Trustees of Indiana University Anthropological Linguistics

Trustees of Indiana University
Anthropological Linguistics
Review
Author(s): Carleton T. Hodge
Review by: Carleton T. Hodge
Source: Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Summer, 1998), pp. 318-332
Published by: The Trustees of Indiana University on behalf of Anthropological Linguistics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30028630
Accessed: 15-02-2016 14:58 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Trustees of Indiana University and Anthropological Linguistics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Anthropological Linguistics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:58:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review Essay
Semitic and Indo-European: The Principal Etymologies, with Obser-

vations on Afro-Asiatic. SAULLEVIN.Amsterdam Studies in the Theory
and History of Linguistic Science. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 1995. Pp.
xxii + 514, $97.00 (cloth).
Reviewed by Carleton T. Hodge, Indiana University
1. Introduction. Saul Levin has here assembled over ninety sets of forms,
Indo-Europeanand Semitic,most of which are so similar both in form and mean-
ing that accident is out of the question. These are presented with careful atten-
tion as to precisely how they are attested. The assembled samenesses are there-
fore to be explained as due either to genetic relationship or to borrowing. The
examples include a great deal of morphologicinformation,such as case endings
for the nouns and personal endings for the verbs. In Levin's (p. 11) view,
morphological similarities are fundamental and are to be established before
setting up sound correspondences,with the consequent separation of loans and
inherited forms. The sound correspondences are to be the subject of a future
volume.
The positing of a genetic connection between Indo-European and Semitic
goes back at least as far as RichardLepsius (1836). Morerecent work deals with
broaderrelationships and includes widely different analyses. Theophile Obenga
(1993) treats only languages of Africa,these divided into four groups: (1) Black
African-Egyptian (Egyptian, Cushitic, Chadic, Nilo-Saharan, and Niger-Kor-
dofanian),(2) Semitic (South Arabianand Ethiopic),(3) Berber, and (4) Khoisan.
He rejects Afroasiatic as a unit. Vladimir Orel and Olga Stolbova (1995) and
ChristopherEhret (1995)both reconstructAfroasiaticprotoformson the basis of
the generally accepted grouping (Egyptian, Semitic, Berber, Chadic, Omotic,
and Cushitic). Allan Bomhard (Bomhard and Kerns 1994) reconstructs Afro-
asiatic forms on the same basis, but considers Afroasiatic as only one of a num-
ber of language groupsmaking up Nostratic. Indo-Europeanis one of these, so is
treated parallel to Afroasiatic. His presentation of data is more detailed than
that of Orel and Stolbova or of Ehret. My own recent work considers Afroasiatic
and Indo-European as a unit, called Lislakh (e.g., Hodge 1981, 1988a, 1990,
1991, 1992). Semitic and Indo-Europeanare two members of such a grouping
(Egyptian, Semitic, Berber, Chadic, Omotic, Cushitic, and Indo-European).
Levin's work therefore fits most comfortablyinto this pattern, but is not out of
place in Bomhard's.
Of all recent work, Levin has presented his data in far the most detail and
with the most meticulous attention to attestation and to the phonetics of the
sources. This makes his work extremely valuable to anyone concerned with the
318
1998 ESSAY
REVIEW 319
relationship of these languages. The more detailed the data are, the less likely
the researcher is to draw false conclusions. It is important that Levin's work be
integrated into other efforts to connect these languages. The examples below
illustrate how I would go about fitting Levin's data into my own analyses.
This involves chronology first of all. His attested similarities are largely
from the first millennium B.C.My reconstructions aim at 20,000 B.P. (Hodge
1991:141) and often involve data from the third and second millennia B.C.
(Hodge 1990:642). There is time between the estimated date of my recon-
structions and his dates of attestation for the separation of languages and for
subsequent contact, even extended contact, between groups that had earlier
separated. It is hoped that consideration of his attested data and my recon-
structed forms will help to clarify the situation.
As noted above, Levin's similar forms include nouns with case endings and
verbs with personal affixes. I have long held the view that morphologicalcombi-
nations such as these are the result of the amalgation of earlier syntactic struc-
tures and are not likely to survive over extended periods of time (Hodge 1975:
211-12). This conclusion was, in large part, based on observation of the longest
known language history, that of Egypto-Coptic,where a pattern of verbs with
suffixes is replaced by a prefix type (Hodge 1970, 1975). The implication is that
Levin's morphological similarities should belong to a shorter period of devel-
opment than that assumed for the Lislakh hypothesis. An alternative is to use
his data within the Lislakh framework as a test of my view as expressed in
Hodge (1975).
Only a few of the ninety-plus sets (usually pairs) of data may be considered
here, but they are, I believe, representative. In each case, one has the problem of
decidingwhether (1) the forms from both Semitic and Indo-Europeanare inher-
ited fromthe protolanguage,(2) one of the two borrowedthe item from the other,
or (3) the two do not belong together, i.e., were neither inherited from the same
protoroot(or protobase), nor were borrowedone from the other. Any discussion
on my part of Afroasiatic or Indo-Europeaninvolves a number of factors. Those
to be noted are:
1. Consonant ablaut (see, e.g., Hodge 1994b)
2. Reconstructed protobases (or protoroots) having two consonants each
(Hodge 1994b)
3. Reconstructed protoaffixes (Hodge 1994a)
4. Prothetic alif (Hodge 1987b)
2. Consonant ablaut. Levin (p.c. 1997) has informed me that he believes

