You are on page 1of 24


George Starostin
(Russian State University for the Humanities)



The Elamite language has long been considered as a particularly irritating "white spot" on the
ever increasing language map of the Ancient Near East and Mesopotamia. Whereas most of the
cuneiform languages discovered on those territories throughout the last two centuries have turned
out to be of Semitic origin (Akkadian, Ugaritic, etc.), Indo-European origin (Hittite and other
Anatolian languages), or Caucasian origin (Hurro-Urartian and possibly Hatti), Elamite, as well as
its 'neighbour', Sumeric, presents no obvious connections with any of the aforementioned
Until recently, the most widespread and heavily supported hypothesis about the genetic
relationship of Elamite has been that of the "Elamo-Dravidian" theory, which suggests that
Elamite is most closely related to the Proto-Dravidian language and should even be grouped
together with it into a single Proto-Elamo-Dravidian (PED) family. This idea, having originated as
early as the mid-XIXth century - it was even mentioned in the pioneering work of Robert Caldwell
on Dravidian linguistics (Caldwell 1856) - found its main supporter in David W. McAlpin, whose
works on the subject (McAlpin 1974; McAlpin 1975; and particularly PED) practically shaped the
entire theory in its modern form. In his works, McAlpin presented and explicitly described a large
number of language features that are in common between the different stages of the Elamite
language, on one hand, and the reconstructed system of Proto-Dravidian, on the other. The main
emphasis from the very beginning has been placed on the similarity between the Elamite and
Dravidian morphological system; however, a set of phonologic correspondences and a certain
number of lexical comparisons have also been suggested.
On the surface, the "Elamo-Dravidian" theory seems rather convincing: indeed, the number of
similarities between the two 'branches' cannot be explained by sheer coincidence. Consequently,
the theory has been embraced by multiple researchers, mainly among specialists in ancient
languages of the Near East (cf., for instance, Diakonoff 1979) as well as specialists in long range
Recently, however, an alternate theory of the Elamite relationship has been put forward by
Vaclav Blaek (Blaek 1992). Having expressed a particular concern about the lack of credible
lexical comparisons between Elamite and Dravidian (while at the same time never discarding the
morphologic evidence), Blaek suggests a close relationship between Elamite and another huge
language family, namely, the Afroasiatic one. Contrary to McAlpin, Blaek does not focus as
much on the comparison of the Elamite and the Afroasiatic grammmar systems as he does on
lexical evidence; his article quotes more than a hundred lexical correlations between Afroasiatic
and Elamite, which is quite a significant number if we consider the relative scarcity of the known

Elamite lexicon.
Blaek, however, does not view his theory as 'opposed' to McAlpin's; as he writes himself, he
doesn't 'exclude a remote relationship with Dravidian', and essentially sees no major obstacles in
grouping all the three families together.
That said, both the evidence presented by McAlpin and Blaek certainly cannot be viewed as a
final, totally convincing stage of establishing a certain genetic relationship. Instead of solving the
problem, in fact, all these works seem to raise several additional ones. The most obvious question
is - WHAT exactly is necessary to firmly establish the genetic relations between two different
languages? This problem, well-known and well-described by many researchers, still does not
receive a uniform answer, and it is present in an even more complex form when we have to deal
with a language as poorly described as Elamite.
Another problem is that language relationship is not an absolute value; some languages are
related more closely than others, and some represent distant offshoots from branches of a single
proto-language that had diverged quite a long time ago. How closely, then, is the Elamite language
related to Proto-Dravidian, or Proto-Afroasiatic? Does it form an 'equal' branch with other
branches of those families, or does it represent a much earlier offshoot? (Even in these cases it is
often hardly possible to give a straightforward answer - cf., for instance, the uncertain position of
the Anatolian branch within Indo-European, sometimes regarded on par with the other
Indo-European branches, sometimes joined with the other branches into a more archaic
'Indo-Hittite' family).

Preliminary evaluation of existing hypotheses

As I have already pointed out above, on the surface the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis of McAlpin
looks well-backed up. His PED reconstruction is performed within the strict formal requirements
of the classic comparative method, being based on regular phonetic correspondences and featuring
a set of reconstructed morphologic markers as well as lexical entries.
However, a more detailed analysis of McAlpin's comparisons is able to show that the
similarities between the two families (branches?) are, in fact, somewhat exaggerated. Being
somewhat limited by the allowed volume of the article, I will only quote one major example of
McAlpin's approach to morphologic conparison, which is of crucial importance to his
reconstruction of PED and, in fact, quite typical of the work in general. This is his reconstruction
of the nominal declension system.

(a) For PED, McAlpin reconstructs the following cases: nominative (zero ending), accusative
(*-Vn), adessive/dative (*-əkkə), possessive (*-a), adnominal (*-in ), oblique/locative (*-tə). All
of these case endings have regular correlations in Elamite and Dravidian, and based on this,
McAlpin proudly states that the case endings 'match as complete paradigms' (PED 112).
This can hardly be so. First of all, the functions and syntactic usage of these morphemes rarely
match in both families. This may not be a major problem, as there is no special requirement for

we will clearly see that most of these grammar elements are quite common in other Nostratic languages as well. Note. Here. one cannot neglect the Nostratic morpheme *da (ND I 11). this is not an exact match. the irregular realisation of the same ending as *-m in some Indo-European dialects. This is a nice match. is compared to the Elamite suffix *-n . while in Dravidian it is used all over the place. Illych-Svitych as *-mA (ND II 285). note that for all stages of Elamite but the Achaemenid Elamite. such as Indo-European. where -n functions as the regular suffix of the genitive in many languages. and Elamite -ta/-da. *-an. Proto-Indo-European *-d (ablative marker). a far more important problem is that the compared elements rarely present common Elamo-Dravidian isoglosses. It should be noted that the meaning of the genitive case. a suffix used to form indirect bases of nouns and pronouns. besides the obvious -an. it is interesting to note that in Old Kannada the accusative ending. Proto-Uralic -a/- (ablative markers). the Elamo-Dravidian parallel turns out to be irrelevant. . 2) The Dravidian suffix of the dative case/indirect object *-kkV is compared to the Elamite postposition ikku . case un ). the Dravidian-Elamite parallel is thus irrelevant for establishing a close relationship. Again. one can safely assume these markers being related. is also present in Uralic. However. the morpheme has a valid Nostratic etymology (ND II 314). ikka indicating movement towards an object. "genitive" is normally restricted to denoting the 'material' out of which something is made). Considering a frequent alternation of word-final resonants (cf. 3) The PED morpheme *-in is reconstructed on the basis of Dravidian *-in (genitive marker) and Elamite -inni (a somewhat rare Middle Elamite ending of the genitive. Altaic and Kartvelian. reconstructed by V. used to express the same case in personal pronouns (cf. Uralic.. marker of the indirect stem of certain nouns. however. and *-n in others. for instance. obl. an adverbial (sic!) suffix with an approximate locative meaning. the matches from other Nostratic languages correlate to the Elamite meaning even better than the Dravidian comparison. M. but not an exceptional one. reconstructed with an approximate 'locative' meaning: Proto-Altaic -da/-d. Again. In the light of this comparison. is also regularly featured in the form -am. Accepting the Nostratic theory that relates Dravidian to other large language families of Eurasia. 3 related morphologic elements to coincide in their functions in all related languages. Even if the comparison can be accepted. 4) McAlpin himself admits that the PED reconstruction of the 'locative/oblique' marker *-tə is approximate. the similarity of this marker with the Common Nostratic marker for the accusative case. but more significant is the fact that the Dravidian suffix also has a Nostratic etymology: in (ND I 245) it is compared to Proto-Uralic *-kkʌ/-*kʌ (marker of the dative case) and Proto-Altaic *-kʌ (postposition with essentially the same meaning as in Elamite). Let us consider this situation in a more detailed aspect: 1) The Dravidian suffix *-Vn. in Elamite this marker is clearly just a relict. such as Hittite or Greek). PN *-n . The Elamo-Dravidian comparison is thus irrelevant once again. u 'I'. secondary in Dravidian (the original meaning of "indirect base formative" was still preserved in Old Tamil). as it is based on the comparison between PD *-t-. such as Indo-Aryan or Italic. Proto-Kartvelian -da/-d/-ad (adessive case). commonly used to express the accusative case. namely. -du/-d (locative markers). Again.

