-known etymology with abundant literature).
(2) OEg. srs (partial reduplication from *sr?) / (later) sjs ‘six’: perhaps either an
irregular change from *sds, cf. Sem. *šidṯ- ‘six’ (as usually suggested in the litera-
ture) or perhaps cognate with NOm.: (?) Kefoid *širitt- ‘six’ [GT] (unless this is a
strongly modified Ethio-Sem. loan as usually suggested) ||| CCh.: Musgug sra w
ŝra ‘six’ [Krause] = sāra [Röder], Kada ŝírè ‘six’ [Brt.], Munjuk ŝāra [sl-] ‘six’ [Trn.
1991, 117] = ŝrà [Brt.], Mbara ŝírá [TSL 1986, 270], Vulum ŝrà [Trn.] (Musgu:
Lks. 1941, 76; Brt.-Jng. 1993, 133) | Gidar sĕrrĕ́ ‘six’ [Str. 1910, 457] = θirre w šire
[Mch. 1950, 59] (for Eg.-CCh. see Greenberg 1955, 60; 1963, 62).
(3) Eg. sfḫ ‘seven’ (incompatibility shift from *sf| </w *sb|) w Sem. *sab|-/*šab|-
‘seven’ [GT] ||| Brb. *ə-ssaḇ (?) / *ə-ssah ‘seven’ [GT] = *sāh [Blz.] ||| SOm.:
Hamer so{ba [Flm.], Karo sopbo ‘seven’ [Flm.] (SOm.: Bnd. 1994, 157) ||| CCh.:
Mofu čibe [tsch-] ‘seven’ [Str. 1922⫺1923, 122], Gwendele and Hurzo číbà ‘seven’
[Clm.] = Hurzo číḅ à [Rsg. 1978, 322, #622] || ECh.: Jegu sub w sup ‘seven’ [Jng.
1961, 107] (Eg.-AA etymology: Zyhlarz 1931, 137; Rössler 1952, 142, #66; 1966,
228; Diakonoff 1965, 47; Zavadovskij 1974, 109, #10; 1975, 49; Blažek 1990a, 31).
(4) Eg. ḫmn ‘eight’, cognate with Sem. *ṯamāniy- ‘eight’ [Blz.], may be due to an
irregular shift from *smn, influenced by the last consonant of Eg. sfḫ (somewhat
analogous to Eg. psḏ ‘nine’ vs. mḏ ‘ten’) and/or Eg. ḫmt ‘three’. The connection to
Brb. *tām w *hittām ‘eight’ [Prasse 1974, 405] is obscure.
(5) Eg. psḏ ‘nine’. Most probably, this represents a shift < *tsḏ w *tsḫ (provable, cf.
Goedicke 1955; Vycichl 1957, 71; Knudsen 1962) < *ts| (due to the incompatibility
of t/s C | in the same Eg. root, cf. EDE I 326⫺327) w Sem. *tiš(a)|- ‘nine’ [GT]
||| PBrb. *təẓah (?) ‘nine’ [GT] = *t-s-{ [Rsl. 1966, 228] = *taṣṣa{u [Rsl. 1952, 143] =
*tẓa [Zvd. 1974, 109; 1975, 49] = *tiẓāh w *tūẓah [Prs. 1974, 403, 404] ||| ECh.
*t-g-s w *g-s-t ‘nine’ [GT] (cognate or Ar. loan?): PLay *t-g-s [GT] | PSomray
*t-s (or *d-s) [GT] | (?) Mokilko gssát [Lks. 1977, 210] = géssá(t) [Jng. 1990, 101]
(ECh.: Hoffmann 1971, 9).
6. Egypto-Semitic inherited lexicon
As knowledge of the common lexicon is largely incomplete and etymological research

has been hindered by diverse and serious controversies, at present it is impossible to
estimate the relative degree of overlapping of the two branches in this respect as com-
pared to that of other Afro-Asiatic branches. In any case, the preliminary results of
both the Diakonoff group (SISAJa, HCVA) and the ‘Etymological Dictionary of Egyp-
tian’ (EDE) project suggest that the divergence of the Egyptian vs. Semitic lexicon is
surprisingly significant. The surmised closeness of Egyptian and Chadic (Diakonoff
1981; 1988, 22; 1996, 293⫺294; Takács 1998, 324; EDE I 35⫺36) should also be subject
to further investigation. In addition, etymologies for several Egyptian lexemes cannot
be sought on Afro-Asiatic grounds at all and have only distant (extra-Afro-Asiatic)
African parallels (from Nilo-Saharan, Bantu, Khoisan).
Recent decades have witnessed a regrettable confrontation of two radically opposed
conceptions on Egypto-Semitic comparative consonantism (‘old school’ vs. ‘neuere Kom-

paratistik’). The latter has been established by Rössler using a brilliant argument (based
on the incompatibility of root consonants) and a vulnerable etymological apparatus
against the traditional system. Some of his followers have recently proposed numerous
far-fetched and dilettantic alternative ‘etymologies’ in support of the theory. The alarm-
ing methods of this trend have already evolved a heavy debate and a considerable litera-
ture (for a critical appraisal of these etymologies see Ward 1985; Vycichl 1985; Osing
1997; 2000; EDE I 333⫺393; Takács 2003; 2006, 90ff. and 2007, 5ff., where so far the most
detailed discussion of the whole problem can be found). The problem cannot be dis-
cussed here but will be illustrated by the following example: Eg. |b3 ‘(ein Schiff) kom-
mandieren, leiten’ (PT, Wb I 177, 1) was compared by Rössler (1971, 286), Zeidler (1992,
206), and Kammerzell (1998, 29) with Syr. dbr ‘egit, duxit’ and Ar. dbr II ‘verwalten, gut
regieren’, which was rightly rejected by Ward (1985, 241) as ‘an excellent example of
words in different languages having an apparent relationship which is shown to be illusory
by an examination of their origins’, since (1) as pointed out already by Sethe, OEg. |b3
cannot be separated from OEg. |b3 ‘sceptre’ (i.e., who holds the sceptre he commands),
while (2) Syr. dbr and Ar. dbr II are denominal from the primary sense ‘to say’ of Sem.
*dbr (GB 153⫺154). Thus, OEg. |b3 ‘sceptre’ and Sem. *dbr ‘to say’ have nothing in com-
mon. Besides, one cannot ignore the correspondence of OEg. |b3 and OSA (Qatabanian)
|br ‘to arrange’, s1-|br ‘to command, order’ [Ricks 1982, 169].
Abbreviations of languages and related terms

AA: Afro-Asiatic (Semito-Hamitic), Akk.: Akkadian, Amh.: Amharic, Ar.: Arabic, Aram.: Ara-
maic, Bed.: Bed’awye (Beja), Brb.: Berber, C: Central, Ch.: Chadic, Cpt.: Coptic, CT: Coffin Texts,
Cu.: Cushitic, Dem.: Demotic, E: East, Eg.: Egyptian, ESA: Epigraphic South Arabian, GR: Ptole-
maic and Roman period, H: Highland (in Cushitic), Hbr.: Hebrew, Hrs.: Harsusi (in MSA), Jbl.: Jib-
bali, L: Late or Low(land), Lit.: literary texts, LP: Late Period, M: Middle, Mag.: magical texts,
Math.: mathematical papyri, Med.: medical texts, Mhr.: Mehri, MK: Middle Kingdom, MSA: Mod-
ern South Arabian, N: New, N: North, NE (or NEg.): New Egyptian, NK: New Kingdom, O: Old,
OK: Old Kingdom, Om.: Omotic, OSA: Old South Arabian, P: Proto-, PT: Pyramid Texts, S: South,
(S): Sahidic, Sem.: Semitic, Sqt.: Soqotri, Syr.: Syriac, Tna.: Tigrinya, Ug.: Ugaritic, W: West.
Abbreviations of reference works

CGSL: Moscati 1964; DELC: Vycichl 1983; EDE I: Takács 1999; EDE II: Takács 2001; EDE III:
Takács 2008; EG3: Gardiner 1957; KHW: Westendorf 1977; NBÄ: Osing 1976.
7. References
See EDE III 887⫺1010 and xxv⫺xxix, respectively for the literature of the primary sources in
brackets of the quoted linguistic forms as well as the abbreviated author names used therein.
Appleyard, D.
1991 The Vowel Systems of Agaw: Reconstruction and Historical Inferences. In: H. G. Mu-
karovsky (ed.). Proceedings of the Fifth International Hamito-Semitic Congress. Vol. II
(Wien: Afro-Pub) 13⫺28.
Blažek, V.
1989 A New Contribution to Comparative-Historical Afrasian Linguistics. Asian and African
Studies 24, 203⫺222.