consonant ablaut to be essential to the reconstruction of Afroasiatic, Afroasiatic
plus Indo-European, or any broader comparison, such as Nostratic. I am there-
fore confident that my discussion here will meet with his careful response. The
consonant ablaut hypothesis was formulated in order to meet the problem of
certain variant shapes of the same morphemes either within a language (e.g.,
320 ANTHROPOLOGICAL
LINGUISTICS 40 NO. 2
Hodge 1997) or when comparinglanguages (Hodge 1988a).The hypothesis holds

that one had in the protolanguage two very widespread affixes, H and N. The
protoformH gives a pharyngeal quality to a consonant. This may be glottaliza-
tion (as t? in Geez or s? in Hausa), pharyngealization (as t in Arabic), or
aspiration (as dh in Indo-European).Which actualization occurs depends upon
the language. No language is known in which the same consonant has more
than one actualization of H. The other affix, N (nasalization), occurs before the
affected consonant. It may result in a nasal plus consonant (nd, rjg).More fre-
quently, the cluster is simplified to a nasal, as mb to m, nd or ng to n, etc.
The pattern is illustrated by table 1, which gives most plain protoconso-
nants, their protocombinationsand the most frequent reflexes. As can be seen in
this table, not all combinationsoccur.Levin (p.c. 1997) says that it is consonant
ablaut that explains the m/p alternation in the pair Hebrew maluw and Greek
polu-'full' (p. 179). The table below confirmsthis. Plain **pyields Greekp, and
N plus p becomes Nb, simplified to m. Many other such resolutions of variants
may be made in examples found not only in the volume by Levin being reviewed
here, but also in Orel and Stolbova (1995) and Ehret (1995). Far fewer are to be
found in Bomhard (Bomhard and Kerns 1994) as he avoids "irregular"
correspondences(see Levin's remarks, p. 4 n. 5).
Table 1. H and N Combinations in Lislakh, with Frequent Developments
p b t d k g
+H bH dH gH
b? b bh d? t dh k? q
+N Nb Nd Ng
m(b) n(d) n(g)
s z 0 6 1 x r ? h
+H sH zH OH 6H lH xH rH ?H hH
ss z 0 6 r h h c
+N NO N6 Nl
n n n
1998 REVIEWESSAY 321
3. The forms.
3.1. Arabic 6awran: Greek taaron 'bull' (p. 14). This is generally believed
to involve a loan from Semitic into Indo-European,and Levin agrees (see also
Levin 1994). He thinks that the source language was Aramaic, with a pronun-
ciation something like towrih (p. 17). Here again, we must consider chronology.
The shift from 8 to t in Aramaic is later than the Old Aramaic documents
(900-700 B.C.).In these documents,there was no letter for 8, and s'or s was used
(Garr 1985:28-29, and pp. 25-26 for the parallel treatment of 5). Both Phoe-
nician and Hebrewhad shifted 8 to SibeforeAramaic shifted 8 to t, so neither is a
candidate for the source of Indo-Europeantaur- in this period (see Garr 1985:
29). An Old Aramaic8 would probablybe borrowedas t. The result would be the
same if the period of borrowingis put back in the middle of the second millen-
nium B.C.,when the Semitic contacted would generally have 8.
The possibilitythat both Semitic *8awr- and Indo-European *tawr- go back
to Lislakh should also be considered, even though it seems unlikely. I recon-
struct Proto-Afroasiatic**t0-1'large animal', with an affix w and **IHablaut:
**
t8-(w)-lH. The form**89is reconstructed as the most likely protophonemeto
yield the historic shapes: loss of tyields 8, loss of 8 yields t, and 8 may later shift
'
to s or (cf. Hodge 1987c:18). Both Egyptian and Indo-Europeanhave t or s as
reflexes of ** tO.The form *
t`-lH becomes Egyptian sr, which is the value of the
hieroglyph GIRAFFE (Sign List E27, Gardiner 1957).' There is no historic Egyp-
tian word sr 'giraffe', but there was such when the writing system was devised.
There is a word sr 'prophesy', which uses the giraffe hieroglyph. The Coptic is
sor, which assumes an open syllable, *sdCar,where C was probably w, thus
*sawar. Orel and Stolbova (1995:112) reconstruct *cawVr-/j*Vr-, allowing for
both CwC and CC, but '6[t]i is not phonologicallybelievable as a source for 8.
**
(For simplicity's sake, will be used rather than * *r in reconstructed
proto-
forms. Similarly, * *d will be used for *d*5.)
The Celtic forms Gaulish tarvos, Old Irish tarb, etc. (p. 25) support the
reconstructionof * *t8-lHwithout the infix -w-. Here, the suffix -w-, alternating
as it does with -b-, is not the same as the infix -w-, with metathesis one way or
the other. It is from the base * * b-w 'foot, place, person' developing into both an
affix, as here, and a preposition 'in, at, from'. It is one of the several bases hav-
ing both a long form, **b-w (Egyptian bw 'place'), and a short form, **b (as
*
here). The affix * b has a number of different meanings, including 'place; one of
a group, a (such and such) being'. Here, it means 'one of the **8-lH group'. The
protoform **bregularly becomes w in Indo-European,unless protected phono-
logically (Hodge 1992). Thus, tarvos is from **8-H(-b). The -b- in tarb, I take
from the ablaut form, ** bH, which is Indo-European *bh. This in turn becomes
Old Irish b (Thurneysen 1980:134). For more on **b-w, see Hodge (1994a:
531-32).
322 ANTHROPOLOGICALLINGUISTICS 40 NO. 2
3.2. Latin cornu(m) :Akkadian qarnu(m) 'horn' (p. 29). Some have con-
sidered this to involve a loan from Indo-European into Semitic, but this is un-
likely. The forms are perfectly consonant with the proposition that they are both
inherited. Levin (pp. 34-35) says that *kVr'horn' must have existed prehistori-
cally and analyzes -n- as a 'classifying' suffix.
As r is from **IH, the plain protobase from which these forms come is **k-1
'horn'. A more basic (earlier) meaning of **k-I is 'one of a pair'. 'Horn' clearly
fits this category, as does 'kidney' (AR kulya) and some other body parts. There
are numerous semantic developments from 'horn', such as 'beak', 'pierce, cut,
dig', 'horned animal', then'large animal', 'animal', and'young (of an animal)'.
Selected examples of this base and its derivatives are given below. The recon-
structed base and relevant affixes are to the left. The attested forms follow,
sometimes with comments. Cornu(m) and qarnu(m) are each in its proper place.
They fit perfectly into the ablaut framework and so may reasonably be regarded
as inherited. This does not prove that they are inherited, but the burden of proof
is on the one claiming that there was borrowing of either.
**k-l'horn'
*k-IH EGkrty'two horns'(a dual), IE *ker-'horn'
k-iH(-Nl) IE Latin cornum'horn'
**k-lH(-b-IH) IE Hittite karawar'horn'(The -b- is from **b-w.)
*kY-lH(-Nl) IE *mrni-'horn', Hieroglyphic Luwian surni (Goetze 1954:
405) (For -lH and -NI, see below.)
**gH-lH SEMTigr6, Harari, and Gurage qar 'horn' (Leslau [1987:442]
assumes that this is derived fromqarn. As -Nl is an affix, one
should consider the possibility that qar is derived from **gH-
1H.Leslau (1987:442)also notes that Kafa (Cushitic) has qar6
'horn'.)
**gH-IH(-Nl) SEM*qarn-'horn'(derivatives in Leslau [1987:442])
The identification of forms as fitting into the consonant ablaut pattern has
not reached the stage where we can assign meanings to H and N. In this in-
stance, for example, we cannot say what the meaning of H is in qar- (with gH) as
opposed to the plain k of *ker-, both meaning 'horn'. We do know that, in some
cases, the difference may be cultural. For example, among some Arabic speak-
ers, where men use pharyngealized consonants (t, d, s, etc.), women use plain
ones (t, d, s, etc.). Walter Lehn (1963) has described the phonetic assimilation of
nonpharyngealized segments to pharyngealized ones in Cairene Arabic.
As noted above, the meaning 'beak' is also found:
(NI-)gH-IH SEMMandaicnaqura 'beak, pick'