similar morphemes could also be found in other Eurasian macrofamilies (some of them definitely have parallels in Afroasiatic. It should be noted. yean. they cannot qualify as evidence for a special Elamo-Dravidian relationship. although we could certainly question the probability of some of the changes . understand'. As I already said.'to come'. and Middle Elamite -(y)a. 4 5) The only comparison that does not seem to have an exact Nostratic parallel is PED *-a. some of the lexical entries presented by McAlpin could easily be explained as results of cultural interference and cross-borrowing. for instance). Apart from these case endings. but PDr *n_. As for the Elamite noun. the Dravidian protoform clearly means 'to bear young'.before a subsequent apical liquid and to Proto-Dravidian *0.'bricklaying. a close analysis of the 'cognates' reveals a striking lack of semantic similarity between the compared entries. going back to a PED *he.PD *ey. However. brickwork' and Proto-South-Dravidian *uppar. though. the development of PED *. the only thing that I wanted to state was that. Dravidian has certain other declinational morphemes which cannot always be successfully etymologized on Dravidian territory. plastering' (PED 96) is. they present Elamite as a potential candidate for the Nostratic macrofamily. come' is a bit of a stretch (not to mention that the comparison involves the questionable PED phoneme *-).'to yield. out of eighty proposed Proto-Dravidian *t. reconstructing PED *upat_ 'brick' on the base of mE upat 'brick. it does not even have a real 'paradigm' to speak of. yield' > mE inni. It goes without saying that such a weak match cannot serve as a convincing argument for establishing a close relationship or a 'match of complete paradigms' between Elamite and Dravidian.'to approach. . achE innu.. arrive'. in fact. as the only cases in Elamite are the accusative (used exclusively for pronouns) and the genitive -na which seems to be an Achaemenid innovation. whereas for Proto-Dravidian we can with certainy reconstruct a full-fledged case system. even if all of them are based on solid ground. cf. We can only speak of postpositions fulfilling the functions of similar in use to -inni. Far more often. less than a third can boast a distinct semantic identity. It should.'to arrive. and comparing it with the main Elamite word for 'approach. etc. Furthermore. Such an approach is rather typical for the morphological comparisons offered in PED.'to know how to.'to know how to'. a far more dubious thing to do than to suppose a borrowing from Elamite into Proto-Dravidian. that I am in no way trying to reject any of them as false. coincidental. the marker of the possessive case (PD *-. be noted that the very term 'complete paradigm' is rather questionable when applied to either the Proto-Dravidian or particularly the Elamite language state. as PED *in. above). At other cases (PED 90). at worst. the genitive suffix. we are offered comparisons like Elamite hi 'name' . making the comparison even more feeble and undeciding than it is. most of them usually indicating abstract notions like 'love' or 'collect. the established phonetic correspondences mostly work. gather'. bear' (PED 102). Sometimes the comparisons can border on absurd. in fact. for instance. It gets even worse when we get to analyzing the proposed set of lexical cognates between Elamite and Dravidian.

mainly due to their being underrepresented in Afroasiatic. However. On an intuitive level. Thus. the same problem is evident in lexical comparison. is not enough for establishing a separate Elamo-Dravidian language family as opposed to. parallel number 66 compares mE malu 'wood' to PAA *mal-. we would probably expect a far higher number of lexical parallels (considering that the Elamite dictionary of Heinz-Koch. and the semantic differentiation between the two branches. not to mention that if Elamite really constitutes a separate branch of Afroasiatic. It goes without saying that the scarcity of material is only a testament to the relatively poor state of the Afroasiatic reconstruction in general and can in no way serve as a definite argument for lack of relationship (close or distant) between Afroasiatic and Elamite. Elamo-Uralic language family. Simply put. the evidence presented by McAlpin.. Blaek does not focus on the questions of morphology. etc. 5 All of the above considerations make me seriously question the validity of a special 'Elamo-Dravidian' theory. as among the endless sea of Afroasiatic languages it would be possible to find suitable parallels to just about any particular Elamite morpheme. both the phonetic correspondences between Afroasiatic (or different branches of Afroasiatic) and Dravidian. and generally. trying to establish a joint "Elamo-Afroasiatic" morphological system would inevitably result in considering the rather poor state of affairs in Afroasiatic reconstruction at the present time. it goes without saying that one cannot simply bypass such interesting parallels as Elamite el/t/ 'eye' . on one hand. contains at least a thousand identifiable Elamite roots). it also makes the issue of the Afroasiatic-Elamite comparison itself rather unstable and dubious. cow'. Unfortunately. say. when we deal with his comparisons. Blaek on Afroasiatic-Elamite relationship. However. it is easy to see that it has its serious drawbacks. or Elamite kassu 'horn' . parallel number 55 compares mE kuma 'he-goat' to PAA *kVm. the one hundred or so comparisons that he quotes all have different degrees of reliability.'cattle. All the critique presented above seems to convince me that not only is there not enough evidence to establish a direct Elamo-Dravidian or Elamo-Afroasiatic at the present time. represented only in Central Cushitic and one West Chadic language. while definitely valid and interesting from a 'global' comparative point of view (apart from some truly dubious lexical comparisons). which is quite understandable. But too many of the proposed cognates have their own weaknesses.. or the parallels between Elamite and Afroasiatic pronominal systems (which actually turn out to be just as strong as McAlpin's Elamo-Dravidian 'pronominal ties').id. as well. on the other. For instance. used by Blaek in his research. Unlike McAlpin.PAA *ḳVsw/y. are quite evident and plausible. but that it is simply a near-impossible task to establish a close relationsship of Elamite with any of the currently known families or macrofamilies. represented only in a few West Chadic and one Berber language. Blaek approaches the lexical comparison problem with far more caution than McAlpin does. Elamite does not disclose any specific ties with any known languages (and one should certainly not underestimate the .PAA *ʔil. Turning now to the theory of V.

It should be noted that I support the variant of the Nostratic theory that counts Afroasiatic as a different macrofamily. or North Caucasian. there arise additional problems here. however. and "isolated language" status are serious impediments in establishing a proved relationship through strictly formal methods.scarcity of lexical data. can be taken. denoting an exact match. the following principle will be assumed: if the Elamite root matches a root that serves or may serve as the "main" word for a certain 100-word list entry at least in one major subbranch of Nostratic (Afroasiatic. it does not match the Afroasiatic root *muk. an absolute majority of the entries are represented by New Elamite and Achaemenid Elamite entries. the common meaning is undoubtedly 'to suck'). for instance. Afroasiatic. lengthy. Afroasiatic. and one of these measures would be a tentative lexicostatistical analysis of the available Elamite data. Since at the present stage of studies in long range comparison it is usually extremely hard.'to eat' is considered to form a match with Nostratic. at least. and will be included in the final count. or with semantics that do not match) will be marked with a question sign. we face the usual problems that often accompany similar cases of isolated languages. if not necessarily clear the position of Elamite. and often impossible. could. Sino-Caucasian). on the other. these assumptions do not actually play any crucial role within the limits of this work. due to its having the same meaning in an archaic subbranch of Dravidian (Kurukh-Malto) and in certain subbranches of Altaic. Dubious matches (with extreme phonetic problems. and Sino-Caucasian. and try to find possible cognates for these words among the reconstructed roots of three macrofamilies whose relationship to Elamite. etc. such as. underrepresented in compared families. Needless to say. as well as the hypothesis that all three macrofamilies have a high probability of going back to a single "Eurasian" macrofamily. with lexical entries taken from every period of Elamite. most notably Sumerian . Fortunately.). 6 importance of intuitive perception of relationship). or Sino-Caucasian list. and most of the Old and Middle Elamite entries are also represented in the newer forms of Elamite. However. from Old Elamite (oE) to Middle Elamite (mE). at least point us in a certain direction for further research. Below I will give a list of all Elamite words from the 100-words whose meanings can be more or less considered established.due to semantic problems (in Afroasiatic. Dravidian or Kartvelian (or Semitic. An approximate comparison of the Swadesh-established 100-list for Elamite. unclear history of development. would seem most probable: Nostratic. when we try to apply a purely scientific method. However. and for the most important of its neighbouring macrofamilies. One of these problems is that the entire Elamite dictionary has been subjected to this analysis. on one hand. to determine the exact "main" word for a certain entry in the Nostratic. in entry N 12 the Elamite root mak. the entry will be marked with a "+" sign. which violates the principle of wordlist creation. General lexicostatistic comparison Some "preliminary" measures. New Elamite (nE) and Achaemenid Elamite (achE). Thus. from a geographical and chronological point of view. however. Out of all the .

