COMMON ORIGIN OF ETHIOPIAN SEMITIC: THE LEXICAL ...

Leonid KoganRussian State University for the Humanities

Moscow

COMMON ORIGIN OF ETHIOPIAN SEMITIC:THE LEXICAL DIMENSION*

Introduction

��

�� about «the questionable usefulness of classi-ficatory schematizations» (Renfroe 1992�7) can easily be found on the pagesof Semitological treatises. In spite of this trend, various aspects of geneticclassification of Semitic have always occupied many of the best minds work-ing in this branch of comparative linguistics. A proper evaluation of the sub-grouping procedure as applied to Semitic languages has been admirably out-lined in a recent survey by John Huehnergard� «Classification and subgrou-ping of language families are among the most important of the comparativist’stasks, and this obtains in our field, too... Indeed, classification and subgoupingshould inform comparative work and historical reconstruction, for these activi-ties are inextricably interwined ... In other words, classification is not simply amind game...» (Huehnergard 2002:130)��

A coherent classificatory pattern of Semitic has two facets� several majorsplits and unities are to be postulated and proved, such as East Semitic vs.West Semitic or Central Semitic vs. South Semitic; simultaneously, the com-mon origin of each minor subdivision (Cannanite, Aramaic, ESA, Ethiopian,

* I��

�� !�� "�� #��$�� %

�� $��&�� '��(��!��)��*+,-�.�/0�/,/1��

��

�� !��,.�,2�3,4.5��(*6671

� �,4�,4�,,.-4�(*8961��:�� In reply to the following statement from ULLENDORFF 1961�30� «Classification

is harmless, unobjectionable, and at times even useful if limited to describing present-day habitat and the prevailing geographical circumstances, but it becomes positivelydangerous, i. e. obscuring rather than illuminating, if meant to explain genetic con-nections». ;&�� e p. 392.] Ullendorff’sposition is rightly qualified by Huehnergard as «without parallel in comparative workin other language families». For another highly positive assessment of linguistic classi-fication v. GOLDENBERG 1998�461, quoting such outstanding figures of general andIndo-European comparative studies as Baudouin de Courtenay, Meillet and Greenberg.

Downloaded from Brill.com01/10/2022 06:29:01PMvia free access

�� Scrinium I (2005). Varia Aethiopica

MSA etc.) is to be demonstrated as clearly as possible. Demonstration of thediachronic unity of Ethiopian Semitic (ES) is a model illustration of the se-cond task� a compact, geographically and historically isolated group of lan-guages whose similarity is intuitively realized by every student of Semiticsshould provide many specific features from which a reliable net of classifica-tory criteria could be worked out.

According to a wide concensus, the principal method by which geneticclassification of Semitic has to be guided is that of shared morphologicalinnovations. This method, elaborated in a series of important contributionsby R. Hetzron (e. g., 1972�13 and passim), was successfully applied by himand his successors to demonstrate the unity of West Semitic as opposed toEast Semitic (Akkadian) and the unity of Central Semitic as opposed to otherWest Semitic languages. In spite of some difficulties connected with the for-mal shape of the corresponding classificatory features� and the fact that con-flicting isoglosses have been adduced by some authors,� the essence ofHetzron’s method proved to be valid and there is no doubt that it should beapplied whenever possible — i. e., whenever important morphological inno-vations can be discovered for a given sub-branch of Semitic.

Is this the case for Ethiopian Semitic? Regrettably, the answer seems to beoverwhelmingly negative. As stated in Faber 1997�12, «although virtually alldiscussions of Semitic subgrouping assume a single Ethiopian Semitic branchwhich later split into North Ethiopic and South Ethiopic, there is virtually nolinguistic evidence� for such a Common Ethiopian stage». Indeed, even ifGeez alone is confronted with Arabic, Sabaic or Mehri, reliable morpholo-gical innovations separating it from these languages are rather difficult tofind, and the more so if such innovations are expected to be shared by, e. g.,Tigre, Tigrinya and Amharic. Faber’s claim� is perhaps exaggerated since

2 The origin of the second -a- in the Common WS New Perfect *� ��atal-a and thatof -u in the Common CS New Imperfect *ya-� �� tul-u are still uncertain HUEHNERGARD

2002�126 is well aware of this difficulty.� The principal one consists in the fact that Arabic shares several specific patterns

of broken plural with Ethiopian and MSA RATCLIFFE 1998�120. Cf. also ZABORSKI

1991, GOLDENBERG 1998�298ff.� Within Faber’s approach, «linguistic evidence» is clearly synonymous with

«shared morphological innovations». This implicit equation — independent of itsrelevance for the subgrouping question — is terminologically inaccurate as it auto-matically excludes phonology, lexicon and syntax from linguistics.