**(Nb-)(Nl-)gH-IH SEM Geez manqwar'beak, bill' (Leslau 1987:400) (The
ma- (*Nb-) is also from **b-w 'foot, place'. It may be
'place' here, but it is more likely 'instrument'.)
Following, are some examples of the meanings 'horned animal, animal,

young (of an animal)':
**k-l EG kW,Co ko 'bull', CH kilo 'cow' (Jungraithmayr and

Ibriszimow 1994, 1:43)
**k-l(-b) CH*klb'buffalo'
**k-l(-Nb) SEMAKKkalfimu 'lamb'
*(?-)k-1 South Omotic *ukl 'donkey'
**k-lH CH*kr'sheep', Kofyar koor'large (castrated) male goat', OM
*kur'ass'
**k-lH(-C2) Berber *krr 'sheep' (Reduplication is indicated by C with a
subscript numeral 1 or 2, referring to the first or second con-
sonant of the base.)
k-lH(-b) IE SARDkerbu'deer', LATcervus 'deer, the horned one' (One
could also derive SARDkerbufrom *k-lH(-bH).)
*k-lH(-Nb) CH *krm 'crocodile'
*k-lH(-t) IE Lyciankeruti'deer (or other homed animal)' (It is possible
that the -u here is from *b-w, with the short form **bto IE
W/U.)
kY-Nl(-t-) EG 5ntt 'sacred cattle'
*(6-)gH-H CUAgaw *daqWar'donkey'
**(6-)Ng-lH OM*dangar'elephant',Cu *dAnq"Ar'donkey'(The **6- affix
[= **d6-] is from the deictic base **6- 'this, that, he of, per-
taining to, possessing', etc. Reflexes are Arabic di 'possessor
of' and Hebrewzeh 'this'. See Fleisch [1965] on 6d and Leslau
[1987:629] on Geez za 'who, which', za 'this'. It is a frequent
prefix, e.g., **(6-)Nd-b from **d-b 'marginal', becoming
Egyptian znb 'battlement' and Arabic zanab 'tail'. Omotic
*dangar may be analyzed as 'one possessing horn (= tusk)',
but the donkey words are later, with semantic slippage from
'horned animal'to 'animal'.)
A further, very natural, development is the use of forms from this base
involving the use of horns (or tusks) as instruments and the action involved (see
Hodge 1986:156, 1987a:596). Levin takes up this development in his section 2.U
(-)k(-)r(-)t(-) 'cut, hew' (pp. 239-43). (When his examples are used here, the
page number is given.)
**k-1 CH *ki 'cut, break', *k-l'hoe', IE *kel- 'cut, strike'
**(?-)k-1 IE HITrakkala 'furrow'
**(s-)k-l EG ski 'plow' (cf. p. 243 n. 245), IE *(s)kel- 'cut', GK skalis
'small hoe', HIrr'iskalla (i-) 'split, rip'
**(s-)k-l, (1to y) EG CO skai 'to plow', IE *skei- 'to cut, split' (Here, 1 has
becomey [Hodge 1988b].)
**k-lH CH*k-r'louse', IE *ker-'to cut', HITrkwerzi'he/she cuts' (p.
242)
* *k-lH(-Nl) IE Avestan karanaiti 'he/she cuts' (p. 242 n. 244)
* *k-IH(-NI)(-t) IE SKTkrntati 'he/she cuts' (p. 242 n. 244)
* *k-IH(-s) IE HITr karszi 'he/she cuts' (p. 242)
**k-lH(-t) SEM HEB koretih 'cut' (p. 240), AKK kurrutu 'to cut off', IE
HIrr kartanun 'I cut' (p. 242), SKTkrta 'cut' (p. 240)
**gH-IH(-?H) SEM AR qaraha 'he wounded' (p. 242 n. 244) (For **?H, see
Hodge [1994a:532].)
324 LINGUISTICS
ANTHROPOLOGICAL 40 NO.2
**gH-lH(-s) SEMAKKqarasu 'to split'