are certainly enough to tie Elamite in with Nostratic. Furthermore. 7 comparisons. the probability of Elamite closely related to Nostratic becomes far higher than its probability of being closely related to Afroasiatic. For Nostratic. Kartvelian references are taken from (Klimov 1964). with 'relativity' as a key factor . Blaek's Afroasiatic-Dravidian comparisons cannot be overlooked and can hardly be explained by mutual borrowings alone. Blaek's article (Blaek 1994) and the . the very critique of McAlpin's theory given above is enough to prove that Elamite is related. Uralic references are quoted according to the reconstructions in (Redei 1986). Dybo. to demonstrate the relative validity of these ties.out of the basic 100 words. Dravidian references and etyma are taken from (DED). given that the final count will be given in percentage of coincidences rather than in absolute numbers. however. The morphological matches quoted by McAlpin. Another problem is the incompleteness of the wordlist . O. It is a well-known fact that lexicostatistics and glottochronology are primarily used in determining the level of relationship between languages already known to be related. S. Multiple sources have been drawn on for other data. to some families within the huge 'Eurasian' branch. then. It remains. ND). we can assume that they were simply not attested in that is obvious that if the principle of 'phonetic similarity' yields. etc. in a similar way. Mudrak. all of which are available online as part of the "Tower Of Babel" project. currently in print and also available in the form of a WWW database. in its turn. This is. the primary source of data are the works of V. only about 60 can be established for Elamite with a certain degree of assuredness. or. if not necessarily speaking in favour of the Elamo-Dravidian theory. for instance. only four words are found in documents not younger than Middle Elamite. more probable. However. it should be noticed that the main object of the comparison given below is not as much to establish a genetic relationship of Elamite with a given family as it is to deline the probability of its relationship with certain language families. leads to incorrect lexicostatistic results. which may eventually result in matching genetically unrelated forms with a secondary similarity. with numeration given according to the number of entry in the dictionary (Proto-Dravidian reconstructions. M. the most difficult problem is the establishment of the very fact of relationship between the Elamite word and the correlate in the compared macrofamily. Altaic etyma are for the most part drawn from the Altaic Etymological Dictionary by A. the only way to effectuate the comparison is by relying on the somewhat vague and somewhat subjective criterion of 'phonetic similarity'. are given according to my own interpretation of the PDR phonological system). Finally. Illych-Svitych (NE. twice as many matches of Elamite with Nostratic as it does with Afroasiatic. with an already established set of phonetic correspondences. Starostin. Additionally. and preliminary lexicostatistic analysis is an excellent way to do that. This. at least in some way. All Elamite data are given according to the dictionary of Heinz-Koch (HK). Most Afroasiatic data in the article are taken from V. Here. and since no clear lexical replacements for these words have been established in New Elamite. in denying the matching of genetically related forms that have diverged so much they do not have any obvious phonetic similarity any longer. not as relevant as it may seem.

? Afroasiatic: An alternate comparison is PHS *gid-/*gud. cf. etc. OTe. I have consulted the 100-wordlists of selected Afroasiatic languages. Eg. Militaryov. Copt. PEC *irV has an exact meaning big in languages of at least two different subgroups (Avaro-Andian and Tsezi) and cannot be excluded from view despite not having obvious Sino-Tibetan or Yenisseian correlations. be many' (HSED 919). Blaek compares the form to Proto-Afroasiatic *riʔs. but very vague from a semantical point of view. intense' (DED 1135). ir-a-ra 'the big one = great person. Drav. and its meaning slightly dubious. The form is rare. Ghat azəni. This probably accounts for a syllabic r ( = *ra). great. er_e 'state of being a master.: mE ku-ut-ti-na 'altogether'). The main NC root for 'big' seems to have been PNC *ɦaʯE. Ayr azni. etc. all'. even if we accept McAlpin's comparison. Blaek. + Sino-Caucasian: a perfect match exists in Proto-East-Caucasian *irV 'big. husband'. it cannot at all be proclaimed an exact match. *kat. Wordlists 1. 3. snof. (Pyr.and not to PD *id_-/*ed_.. many.. *ket`o 'much. In older texts usually spelled as ri-a-.) znf 'blood'. king. However. also 'bitter. lord' (DED 527) > Tam. 8 dictionary of Orel-Stolbova (HSED). ir-a-an-na. excessively'. Yu. thick'. "big": achE ir-a-na. most of the actual forms can be found in NCED (North Caucasian).'head. subst. I am also extremely grateful to A. kut-tan.'much. Sino-Caucasian data are for the most part taken from computer databases on Sino-Caucasian languages. "all": nE kut-ti-na. Yu. master'. Militaryov in person for checking out the main body of this article and helping out on certain interpretations of Afroasiatic data. er_a 'lord'. ir_ai 'anyone who is great. oE ri-a-a-ri 'the big one'. Additionally. it is the only Elamite word for 'blood' that has been possible to suggest. but so far. ? Nostratic: assuming a semantic change 'much.(the latter variant allows me to compare it to Altaic *edV 'host. kut-tan-na (der. However. 2.'.: Ifoghas azeni. WChad.'head'. suggested by V. Blaek offers a credible comparison in AA *ʒVn-(P-) > Eg.ys 'brain'. (Med) . Ahaggar ahen i id. chief'. a lot' > 'complete. In a somewhat similar manner V. etc. "blood": nE sa-an. achE kut-tin-na. large. The comparison is plausible if the Dravidian form indeed goes back to a PD *ir_-/*er_. the root can be compared to Alt. compiled by A. with even better semantics). chief' > Proto-Semitic *raʔi. Berb. lord. *zanyam id. Kan. No exact wordlist matches have been found in any of the analysed macrofamilies.). with outside Sino-Caucasian correspondences (PY *ʯeʔ 'big'. exceeding'.'be big. This is somewhat better phonetically than McAlpin's comparison. McAlpin compares the form with PD *ir_ay 'great person. + Afroasiatic: V. STED (Sino-Tibetan) and YD (Yenisseian). mE ri-a-ar id. compiled within the international "Tower of Babel" project. etc.. .

Both comparisons. the most apparent comparison would be to Proto-Indo-European *gʷher. M. with Egyptian and Hausa data. The meaning 'to burn' is represented in Sidamo gir-. however. bake') as opposed to 'verbrennen' ('to burn') for li-im-ma-. obviously a derivative of li-im 'fire'. "burn (tr. however. ku-ra-na with the meaning 'furnace'. and it is not excluded that the verbal base kura. on which see below. to seal the letter)'). etc. Beja gur 'to boil. the root functions as the main word for 'blood' in Egyptian and certain Berber and Chadic languages. which has also been compared to Proto-Kartvelian *zisxL. Apparently. ? Afroasiatic: For Nostratic *gUrʌ. cf. Bla relation to "devastative" activities. coal' see also Stolbova 1996. heteroclitic) form. The Nostratic root. is also based on a tentative Altaic *gur/V/. 5. Yu. where differences between transitive and intransitive conjugation are often extremely thin). In oE and mE. can hardly qualify for an exact wordlist match. Illych-Svitych (see ND 95) with the supposed meaning 'hot coals'.e.'furnace' and East Cushitic *kar. coal' > late Egyptian d_r 'fire'. li-ma-[a]k ku-ra-ak pa-at-pu-up ra-ap-pa-ak-na '(the enemies) should be V. 67. as well as in the 2nd p. also point out a possible comparison with Proto-Uralic *korpe. the word is found in the past participle form ku-ra-ak.'hot coals. The comparison therefore looks perfectly justified and can be qualified as an exact match. An alternate comparison is suggested by V. According to A. + Nostratic: obviously. nail": nE pu-ur (found in the expression pu-ur hw. the meaning of "versengen" was attributed to the word because of the derivative ku-ra-am-ma. to enflame'. It is regularly used as a 'pair-word' together with li-im-ma. to burn' (the Slavic forms.e. roast'. "claw. Cf. 9 isolated parallels can also be found in Omotic. ? Nostratic: An alternate route would be to compare the root with Indo-European *es(H)ar-/*es(H)an-. but one cannot exclude the possibility of it being used with causative suffixes in Indo-European. where the root is reconstructed as *ʒin-. blood' in reference to a supposed Proto-Nostratic *Vs(V)x. However.Illich-Svitych further suggests a comparison with PAA *g/w/r ' . but it is not altogether out of the question nevertheless. in certain texts we also find a verbal root kura.has to be reconstructed as the basic word for 'burn' in middle Elamite. at my feet be bound!' (HK 518). which further indicates that the word could have had an exact verbal meaning 'to burn' in Proto-Nostratic.whose meaning in the Elamite dictionary is given as 'versengen' ('to sear.'blood' and Proto-Altaic *sgu 'healthy. Militarev. 4. on a fair basis the context does not allow us to make a clear distinction. where the root is represented in its verbal form. We could.'blood'. who compares the Elamite root to Proto-Semitic *kawr. etc. also HSED 2626. sg. seared.'to boil'. For Chadic parallels with the meaning 'ashes.)": The basic form for 'burn' in mE is li-im-ma-. form ku-ra-at.'to burn' (Redei 186). However. are intransitive. p.'hot. The Elamite comparison is extremely dubious as it would be based on the Indo-European suffixal (i.a-h-pi-na ha-rak-qa 'the fingernail of Humban-ahpi is pressed (i. reconstructed as *gUrʌ.