Blažek, V.
1990a A Comparative-Etymological Approach to Afrasian Numerals. In: H.G. Mukarovsky
(ed.). Proceedings of the Fifth International Hamito-Semitic Congress. Vol. I (Wien:
Afro-Pub) 29⫺44.
Blažek, V.
1990b Lexica Nostratica. Addenda et Corrigenda II. Archív Orientální 58, 205⫺218.
Blažek, V.
1995 The Microsystem of Personal Pronouns in Chadic, Compared with Afroasiatic. In: Ibris-
zimow, D. & R. Leger (edd.). Studia Chadica et Hamitosemitica (Köln: Rüdiger Köppe
Verlag) 36⫺57.
Blažek, V.
1999 Numerals. Comparative-Etymological Analyses and Their Implications. Brno: Masary-
kova Univerzita v Brně.
Calice, F.
1936 Grundlagen der ägyptisch-semitischen Wortvergleichung. Wien: Selbstverlag des Orien-
talischen Institutes der Universität Wien.
Cohen, M.
1947 Essai comparatif sur le vocabulaire et la phonétique du chamito-sémitique. Paris: Librai-
rie Ancienne Honore Champion.
D’jakonov, I. M.
1965 Semitohamitskie jazyki. Opyt klassifikacii. Moskva: Nauka.
Diakonoff, I. M.
1981 Earliest Semites in Asia. Agriculture and Animal Husbandry According to Linguistic
Data (VIIIth⫺IVth Millennia B.C.). Altorientalische Forschungen 8, 23⫺74.
D’jakonov, I. M.
1986 Obščeafrazijskie imennye kategorii. In: Pis’mennye pamjatniki i problemy istorii
kul’tury narodov Vostoka. XIX godičnaja naučnaja sessija LO IV AN SSSR (Moskva:
Nauka) 47⫺62.
Diakonoff, I. M.
1988 Afrasian Languages. Moscow: Nauka.
Diakonoff, I. M.
1996 Some Reflections on the Afrasian Linguistic Macrofamily. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 55(4), 293⫺294.
Dolgopolsky, A.
1988 Semitic and East Cushitic: Word-Initial Laryngeals. In: B. Taddese (ed.): Proceedings
of the Eighth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, University of Addis Ababa,
1984. Volume 1 (Addis Ababa: Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa) 629⫺637.
Edel, E.
1955 Altägyptische Grammatik. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
Ember, A.
1930 Egypto-Semitic Studies. Leipzig: The Alexander Cohut Memorial Foundation.
Erman, A.
1892 Das Verhältnis des Ägyptischen zu den semitischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 46, 93⫺129.
Gardiner, A. H.
1957 Egyptian Grammar.3 London: Oxford University Press (abbr.: EG3).
Goedicke, H.
1955 Alternation of ḫ and ḏ in Egyptian. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 80, 32⫺34.
Grande, B. M.
1972 Vvedenie v sravnitel’noe izučenie semitskih jazykov. Moskva: Nauka.
Greenberg, J. H.
1955 Studies in African linguistic Classification. Branford, Connecticut: Compass Publishing
Company.

Greenberg, J. H.
1963 The Languages of Africa. International Journal of American Linguistics 29.
Hodge, C. T.
1994 Some Proto Affixes. In: V. Becker-Makkai (ed.). The Twentieth LACUS Forum 1993
(Chapel Hill: publisher not indicated) 526⫺536.
Illič-Svityč, V. M.
1976 Opyt sravnenija nostratičeskih jazykov (semitohamitskij, kartvel’skij, indoevropejskij,
ural’skij, dravidijskij, altajskij). Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ (l-ž). Ukazateli. Moskva: Nauka.
Kammerzell, F.
1998 The Sounds of a Dead Language. Reconstructing Egyptian Phonology. Göttinger Bei-
träge zur Sprachwissenschaft 1, 21⫺41.
Knudsen, E. E.
1962 Der Wechsel ḫ:ḏ im Ägyptischen. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 88, 33⫺36.
Militarev, A. Ju.
1984 Jazyk meroitskoj épigrafiki kak istoričeskij istočnik v svete ego genezisa. Vestnik Drev-
nej Istorii 2, 153⫺170.
Moscati, S.; Spitaler, A.; Ullendorf, E.; Soden, W. von
1964 An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Phonology and
Morphology.2 Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz (abbr.: CGSL).
Mukarovsky, H. G.
1987: Mande-Chadic Common Stock. A Study of Phonological and Lexical Evidence. Wien:
Afro-Pub.
Osing, J.
1976 Die Nominalbildung des Ägyptischen. I⫺II. Maiz/Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern
(abbr.: NBÄ).
Osing, J.
1997 Zum Lautwert von 3 und |. Studien zum Altägyptischen Kultur 24, 223⫺229.
Osing, J.
2000 Zum Lautwert von [ḏ] und [d]. Lingua Aegyptia 9, 165⫺178.
Rössler, O.
1952 Der semitische Charakter der libyschen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 50, 121⫺150.
Rössler, O.
1966 Das ältere ägyptische Umschreibungssystem für Fremdnamen und seine sprachwissen-
schaftliche Lernen. In: J. Lukas (ed.). Neue afrikanistische Studien (Hamburg: Deut-
sches Institut für Afrika-Forschung) 218⫺229.
Rössler, O.
1971 Das Ägyptische als semitische Sprache. In: F. Altheim & R. Stiehl (edd.). Christentum
am Roten Meer. Band I (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter) 263⫺325.
Sasse, H.-J.
1981 Afroasiatisch. In: Th. Schadeberg (ed.). Die Sprachen Afrikas. Band 2. Afroasiatisch
(Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag) 129⫺148.
Starostin, S. A.; Dybo, V. A.; Dybo, A. V.; Helimsky, E. A.; Militarev, A. Ju.; Mudrak, O. A.;
Starostin, G. S.
1995 Basic Nostratic-Afrasian-Sino-Caucasian Lexical Correspondences. Preliminary working
version. MS. Moscow.
Takács, G.
1994 Some Notes on the History of Egyptian mǯ “Ten”. Folia Orientalia 30, 217⫺218.
Takács, G.
1996 Aegyptio-Afroasiatica V. Discussions in Egyptology 36, 39⫺44.
Takács, G.
1996 Towards the Etymology of Egyptian mḏ “Ten”. Acta Orientalia Acadaemiae Scienti-
arum Hungariae 49(3), 441⫺448.

Takács, G.
1997 Afrasian Numerals in Egyptian and Egyptian Numerals in Afrasian. Lingua Aegyptia
5, 211⫺222.
Takács, G.
1999a Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Volume One: A Phonological Introduction. Lei-
den: E. J. Brill (abbr.: EDE I).
Takács, G.
1999b Development of Afro-Asiatic (Semito-Hamitic) Comparative-Historical Linguistics in
Russia and the Former Soviet Union. München, Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
Takács, G.
1998 Egyiptomi. In: I. Fodor (ed.): A világ nyelvei (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó) 315⫺325.
Takács, G.
2001 Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Volume Two: b-, p-, f-. Leiden: E. J. Brill (abbr.
EDE II).
Takács, G.
2003 Questions of Egyptian and Afro-Asiatic Comparison. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 56(1),
59⫺132.
Takács, G.
2006 Otto Rössler’s New System of Egypto-Semitic Consonant Correspondences. Part One.
Rocznik Orientalistyczny 59(2), 90⫺127.
Takács, G.
2007 Otto Rössler’s New System of Egypto-Semitic Consonant Correspondences. Part Two.
Rocznik Orientalistyczny 60(1), 5⫺43.
Takács, G.
2008 Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Volume Three: m-. Leiden: E. J. Brill (abbr.
EDE III).
Vergote, J.
1945 Phonétique historique de l’égyptien. Paris: Le Muséon.
Vergote, J.
1973 Grammaire copte: introduction, phonétique et phonologie, morphologie synthématique
(structure des sémantèmes). Tome Ia: partie synchronique. Ib: partie diachronique. Lou-
vain: Peeters.
Vycichl, W.
1933 Aigyptiaka. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Hamitosemitistik. Wiener Zeitschrift für die
Kunde des Morgenlandes 40, 171⫺180.
Vycichl, W.
1934 Hausa und Ägyptisch. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Hamitistik. Mitteilungen des Semi-
nars für Orientalische Sprachen an der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin 37,
36⫺116.
Vycichl, W.
1957 Über den Wechsel der Laute ḫ und ğ im Ägyptischen. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache
82, 71⫺73.
Vycichl, W.
1983 Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte. Leuven: Peeters (abbr.: DELC).
Vycichl, W.
1985 Das Zeichen für d “Hand” in der Hieroglyphenschrift und die semitischen Entsprechun-
gen des zugrunde liegende Etymons. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 112, 169⫺179.
Vycichl, W.
1990 La vocalisation de la langue égyptienne. Tome I er. La phonétique. Le Caire: Institut
Français d'Archéologie Orientale.
Ward, W. A.
1985 Reflections on Methodology in Egypto-Semitic Lexicography. In: J. N. Tubb (ed.). Pales-
tine and the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell (London: Institute
of Archaeology) 232⫺248.

Westendorf, W.
1977 Koptisches Handwörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag (abbr.: KHW).
Zaborski, A.
1984⫺86: A Note on Cushitic Demonstrative Pronouns. Orientalia Suecana 33⫺35, 505⫺511.
Zaborski, A.
1989 Der Wortschatz der Bedscha-Sprache. Eine vergleichende Analyse. In: E. von Schuler
(ed.). XXIII. Deutscher Orientalistentag, vom 16. bis 20. September 1985 in Würzburg.
Ausgewählte Vorträge (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag) 573⫺591.
Zavadovskij, Ju. N.
1974 Les noms de nombre berbères a la lumière des études comparées chamito-sémitiques.
In: A. Caquot & D. Cohen (edd.): Actes du premier congrès international de linguis-
tique sémitique et chamito-sémitique (Paris: Mouton) 102⫺112.
Zavadovskij, Ju. N.
1975 Problema berberskih čislitel’nyh v svete sravnitel’nogo semito-hamitskogo jazykozna-
nija. In: Drevnij Vostok. Sbornik 1. K semidesjatiletiju akademika M. A. Korostovceva
(Moskva: Nauka) 42⫺51.
Zeidler, J.
1992 Altägyptisch und Hamitosemitisch. Bemerkungen zu den Vergleichenden Studien von
Karel Petráček. Lingua Aegyptia 2, 189⫺222.
Zyhlarz, E.
1931 Die ägyptisch-hamitische Dekade. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 67, 133⫺139.
Gábor Takács, Budapest (Hungary)
3. Semitic-Berber Relations
1. Berber and Hamito-Semitic (Afro-Asiatic)
2. Phonetics
3. Grammar
4. Some peculiar isoglosses
5. References
Abstract
This chapter examines the genetic relationships linking Semitic and the Libyco-Berber
branch of the Hamito-Semitic family, and considers some of the main isoglosses shared
by Berber and Semitic languages.