**gH-lH(-sH) SEMHEBqaras 'he cut', Ugaritic qrs 'he cut off' (ARqarasa is
'he pinched', and qarada, which should be from **gH-IH
(-6H), is 'he cut off'.)
Also fromthe base **hk-l

'horn' is an Egyptian wordfor 'doorbolt'. This iden-
tification is made on the basis of the consonants of the root, the meaning, and
the shape of the object as depicted in the Pyramid of the Pharoah Unis. Elmar
Edel (1955:58, 122) uses the hieroglyph identified as TUSK(Sign List F18) in
writing q)'nwt,which he interprets as *qljwt. Examination of the photograph
that has this passage shows a quite different shape. It looks most like a bone
that has been cut off at one end, with what appears to be a knuckle on the other
(Piankoff 1968 pl. 49-194a). Such a bone would serve very well as a door bolt, but
is not otherwise known as such in Egyptian iconography. Pictured door bolts
have the shape of the hieroglyph DOOR BOLT(Sign List 034; for door with bolt,
see Erman and Ranke 1923 pl. 14.3). These were made of wood, and the later
spellings of our word have the WOOD hieroglyphrather than the bone-like one on
Unis's tomb wall. It seems reasonable that a piece of horn and later a bone, cut
to resemble the photographin Piankoff (1968), was used in prehistoric times as
a doorbolt. It seems highly unlikely that the early doorbolts were made of ivory.
Coming down to the other end of Egyptian civilization, we have Coptic kl, hal,
etc., meaning 'door bolt; knee, other joints and body parts' (Vycichl 1983:75;
Crum 1939:103). The meaning 'knee' may reflect the bone-like shape in Pian-
koff (1968). The spellings of this Egyptian 'doorbolt' are:
*gh-l(-C2) EGqt
**gH-l(-C2H) EG qfrt, CO kile /k27le/ (The development -?r > -r' > 7? is
regular.)
*gH-l(-NC2) EGq-nwt (pl.)
* EGqrt, later qr?w.
*gH-lH
The -t ending here is the so-called feminine -t.