) to an original combination of the root *pr- with a special preformative marker. "die": Elamite *halb-. Nevertheless. it is not very reliable within Afroasiatic itself (too little material) and does not correspond an exact match. PAA *seḳ. Proto-Altaic *soga ( ⁓ -u-) 'drunk. The root is the closest in semantics and phonetics that one could find. we are. cf. we will discuss them under the entry for 'kill'. PAA *saniʔ. further pointing out the 'fingernail' semantics.'to scratch' (DEDR 4023). alcoholic drink'.).'finger' in HSED 1953 (cf. Hebrew hiq.to PDR *n_. From the Dravidian part. however. Hebrew sipporen. where it is one of the primary roots denoting the object. *prs- 'finger. durnkedness'. 6. however. going back to a Proto-Nostratic root *nV 'young. the same root can be seen in what is reconstructed as *pr-. McAlpin compares Elamite innu. Furthermore. but the attempt is somewhat dubious (especially considering the parallels in other Afroasiatic languages given in HSED 513).can hardly correspond to a Nostratic voiceless stop.'to yield. ? Nostratic: cf. new reconstruction *p`iari) forms normally carry the meaning 'finger'.(> Elam.). Blaek's article). nE hal-pi-ik 'he died'. but the primary non-causative meaning may have been preserved in Ugaritic qy 'drink'. etc. i-in-nu-ik 'he comes'. etc. since the semantical similarity is very vague and the phonetical comparison involves the rather dubious Proto-Elamo-Dravidian phoneme *. the Chadic forms still give us an exact match. . yean. ? Afroasiatic: Cf. i-in-nu-ik-ni 'he should come'. the root has the meaning 'give a drink' (Akk. Plausible comparison.'to drink. 10 + Nostratic: excellent parallel in *p/a/r// 'finger. but the initial v. but it is one of the main roots for 'drink' in Central Chadic (PCCh *syaʯwa-). forced to reject that comparison. bear' (McAlpin 102). a more probable correlate is PDR *par_-and. "come": achE i-in-nu 'coming'. entry in V. etc. 7. bear young' of a far more reliable character. cf. give a drink' (HSED 2220). In Semitic. fingernail' in ND III 362 and *par. also the corresp. The meaning 'nail' is present in Chadic (Hausa far-‰e. -. an attempt is also made to trace Proto-Semitic *ṭ_upr. This seems to be the most basic word for the idea of 'coming' or 'arrival'.'finger' (DEDR 5409).'fingernail' (Akk. the usual correspondence pointed out it *ver-al. but so far. The Indo-European (*per-. *prst-) and Altaic (*para-a. + Afroasiatic: apparently. + Afroasiatic: cf. although a couple other roots can occasionally carry a similar idea. PD 0-). The distribution of the root is not very wide. 8. fingernail' (ND III 362). "drink": achE si-ka-da 'he had drunk'.'to go. The root is the same as for 'kill'. etc. The verb is extremely rarely met and the meaning is somewhat dubious. since all the possible external parallels are primarily connected with that meaning. run' (HSED 2197). also nE si-ki-tu-um 'state of being drunk. supru. the Dravidian root has an ideal match in Proto-Altaic *na 'younger sibling'. etc. but Proto-Kartvelian *prcxa is the basic Kartvelian form for 'fingernail'. In ND III 362. it is the only known equivalent for 'drink' in Elamite. aqu^.

11 9. da-a-da 'he who had created the Earth'. late Egyptian (sy. Likewise. earth and fire'. as the word is present mostly in an official meaning (cf.correspondence. within Nostratic one could compare the root with forms like Proto-Altaic *sri 'to know. However.'dry'. and there are no valid arguments to suggest the presence of a different 'colloquial' root in Elamite. "dry": cf. According to A. Malto mqe). which makes it even less reliable. Militaryov. the usual German translations 'verzehren. A very weak comparison can be found in V. This word was apparently used in both the meaning 'element (soil)' and 'world/territory'. set in place. + Nostratic: in Dravidian. feel'. which is given . and even so. nE. these are isolated and unclear forms with no reliable group etymologies. verbrauchen' rather than 'essen') and used in contexts of the type "X consumes Y measures/portions in Z days". Cf. Blaek's article. 12. 'to recognize. However. also achE zi-ut '(dried) fodder'. Ghadames ta-mmur-t id. this is the only example of an Elamite mu. achE mu-ru-un. The comparison could be acceptable if the semantics of the root were not so vague. for the first meaning: zu-ul mu-ru-un a-ak li-im 'water.'to see' (?). "eat": achE mak-. Yu. "ear": nE. the word is one of the primary roots for 'earth' in Berberic and has outside connections as well.: Dravidian *. none of them carries the meaning 'ear'. sip' (DED 5127). Tigrai mret 'earth' (Semitic). town' and traced back to a hypothetical PED *vur 'place'. 10. it has no reliable cognates in the surrounding macrofamilies whatsoever. village. 11. but such comparisons would not be of much use due to phonetic. "earth": mE. where he relates it to certain Central Cushitic (Waag ər 'to hear'). The root can further be compared with Proto-Altaic *muk`e 'to suck'. so far it is the only root for 'eating' at our disposal. with a further parallel in Malayalam mkuka 'to drink. a similar root for 'eat' can be found in Proto-North-Dravidian *mq- 'to eat' (Kurukh mxn. On the other hand. no more or less apparent matches or even possible cognates for the root can be found in any of the surrounding macrofamilies. we have a reliable Afroasiatic comparison: + Afroasiatic: cf. however. achE si-ri.although it is certainly among the better established Elamite lexemes. The word itself is usually seen as a derivative of the Elamite root mur. A somewhat dubious entry. A totally mysterious root . achE zi-ti-qa 'dried' (used in conjunction with 'grapes'). know') and Central Chadic (Zelgwa tsaraka 'to hear') forms. to sit'. semantical and distributional features. or Proto-Dravidian *‰r. Both words can account for a common Elamite root *zit. The entire wordfamily is compared by McAlpin with PDR *r 'native place.with the meaning 'to put. for the second meaning: ak-qa h.

"foot": mE. further parallels can be also found in Berber (Ghadames a-wəll id. slam 'to roast slightly. heat' > Old Chinese *l_m. Proto-Dravidian *el. evident'. this rather belongs to PAA *ʔir. could probably correct the original semantics from 'light' to 'visible. + Afroasiatic: PAA *ʕil. Lentekh lemesḳ < Proto-Kartvelian *leme‰. V. but the weak distribution (Arabic + West Chadic) and the lack of exact semantic parallels (the meanings 'suck'.'to eat. Taking into account the new Altaic reconstruction *p`agdi 'foot. which may be further compared with Proto-Sino-Tibetan *a(H) 'to look' and Proto-Yenisseian *de-s 'eye'. The newly established Altaic root *ila > Proto-Turc *iler. Lashkh lemes. according to (HSED 112). bright' > Proto-Kartvelian *el.'to be dimly visible'. 14. + Nostratic: obvious parallel in Proto-Nostratic *ṗatʌ 'foot' > Proto-Indo-European *ped-.'suck.'to appear'. hence also the verb limma. li-mi-in.'to shine'. While the distribution of the root is not very wide. Blaek also adds Egyptian . if it belongs here indeed. A reliable Uralic parallel can be found in Proto-Uralic *lom3 'warmth.. the Nostratic root does not present an exact wordlist match in any case. ? Sino-Caucasian: cf. drink' and Proto-Japanese *maka-nap.). cf. but.'to shine. 13. so the comparison is dubious. blaze.'to fill mouth with liquid'. Chadic. Proto-Uralic *jela 'light. lightning'. Proto-North-Caucasian *ʡwilʡi 'eye'. ? Nostratic: cf.t 'eye' to the compared forms. the correlation between Uralic and Kartvelian is strong enough to propose a Nostratic character for it. Proto-Nostratic *jela (ND I 148) 'light. Tib. 12 this meaning based on Proto-Mongolian *meke 'to suck. Berber and possibly Egyptian evidence all point out that the root is a strong candidate for the main PAA root for 'eye'. it most certainly belongs here. Proto-Mongolian *ile 'known. If the root is indeed of PAA character. blaze'. well-represented in Swan dialects: Upper Bali lemesg .'eye' (with further Chadic parallels). Proto-Korean *mək. Proto-Dravidian *pat. PAA *muk.r. in which case the comparison with Elamite el-ti is fully justified.'fire'. The match is not thoroughly exact (unclear vocalism correspondences).'eye' (HSED 1101) is one of the main roots for 'eye' in Cushitic (well-established Agaw and Eastern Cushitic parallels) and in Central Chadic languages. "eye": mE el-ti 'eye'. achE el-te 'his eye'. appear'.'to burn' (see above). However. and 'chew' are attested) do not make this an exact match in any case. nE el-ti-pi 'eyes'. nE ba-at (also spelled pa-at in mE). but acceptable.(NE 368). 'sip'. + Nostratic: the most obvious comparison is with one of the main Kartvelian roots for fire. *lham 'to heat. to parch'. Proto-Sino-Tibetan *luam 'burn.'to feed' (causative formation?). . chew' and Proto-Tungus *muku. Cushitic. however. bright'. flame'. 15. however. etc. This can hint at a tentative meaning "to eat (of liquid food)" in Proto-Nostratic. This is obviously the main root for 'eye' in this macrofamily. with further generalizations in several language groups. "fire": mE li-im. + Sino-Caucasian: cf. Proto-Japanese *arap -ar. ? Afroasiatic: Cf. drink' (HSED 1790).