The languages and dialects of Libyco-Berber are spoken west of the Nile in North
Africa. First attested in ancient times (the oldest inscriptions in a native alphabet date

Westendorf, W.
1977 Koptisches Handwörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag (abbr.: KHW).
Zaborski, A.
1984⫺86: A Note on Cushitic Demonstrative Pronouns. Orientalia Suecana 33⫺35, 505⫺511.
Zaborski, A.
1989 Der Wortschatz der Bedscha-Sprache. Eine vergleichende Analyse. In: E. von Schuler
(ed.). XXIII. Deutscher Orientalistentag, vom 16. bis 20. September 1985 in Würzburg.
Ausgewählte Vorträge (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag) 573⫺591.
Zavadovskij, Ju. N.
1974 Les noms de nombre berbères a la lumière des études comparées chamito-sémitiques.
In: A. Caquot & D. Cohen (edd.): Actes du premier congrès international de linguis-
tique sémitique et chamito-sémitique (Paris: Mouton) 102⫺112.
Zavadovskij, Ju. N.
1975 Problema berberskih čislitel’nyh v svete sravnitel’nogo semito-hamitskogo jazykozna-
nija. In: Drevnij Vostok. Sbornik 1. K semidesjatiletiju akademika M. A. Korostovceva
(Moskva: Nauka) 42⫺51.
Zeidler, J.
1992 Altägyptisch und Hamitosemitisch. Bemerkungen zu den Vergleichenden Studien von
Karel Petráček. Lingua Aegyptia 2, 189⫺222.
Zyhlarz, E.
1931 Die ägyptisch-hamitische Dekade. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 67, 133⫺139.
Gábor Takács, Budapest (Hungary)
3. Semitic-Berber Relations
2. Phonetics
3. Grammar
5. References
Abstract
This chapter examines the genetic relationships linking Semitic and the Libyco-Berber
branch of the Hamito-Semitic family, and considers some of the main isoglosses shared
by Berber and Semitic languages.

The languages and dialects of Libyco-Berber are spoken west of the Nile in North
Africa. First attested in ancient times (the oldest inscriptions in a native alphabet date

3. Semitic-Berber Relations 19
to the second half of the first millennium B.C.E.), the epigraphic data provide scant
linguistic evidence, so that linguistic comparison usually takes into account only the
modern Berber languages.
The classification of Berber as a branch of the Hamito-Semitic (Afro-Asiatic) lin-
guistic family is now undisputed (Chaker 1995; Galand 2010, 11). A number of linguis-
tic features are recognised in common with other branches, most notably with lan-
guages of the Semitic group. Although ties with Semitic are conspicuous, it is not easy
to determine the linguistic layer to which these belong. Berber has existed in close
contact with Semitic languages for millennia (Punic in antiquity and Arabic since the
7th century C.E.), and features in common with Semitic derive not only from a shared
Hamito-Semitic heritage, but also from extended and intense contact with the Se-
mitic world.
Isoglosses shared with Semitic were noted in the first essays exploring the linguistic
affiliation of Berber. In the mid-19th century, De Slane (1856, 524) highlighted a num-
ber of ‘points de ressemblance’, most of which are still commonly cited: 1) triliteral
roots; 2) similar personal markers in verb conjugations; 3) secondary stems derived
through affixation; 4) gender distinction in 2nd and 3rd person verb inflections;
5) affixed pronouns different from independent pronouns; 6) alternation of vowels and
semivowels in ‘weak’ roots; 7) verbs marking aspect rather than tense (‘les temps du
verbe manquent de précision’); 8) existence of ‘broken’ plurals; 9) similar word order.
De Slane also noted features unique to Berber: 1) vocabulary; 2) the existence of a set
of pronouns affixed to verbs, marking the indirect object; 3) place of clitics, which may
be both prefixed and suffixed.
Well into the modern period, most research was limited to the recognition of ties
with Semitic alone, even though most of the features taken into consideration belong
to the common Hamito-Semitic heritage. The existence of ancient legends ascribing
the origins of the indigenous peoples of North Africa to the Canaanites (a claim re-
ported since Augustine’s time) or to Yemenite populations (reported by Arabic authors
including Ibn Khaldun) may be partially responsible. The focus on Semitic alone has
also been a consequence of evolving definitions of the Hamito-Semitic macro-family,
an entity which has been more difficult to define than Semitic. One of the last studies
with this perspective, a disputed article by O. Rößler (1952), is rather an argument
against the concept of ‘Hamitic’ as a homogeneous branch of Hamito-Semitic than a
real attempt to integrate Berber into the Semitic family.
1.1. Berber and Semitic: General Overview
The most systematic contribution to the question of the degree of closeness between
Berber and Semitic is an article by L. Galand (1973). Taking a list of 26 features
considered by D. Cohen as typical for Semitic languages, Galand compared these with
Berber. The result was 10 features shared by modern Berber, 10 possibly shared by
ancient stages of the language and 6 features not shared.
As is often the case within Hamito-Semitic, the greatest differences lie in the verbal
morphology. Semitic displays an opposition between suffixal and prefixal conjugations
(features #16; #20 [?] and #21 [?] are connected), while all Berber tenses (usually)
display the same series of affixes, which may be prefixed or suffixed, and sometimes

both. Setting to one side a questionable feature (#22: the existence of a double series
of pronouns), the last points of difference (features #23 and #24) are concerned with
the aspect of some independent pronouns, in which Semitic probably innovated beyond
Hamito-Semitic.
The altogether small differences resulting from this structural analysis do not in-
clude the matter of lexicon, which, on the contrary, sharply distinguishes Berber and
Semitic. The Semitic languages share a wide, easily recognizable common lexicon and
the differences are usually explained in terms of regular phonetic ‘laws’. In contrast,
the Berber lexicon ⫺ also very compact ⫺ is much more difficult to compare, as pho-
netic correspondences are not easily established.
Although details are disputed, it is commonly accepted that structural isoglosses
and lexicostatistics show a higher degree of convergence between Semitic and Libyco-
Berber than with any other branch of the Hamito-Semitic family. The relationship is
depicted by Lipiński’s Proto-Afro-Asiatic tree in which Libyco-Berber represents the
last branch split from Semitic (2001, 42), with a period of independent development
of both branches of approximately 5500 years (2001, 48).
2. Phonetics
The common Afro-Asiatic heritage is reflected in similar phonological systems, al-

though some differences have developed in the separate evolution of both branches.
Despite the similarity of both sound systems, phonetic comparison between Berber
and Semitic is complicated by difficulties in establishing regular phonetic correspond-
ences in cognate lexemes. For example, the reconstruction of the numerals Berber sin
‘2’ and tam ‘3’, and Semitic ṯin-ānī and ṯamānī, show two different sounds, s and t,
corresponding to Proto-Semitic *ṯ.
2.1. Consonants
The most noticeable feature shared by Berber and Semitic is the existence of a set of
‘emphatic’ consonants along with the non-emphatic voiced and voiceless series. In
modern Berber, emphatics are uvularized and often divided into a voiced and a voice-
less set, although this appears to be an innovation due to contact with Arabic. Like
Proto-Semitic, the original Berber system had but one series of emphatics (now repre-
sented by ḍ/ṭṭ, ẓ/ẓẓ, γ/qq with voiceless geminated stops), which supports a hypothesis
that the articulation could also be different (Dolgopolski 1999a, 30; 2005).
Most back consonants such as pharyngeals and laryngeals are lacking in Berber, a
striking point of difference with Semitic, in which these are typical sounds. However,
the internal reconstruction based on the analysis of some verbal paradigms suggests
an ancient stage of the language in which ‘weak’ sounds were dropped, triggering
phonetic modifications. Prasse (1972, 105ff.; 1973, 96ff.) marks these sounds as *h,
while Vycichl (2005, 68⫺71) speaks of unknown ‘laryngeals’ and marks them with
*X. Recent studies on Zenaga, a peripheral Berber dialect (Mauritania), revealed the

preservation of two laryngeals, voiceless { and voiced h (Taine-Cheikh 1999 and 2004;
Kossmann 2001a).
The spirantisation of non-emphatic plosives in several Northern Berber dialects is
an interesting phenomenon. The situation in Djerba (Tunisia) is similar to that of the
NW Semitic begadkephat (Vycichl 1975), but the time and the circumstances of this
shift are still uncertain.
2.2. Vowels
The original vocalic systems of Berber and Semitic seem almost identical. Prasse (1972,
77ff.) reconstructs a proto-Berber system with 2 quantities and 3 qualities (a, i, u - ā,
ī, ū), just as in Semitic. According to this reconstruction, the lack of vowel quantity in
most Berber languages derives from the preservation of former long vowels as ‘full
vowels’ and the reduction of short vowels to ă (< a) and ə (< i, u) in Tuareg, and simply
ə/Ø (< a, i, u), the so-called ‘zero vowel’, elsewhere. A parallel phenomenon to this
vowel reduction is observed in the North African Arabic dialects (D. Cohen 1970;
Durand 1996). Significantly, Zenaga did not undergo the same process and preserved
short a, i and u (Kossmann 2001b, 92), thus confirming the validity of this reconstruc-
tion. Some Berber dialects, namely Kabyle (Algeria) and Siwi (Egypt), show a strong
tendency towards a spontaneous nasalisation of final vowels (Vycichl 2005, 186), recall-
ing the archaic stages of Semitic preceding the grammaticalization of nunation and mi-
mation.
3. Grammar
The most obvious correspondences between Semitic and Berber are the wide use of
apophony, and the existence of two genders.
3.1. Apophony
The morphological systems of both Semitic and Berber are based on a combination of
roots and schemes. Vowels are mostly used as morphological elements, while conso-
nants bear the lexical meaning of roots, with a small set of consonants (usually nasals,
semivowels plus s and t) sharing both functions. It is therefore noteworthy that Berber
widely uses apophony in nouns (‘broken plurals’), and not only in verbs, which is
consistent with South Semitic, while apophonic plurals are hardly found in the rest of
Semitic (Lipiński 2001, 251⫺251).
3.2. Gender
The division of nouns into two classes governing agreement with verbs, pronouns and
adjectives is a typical Afro-Asiatic feature. The feminine is usually marked by t in