It is clear that **k-l'horn' is a well-established base to which both cornu(m)
and qarnu(m) belong. Numerous other cognates could be cited from both Afro-
asiatic and Indo-European.
A number of the protoformsreconstructedto account for the attested lexica
in the above discussion include an affix * *N, which has occurredboth as prefix
and suffix. In the chapter on prepositions (pp. 366-400), we find a set of forms
that come from the same base as this **Nl.
3.3. Gothic ana, Greek ari: Akkadian ana '(up)on, to' (p. 387). Levin
gives us a valuable and reliable account of these Gothic, Greek, and Akkadian
prepositions, noting that the Akkadian usage parallels that of 1- elsewhere in
Semitic, to which I would add Arabic ?ila 'to'. He thinks of ana as unchar-
acteristic of Semitic (p. 389), but when the various elements are considered from
the Lislakh point of view and in the consonant ablaut framework, we find that
they fall neatly into place as related items. Of the semantics, Levin says, "The
range of meaning within a language is considerable"(p. 387). He is writing of
ana, but this is true of all forms in this related set.
The protobase is** 1-2 'mouth'. As with a number of other bases, there are
long forms with two consonants (1-?) and short ones having only one (1-) (see
Hodge 1994a:527).
**l- SEMARli-'to, for',HEBLa-'tofor' (Other cognates are cited in
Klein [1987:291].He includes AKKla 'to', which Soden [1952:
164] attributes to Aramaic influence.)
**(?a-)2?d SEMAR ilMA 'toward',with i from -?a (The ?a- is prothetic.)
* 1H- CHHausa -r- in mAiataraudu 'Audu's wife' ('woman pertain-
ing to Audu) (The longer form is m&Ataata auduz,but the -r-
is not derived from the t-. The latter is from a different deictic
base [Hodge 1994a:527, 529]. This **1H-is the source of the
(-)r(-) affix so frequently found in Lislakh languages.)
* lH-? EG r? 'mouth', Co ro (The Egyptian is written with the hiero-
glyph MOUTH [Sign List D21]. Coptic ro has a short vowel, and
it is generallybelieved that the second consonant was 2 [often
erroneously written r,, under the false impression that ' was
2, not f]. This is the basis for reconstructing the -? of *lH-?.)
**(?-)1H- EG ?r'toward', (beforea noun), Co e-, with loss of r
**(-)lH- EG?r?- beforea suffix, e.g., *?er?df'to him', becoming Co erof
**Nl- EG n 'to, for', ny 'pertaining to' (Note CH HA na 'one per-
taining to', as in kaataakoo 'a piece of wood', na kaataakoo 'a
wooden one'. The short form is n, as in jirgii 'conveyance',
ruwaa 'water', jirginruwaa 'boat'. The form N is the mas-
culine and plural counterpartto feminine singular -r-. This n
occurs very frequently as an affix. The alternation of **lH
with **N, so well illustrated here, lies behind the alternation
found in the Indo-Europeanr/n stems [Hodge 1994a: 527].)
**(?-)Nl?- (This is the protoformback of Levin's [p. 387] Gothic ana,
Greek and, and Akkadian ana. Note that the initial ? is pro-
thetic before -n?-, and so unstressed. Greek anr' keeps this
stress pattern.)
3.4. Hebrew ?6zen: Old High German [Z]oren'ear' (p. 34). Levin (p. 35)
points out that Latin auris, Lithuanian ausis, and Gothic ausin (dat.) 'ear' give
evidence for a cluster -ws-. This is confirmed by Egyptian colloquial Arabic widn
'ear' (Elias and Elias 1962:786). Classical Arabic ?udn(un) is therefore to be
taken from an earlier *?aw6n-,with prothetic alif (2-) before the cluster -w6-. It
is reasonable to interpret Egyptian ?dn 'ear' as *?[w]dn.The form ?dn for 'ear'
is now attested (Gilula 1975). Before, one had to presume that such a word had
existed from the value ?dn of the EARhieroglyph (Sign List F21). Levin's foot-
note (p. 36 n. 53) is to be corrected on this. Arabic ?udn(un) is evidence for the
protovalue **6 for what I take to be the first consonant of the base, with w a pre-
fix. Protoform **6 yields either d or z in Egyptian, 6, d, or z in Semitic (p. 36),
326 ANTHROPOLOGICAL
and d or s in Indo-European(*s and *z merged). We have a Sapirean drift that

tends to produce similar sounds in widely separated languages. The shift of
-VsV- to -VzV- to -VrV- is an Indo-Europeanphenomenon (e.g., Prokosch 1939:
84).
In my reconstruction, the -n- is the second consonant of the two-consonant
base. It is largely lost in Indo-European,and Levin (p. 34) considers it to be an
affix. Comparisonwith other Afroasiatic languages shows that the basic second
consonant was g, the n being fromthe ablaut **Ng. Dolgopolski (1973:55) recon-
structed *.tAg(g)-for Cushitic, and Jungraithmayr and Ibriszimow (1994, 1:53)
list Jegu ?idie^ and Birgit ?addqijgifor 'ear' in East Chadic. The protobase is
**-g 'perceive' (see Hodge 1981:372, 375). Some reconstructions and attested
forms are:
**6-g IE LATsfgire 'to perceive' (The original g is preserved.)
**H-g CU*.tAg(g)-'ear, hear',East Cushitic*d?eg'hear'
**(w-)6-Ng COLLEGARwidn 'ear'
(?-)(w-)6-Ng kG 2[wJdn'ear', SEMAR ?udn(un);IE *ousen- in Germanic
*auzan- (Watkins 1985:46), Go ausin (dat. sg.), Homeric GK
ouas, (gen.)odatos < IE *ousntos(Pokorny1959:755), with -a-
from-n-; East Chadic, Birgit ?uidudgi
**(?-)(w-)6-[Ng] (with loss of -n) So most Indo-Europeanlanguages, including
LATauris (from *ausis), LITHausis, LATaudfre 'to hear' (This
last has d from **6. Many scholars have wanted to connect
Latin aus- and aud-, but could not see how: "Le rapport [de
audio-] avec auris, souvent propose, n'est pas plus clair"
[Ernout and Meillet 1959:55].The two reflexes of **6in Indo-
European, d and s, show how they are related.)
**N6-g CHHAniigaa 'perceive'
* N6-g(-lH) CHHAniginrl'to notice'
**N-g(-Nl) CH *ngn 'to see' (For these Chadic forms, see Jungraithmayr
and Ibriszimow [1994, 1:53, 1451.)
For **6-g, see also Hodge (1983:36, 1990:647).
3.5. Sanskrit garbham: Akkadian qerbam 'womb': Arabic qalban 'heart'

(p. 93). These are all put in the accusative (-a-) to emphasize the similarity.
There is less similarity when these forms are treated historically. The Sanskrit
-a- of -am is from Indo-European *o, and the -a- of gar- is from *e. Levin is
concerned with the similarities found among attested, possibly contemporary
forms.
The Lislakh base is **g-l 'bend, turn, guts, round, head' (Hodge 1981:372,
375; 1990:647). Some derivatives are:
**g-l IE *gel-'round'
**g-l(-C) SEM*gll 'be round'
**g-lH Cu *g-r 'belly'
*g-Nl CH*g-n 'head', IE *gen-'balled'
**gH-l (-b) EGqb 'intestines', SEMARqalb(un) 'heart'. (The suffix **-b

is from **b-w'foot;place, the place with coils'.)
**gH-lH IE *gher-'gut'
**gH-lH(-b) SEMHEBqereb 'middle (of body)', AKKqerbu(m)'womb', etc.
(The connection between Egyptian q-b 'intestines' and He-
brew qereb 'middle' was noted in the nineteenth century by
HeinrichBrugsch [Erman1892:120] and has been in the liter-
ature ever since.)
**gH-IH(-bH) IE SKTgdrbha-'womb'(In the reconstruction, I have followed
the traditional Indo-European analysis, which reconstructs
**gherbho-,followed by the dissimilation of *gh-bh to g-bh.
Alternatively, one could consider **gelbo-plus H, with the H
assigned to -lb-, yielding -rbh-.)
With palatalization, noted by Y though probably due to assimilation to a follow-

ing high vowel:
*gY-l(-C1-C2) EG&G 'head'