but that doesn't really afflict the excellent quality of the comparison. Cushitic: Qwara lee 'to give'. including Semitic (Akk. der. oE li-e 'his gift'. mE. "give": mE tu-ni-h 'I gave'. within that particular branch it is one of the main roots denoting that activity. but this is a very vague probability.(where *-G. 13 sole'. Mokilko ʔel. etc. We will. padnu 'way. the Nostratic root may have to be reinterpreted as *paGd. with unclear differentiation in semantics: cf. One could consider a comparison with Proto-Indo-European *pləne.'to give'. The verb could seem to be more archaic than tun-. oE.(new reconstruction *t`uja). The root. Blaek compares the Elamite Root with PAA *d[i]n. Berber (Mzab fud. however.(*deHʷ-).. Semitic: Arab (Ta`iizz) m ʔalls 'there is not'. Although the root is hardly met in the meaning 'give' anywhere outside Semitic. + Sino-Caucasian: on the contrary. nE pu-un-qa-ak. PD . nadnum 'to give'.. travel').d . "full": achE pu-. There may actually be several roots involved here.'to give'. also PST *phoH 'to fill in'.. + Afroasiatic: V. nE li-h 'I gave'.has possibly to be taken as a prefix). Ghat afud . but none of them seem to share the meaning 'foot'.represents an unknown velar). pd 'knee. forms with the meaning 'give' are isolated and cannot pretend to be archaic. for instance). For Elamite li-. both verbs are present in New Elamite and the difference in functions between the two is unclear. filled'.'having'. Hebrew and Aramaic ntn. wafada 'to come. and East Chadic (Mubi fuudi 'thigh'). Zenaga offud_ 'knee'). 16. namely PN *to/H/ʌ (NE 338) > PIE *d. mE.'to be'. cf. A second root for 'give' is also fixed in documents.'to give'. to run'). considering also some phonetic problems (a strange variant with voiceless -t. 17. I have a hard time trying to imagine these forms as going back to an even hypothetic PAA *le-/*ʔele. but generally acceptable. since the former is missing in Old Elamite. nE du-ni-h id. achE du-na-a 'he gave'. Egyptian (p. the common Elamite root is *tun-. subject both roots to comparative analysis. PU *tɣe-. Not an exceptionally strong match. The root may stem from an earlier *pun-. and in Egyptian wdn 'to make sacrifice'. Proto-East-Cushitic *leh. so no exact match can be established. ? Afroasiatic: V. has no Caucasian or Yenisseian parallels and does not qualify as an exact match. etc. Chadic: Logone lii 'to be'. mE. ? Nostratic: certain parallels can be traced with the common Nostratic root for 'give'. pu-un-qa-qa 'it was full. found in verbal forms like pu-qa 'was full'. etc. therefore. also in the nominal derivative pu-pu-man-ra 'he who fills'. Arab. Elamite *li.seems to have an excellent match in the common PSC root for 'give'. Amhara ʔall. Blaek quotes the following forms. Blaek offers several correlates for the word. well represented in Semitic (Akk. PA *t. represented by PNC *i_V and PST *laʔ. if the Elamite form goes back to an earlier *pul-n-. etc. however. path'.'full'. nE li-en-ra 'he who gives'. No reliable external correlations have been found for the root. the initial *n.

the word denotes a certain colour and is used exclusively for describing clothes. (The original vowel of the root is unclear due to a regular confusion of -u.' derived from an older *tu. to compare the form to PAA *hVeb.with a nasal suffix. it is not excluded that the Elamite form is. Arab hdb 'to paint'.and can hardly qualify as a reliable phonologic match for Elamite. in this case. 18. issue!'. presuppose. 14 *t-/*ta-). become green (of trees)'. hu-ra-ap-na may be an erroneously contaminated form. No exact matches in any of the macrofamilies. The meaning 'green' is suggested due to an alternate form hu-ra-ap-na which is then compared to the root hura. in fact. A very uncertain form attested in one extract. The meaning reconstructed tentatively. hasbu 'to be green'. No reliable parallels have been found for this root. . ? Afroasiatic: a perfect match for the root could have been PAA *bahuy. "green": nE hu-la-ap-na.from Middle to Achaemenid Elamite). according to HK. ? Sino-Caucasian: potential correlates for the Elamite root can be seen in Proto-Yenisseian *gVʔVr 'hand'. id-du 'give out!. the original consonant of the root should be reconstructed as *-l. "good": oE. mE. 19. nE ba-ha. shoulder'.> usually reconstructed as a lateral affricate. PST *Khʷar 'fist. Not only does the root not represent an exact match. It cannot therefore qualify as an exact match. Considering that Proto-Semitic *-s^. No reliable external parallels can be found. many'. 20. Blaek suggests an Afroasiatic parallel in PAA *ḳar. achE kur-pi id. however.'to bloom. where it is furthermore dealt with animal (goat) hair. Cf. particularly to Proto-Semitic *hVs^ib. exact cognate might be found in PNC *bVHV 'big.'be green' (HSED 1385). however. the root is extremely weak. an old borrowing from a dialect of Proto. if these two are related to PNC *kwlʡ— 'hand' (NCED 706-7).and -i. the root presents further problems with semantics and phonetics (metathesis? in which subgroup?). it is also extremely weak and underrepresented on its own. As indirect evidence in favour of this hypothesis we can quote such occasional achE forms as id-du-i 'they gave out. Unfortunately. issued'. This would. these considerations are somewhat speculative.'many'. "hair": nE e-e 'his hair' (?). ? Sino-Caucasian: a tentative. that the Elamite base tuna-/tuni. Besides being so drastically underrepresented. but by no means. V. However.'be good' (HSED 191). It would be interesting. being reconstructed on the basis of Arabic bhy 'be beautiful' and Zime (Central Chadic) bayʔ 'good'. "hand": mE ki-ir-pi 'hands'. Egyptian qʕh 'arm. also PY *x—re 'arm'. PST *phH 'vast. handful'. wide'. however. PY *bəj. shoulder' > Somali qarqar 'upper part of shoulder' (East Cushitic).Semitic. 21.

McAlpin compares the root in its abstract meaning with PDr *uk-a. The meaning 'head' is probably primary here. nE uk-ku. + Nostratic: An exact match exists here in Uralic *uk3 'head' (Redei 542). Blaek's Afroasiatic comparisons (East Cushitic *hub. skull. with a later semantic derivation ("head" => "top. according to'). This cannot be excluded. + Afroasiatic: PAA *mun. etc.'to know') are scattered and unreliable. The root does not present an exact wordlist match. ? Sino-Caucasian: cf. Blaek rejects McAlpin's comparison assuming the Elamite form to be borrowed from Sumerian ugu 'head. with a specific grafic change to mark the process (while normally any old sequences of the *bu.). PNC *mnq 'breast. considering the vast usage and semantical differentiation of the root in Elamite. jump up' (DEDR 559). "heart": mE bu-ni. *hahp-. *munqi-) was not well preserved in daughter . certain phrases like nE ku-ul-lak. mE. it is only met in this particular lexeme. apart from proper names.'to raise. be sure'.'heart. whether it was just a graphical formality or reflected a real phonetic development). the word has no apparent cognates in any macrofamilies. upper side. breast' > Proto-Tungus *mianam 'heart'. Proto-Korean *manam 'heart'. However. the word finds excellent parallels in most macrofamilies: + Nostratic: PA *mionu  'heart. suppose a certain polysemy within Nostratic dialects themselves. we could also add PA *iga 'to rise. on'. Judging by Elamite material. V. The syllabic notation bu is extremely rare in Elamite. because. "head": mE.u-me ha-pu-it-ni 'may you hear my prayers' suggest that the word could be used in both the functions of 'listen' and 'hear'.type were marked in Elamite as pu-. If Elamite buni indeed goes back to muni. One might suggest two different and often contaminated roots within Nostratic itself ("to rise. to give'. Dahalo huw-at_. ascend".'to know. Certain problems with establishing an exact meaning here. It cannot be excluded that the word was actually dissimilated from an earlier *muni. the entry serves as the main word for 'heart' in Dahalo (muna) and Proto-South-Cushitic (Proto-Rift) *mun-. according to' (HK 1210). Turkic *ig. to fall over'. but the basic character of the lexeme (it forms part of Yakhontov's "ultra-stable" 35-word list) makes such a probability somewhat doubtful. but most certainly belongs here. more probably. liver' (HSED 1794). 15 22. in fact. above"=> later development as in Greek kata 'downwards. summit").'to ascend. or. etc. Overall. due to. the word is usually seen as related to the postposition uk-ku with the meanings 'upon. this common Eurasian root (*mun-. nE *hap-. In any case. 23. V. Proto-Japanese *muna-i 'breast'. 24. "hear": oE. "head. fall over' > Proto-Japanese *a(n)ka. as the majority of the attested forms are usually assigned the meaning 'to listen' (ha-ap-hu 'we listen'. ha-h-pu-un-ra 'listener'.'to rise. bosom'.