contrast with Ø marking of the masculine. A feature affecting almost all Berber nouns
is the double marking of gender at the beginning and at the end of the word as a
consequence of the incorporation of an ancient gendered ‘article’ (ta-mġar-t ‘an old
woman’ vs. a-mġar ‘an old man’).
3.3. Verb
Unlike Semitic, the Berber verbal system does not display an opposition between suf-
fixal and prefixal conjugations and instead all tenses have the same set of personal
markers (prefixes, suffixes, and circumfixes). Although there have been many attempts
to reconstruct ancient stages similar to that of Proto-Semitic, also taking into account
a peculiar class of ‘quality verbs’ in Berber (midway between verbs and adjectives)
which display a rudimentary suffixal conjugation similar to the Akkadian permansive,
the results of such investigations are far from definitive (see, among others, Prasse
1973; Taine-Cheikh 2003; Vycichl 1952a and 2005, 106⫺120).
Despite the remarkable difference in the conjugations, the threefold scheme of Ber-
ber tenses and its similarities to that of Akkadian and Ethiopian, has attracted the
interest of many scholars. In fact, the Berber verb displays three basic forms: two are
marked as perfective vs. imperfective, and a third is unmarked as far as aspect is con-
cerned (the ‘aorist’). The themes of perfective and aorist are usually different. The
imperfective clearly derives from the aorist (usually by consonantal reduplication or
by a t(t)- prefix) and is also called ‘intensive aorist’ (or ‘habitudo’). Accordingly, it is
commonly accepted that an archaic opposition between perfective and aorist (which
perhaps once had an imperfective meaning) was replaced by another when a new tense,
formerly a derived stem, replaced the aorist, which consequently went on to be used
in other secondary uses.
3.4. Ergativity
Some recent claims (among others, in Lipiński 2001, 35, 261), that the nominal prefixes
affecting two ‘states’ of Berber nouns are relics of an ergative phase, are unfounded,
as this phenomenon arose within Berber itself at a period when a sort of ‘article’ was
integrated into the noun (Brugnatelli 1997, 2006; Galand 2010, 130ff.). An interesting
feature which may be considered with reference to this subject is the Berber category
of ‘reversible verbs’ having an intransitive (‘passive’) or transitive (‘active’) meaning
in accordance to the number of arguments. For example, the verbal form yebna means
‘was built’ if it occurs with only one argument, as in yebna wexxam ‘was built ⫺ the
house’, while the same verbal form means ‘has built’ when it occurs with two argu-
ments, as in yebna wergaz axxam ‘has built ⫺ the man ⫺ the house’ (cf., among others,
Aikhenvald 1995; Satzinger 2005 and Galand 2010, 294).

There is neither sufficient space nor reason to examine here all comparable features
of Berber and Semitic. The following list of isoglosses, far from comprehensive, is

intended to draw attention to some interesting features deriving either from areal phe-
nomena which developed after the common Afro-Asiatic phase, or which show parallel
developments of tendencies common to the Afro-Asiatic family.
4.1. Shift *p > f
A noticeable phonological feature is the lack of a voiceless bilabial stop *[p], replaced
by a labio-dental fricative [f]. Within Semitic, this phenomenon is an isogloss typical
of Southern Semitic (Arabic, modern and ancient South Arabian, Ethiopian). However
it should be noted that, unlike the South Semitic shift, already complete before the
first contacts with Romans and Greeks (Lipiński 2001, 115), the period in which the
shift *p > f occurred in Berber is still in dispute. The shift may have taken place in
historical times, as transcriptions in Latin and Greek of Berber words and names often
contain <p>; however the modern reflexes of Latin loanwords containing p are incon-
sistent. For example, two borrowings tracing back to Christian times show different
reflexes of p: peccatum > (a)bekkaḍu ‘sin’ but pascha > (ta)faska ‘religious feast’.
4.2. Loss of morphological t
Like many other Afro-Asiatic languages, Berber and Semitic share a tendency to pho-
netically reduce this plosive sound in morphology (Brugnatelli 1994).
This general phenomenon is widespread in both nouns and pronouns. Moreover, it
is worth noting that striking correspondences exist between Berber and modern South
Arabian concerning the loss of t- prefixes in ‘hollow’ verbs and in some derived forms,
even if these phenomena should be regarded as a common tendency rather than as an
inheritance from a common stage (Johnstone 1968 and 1975, 19; Brugnatelli 1994, 6⫺7;
Voigt 2006).
4.3. Dissimilation of m- initial
All Berber languages show a dissimilation of m- > n- as a prefix of roots containing a

labial sound (nəfrən ‘to be chosen’; ănâlkam ‘he who follows’: Prasse 1972, 55). Rößler
(1952, 128) has noted the peculiarity of this phenomenon, which appears to be ancient
and is also shared by Akkadian and, sporadically, Aramaic (Lipiński 2001, 118). The
feature appears to be long-lived, and may also be observed in recent loanwords as
aneslem ‘muslim’ < Arabic muslim.
4.4. Adjectives
Although Berber appears to be devoid of a true class of adjectives (‘quality verbs’ are
used instead), it is worth noting that some procedures of deriving ‘denotative’ elements
through affixes are also shared with Semitic (nisba and suffix -ān) (Vycichl 1952b;
Pennacchietti 1974).

4.5. Causatives
In both Berber and Semitic derived verbal forms are created through affixation, in
particular causatives in s- (Lipiński 2001, 395). Significantly, the Berber causative shows
the reflexes of an ancient i-vocalism, which coincides with the ancient NW Semitic
vocalism: Amarna hifil, Phoenician/Punic yifil/’ifil, Hebrew hifil (possibly also Ara-
maic: Brugnatelli 1985).
4.6. Syntax of kinship terms
Berber kinship terms usually contain, even implicitly, a personal possessive (yemma
without affixes means ‘my mother’ not simply ‘mother’), which seems superfluous
when the kinship term refers to a noun (yemma-s n Muḥend ‘M.’s mother’, lit. ‘his-
mother, of M.’). Similar phenomena have been detected in Ebla (J. Krecher 1984, 145⫺6)
and in Khamtanga, a Cushitic language (Appleyard 1987, 261). It is not clear whether
this is a relic of an archaic common feature or just a parallel development, as the
phenomenon is also shared by many languages of different linguistic families (Brugna-
telli 1991).
4.7. Two sets of pronouns affixed to verbs
In Berber, there are two sets of pronouns affixed to verbs: a ‘direct’ series, showing a
typical consonant t in the third person, and an ‘indirect’ series, marked by the conso-
nant s: eml-as-t ‘show (eml) it (t) to him (as)’. This closely resembles the distribution
of demonstratives in Akkadian, where two sets exist: the ‘direct’ series ending in -āti
and the ‘indirect’ series ending in -āši. (Brugnatelli 1994, 8; Dolgopolsky 1999b gathers
some data on -t accusative in Semitic and Cushitic but omits the obvious parallel with
Berber). The order of the affixes is also the same, with the indirect object preceding the
direct object. For example, Akkadian *aṭrud.am-kum-šu ‘I-sent to-you it’ and Berber
(Tuareg) nəg-assăn-tu ‘we-did to-them it’.
5. References
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
1995 Split Ergativity in Berber Languages. St. Petersburg Journal of African Studies 4, 39⫺68.
Appleyard, D. L.
1987 A Grammatical Sketch of Khamtanga ⫺ I. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and Aftican
Studies 50.2, 242⫺266.
Brugnatelli, V.
1985 Osservazioni sul causativo in aramaico e in semitico nord-occidentale. Atti del Sodalizio
Glottologico Milanese 25, 41⫺50.
Brugnatelli, V.
1991 I nomi di parentela a Ebla. Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese 29, 51⫺61.

Brugnatelli, V.
1994 Sulla caduta di t morfologico in camito-semitico, Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Mila-
nese 33⫺34, 4⫺12.
Brugnatelli, V.
1997 L’état d’annexion en diachronie. In: A. Bausi, M. Tosco (eds.). Afroasiatica Neapolitana.
Contributi presentati all’8° Incontro di Linguistica Afroasiatica (Camito-Semitica) ⫺ Na-
poli 25⫺26 Gennaio 1996 (Napoli: Ist. Univ. Orientale) 139⫺150.
Brugnatelli, V.
2006 L’ancien “article” et quelques phénomènes phonétiques en berbère. In: D. Ibriszimow,
R. Vossen, H. Stroomer (eds.). Etudes berbères III. Le nom, le pronom et autres articles.
Actes du “3. Bayreuth-Frankfurter Kolloquium zur Berberologie, 1⫺3 juillet 2004”
(Köln: Köppe) 55⫺70.
Chaker, S.
1995 La parenté chamito-sémitique du berbère: un faisceau d’indices convergents. In: S.
Chaker. Linguistique berbère. Études de syntaxe et de diachronie (Paris⫺Louvain: Pee-
ters) 219⫺245.
Cohen, D.
1970 Le système des voyelles brèves dans les dialectes maghribins. In: Études de linguistique
sémitique et arabe (La Haye⫺Paris: Mouton) 172⫺178.
De Slane, W. M.
1856 Notes sur la langue, la littérature et les origines du peuple berbère, Appendix of: His-
toire des Berbères et des dynasties musulmanes de l’Afrique septentrionale par Ibn Khal-
doun, tome 4ème (Alger: Imprimerie du Gouvernement) 489⫺584.
Dolgopolsky, A.
1999a From Proto-Semitic to Hebrew. Phonology. Etymolgical approach in a Hamito-Semitic
perspective. Milano: Centro Studi Camito-Semitici.
Dolgopolsky, A.
1999b On the Origin of the Hebrew Nota Accusativi {et ~ {iṯ and the t-Accusative in Akka-
dian, Agaw and Saho. In: M. Lamberti & L. Tonelli (eds.). Afroasiatica Tergestina.
Papers from the 9 th Italian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) Linguistics. Trieste,
April 23⫺24, 1998 (Padova: Unipress) 43⫺46.
Dolgopolsky, A.
2005 Emphatic and Plain Voiceless Consonants in Hamito-Semitic in the light of Internal and
External Comparative Evidence. In: P. Fronzaroli & P. Marrassini (eds.). Proceedings of
the 10 th Meeting of Hamito-Semitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics (Florence, 18⫺20 april
2001). (Firenze: Dip. di Linguistica-Università di Firenze) 29⫺34.
Durand, O.
1996 Le vocalisme bref et la question de l’accent tonique en arabe marocain et berbère.
Rivista degli Studi Orientali 69, 11⫺31.
Galand, L.
1973 Berbère et “traits sémitiques communs”. Comptes Rendus du GLECS 17⫺23, III
463⫺478.
Galand, L.
2010 Regards sur le berbère. Milano: Centro Studi Camito-Semitici.
Johnstone, T. M.
1968 The non-occurrence of a t- prefix in certain Socotri verbal forms. BSOAS 31, 515⫺525.
Johnstone, T. M.
1975 The Modern South Arabian Languages. Malibu: Undena Publications.
Kossmann, M.
2001a The Origin of the Glottal Stop in Zenaga and its Reflexes in the other Berber Lan-
guages. Afrika und Übersee 84, 61⫺100.