*gY-NI(-NC2) EG mnnt 'skull' (This calls to mind that the gol- of Golgothais
also from the base **g-l.)
Levin (p. 95) cites some other Greek forms, most with an initial d-, that he
believes are related to the above, e.g., delphdn to garbham (p. 95). These are
from a different base, **l-b 'innards, heart', etc. (Hodge 1991:158-59 [some of
the analyses to the left on page 159 are garbled], 1997). The d- is from the base
**6- 'this, that, he of, pertaining to, possessing', etc. The form ** (6-) l-bH is
therefore 'that of' or 'pertaining to the innards'. Levin's examples may be ana-
lyzed as follows:
**(6-)1-bH GK (Hesychius) dolphds 'womb' (Levin (p. 95) believes the

place name Delphof 'Delphi' was 'wombs'. Delph6s is 'a
Delphian'.)
**(b-)l-bH GK belphon, a variant to delphds 'Delphian' (Levin (p. 95)
connects the g of g'rbham to the d- and b- here, attributing
them to a labio-velar.The analysis presented here makes that
unnecessary. The g- is part of the base (* g-), and 6- and b-
are from different protoprefixes.)
GK adelphos 'brother', Homeric GK adelpheos (p. 95 and n.
**(6-)(6)1--bH 178).
**(?-)l-b (LAT) aluus 'belly, cavity', quoted by Levin [p. 26 n. 30]
earlier, is from the same base.)
3.6. Greek ph-r 'bear': Hebrew p-r 'bear fruit' (p. 131). These two (and
their relatives) come from different bases, ** b-i 'carry (load), bear (child)' and
**
**p-l 'go out, go off'. The b of b-l is confirmed by Egyptian nb?'carrying pole',
and the p of *p-l is confirmed by Egyptian pr? 'go out', prt 'fruit'. It is possible
to argue that they go back to a protoform that did not differentiate voice in the
stops, or that the voiced stops were derived from the voiceless or the voiceless
328 ANTHROPOLOGICAL
LINGUISTICS 40 NO.2
from the voiced. There are so many sets of bases having semantic similarites
and differentiated only by voice that one might say a connection is probable. On
the other hand, there is no known phonological process that would derive one
such base fromthe other orboth from a commonancestor.I therefore set up both
**b-1 and **p-1l, despite certain formal and semantic similarities (cf. **k-p
'[cupped] hand' and **k-b'sole [of foot]' Hodge 1989:16-17). Some examples of
forms from these two bases are:
**b-l'carry'
**(d-)b-I SEMAKKzabflu 'to carry a load'
**(hH-)b-1 EG1b-'to present to'
**(NI-)b-l EGnb 'carryingpole', SEMSARnbl 'to dispatch'
**(w-)b-l SEMAKKwabalu 'to bring'
*b-IlH CH*bara'to give'
S*(?-)b--H IE *awer-'to raise, lift'
**(NI-)b-IH SEMAR nabara 'to elevate'
**b-(?-)1H SEMUG b?r'to bring'
*'bH-l(-?) EGf'? 'to lift up'
**bH-lH IE *bher-'to carry',GKpher6, LATfer (imper.)
"**Nb-1(-hH) EGm?' 'to offer'
*p-l 'go out' EGp> 'to fly, fly up', CHKofyarpel 'flower', IE *pilo- 'hair',
ENGfoal (fromIE *pul6)
"*p-I(-C2) IE LATpullus'young (of animal)'
"*p-l (-C,-C2) SEMGeez falfala 'to break forth'
**p-l(-w) IE *pleu-'to flow'
**(?-)p-l BERTouaregefel 'to leave', Highland East Cushitic *ful 'to go
out'
* EGnpit 'a loaf made of grain'
(Nl-)p-l
"*p-lH EGprt 'fruit', SEMHEBpari 'fruit', IE *per-'passing beyond'
**p-lH(?-) SEMHEBpere? 'a shoot'
"*p-lH(-h) SEMHEBparah 'it bore fruit'
**p-lH(-t) IE LATport6'carry'
**(Nl-)p-lH EGnpr'grain', Co napre'a (single) grain'
* EGnpnt'grain', COnapne 'a (single) grain'
* (NI-)p--Nl IE GKpherma 'fruit of the body'
bH-lH(-Nb)
**Nb-1 IE *mel-'to come forth'
*
(?-)Nb-1 IE GKaimpelos'vine'
Note that while both ** b-1 and **p-1 result in ** bH-IH when H is added, the re-
sulting roots are separate entities. A further point to be made is that Levin's
data are a valuable and valid source for the two bases, whether they are con-
nected or not.
3.7. Semitic*l: Latin al- 'go or raise up' (pp. 131, 137). This pair brings
into consideration the laryngeal hypothesis with regard to the identification of a
word-initial laryngeal. The consonant ablaut hypothesis has shown that the
same base may have laryngeal affixes that are plain consonants and others that
have an H affix. The protolanguage ancestral to both Afroasiatic and Indo-Euro-
1998 ESSAY
REVIEW 329
pean had the consonants ?, h, x, and y, these four sometimes being considered
"the"laryngeals. Each of these may be pharyngealized by the addition of H: ?H,
hH, xH, and yH, resulting historically in h, ', h, and ', respectively. A further
complication is that a laryngeal such as Cmay be a-colored in Hebrew and e-
colored in Akkadian. We need to bring Afroasiatic cognates into consideration
when trying to reconstruct laryngeals in Indo-European, but must take the
possible ablauts into our analysis. In the case of Semitic '1, cognates with h
support the reconstruction of the base as **h-l. Hebrew has hallel 'exalt', and
Egyptian has hit 'ceiling' (Hodge 1993). This leaves it an open question whether
Latin al- goes back to **hal- or to **Cal-.
4. Conclusion. The above remarks concern only a small fraction of the sets
presented. They do, I trust, show how Levin's data can be viewed from the per-
spective of language contact or from that of genetic relationship. In some cases,
they make it clear that the words concerned are part of the general Lislakh
vocabulary. In other cases, the possibility of loans may legitimately be raised. I
cannot with any certainty treat one of Levin's main concerns: why so many
forms are so much alike at a late period of attestation. I look forward to his work
on the sound correspondences to be established on the basis of his data.
Notes
Abbreviations.The following abbreviations are used: AKK= Akkadian;AR= Arabic;
BER= Berber; CH = Chadic; Co = Coptic; COLLEG AR = Colloquial Egyptian Arabic; Cu =
Cushitic; EG = Egyptian; ENG = English; GK = Greek; Go = Gothic; HA = Hausa; HEB =
Hebrew; HrIT = Hittite; IE = Indo-European; LAT = Latin; LITH = Lithuanian; OM =
Omotic; SARD= Sardinian; SEM= Semitic; SAR = South Arabian; SKT= Sanskrit; UG =
Ugaritic.
1. When referenceis made to a hieroglyph as a pictorial representation, it is written
in small capital letters.
References
Bomhard,AllanR., andJohnC.Kerns
1994 The Nostratic Macrofamily:A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship.
Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 74. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Crum, Walter
1939 A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Dolgopolski, Aharon B.
1973 Sravniterno-istori'eskaja fonetika ku'itskix jazykov. Moscow:Nauka.
Edel, Elmar
1955 Altigyptische Grammatik.Vol 1. Analecta Orientalia 34. Rome:Pontifical
Biblical Institute.
Ehret, Christopher
1995 ReconstructingProto-Afroasiatic(Proto-Afrasian).University of California
Publications in Linguistics 126. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
330 ANTHROPOLOGICAL
Elias, Elias A., and E. Elias, ed.