umbilical cord'. a few cases of irregular nasalisation of lateral resonants are found in this subgroup. both variants are attested (cf. "kill": achE hal-ba-. look promising. this shift has a sporadic character. u. nE u. be exhuasted'.'to crumble. 27. hal-pi-i 'he struck down' (the meanings 'to strike' and 'to kill' go hand in hand for the root). To this. Salur kandu. like of suffixal nature. McAlpin reconstructs a Proto-Elamo-Dravidian *i > Proto-Dravidian *y. forms like hal-ba-qa 'is killed'.'to kill' > Kolami alg-. kill'. PDR *kal 'stone' > Ollari kand. Makari fina 'breast' (Central Chadic). Matmata qi. However. Blaek compares the Elamite pronoun with various 'labialized' forms of the Afroasiatic 1st person pronoun. some of these forms. Proto-Mongolian *ala. pronoun. none allow for establishing any direct matches within the 100-word list. but mE ni. nE kas-su. Cushitic. *wei-es 'we'. nE qa-as-su. achE hu . 16 languages. however. Any observations on the connection between this Elamite pronoun and corresponding pronouns in other macrofamilies would be highly speculative. "I": oE u.'to kill'. *y-n 'I'. Salur anukci key. cf. which is due to it already possessing 'abstract' connotations on the Proto-Eurasian level. the main root for 1st person pl. and in most cases. Proto-Omotic *ḳusim. hal-ba 'dead. etc. achE nu 'thou'). destroy. one could compare PA *lV 'to destroy. Gulfei fana. kill' > Proto-Turkic *Alk. we could certainly add the PIE form *wei-. the exact parallels between Altaic. destroy'.. the suggested forms are scattered and do not present any exact matches. The root can certainly pretend to be of Common Afroasiatic origin. Cf.'to finish. . abunnatu(m) ' All of these comparisons point at a very archaic state of the Elamite pronoun. with the meaning 'horn' preserved everywhere.). "horn": mE. The 1st person pronoun. ? Afroasiatic: Blaek compares the root with PAA *d_-b-l > Semitic *d_bl 'to ruin. + Afroasiatic: V. in Elamite he supposes that the usual vowelshift *i > u has taken place. 'female breasts'. Blaek compares the root with PAA *ḳVsw/y. (DED 277. also the forms for 'die'. Proto-Tungus *li. Logone kas^u. Proto-Kolami-Gadba *al-. etc. nu. for instance. also in Dravidian. cf. (DED 309). but nevertheless. Eg. (Med) bn. mE u. Naikri ala.). scattered in various languages and dialects. Harawa kiiu (Berber). Senhaja a-qaaw. 26. Eg.'horn' > Beja koos. none of them constitute an exact match. u. to kill an animal'. Blaek suggests an alternate comparison with PAA *b[u]n. killed'. later wy 'I' (dependent series). V. or the Chadic forms for 1sg possessive pronoun (Hausa -wa. Cf. . which annulates the Dravidian comparison.'to destroy. nE. 25. maybe also Parji andkip. + Nostratic: assuming that Elamite and there is little ground to doubt its primary character. and North Caucasian make it a strong candidate for the common Eurasian word for 'heart'.w. and is thus a perfect match for the Elamite entry. oE ni.> Akk. shows a stable and regular *u at all stages. on the contrary. While these parallels do not presuppose any phonetic changes in Elamite.

'male' (Bokkos re).). *d_aS.'back. to doubt') and particularly PD *ter-i. an extremely weak representation (meaning 'kill' in only two Central Chadic languages). but this is questionable from both phonetic and semantic points of view. with. 34. Arabic hassa id. "liver": nE ru-el-pa-min. however. Proto-Omotic *ʔa‰. and compares both words with PAA *haS-. body'. besides supposing a metathese in Elamite). "name": mE.'to be seen.t 'men'. Cf. but both remain dubious. 28. 30. 33. a not wholly established meaning. clear'. Tamil terul 'to know'. achE tur-na-i id. also mE. Proto-East-Cushitic *haaaw. 17 (Pyr) d_b. A derivate of *ra. cf.. also PAA *gal. furthermore. PAA *ʔa‰-/*ʔi‰.'to know how to' (?). but is still nowhere near an exact match. as well. etc. An unclear word with. glory'.'to know how to. the primary meaning of the root is 'tail' and .'big'. PAA *reh. where the root is reconstructed as *dub-. with constant meaning shifts to 'know' (DED 3419. PA *t`erk`o 'to think' (> Proto-Turkic *TerKe. achE ru-hu 'offspring' and other derivates. cf.). etc. id.'man' (HSED 2106) > Eg. see above. reconstructing a Proto-Elamo-Dravidian *he. "neck": nE ti-pi (meaning approximate). but the root's wide distribution in Omotic makes this a somewhat exact match. No apparent cognates. + Afroasiatic: cf. Ugarite d_ss 'to feel'. Proto-Mongolian *taraki 'brain. research'. pair'. mind. (Pyr) rhy.'to chat'.'to think. This comparison looks somewhat more plausible than McAlpin's. nE. Blaek compares the root to Akkadian rad_ . ? Afroasiatic: cf. Blaek draws on the Elamite derivative hia 'praise. "know": mE. Proto-Tungus *terge. "man": achE ru-h. turna. achE tur-. red_ 'to beget.. The match is perfect phonetically. Comparisons have been offered for the word by both McAlpin and Blaek.(mE du-ur-na-a 'he knew'. Malayalam teriyuka 'to understand. However. McAlpin compares it with PD *ey. Not quite reliable for phonetic reasons. 29. Very weak comparison (not an exact wordmatch.. but the root is so drastically underrepresented that an exact match is out of the question.'meat. head'. achE hi-i. know'.'meat' (HSED 13) > Gisiga ʔie (Central Chadic). 32. ? Afroasiatic: Blaek proposes a correlation with PAA *duby.'to observe. according to HSED 731. ? Nostratic: cf. tail'. understand' (DED 806). "meat": nE i-i-ti. Proto-West-Chadic *ryaH. "many": achE ir-e-ik-ki (*rekki?).> Akk. nowhere in Dravidian does the meaning 'know' seem to be original.'to kill' (HSED 1004). Proto-Agaw *ʔV‰-. *d_assu 'to remember'. 31.

Unfortunately..with the same suffix and no assimilation: cf. this root corresponds with one of the main Omotic roots for 'night'. however.prevents us from accepting the comparisons. probably related to the well-known Nostratic negative/prohibitive particle (PIE *ne. considering that there exist other examples of roots ending in -n. reconstructing the initial form as *in. mE a-ni. cf. particularly the Omotic forms (Dizi qoy. 35. constitutes an exact wordlist match.(Blaek): Akk. From a "pure Elamite" point of view. PU *ne. 38. 36.'nose' (Chuvash sъmza). Ari soyt-i. a-nu. a-ni-i. On the other hand. 37.'nose. n 'not'. The Omotic entry. . mE u-ut-me. 18 'buttocks' rather than 'back'. Beja kwo 'unit' and a few tentative Chadic parallels. connections with forms such as PU *kte 'one' would be extremely tentative. Sheko k(w)oy 'one') and East Cushitic *kaww. oE a-ni. Blaek analyzes the form as *in-me. "night": oE. Proto-Tungus *sogi. soot-i 'night'. cf. ʔn id. PD *‰und. Hamer soyt-i. nE a-ni.'one. part of nose' > Proto-Turkic *sum-/*s—m.. with a suffixed -me as in tit. PK *nu . Cf. + Afroasiatic: PAA *ʔin. + Nostratic: PA *n i 'not'. (Pyr) kyy 'another'. "no": nE. Proto-Mongolian *samsaɣa 'wing of nose'. such as PAA *san-/*sin. tit-me tongue and subsequent assimilation. No other cognates have been found.'nose' (HSED 2194). oE su-de-it 'at night'. achE an-nu . 17). achE in-na. our not being able to satisfactorily rationalize the change *in. the root is only represented in the meaning 'nose' in Chuvash and one Tungus dialect and has no reliable Nostratic parallels. alone'. PST *si or *su 'to smell'. PA *suma 'nose. the comparisons of Blaek look quite plausible. such a hypothesis is highly questionable. PNC *s_Hwin-ṭ 'to smell'. suutay. etc. he further suggests comparisons with Arabic swd 'to be black' and Beja sootay. PU *s'ak3 'smell. though. + Afroasiatic: while one can hardly speak of a common PAA root for 'one'. for instance. All these forms certainly point to a common Eurasian root. however.'beak. where -e is the possessive suffix of the 3sg pronoun. parallels also exist in Cushitic. "nose": achE i-um-me 'his nose' < *im-e? V. snout' (DEDR 2664). a-nu (the second root used in prohibitive constructions). sooday 'of dark colour'. ND p. this is not an exact match. to smell' (Redei 462). ynu 'isn't'. Eg. cf. nose ring'. Galila oyt-i. (the basic Semitic verb for negation). cf. + Afroasiatic: according to Blaek.> im. achE nan-me 'day'. Hebrew ʔayin. No other parallels have been found for this numeral in Nostratic or Sino-Caucasian. etc..would help bring in many reliable external cognates. either way. "one": achE ki. mE murun-me 'arable land'. Elsewhere. Much more probable is the 'traditional' interpretation of the form as *im-e. Dime suut-u. other parallels include Eg.