Kossmann, M.
2001b L’origine du vocalisme en zénaga de Mauritanie. In: D. Ibriszimow and R. Vossen (eds.).
Etudes berbères. Actes du “1. Bayreuth-Frankfurter Kolloquium zur Berberologie”
(Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter 13. Köln: Köppe) 83⫺95.
Krecher, J.
1984 Sumerische und nichtsumerische Schicht in der Schriftkultur von Ebla. In: L. Cagni
(ed.). Il bilinguismo a Ebla (Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale) 139⫺166.
Lipiński, E.
2001² Semitic Languages. Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Leuven: Peeters.
Pennacchietti, F. A.
1974 La classe degli aggettivi denotativi nelle lingue semitiche e nelle lingue berbere. In: A.
Caquot and D. Cohen (eds.). Actes du 1er congrès international de linguistique sémitique
et chamito-sémitique, Paris, 16⫺19 juillet 1969 (The Hague⫺Paris: Mouton ) 30⫺39.
Prasse, K.-G.
1972 Manuel de grammaire touarègue (tahaggart). I⫺III Phonétique ⫺ Ecriture ⫺ Pronom.
Copenhague: Éditions de l’Université.
Prasse, K.-G.
1973 Manuel de grammaire touarègue (tahaggart). VI⫺VII Verbe. Copenhague: Éditions de
l’Université.
Rößler, O.
1952 Der semitische Charakter der libyschen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 50, 121⫺
150.
Satzinger, H.
2005 On the Assumed Ergativity of the Berber Language(s). In: P. Fronzaroli and P. Marras-
sini (eds.). Proceedings of the 10 th Meeting of Hamito-Semitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics
(Florence, 18⫺20 april 2001) (Firenze: Dip. di Linguistica-Università di Firenze) 381⫺
389.
Taine-Cheikh, C.
1999 Le zénaga de Maurétanie à la lumière du berbère commun. In: M. Lamberti and L.
Tonelli (eds.). Afroasiatica Tergestina. Papers from the 9 th Italian Meeting of Afro-Asi-
atic (Hamito-Semitic) Linguistics. Trieste, April 23⫺24, 1998 (Padova: Unipress) 299⫺
324.
Taine-Cheikh, C.
2003 L’adjectif et la conjugaison suffixale en berbère. In: J. Lentin & A. Lonnet (eds.). Mé-
langes David Cohen. Études sur le langage, les langues, les dialectes, les littératures, offerts
par ses élèves, ses collègues, ses amis (Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose) 661⫺674.
Taine-Cheikh, C.
2004 Les verbes à finale laryngale en zénaga. In: K. Nait-Zerrad, R. Vossen and D. Ibriszi-
mow (eds.). Nouvelles études berbères. Le verbe et autres articles. Actes du “2. Bayreuth-
Frankfurter Kolloquium zur Berberologie” (Köln: Köppe) 171⫺190.
Voigt, R.
2006 Zum Verlust der personalen Elemente in den Präfixkonjugationen des Neusüdarabi-
schen. In: P. G. Borbone, A. Mengozzi, M. Tosco (eds.). Loquentes Linguis. Studi lin-
guistici e orientali in onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz)
717⫺731.
Vycichl, W.
1952a Das berberische Perfekt, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 27, 74⫺80.
Vycichl, W.
1952b Die Nisbe-Formationen im Berberischen. Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di
Napoli N.S. 4, 111⫺117.

4. Semitic-Chadic Relations 27
Vycichl, W.
1975 Begadkefat im Berberischen. In: J. and Th. Bynon (eds.). Hamito-Semitica. Proceedings
of a colloquium held by the Historical Section of the Linguistics Association (Great
Britain) at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, on the
18 th, 19 th and 20 th of March 1970 (The Hague-Paris: Mouton) 315⫺317.
Vycichl, W.
2005 Berberstudien & A Sketch of Siwi Berber (Egypt). Köln: Köppe.
Vermondo Brugnatelli, Milan (Italy)
4. Semitic-Chadic Relations
1. Introduction
2. Phonology
3. Personal pronouns
4. Morphology
5. Syntax
6. Lexicon
7. References
Abstract
This section examines Semitic and Chadic languages in terms of phonological typology,
with particular attention to consonantal and vowel systems, the root-and-pattern structure
of nominal and verbal lexemes, derivational and inflectional morphology of nouns and
verbs, and expressions of negation.
1. Introduction
Chadic and Semitic are universally accepted as two families within the Afro-Asiatic
macro-family. Accordingly, Chadic languages are expected to share a number of phono-
logical and grammatical similarities with Semitic languages that reflect structural pat-
terns inherited from Proto-Afro-Asiatic. Striking similarities in the shapes of personal
pronouns have long been noted, as have lexical correspondences. Less widely known are
the striking similarities in terms of phonological typology which pertain to the triadic or-
ganization of obstruent articulation, as well as regarding the conspicuous role of vowels
in the shared root and pattern system. In addition, nominal morphology shows some
common markers of plural formation and noun derivation and similar structural patterns
in the domain of gender. Verb morphology shows striking similarities again between
“pluractional” verb stem formation in Chadic and Semitic verb stem formations of the
qattala and qātala type, and between Chadic inflectional “plural verb stems” and subject

Vycichl, W.
1975 Begadkefat im Berberischen. In: J. and Th. Bynon (eds.). Hamito-Semitica. Proceedings
of a colloquium held by the Historical Section of the Linguistics Association (Great
Britain) at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, on the
18 th, 19 th and 20 th of March 1970 (The Hague-Paris: Mouton) 315⫺317.
Vycichl, W.
2005 Berberstudien & A Sketch of Siwi Berber (Egypt). Köln: Köppe.
Vermondo Brugnatelli, Milan (Italy)
4. Semitic-Chadic Relations
1. Introduction
2. Phonology
4. Morphology
5. Syntax
6. Lexicon
7. References
Abstract
This section examines Semitic and Chadic languages in terms of phonological typology,
with particular attention to consonantal and vowel systems, the root-and-pattern structure
of nominal and verbal lexemes, derivational and inflectional morphology of nouns and
verbs, and expressions of negation.
1. Introduction
Chadic and Semitic are universally accepted as two families within the Afro-Asiatic
macro-family. Accordingly, Chadic languages are expected to share a number of phono-
logical and grammatical similarities with Semitic languages that reflect structural pat-
terns inherited from Proto-Afro-Asiatic. Striking similarities in the shapes of personal
pronouns have long been noted, as have lexical correspondences. Less widely known are
the striking similarities in terms of phonological typology which pertain to the triadic or-
ganization of obstruent articulation, as well as regarding the conspicuous role of vowels
in the shared root and pattern system. In addition, nominal morphology shows some
common markers of plural formation and noun derivation and similar structural patterns
in the domain of gender. Verb morphology shows striking similarities again between
“pluractional” verb stem formation in Chadic and Semitic verb stem formations of the
qattala and qātala type, and between Chadic inflectional “plural verb stems” and subject

pronoun marking devices in Semitic (2nd and 3rd person plural). Furthermore, negative
markers appear to provide another domain of shared inherited patterns.
From the vantage point of recent insights into “Common Chadic” and conspicuous
parallels in Semitic, this study examines features long assumed to be diagnostic for
Semitic which have influenced assumptions on Afro-Asiatic as a whole.
2. Phonology
2.1. Consonant inventories
Although Chadic systems are not uniform in consonantal inventory, they share with
Semitic “triadic” sets of voiced-voiceless-glottalized obstruents. Newman (1977a) recon-
structs such sets for PC labials, alveolars and palatals. p/f and often b/v may not regu-
larly contrast in Chadic, a feature reminiscent of (Proto-)Semitic and later develop-
ments in Ethiopian Semitic. There is no interdental series of consonants in Chadic
(unlike that reconstructed for PS). Table 4.1. lists reconstructed PS consonants (Mos-
cati et al. 1964, 24 ⫺ slightly modified) alongside Akkadian (Buccellati 1997, 70) and
PC (Newman 1977a, 9) plus West Chadic Standard Hausa (Newman 2000, 392) and
Central Chadic Lamang (Wolff 1983, 25).
2.2. Vowel systems
Generally speaking, a much larger number of synchronic vowel phonemes reflect a

much smaller number of abstract underlying and/or historically reconstructable vowels
to the extent that, as is the case with certain Central Chadic languages, only a single
vowel */a/ can be safely reconstructed internally. In languages of this type, all other
(ten or more) surface vowels reflect ⫺ historically ⫺ either [i] or [u] syllabifications of
the approximants /y/ and /w/, or assimilatory raising of /a/ to [e] or [o] in [Chigh]
phonological environments. Other synchronic vowels would simply reflect positional
“colourings” of pro- and epenthetic vowels (in particular short high and central vow-
els). The combination of pro-/epenthetic vowel plus approximant may yield phoneti-
cally long vowels, despite the absence of phonological vowel length.
Some Central Chadic languages, in particular, have developed labialization and pal-
atalization prosodies stemming from umlaut/distant assimilation effects that would ap-
ply to both vowels and consonants across the whole phonological word. The likely
historical origin of such prosodies are historically reconstructable markers which car-
ried the feature [Chigh] (quite likely from a defunct petrified determiner system, such
as *-y/*-i, *-kwV etc., cf. Wolff 2006), e. g. Lamang root *!w-dz-f- ‘bone’ plus petrified
determiner *-y undergoes the following phonological processes:
epenthetic vowel insertion: *!w[ə].dz[ə].f C*-y

prosody creation: *!wə.dzə.fCyy
/Cy/ prosody anticipation: *!wə.Cydzə.Cyfy
phonetic realizations: [!ùdzìfìw!ùjìfì]