1962 Elias' Modern Dictionary: Arabic-English. 9th ed. Cairo: Elias' Modern
Press.
Erman, Adolf
1892 Das verhiiltnissder Aegyptischenzu den semitischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift
der Deutschen MorgenliindischenGesellschaft 46:93-129.
Erman, Adolf, and Hermann Ranke
1923 Aegyptenund aegyptisches Leben im Altertum. Rev. ed. Tiibingen:J. C. B.
Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Ernout, A., and Antoine Meillet
1959 Dictionnaireetymologiquede la langue latine. 4th ed. Paris: C. Klincksieck.
Fleisch, H.
1965 DH , DHI, DH~ . In The Encyclopaediaof Islam. New Edition. Vol. 2, pp.
232-33. Leiden:E. J. Brill; London:Luzac and Co.
Gardiner,Alan H.
1957 Egyptian grammar.3d ed. London:OxfordUniversity Press.
Garr, W. Randall
1985 Dialect Geographyof Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E.Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press.
Gilula, Mordechai
1975 'Idn = 'an ear'. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology61:251.
Goetze, Albrecht
1954 Review of Hethitisches Worterbuch,by Johannes Friedrich. Language 30:
401-5.
Hodge, Carleton T.
1970 The Linguistic Cycle. Language Sciences 13:1-7.
1975 A Set of Postulates for Comparative Linguistics. In The First LACUS
Forum 1974, edited by Adam Makkai and Valerie Becker Makkai, 209-16.
Columbia:HornbeamPress.
1981 Lislakh Labials. AnthropologicalLinguistics 23:368-82.
1983 Relating Afroasiatic to Indo-European.In Studies in Chadic and Afro-
asiatic Linguistics, edited by Ekkehard Wolff and Hilke Meyer-Bahlberg,
33-50. Hamburg:Helmut Buske.
1986 Indo-EuropeanConsonant Ablaut. Diachronica3:143-62.
1987a Consonant Ablaut in Indo-European.In The Thirteenth LACUS Forum
1986, edited by Ilah Fleming, 591-99. Lake Bluff: LACUS.
1987b Lislakh Cluster Resolution. AnthropologicalLinguistics 29:91-104.
1987c The Status of Lisramic (Hamito-Semitic) Sound Correspondences.In Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth International Hamito-Semitic Congress, edited by
HerrmannJungraithmayrand Walter W. Miiller, 11-24. Current Issues in
Linguistic Theory44. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
1988a ConsonantAblaut in Lislakh. In FUCUS, a Semitic/Afrasian Gathering in
Remembrance of Albert Ehrman, edited by Yoil Arbeitman, 267-76. Cur-
rent Issues in Linguistic Theory 58. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
1988b Lateral Drift. In The Fourteenth LACUS Forum 1987, edited by Sheila
Embleton, 373-77. Lake Bluff: LACUS.
1989 Touchingthe Bases. In The Fifteenth LACUSForum 1988, edited by Ruth
M. Brend and David G. Lockwood,5-21. Lake Bluff: LACUS.
1990 The Role of Egyptian within Afroasiatic (/Lislakh). In Linguistic Change
and ReconstructionMethodology,edited by Philip Baldi, 639-59. Trends in
Linguistics, Studies and Monographs45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
1991 Indo-European and Afroasiatic. In Sprung from Some Common Source,
edited by Sydney M. Lamb and E. Douglas Mitchell, 141-65. Stanford:

StanfordUniversity Press.
1992 Semitic b and w. In The Eighteenth LACUSForum 1991, edited by Ruth M.
Brend, 291-97. Lake Bluff: LACUS.
1993 Hallelujah. In The Nineteenth LACUS Forum 1992, edited by Peter A.
Reich, 335-41. Lake Bluff: LACUS.
1994a Some Proto Affixes. In The Twentieth LACUS Forum 1993, edited by
Valerie Becker Makkai, 526-36. Chapel Hill, N.C.: LACUS.
1994b Tooth and Claw. AnthropologicalLinguistics 34:202-32.
1997 The Trickle-DownApproach.In Humanism, Culture, and Language in the
Near East: Studies in Honor of GeorgKrotkoff,edited by Asma Afsaruddin
and A. H. Mathias Zahniser, 337-43. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Jungraithmayr, Herrmann, and Dymitr Ibriszimow
1994 Chadic Lexical Roots. 2 vols. Sprache und Oralitit in Afrika 20. Berlin:
Dietrich Reimer.
Klein, Ernest
1987 A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for
Readers of English. New York:Macmillan.
Lehn, Walter
1963 Emphasis in CairoArabic.Language 39:29-39.
Lepsius, Richard
1836 Ober den Ursprung und die Verwandtschaft der Zahlworter in der Indo-
germanischen, Semitischen und der Koptischen Sprache. Zwei sprachver-
gleichende Abhandlungen [dated March 18351.Berlin: Ferdinand Diimm-
ler.
Leslau, Wolf
1987 Comparative Dictionary of Ge'ez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Levin, Saul
1994 Studies in Comparative Grammar III: 'Snow', an Early Indo-European
Loan-Wordin Semitic. General Linguistics 34:77-84.
Obenga, Theophile
1993 Origine commune de l'egyptien ancien, du copte et des langues negro-
africaines modernes. Paris: editions 1'Harmattan.
Orel, Vladimir E., and Olga V. Stolbova
1995 Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1
(18). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Piankoff, Alexandre
1968 The Pyramid of Unas. Bollingen Series 40.5. Princeton:Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Pokorny,Julius
1959 Indogermanisches etymologisches Wbrterbuch.Vol. 1. Bern: A. Francke.
Prokosch, Eduard
1939 A Comparative Germanic Grammar.William Dwight Whitney Linguistic
Series. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.
Soden, Wolframvon
1952 Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Analecta Orientalia 33. Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Thurneysen, Rudolf
1980 A Grammar of Old Irish. Rev. ed. Translated by D. A. Binchy and Osborn
Bergin. Dublin: Dublin Institute for AdvancedStudies.
332 ANTHROPOLOGICAL
Vycichl, Werner
1983 Dictionnaire etymologiquede la langue copte. Leuven:Peeters.
Watkins, Calvert, ed.
1985 The AmericanHeritage Dictionaryof Indo-EuropeanRoots. Boston: Hough-
ton Mifflin.

Trustees of Indiana University Anthropological Linguistics

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

Trustees of Indiana University Anthropological Linguistics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trustees of Indiana University

Semitic and Indo-European: The Principal Etymologies, with Obser-

Reviewed by Carleton T. Hodge, Indiana University

2. Consonant ablaut. Levin (p.c. 1997) has informed me that he believes

Hodge 1997) or when comparinglanguages (Hodge 1988a).The hypothesis holds

Table 1. H and N Combinations in Lislakh, with Frequent Developments

(NI-)gH-IH SEMMandaicnaqura 'beak, pick'

Following, are some examples of the meanings 'horned animal, animal,

**k-l EG kW,Co ko 'bull', CH kilo 'cow' (Jungraithmayr and

**gH-lH(-s) SEMAKKqarasu 'to split'

Also fromthe base **hk-l

The -t ending here is the so-called feminine -t.

and d or s in Indo-European(s and z merged). We have a Sapirean drift that

For **6-g, see also Hodge (1983:36, 1990:647).

3.5. Sanskrit garbham: Akkadian qerbam 'womb': Arabic qalban 'heart'

gH-l (-b) EGqb 'intestines', SEMARqalb(un) 'heart'. (The suffix -b

With palatalization, noted by Y though probably due to assimilation to a follow-

*gY-l(-C1-C2) EG&G 'head'

**(6-)1-bH GK (Hesychius) dolphds 'womb' (Levin (p. 95) believes the

Elias, Elias A., and E. Elias, ed.

edited by Sydney M. Lamb and E. Douglas Mitchell, 141-65. Stanford:

You might also like