the parallel looks convincing.(both in the meanings 'look' and 'see'. nE mur-da-am-pi 'they are sitting down'. na-an-be 'they are saying'. Tangale naa. that would. 41..)'. all with the meaning 'say'. Bokkos ni. the comparison is still acceptable. etc..with PDr *en_.due to untrivial vocal correspondences between Dravidian languages. sitting'. speak'. No evident matches can be found in any macrofamilies. + Afroasiatic: cf. Hadiya duuba 'cloud' (East Cushitic). also. Dime deeb 'rain'.'drop'. PST *aʔ 'to speak'. also Blaek's comparison to certain West Chadic forms (Fyer ne.(na-a 'he said'. maybe PST *siə(H) 'to know. but there definitely is some kind of proto-language match with Elamite.> Elamite na-). noting a very close similarity in syntactic use between the two roots. One should. PAA *ṭif. "see": siya-/*ziya. and also the fact that the etymon presented in DED 868 should actually be reconstructed as *yan. Ari doob id. 42. Jimbin dabuna 'rainy season' (West Chadic). Dizi diab 'to rain'. "sit": cf.'drizzle'. Bolewa ni na. Kafa dup id. say'. achE mur-da-ak 'he was residing. however. the AFro-Asiatic root is very weak. (HSED 17). Central Chadic *ṭa-ṭVf. but mE si-ya-h 'I watched'. Blaek compares the root to PAA *dib-/*dub.'skin' (HSED 15). which is questionable. cf. achE zi-ya 'I saw'. Sura naa. ? Afroasiatic: cf. 19 39. The same root as in mu-ru-un 'earth'. see above. "rain": nE te-ip . Kera dubueni 'rain' (East Chadic). PAA *ʔan.).'to speak.> Rendille dubbat. 40.'to speak' (HSED 40) > Berber *ʔVn-. If -in is historically a suffix. achE ha-tin . West Chadic *ṭaf- 'rainy season'. being only represented in a couple of Cushitic languages (*ʔad-) and Arabic (*ʔadam-). McAlpin compares Elamite na. although not constituting a wordlist match. etc. note certain serious phonological problems: the reduction in Elamite (McAlpin presumes a Proto-Elamo-Dravidian *ena.) + Nostratic: the only more or less solid Nostratic parallel for this verb is found in Dravidian. The comparison is also acceptable. but the distribution of the meaning 'rain' is too scarce in languages to present a convincing match. PY *a. one could compare the root with PAA *ʔad. + Sino-Caucasian: cf. however.'to say. rain' (HSED 2470) > Sem.'drop. . *ʔadam. etc. "skin": nE ha-te-en. think'. Despite the root's rather weak representation in language branches. *ṭipp. "say": achE na. Whether we are dealing with one or more roots in PAA is hard to tell. nE mur-tin 'seat (n. No matches. West Chadic *ʔan-. ? Cf. (Omotic). unless certain untrivial phonetic changes have to be supposed. Even so. suppose a correspondence of PAA *ʔ = Elamite h-. 40. East Chadic *ʔan.

"thou": oE ni. Hebrew ha with secondary h-?) and a few Cushitic forms. 46. hu. "stone": achE h. like'.'this'. If the final -ka can be considered as suffixal (cf. the parallels in ND I 12. The basic form is *i. d. that'). PU *i-/*e. used for far deixis. they are nowhere near as strongly distributed among Afroasiatic languages. Phoenician hr id. nE hi. Berber: Ahaggar ahor 'accumulation of rocks'). (cf. the similar pronoun ap-pa 'what. while the basic deictic particles *a.'this'. East Cushitic: Yaaku h~~rɔ' 'big rock'. achE ak-ka.or PNC *ha with a later shift in meaning. ak-qa. however. personal marker in verbal conjugation). + Nostratic: PN *ʔi/*ʔe (ND 134) > PK *(h)i 'that'.in their basic deictic meanings. nE. PK */h/a 'this'.lg. The word is usually interpreted as *nan-hunte 'keeper of day'. so an exact match cannot be guaranteed. the scattered parallels that Illich-Svitych gives in ND 134. Mehri k id. "sun": oE na-hu-te.> Semitic: Akkadian akkʔi.. Thus. the meaning 'that' (demonstr. pronoun) in any of the Afroasiatic languages is exceedingly rare and cannot pretend to be of proto-language origin. ? Nostratic: cf. PD *a 'that'. which is unknown. the root can easily be compared with Common Eurasian deictic particles: + Nostratic: PN *a 'that' (ND I 121) > PA *a/*o 'that'. mE. Not an exact -i-. where Illich-Svitych compares the Semitic definite article (Aramaic -. ʔaka 'why'. nE. Note. PNC *ha. nu . It is interesting to note that.'that'. ? Afroasiatic: cf. how?'. ? Afroasiatic: Blaek compares this with PAA *har. Aramaic ʔakam 'how'. achE i. in order to. and can therefore be considered as a euphemistic substitute for the original Elamite word for 'sun'. PST *ʔi id. but there is no talk about reconstructing a stable PAA *a.'mountain. oE. Ugaritic ik. "this": mE hu. achE hi. nE. Cf. 45. 47. Omotic: Yemsa akka 'thus. mE d. achE nu . 20 43. + Nostratic: McAlpin's classic comparison with PDR *n 'thou' is still working (although a . Hebrew ʔk.or *i.nah-hu-un-te. rock' (Semitic: Hebrew har. Reliable parallels certainly can be found.har. West Chadic: Ngamo aka 'how'. PU *a-/*o. herer 'mountain'. + Sino-Caucasian: PNC *ʔi 'this'.are so widespread within Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian. for instance. PD * most of them having to do with the 3sg m. nE d. PA *i 'this'. ? Sino-Caucasian: cf. also Blaek's comparisons: PAA *ʔak/k/. etc. forms with -u- show the usual Elamite graphic (phonetic?) variation between -u. akka 'that.. East Cushitic: Oromo aka 'like'. mE ni.and *i. PD *ar_-ai 'rock' (DED 321). "that": mE. a base used for near deixis as opposed to *ʔo. it does not constitute an exact match.. 44. It is unclear whether it is PNC *ʔo that corresponds to Elamite/Nostratic *a. that while the forms are certainly comparable.

To this one should also add PA *na 'thou' > Proto-Turkic *- (ending of the 2nd person). preserved as a proper noun and interpreted by Heinz-Koch as 'tooth'.hu-sa. even if the Old Elamite proper name si-h-ha-an does belong here (which is not obvious). however. Proto-Slav. ? Nostratic: cf.). Proto-North-Dravidian *tat-q 'tongue' (> Kurukh tatx. have no parallels in other branches and do not even qualify as a solid Proto-Omotic root. DED 3064).'a Elamite (i. While the basic Nostratic stem for 2nd person sg. This is the main Semitic etymon for 'tree'. Kefa ne. the Altaic-Dravidian isogloss is too serious to go unnoticed. 49. "tooth": mE si-h-ha. fang'. 21 more correct PDR reconstruction would be *njn for the direct stem). comparing it with PAA *wary. mE *sihha can go back to an earlier oE *sihhan. PST *CVj 'tooth. 48. *ʕis^ 'tree'. *ni-ni 'thou' (cf. PA *sla 'sharp stick. Assuming a possible assimilation. Proto-Mongolian *sid 'tooth'. ? Afroasiatic: Blaek quotes North Omotic *ni.'tooth. *asь id. although it has no Caucasian or Yenissei parallels). etc. the comparison does not constitute an exact match.back to *silha. uosis 'ash tree'. the final -n can well be a suffix. Two different self-exclusive comparisons can be offered in the case of this root. and thus looks quite reliable. much less Proto-Afroasiatic. Proto-Elamite *wari). On one hand. + Afroasiatic: PAA *ʕ^. "tree": nE. etc.e. Proto-Japanese *na id. achE GIS. (In HSED 2250. West Chadic (SBauchi) *sin. Ahaggar esiin (Berber). 50. *inn-. The root has no other Dravidian or Nostratic parallels. PST *na. Even assuming that his hypothesis for Elamite is correct. and cannot be taken for an exact match. we can then trace *sihha. "two": nE ma-ir. ti-ut-me. you' (the main Sino-Tibetan root for 'thou'. the root is reconstructed as *sin-). achE mar.'tooth' > Sem. Welamo nena). + Sino-Caucasian: cf.'thou. tooth' > Proto-Turkic *sl. East Chadic *ʔu^. On the other hand. "tongue": achE ti-ut. however. ? Nostratic: cf. This is the etymology accepted by Blaek. 51. which makes it possible for him to compare the root with: + Afroasiatic: *si[h]n. . PIE *ʔsʌ. No reliable parallels for this root can be found.> m.'tree' (HSED 1126) > Sem. Hausa waari 'a pair'). is usually reconstructed as *ti/*si. South Cushitic *sihn-. these forms. Ngizim yaanau.'fig tree' (?). Proto-Cushitic *wri 'or'. of tree' (Lith. mar-ra. Proto-Korean *nə 'thou'. + Nostratic: PU *c'il3-m3 'fang'.(Beja wari 'other'. Malto tarte.and compare it with: + Sino-Caucasian: PNC *c—ɫɦV 'tooth'. sharp stick'. Blaek presumes a development *w.