The palatalization C2 /dz/ > [dzwj] is triggered by the petrified determiner suffix *-y
and becomes anticipated onto the penultimate syllable where epenthetic [ə] is realized
as [i], the underlying approximant of the determiner suffix *-y itself is syllabified to [i]
in final syllable nucleus position.
Tab. 4.1: Selected consonant inventories
place of PS Akkadian PC Standard Lamang

articulation Hausa
bilabial vl p p p *p/f p f
vd b b b b b v
glott ] ] ]
prenas mb
m m m m m
inter- vl ṯ
dental vd ḏ
glott ṯ’
dental/ vl t s t s t s t s t s
alveolar vd d z d z d z d z d z
glott t’ s’ t’ s’ H ş H ts H
prenas nd nz
l r l r l/L r l r r̃ l r
n n n n n
palato- vl š ś š c (sh) c sh ts/c L
alveolar/ vd j j dz/j k
palatal glott *J ’y (<*Hiy)
prenas ndz/nj
y y y y y
velar vl k h˛ k h˛ k ky kw x xy xw k ky kw k kw x xw
vd g ġ g g g y gw g gy gw g gw γ γw
glott q q Y Yy Yw Y Yy Yw
prenas
ng ngw
n nw
w w w w w
pharyngeal | ḥ
laryngeal { h { { h {
Out of the different sets of pronouns (independent, possessive, object, subject etc.),
many forms attested for Semitic or other Afro-Asiatic languages have counterparts in
Chadic. A striking selection by form (not necessarily corresponding in synchronic func-
tion) is given in Table 4.2. based on the following sources: Diakonoff 1988 (as quoted
in Hayward 2000, 88) for PS, Moscati et al. 1964, 106 for Akkadian, Newman 1980, 15
for “Old Hausa” (with slight modifications of presentation), Wolff 1983 and author’s
ongoing research for Lamang, Alio 1986 for Bidiya.

Tab. 4.2: Comparative list of personal pronouns
Proto-Semitic Akkadian West Chadic: Central East Chadic:

“Old Hausa” Chadic: Bidiya
Lamang
1. sg. *-ii, *-ya’ -i, -ya -i, /-yu/
*-n(i) -ni *ni no
2. sg. m. *-ka -ka *ka ki, -kin
-ka
f. *-ki -ki *ki, *kim ka, -kan
3. sg. m. *-šu -š(u) *ši Ø, na, -yi
f. *-ši -š(a) *ta /-Hiw-tsi/ na, -ti
1. pl. (ex.) *-naw*nuwni -ni *na -ni(y), -yin ni -yan
(in.) *mu, *mun -mwa -nin
2. pl. m. *-kumu -kunu
*ku, *kun -keni ku…on, -kun
f. *-kina -kina
3. pl. m. *-šumu -šunu
*su, *sun -xan, -tan nu, -yo
f. *-šina -šina
Note that many Chadic languages have replaced whatever pronoun shapes were
inherited from PC (or PAA) for 3rd person, by innovative synchronic pronouns which
reflect, most of all, previous determiners such as *n(V), *t(V), *H(V), *y(V), or nominal
plural markers. In particular, feminine *ta has widely been reassigned as a pronoun of
3rd person sg. f. (or has been generalized to 3rd person c.g. marking in the sg. and/or pl.).
4. Morphology
4.1. Root and pattern
Biradical rather than triradical roots appear to represent the canonical forms in Chadic.
Note, however as is often proposed for Semitic (for instance in Moscati et al. 1964, 25ff.
and more recently Ehret 1995), in some languages final consonants of verb roots (“deter-
minants” in Semitic linguistic terminology) appear to semantically modify the root. Ex-
amples are provided by Central Chadic Ouldeme (de Colombel 1987) and West Chadic
Hausa (Jungraithmayr 1970; Newman 2000). Plural noun formation may be based
entirely on a systematic change of vocalization pattern from singular to plural noun
stem, and such “internal” plurals occur widely across Chadic. They characteristically
involve the occurrence of /a/. With verbs, so-called “internal a” reflects a basic distinc-
tion between “zero-vocalization” and “a-vocalization” (the latter being the instantia-
tion of “a-infixation”), to morphologically mark “pluractional” formations which, in
many languages, become reassigned as imperfective/habitative stems within the TAM
system.
As in Semitic, formative gemination of consonants occurs synchronically in Chadic
both in nominal and verbal morphology. Surface “gemination”, however, usually re-
flects diachronic consonant reduplication with subsequent syncope as, for instance, in
Hausa zóobèe ‘ring’, pl zôbbáa < *zóobàbáa.

Some West and East Chadic languages have developed binary systems of verb stem
formation in which “internal /a/” ablaut and consonant reduplication look deceivingly
identical to Semitic forms in terms of surface appearance, as Hayward 2000, 91 points
out once again:
preterite imperfect
Akkadian ikbit ikabbit ‘become heavy’
perfect imperfect
Migama {ápìlé {àpàllá ‘wash’
Mubi {ēwít {ūwát ‘bite’
Ron (Daffo) mot mwaát ‘die’
This surface similarity must, however, be viewed with a strong caveat, as Hayward
2000, 91 points out: “Schuh (1976) carries the argument further in identifying fossils
of the ablaut in one set of verbal nominalizations found in both West and East Chadic
branches. Wolff (1977), however, shifts the emphasis away from considering these
forms as primarily concerned with tense/aspect and relates them at a wider level to
plural categories of events and actions marked in the verb ⫺ which could, of course,
actually be closer to their original AA role.”
4.2. Nominal morphology
From a Semitic/Afro-Asiatic vantage point, it may be interesting to note that Chadic

nouns do not, as a rule, mark “case” in their morphology, nor do distinctions of “state”
play any role. There is also no reason to assume that PC had a category of dual in
addition to plural and singular in the nominal system.
4.2.1. Grammatical gender
Grammatical gender was a feature of PC with marked feminine opposed to unmarked

masculine in the singular, and a common gender plural. There is no known Chadic
language that differentiates gender in the plural. The dominant pattern of gender
marking is the A/B/A pattern (Newman 1990), such as found in Hausa n/t/n with /t/
marking sg. f., and /n/ being used both for sg. m. and pl. c.g. However, the category of
gender is no longer operational in the pronominal and nominal systems of about half
of the modern Chadic languages. Some languages which have given up gender distinc-
tion may nevertheless show lexicalized/petrified traces in nominal morphology and
pronominal forms. Note that the feminine marker *t(V) with “triple function ‘female /
diminutive / singulative’” also in Chadic and stemming from the original deictic system
(Newman 1980, 13) has widely taken over personal pronoun functions as 3rd sg. f. (but
is also found in innovative 3rd pl. c.g. forms), cf. Table 4.2.
Interestingly, Newman 1980, 17⫺20 is able to show “gender stability” in Chadic/
Afro-Asiatic, i.e. certain non-sex related nouns attribute gender on the basis of mean-

ing alone, irrespective of phonological shape and etymological relationship. These

meanings are blood m., crocodile m., egg f. (?), eye f., fire f., fly (n.) m., louse f., moon
m., monkey m., name m., nose m., root m., sun f., water m./pl.
4.2.2. Noun plurals
Newman 1990 reconstructs four plural formatives for PC, two of which are of particular
interest for Afro-Asiatic comparison, namely *-n- and *-ay/*-ai. Hayward 2000, 92
(following Zaborski 1976 and despite considerable doubts expressed by Newman 1990,
36, 50) suggests adding *-w to the list of noun plural markers that may be retentions
from PAA. Wolff 2009 has identified *-n(a) as the only PC “external” plural suffix, in
addition to PC “internal” plurals based on vocalization patterns (general *a-a-a, *a-a-i,
marginal *a-i-a, a-i-i). The incorporation of “frozen determiners” (*-n-, *-k-, *-H-,
*-yw*-w) enlarges the surface variation of available noun plural forms.
4.2.3. Noun derivation
Like many other Chadic languages, Hausa allows a prefix ma- (with different noun
endings and tone melodies) to productively form nouns of agent/location/instrument.
Abstract and other nouns with fairly transparent semantics are formed by various suf-
fixes and tone melodies from nouns and verbs.
4.3. Verbal morphology
Verb stems may show agreement of number with the subject (referred to as “plural
[agreement] stems”). In some languages, verb stems may have overt inflectional forms
relating to triads or binary distinctions within the TAM system. Certain verbs have
particular imperative forms.
4.3.1. Vocalization patterns and pluractional forms
One can distinguish between a-vocalization and non-a-vocalization (zero- or schwa-

vocalization). Zero-/schwa-vocalized bases are open to insert *-a- (or to replace schwa
with *-a-) to form internally derived bases which serve as “pluractionals”. Verb bases
may, however, be a-vocalized from the start without carrying any pluractional seman-
tics. Surface high vowels occurring in the base can often be identified as syllabic mani-
festations of underlying /y/ and /w/ as part of the root (to be compared to “weak
radicals” in Semitic), although as a rule they cannot be replaced but rather give way
to infixation of pluractional *-a-. In this process the weak radicals become palatal or
labial glides or corresponding prosodies. Chadic languages also use reduplicative proc-
esses for pluractional expressions.

4.3.2. Plural stem formation
In addition to and quite different from pluractional forms, Chadic verbs allow external
derivation of inflectional plural stems which mark grammatically conditioned number
agreement with the subject. Out of several attested synchronic markers, Newman 1990
reconstructs *-(a)n for Proto-Chadic. Interestingly, this agreement suffix in Chadic
finds itself in very much the same position as the suffixed elements of disjunctive
personal pronouns in prefix conjugation type verb inflection elsewhere in Chadic (and
Semitic, for that matter). The following illustrations are taken mainly from Newman
1990. They show striking similarities in the 2nd and 3rd person plural across Afro-
Asiatic which, however, relate to plural agreement verb stem formation in Chadic.
Tab. 4.3: “Ambifixal” pattern of 2nd and 3rd personal pronoun marking in Chadic and across
Afro-Asiatic
2nd sg. 2nd pl. 3rd sg. 3rd pl.

West Chadic: kà Hee-wò kù He- n -kò shì mak-ki Garbà sù mat- in -ki Garbà
Kirfi you (m.) got (it) you (pl) got (it) he shot Garba they shot Garba
Central Chadic: kə kaH c.g. kə kəH- am c.g. {a kaH c.g. {a kəH- am c.g.
Gisiga ‘kill’
East Chadic: ki ?ás c.g. ku {ás- no c.g.
Bidiya ‘come’
(2nd person only)
Semitic: tə- m. tə-…(- əm ) m. yə- m. yə-…(- əm ) m.
South Arabian tə-…V/i f. tə-… - ən f. tə- f. tə-… - ən f.
Cushitic: ti-gis c.g. ti-gas- en c.g. y-igis m. yi-gas- en c.g.
Rendille ‘kill’ ti-gis f.
Berber: θ-…-əð m. θ-…- im m. i- m. Ø…- in m.
Tamazight θ-…-əð f. θ-…- im -θ f. θ- f. Ø…- in -θ f.
4.3.3. Thematic derivation (extended verb stems)
Thematic derivation of verb stems in Chadic is usually achieved by suffixation. Modern

languages may show large inventories of “extension suffixes”, many of which appear
to be fairly recent grammaticalizations of prepositions, body part expressions, etc. and
convey both locative-directional (ventive, allative, illative, efferential, etc.) as well as
grammatical meanings with regard to argument structure (applicative, causative, bene-
factive, etc.).
Reconstructable for PC is a suffix *-tV which carries iterative/frequentative seman-
tics (Newman 1990), and *-an for benefactive/pre-indirect object forms at least for
West Chadic (Newman 1977b). There is little if any evidence that Chadic thematic
extensions relate to any of the widely spread Semitic prefixal derivations other than
by semantic coincidence (such as, for instance, causative, passive-like and reflexive/
reciprocal functions), unless PC *-tV should turn out to be somehow related to the
rare tan- prefix of similar iterative semantics in Akkadian. If this were the case, then
this would be an interesting instance of a suffix in Chadic corresponding to a cognate

prefix in Semitic. This, again, would then be parallel to the issue of “causative” marking
containing /s/ in Chadic (cf. suffix -(a)s in West Chadic Hausa and Ngizim) which,
however, may not represent a retention from (pre-)PC due to doubtful semantics,
highly restricted occurrence, and still unclear internal history.
Correspondences to the proto-typical Semitic stem formations based on doubled
second radical (qattala) and lengthened first vowel (qātala) must be sought in Chadic in
the internal formative processes affecting the verb base (pluractionals), i.e., consonant
reduplication and infix -a-.
4.3.4. The tense/aspect/mood system
Chadic prefix and suffix conjugational patterns appear to have little or nothing to do
with counterparts in Semitic, but are largely predictable from word order typology. As
a rule, SVO order entails pre-posed pronouns, and VSO order entails post-posed pro-
nouns. These pronouns tend to reflect originally non-subject (“primary”) pronouns,
hence their particular patterning with Semitic pronouns as illustrated in Table 4.2.
Two historical theories compete to explain Chadic inflectional verb stem mor-
phology.
The first theory is strongly influenced by theories virulent in Semitic philology and
was developed by H. Jungraithmayr in the mid 1960s. This theory assumes a basic
binary aspect distinction between “perfective” and “imperfective”, in which the imper-
fective stem is marked in terms of ablaut (cf. the inconclusive “internal a” discussion)
or additional phonological material (such as consonant gemination and affixation).
A competing theory was developed by H. E. Wolff since the mid 1970s. According
to this theory PC had a binary aspect-dominated set of verb stems in the indicative
mood (unmarked *aorist/*aspect-neutral vs. marked *perfective(?)). Morphologically
marked verb stems outside this basic inflectional system were, among others, plurac-
tionals and verbal nouns. Many Chadic languages have reassigned either their plurac-
tionals or their verbal nouns to the TAM system to create a marked imperfective
category (with iterative/habitual/durative/progressive, etc. readings). The resulting tri-
chotomic structure of *aorist/*aspect-neutral vs. *perfective vs. (new) imperfective has
then often been reduced again to secondary binary structures, as Table 4.4 shows.
The question of whether there were one or two original prefix conjugations in Se-
mitic reminds Chadicists of the reassignment of pluractionals to the aspect system as
innovative imperfective stems (most likely with mainly iterative/habitual readings). The
latter would be responsible for the repeatedly quoted striking similarities between verb
stem pairs such as Semitic/Akkadian -prus (preterite) 4 -parras (present) and (East)
Chadic/Mubi lèlè’j- (simple) 4 làllà’j- (pluractional) ‘to taste’, the more so in the light
of the observation that many such pluractionals end up in the aspect system of a given
Chadic language indicating iterative, habitual, durative, or continuous action.
5. Syntax
As research into comparative Chadic syntax is very much in its infancy, no generaliza-
tions will be attempted here with the exception of a few remarks on word order and ne-
gation.

Tab. 4.4: Diachronic development of the PC aspect system in the indicative mood
Proto-Chadic category
unmarked marked marked
*aorist/*aspect-neutral *perfective(?) *verbal noun
(VN) or *plurac-
tional
Scenario A. Retention of the inherited unmarked/marked binary system (often re-analyzed as

imperfective/perfective)
so-called imperfective perfective (unassigned to
aspect system)
Scenario B. System simplification: Reduction to inflectional neutrality of verb stem

B.1 loss of *aorist/*aspect- --- aspect-neutral (unassigned to
neutral verb stem aspect system)
B.2 loss of marked PRF stem aspect-neutral verb stem --- (unassigned to
aspect system)
Scenario C. Expansion of dichotomic to trichotomic system by reassignment of VN or pluractional

C-1. innovative aspectual tri- *aspect-neutral/*aorist perfective imperfective
chotomy
with secondary reduction to binary system, generalized reading of any binary opposition as imper-
fective/perfective
C-2. loss of PC *perfective(?) so-called perfective --- imperfective
C-3. loss of PC *aorist/*as- --- perfective imperfective
pect-neutral
C-4. loss of reassigned so-called imperfective perfective ---
VN or pluractional
(result = scenario A)
The predominant word order in Chadic is SVO, with a geographically neatly defined
area encompassing a number of Central Chadic languages displaying VSO order (this
language area corresponds largely to the one in which the inherited gender distinction
has been lost and likewise inherited rich inventories of noun plural formations have
also been abolished). Whether this VSO order represents a retention from PC or mani-
fests yet another highly areal innovation is still under debate, with the theory advanced
by Williams 1989 taking a kind of intermediary position in assuming VS order for
intransitive and SVO order for transitive constructions in PC.
5.1. Negation
Faber 1997, 9 mentions an inherited Afro-Asiatic negative marker *b with some relation-
ship to more complex Semitic negative markers (which probably reflect combinations of
*b with another morpheme of the shape *la) such as Hebrew bli ‘without’, Ugaritic/Phoeni-
cian bl ‘not’, and Arabic bal ‘on the contrary’. Chadic has a widespread negative marker

*ba which, however, does not appear to be the general PC negative marker because this
can be reconstructed as *wa (Newman 1977a, 30). *ba tends to occur in disjunctive nega-
tion patterns of the type bà(a) … bá (as, for instance, in Hausa), and … ba … wo (as, for
instance, in Lamang predication focus negation). Note that typological parallel patterns are
found in Modern South Arabian əl … la’/’cl … lc’. What etymological relationship, if any,
exists between these and forms found in, for instance, Bedouin Arabic like muu-b (Kaye/
Rosenhouse 1997, 302), remains an open question (the more so if Semitic negative marker
*maa could eventually be established as related to PC *wa). Note also Harari -m (Wagner
1997, 502). Within Chadic, at least, m4w sound shifts do occur, if only sporadically.
6. Lexicon
Many PAA etymologies that are shared between Chadic and Semitic have been pro-
posed (and many have been subsequently rejected) since the beginning of comparative
Afro-Asiatic scholarship. Quite recently, Hayward 2000, 94 has given a short selection
as seemingly “unlikely to be disputed”, founding his list on compilations in Ehret 1995
(E) and Orel and Stolbova 1995 (O and S), cf. Table 4.5.
Tab. 4.5: “Undisputed” shared PAA etymologies acc. to Hayward 2000
PAA gloss number in E number in O&S

*ba not be there, negative 2
*bak strike, squeeze 194
*-dar- enlarge, increase 150
*dim/*dam blood 140 639
*-fir- flower, bear fruit 85
*gad-/*gud- be big 265 867
*-geh-, *gay- speak 274 911
*kama{-/*kamay- food 1424
*kop- sole 327 1406
*kab- shoe, sandal
*k’ar- tip, point 424 1549
*k’ar- horn
*man-/*min- house 1723
*nam-/*nim- man 621 1841
*pir fly (v.) 51
*sum-/*sim- name 220 2304
*sin-/*san- nose 222 2194
*s’am- to sour 535
*-tuf- to spit 162 2413
*-zaaf- rend, tear 208
7. References
Alio, Kh.
1986 Essai de description de la langue bidiya du Guéra (Tchad). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.