PNC *i_A 'to move. No exact parallels for this root can be found.). Proto-Dargwa *a:. except for words with rather remote semantics. 54. go' (Tamil iyaku. also Proto-South-Dravidian *Is-a-/*Ij-a. etc. go away'. Proto-West-Caucasian *ə 'to move. come'). we' (Old Chinese *h 'I. follow. 53. + Nostratic: PN *nʌ. WCh *siy- 'return'. despite the scarcity of known lexics with well established meanings. DED 469). Proto-Lezghian *ʔi:. hasten'. the forms given in Blaek's table of Afroasiatic pronouns).)'. "we": oE ni-ka. the reconstruction for the Proto-Dravidian root should rather look like *mad_. Proto-Tungus *is. The root has no exact semantic matches in any of the major macrofamilies. according to the hypothesis expressed in (Starostin 1998). (Note that this is yet another case of potentially close Elamite-Dravidian relationship undermined by data of other Nostratic languages). such as PAA *sayal. Conclusion As can be seen from the wordlists above. reach'. next' (DED 4766).'I. + Afroasiatic: PAA *nV.'to follow'. icaku. however. current' (HSED 2213).(with an alveolar stop) which further complicates the comparison. a 'I'.'to be. + Sino-Caucasian: PST *. This would mean that.'to come'. come' (Proto-Avaro-Andian *:ʷV. "water": mE zu-ul. CCh *si. Proto-Mongolian *i‰u.'to reach'. etc. 22 An alternate comparison would be to Proto-Dravidian *mar_. achE izza-/izzi. A particularly striking discovery is that Elamite seems to share a significantly lesser number of cognates among the 100-wordlist with Sino-Caucasian (7-8 pluses) than with Nostratic (14-15 pluses) or Afroasiatic (15-16 pluses).'other. 52. ? Sino-Caucasian: cf. in case all of those three macrofamilies were interrelated. Proto-Lak *aj-:u. "walk": nE.)'. achE iz-zi-man-ra 'the walker'. This base in Nostratic is represented by PD *nm 'we (excl.'we' (cf. . go' > Proto-Turkic *E‰. Burm. etc.'to go back.'water flow.'come'. PA *il[u] 'river bed'. achE nu-ku.'to come. Tib. Kannada esagu 'to drive'. ? Afroasiatic: cf. sysy 'hurry. PIE *ne-/*n. The relationship remains unclear. we'.(iz-zi-i 'he went'. In any case. PA *i‰e 'to reach. get ready to'. but can be easily compared to quite a few forms anyway: ? Nostratic: cf.(ND I. Elamite still presents sufficient surface evidence to help relate it to some of the surrounding macrofamilies. mE ni-qa. PAA *si.'we (oblique stem)'. 7) 'we (excl. to come'. Cf. p.'to retreat. nE.).'go. come' (HSED 2225) > Eg. Sino-Caucasian would have to be considered more distant from the other two. a 'we'. Proto-Japanese *isua(n)k- 'to hurry.'to move. get ready to go back'. this cannot be judged as an exact match. PK *naj 'we'.

1856. pp.Klimov.Caldwell.. Caldwell. 89-101. Elamsky jazyk ("The Elamite Language"). B.Diakonoff.Orel V. this solution seems rational to me. there are certain things we can say for almost certain.Burrow T. Diakonoff. lexicostatistical results for which look far more grim in general. HK . W. In: Nostratic.. 1979 . both the lexical and the morphological evidence of Elamite find enough parallels in Eurasian macrofamilies to exclude the possibility of chance similarities. As a working hypothesis. and unless further evidence from Elamite (or Afroasiatic) comes up to severe the ties between these two families. it is nigh impossible to determine which of the two families is closer related to Elamite. 1979. 3. The new Dravidian-Afroasiatic parallels. maximum two Afroasiatic subbranches. Austric and Amerind. Afroasiatic seems to give somewhat better parallels within the "ultra-stable" 35-word list. ed. 37-50. H. Robert. Second Edition. Shevoroshkin. David W. A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages.McAlpin. given the highly approximate reliability of the overall procedure in this particular case. G. V. BIBLIOGRAPHY Blaek. that there is absolutely no sufficient evidence whatsoever to claim a specific Elamo-Dravidian relationship (apart from the usual . there are only 2 direct matches between Elamite and Dravidian in the entire wordlist). 1987. "earth". Moscow. look extremely promising. HSED . Toward Proto-Elamo-Dravidian. 1994. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Dene-Caucasian. in most of the cases Elamite forms match a certain protoform of one. I. McAlpin. London. This would explain much of the lexical and morphological parallels proposed by both McAlpin and Blaek as well as by myself in the present article.Blaek. Klimov 964 . Brill Academic Publishers. 1984. 1964. perhaps a sole remnant of an old subbranch of the global "Eurasian" or "Boreal" family that also includes Nostratic and Afro-Asiatic. 150-65. At this point. Moscow. That said. Elamisches W£rterbuch (in 2 Teilen). M. that despite this. based on the above comparisons. Vaclav. and "horn". 23 As for the Nostratic and Afroasiatic parallels.Hinz.and quite common . Etimologicheskii slovar' kartvel'skikh iazykov ("An etymological dictionary of Kartvelian languages"). v. DED . Stolbova O. Emeneau M. pp. Language 50. Elamite presents us with a far more clear case of relationship than Sumerian. and such exclusive Afroasiatic/Elamite matches as "blood". which does not give us the possibility to claim an exact match with Proto-Afroasiatic as such. pp. Berlin. Jazyky Azii i Afriki ("The languages of Africa and Asia"). On the other hand. 1974 . Oxford. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary. First. Preliminary report.. 1992 . .matches in personal and demonstrative pronouns. I would probably describe Elamite as a "bridge" between Nostratic and Afroasiatic. Second. I think this is the most plausible way to deal with the current situation. A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. 1856 . Koch.

IV. University of Melbourne. Starostin S. Starostin. II. 1996. Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The Evidence and its Implications. . 1997). A Comparative Vocabulary of Five Sino-Tibetan Languages. Moscow. Current Anthropology 16. In: Etimologiya 1965. Sravnitel'nyj slovar' yeniseyskikh yazykov ("A comparative vocabulary of the Yenisseian languages"). III. S.Illich-Svitych.Illich-Svitych.Peiros. S.McAlpin.Nikolayev S. 1994. vol. 1981. Moscow. STED . Comparative Dictionary of North Caucasian Languages. M. K. NE . I. 176-315. Alveolar Consonants in Proto-Dravidian: One or More? // Proceedings of the International Conference on South Asian Languages (July 1 . V. Wiesbaden.G. NCED . McAlpin. 1971.McAlpin. Harrassowitz. 1975. 24 1974. Moscow. 1975 .Stolbova. In: Ketskyj sbornik. PED . V. 1996. Moscow.4. vol. pp. vol. Redei 1986 . Australia. 1998.Starostin S. 198?. ND .Redei. 1995. pp. vol. M. I. Starostin.. David W. Philadelphia. 1986. YD . Stolbova 1996 . O. Elamite and Dravidian: Further Evidence of Relationship.. Opyt sravneniya nostraticheskikh yazykov ("A temptative comparative dictionary of the Nostratic languages"). Studies in Chadic Comparative Phonology. Materialy k sravnitel'nomu slovar'u nostraticheskikh yazykov ("Materials for a comparative dictionary of the Nostratic Languages"). Uralisches etymologisches Worterbuch. 1967. Moscow. The American Philosophical Society. Starostin 1998 . 1984. 105-115. Moscow. David W.