Buccellati, G.
1997 Akkadian. In: R. Hetzron (ed.). The Semitic Languages (London, New York: Rout-
ledge) 69⫺99.
de Colombel, V.
1987 Les extensions verbales productives, mi-figées ou fossilisées en langue ouldémé. In: H.
Jungraithmayr and H. Tourneux (edd.). Études tchadiques: classes et extensions verbales.
(Paris: Geuthner) 65⫺91.
Diakonoff, I. M.
1988 Afrasian Languages. Translated from Russian by A. A. Korolevana and V. Ya. Pork-
homovsky. Moscow: Nauka.
Ehret, Ch.
1995 Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone, Consonants and Vo-
cabulary. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Faber, A.
1997 Genetic subgrouping of the Semitic languages. In: R. Hetzron (ed.). The Semitic Lan-
guages (London, New York: Routledge) 3⫺15.
Hayward, R. J.
2000 Afroasiatic. In: B. Heine and D. Nurse (edd.). African Languages. An Introduction.
(Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid: Cambridge University Press) 74⫺98.
Jungraithmayr, H.
1970 On root augmentation in Hausa. Journal of African Languages 9, 83⫺88.
Kaye, A. S. and J. Rosenhouse
1997 Arabic dialects and Maltese. In: R. Hetzron (ed.). The Semitic Languages (London,
New York: Routledge) 263⫺311.
Moscati, S., A. Spitaler, E. Ullendorff, W. von Soden
1964 An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Phonology and
Morphology. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz.
Newman, P.
1977a Chadic classification and reconstruction. Afroasiatic Linguistics 5.1, 1⫺42.
Newman, P.
1977b Chadic extensions and pre-dative verb forms in Hausa. Studies in African Linguistics
8, 275⫺297.
Newman, P.
1980 The Classification of Chadic Within Afroasiatic. Leiden: Universitaire Pers.
Newman, P.
1990 Nominal and Verbal Plurality in Chadic. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Newman, P.
2000 The Hausa Language. An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press.
Orel, V. E. and O. V. Stolbova
1995 Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction. Leiden: Brill.
Schuh, R. G.
1976 The Chadic verbal system and its Afroasiatic nature. Afroasiatic Linguistics 3.1, 1⫺14.
Schuh, R. G.
1983 The evolution of determiners in Chadic. In: [H.] E. Wolff and H. Meyer-Bahlburg
(edd.). Studies in Chadic and Afroasiatic Linguistics. (Hamburg: H. Buske) 157⫺210.
Wagner, E.
1997 Harari. In: R. Hetzron (ed.). The Semitic Languages (London, New York: Routledge)
486⫺508.
Williams, K.
1989 An alternative model of word order in Proto-Chadic. In: Z. Frajzyngier (ed.). Current
Progress in Chadic Linguistics (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins) 111⫺120.

Wolff, H. E.
1977 Patterns in Chadic (and Afroasiatic?) verb base formations. In: P. Newman and R. Ma
Newman (edd.). Papers in Chadic Linguistics (Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum) 199⫺233.
Wolff, H. E.
1983 A Grammar of the Lamang Language (GwàH Lámàn). Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin.
Wolff, H. E.
1993 Referenzgrammatik des Hausa. Münster⫺Hamburg: LIT.
Wolff, H. E.
2003 Predication Focus in Chadic. In: H. E. Wolff (ed.). Topics in Chadic Linguistics I (Co-
logne: R. Köppe) 137⫺159.
Wolff , H. E.
2006 Suffix petrification and prosodies in Central Chadic (Lamang-Hdi). In: D. Ibriszimow
(ed.). Topics in Chadic Linguistics II (Cologne: R. Köppe) 141⫺154.
Wolff, H. E.
2009 Another look at “internal a” noun plurals in Chadic. In: Eva Rothmaler (ed.). Topics
in Chadic Linguistics V, Comparative and Descriptive Studies (Cologne: R. Köppe)
161⫺172.
Zaborski, A.
1976 The Semitic External Plural in an Afroasiatic Perspective. Afroasiatic Linguistics 3.6,
1⫺9.
H. Ekkehard Wolff, Leipzig (Germany)
5. Semitic-Cushitic/Omotic Relations
1. Introductory remarks
2. Grammatical survey
3. Concluding remarks
4. References
Abstract
The 30C Cushitic languages, excluding Omotic now generally agreed to constitute a
separate branch of Afroasiatic, comprise four distinct branches broadly named after their
geographical location across the Horn of Africa as North, Central, East and South.
Typical of the more conservative phonological systems is the presence of pharyngeals
and laryngeals as well as triads of stops and affricates with voiceless, voiced and glottal-
ised articulation, as well as five-term vowel systems with phonemic length. Most Cushitic
languages are pitch-accent languages in which accent plays a morphologically defined
role. Throughout inflectional morphology most fundamental structures and associated
morphemes can be related to the rest of Afroasiatic, including Semitic. Nouns exhibit
gender, number and case; in the latter instance typical is a “marked nominative” contrast-
ing with a multi-function “absolutive” and a possessive or genitive. Postpositions, some-

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
curious story; I wonder if it will bore you?
He. What tale from thy sweet lips could tedious be?
She. I wish you’d get out of that “thy” habit; it’s so
irritating. Well, the fact is that all your predecessors died
on the evening of our wedding—I mean weddings—and
nobody quite knows why.
He. Truly a strange tale. May I have just one more go at
the salad?
She. Of course. I’m so glad you like it. Curiously enough,
the one before you was very fond of it too; in fact I’ve
often wondered——Well, there it is. Now I do hope that
nothing is going to happen to you, my dear, because I
should so hate to think that you had been put to any
inconvenience on my account. Besides, it upsets the
servants.
He. Have no fear, beloved. For I too have a secret. I know
thy—your—tragic history; a witch has revealed it unto me.
She. You know? Well, I do think you might have told me. I
meant it to be a surprise.
He. Further, she has given me a magic charm to protect
us both.
She. I say, what’s that mess in the corner? There—on the
plate.
He. That is the heart and liver of a fish, my apple.
She. I hope you haven’t brought a cat into the house;
father can’t bear them.
He. Nay, my love, that is the charm.
She. It looks a very large one. What fish is it?
He. It is the heart and liver of a sturgeon.
She. I suppose it couldn’t have been done with an
anchovy?
He. Nay, nay. For the witch enjoined me; first I must burn
it——
She. Yes, I think you’d better.
He. See? (Burns.) The ashes thereof will drive away the
evil spirit that molests you.
She (recoiling). And I don’t wonder.
[The Curtain falls, and rises again the next
morning. The room is full of smoke.
He (shaving). Who is that man digging in the garden?
She. Oh, that’s father. He’s digging a grave for you. It’s
become a sort of habit with him.
He. Wilt thou not tell him it is not required?
She (through the window). Father, we shan’t want it this
time. Sorry.
He. I thank thee.
She (irritable). Oh, do stop saying “thee.” And will you
please take these horrible ashes and throw them away at
once? Really, I can hardly breathe.
He. Nay, my love. They are our charm against danger. Art
not thou—aren’t you, I mean—grateful?
She. Yes, of course. But they’ve done the trick by now. We
can’t spend our whole married life in this atmosphere.
He. But indeed we must. The witch enjoined me that,
unless they were preserved, I should perish, even as
those before me.
She. Well, I’m extremely sorry, but I really can’t stand
this. (Through the window.) Father, you might bury this,
will you? (throws down the ashes). Thank you. Oh, and
don’t fill up the hole yet. We may want it after all.
CURTAIN
Transcriber’s Notes:
Variations in spelling and hyphenation are retained.
Perceived typographical errors have been changed.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LITTLE RAYS OF
MOONSHINE ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States
copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy
and distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the
General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree
to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease
using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the
work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement
by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full
Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and
with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it,
give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of
the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute

this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must,
at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy,
a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy
upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these
efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium
on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data,
transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property
infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be
read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you
do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission

of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status
by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or
federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions
to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine
the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.

(FREE PDF Sample) The Semitic Languages An International Handbook Handb Cher Zur Sprach Und Kommunikationswissenschaft Hand Stefan Weninger Ebooks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(FREE PDF Sample) The Semitic Languages An International Handbook Handb Cher Zur Sprach Und Kommunikationswissenschaft Hand Stefan Weninger Ebooks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(FREE PDF Sample) The Semitic Languages An International Handbook Handb Cher Zur Sprach Und Kommunikationswissenschaft Hand Stefan Weninger Ebooks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download ebook at ebookname.

The Semitic Languages An International Handbook

Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

Deutschland Und Israel 1945 1965 Ein Neurotisches

The Surface and the Abyss Nietzsche as Philosopher of

After Hardship Cometh Ease Studien zur Geschichte und

Sleight of Hand Magic Handbook Joe Fullman

The Languages of East and Southeast Asia An

Cultural Memory Studies An International and

Handbook of Plastic Optics 2nd Edition Stefan Bäumer

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

Mitbegründet von Gerold Ungeheuer (†)

Herausgegeben von / Edited by / Edités par

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Semitic languages : an international handbook / edited by Stefan

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

© 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

1. Introduction · Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck, and

I. Semitic in an Afroasiatic Context

II. Reconstructing Proto-Semitic and Models of Classification

III. The Semitic Languages and Dialects I: Their Typology

IV. The Semitic Languages and Dialects II: East Semitic

V. The Semitic Languages and Dialects III:

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

26. The Re-Emergence of Hebrew as a National Language · Yael Reshef 546

VI. The Semitic Languages and Dialects IV:

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

VII. The Semitic Languages and Dialects V:

Terminological index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1277

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

1. Scope of the volume

1.1. Semitic in an Afroasiatic context

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

1.2. Reconstructing Proto-Semitic and models of classification

1.3. The Semitic languages and dialects I: Their typology

1.4. The Semitic languages and dialects II: East Semitic

1.5. The Semitic languages and dialects III: North-West Semitic

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

1.7. The Semitic languages and dialects V: Ethio-Semitic languages

In an introductory chapter (ch. 65), the distinctive features of Ethio-Semitic in general

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

2. Technical and formal aspects

Auroux, S. et al. (eds.)

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

Stefan Weninger, Marburg (Germany)

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

1. History of the research on genetic connections between Semitic

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

2. Egyptian consonantism and its Semitic correspondences

Tab. 2.1: Regular Egyptian-Semitic consonant correspondences

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

Tab. 2.2: Radically new suggestions by Rössler

3. Egypto-Semitic nominal morphology

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

Brought to you by | Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Pontificio Istituto Biblico )

4. Common elements of verbal morphology

epenthetic vowel insertion: !w[ə].dz[ə].f C-y