� No doubt, a fully justified reaction against many attempts to collect variousallegedly specific Ethiopian features, all or most of which are actually absent fromseveral languages of the group notably, Geez, or turn out to be obvious retentionsfrom PS, or can be qualified as typologically trivial developments possibly of arealnature. A typical example of such a list is LESLAU 1975 as recognized already byUllendorff in his comments on Leslau’s communication. HETZRON 1972�17–19 pro-vides a far more serious attempt but the final outcome is also somewhat disappoint-


��L. Kogan

some morphological features which can be treated as Proto-Ethiopian canprobably be detected. I mean first of all the gerund base *�� l-, shared byGeez, Tigrinya, Amharic and Argobba (on the controversial evaluation of theGurage evidence v. Hetzron 1972�101ff. as opposed to Goldenberg1998�466ff.); the agent noun *��- (partly replacing the PS active parti-ciple *��) and the infinitive in -ot can also be mentioned. However, noneof these features appears to be of crucial value for determining the linguisticunity of ES (note that at least in one language — modern Harari — all ofthem are lacking) and, even if they do occur together (as in Geez), they hard-ly correspond to one’s expectations about a group of languages intuitivelyperceived as closely related.�

Does the lack of specific morphological innovations mean that the lin-guistic unity of Ethiopian Semitic cannot be demonstrated? Should we under-stand ES as a geographical and historical-cultural concept only? In my opi-nion, one important factor should prevent one from drawing such a conclu-sion, namely the fundamental unity of the basic vocabulary. A systematicdemonstration of this unity and its key relevance for the question of the com-mon origin of ES is the principal goal of the present article.

Vocabulary is overtly or tacitly assumed to be persona non grata in moststudies in the genetic classification of Semitic. According to Renfroe 1992�7,«that, under any circumstances, vocabulary is an unreliable measure by whichto determine the relationship between any two given languages» is a «widelyrecognized fact». My comparativist’s intuition (no doubt shared by many col-leagues from various fields of historical linguistics) suggests that this — cer-tainly unreflected — attempt to deny the classificatory value of the lexiconcannot be correct. The vocabulary can and should be taken into consideration

ing. Thus, verbal expressions based on the verb ‘to see’ are scarcely attested in Geezbut so common in Cushitic that their wide use in Modern Ethiopian may well beregarded as an areal phenomenon affecting each language independently. As for somesyntactic phenomena discussed by Hetzron, the concluding statement of the corres-ponding section of his book is quite telling � «...the Cushitic evidence came later andwas independent in the different branches of Ethiopian». In sum, it is very hard toagree with APPLEYARD 1996�207–208 who believes that Hetzron’s study «lays to restthe phantom of a dual or even multiple origin of Ethiopian Semitic». Personally, I amconvinced that Hetzron’s attempt to defend the common origin of ES is among theweakest points of his otherwise brilliant monograph.

6 Prof. R.-M. Voigt kindly reminded me in personal communication about oneProto-Ethiopian innovation overlooked by Faber and myself, namely the front vowelafter the first radical in the imperfect of B Gez. y� -sebb� r, Tna. y� -s�bb�r, Har. yi-s�bri. I can only object to his observation that even this no doubt, very important)innovative feature is absent from Tigre where the imperfect of B is identical to that ofA l� -sabb�r. Incidentally, Tigre lacks gerund and preserves *k ��til- as the main pat-tern of the active participle though k ��tl�y and k �at�li are also in evidence.



in any subgouping procedure, especially if other criteria are scarce or vague(as in the case of ES). The main problem consists in elaborating a soundmethodology for a proper assessment of its role. As far as the purpose of thepresent contribution is concerned, a simple and reliable method is at hand, inits essence almost symmetrically parallel to that used by Hetzron and hisfollowers. Not only morphological, but also lexical units can be classifiedinto retentions and innovations. While both morphological and lexical reten-tions are, in most cases, of no value for establishing the common origin for agroup of languages, lexical innovations can be as telling in this respect as themorphological ones.

The method of lexical innovations is not identical to the glottochronolo-gical method.� The latter operates, in its statistical calculations, with bothretentions and innovations indiscriminately, whereas the former is primarilyinterested only in innovations (though less trivial types of retentions may alsobe important, v. extensively below). The principal tasks of the two methodsare also different� proving the common origin of ES need not be connectedwith establishing the time of its separation from Common West Semitic andits subsequent disintegration. However, since both are focused on lexicalchange, there may be some hope that the analysis proposed in the presentarticle could provide arguments for a further refinement of the glottochrono-logical procedure.

R. Hetzron, a pioneer of the present-day Semitic and Ethiopian classifica-tion, was certainly aware of the important role of the lexicon in genetic clas-sification� «Naturally, we do not mean that vocabulary must be discardedfrom among the criteria for linguistic classification. On the contrary, it is oneof its most important bases» (Hetzron 1972�13). In spite of this, lexical evi-dence has been never used systematically in Hetzron’s studies on the topic.

7 Which alone is critically mentioned regrettably, without much discussion bythose who regard shared morphological innovations as the only tool of genetic sub-grouping. Thus, APPLEYARD 1996�204 quickly moves from a critical evaluation ofD. Cohen’s lexicostatistical study COHEN 1970 to a general conclusion according towhich «it is comparison of morphological forms and structures that must necessarilyconstitute the bedrock of any comparative work». Oddly enough, on p. 220 of hisarticle the same author does not hesitate to suppose that the presence of the internalpassive in MSA and Sabaic — in my view, one of the most important features linkingthese languages to WS as opposed to Akkadian — may be due to «diffusion, if notdirect ‘borrowing’ from Arabic». If such an isogloss can be discarded as the result ofborrowing and diffusion, I can only wonder what kind of morphological isoglossesstill constitute «the bedrock of any comparative work».

8 Its most explicit manifestation is the term «Gunn�n-Gurage» invented by Hetz-ron to denote West Gurage languages where terms for ‘head’ derive from *gunnnas opposed to dum < *dVm��- in East Gurage. HETZRON 1972�1 considers this tobe «a very good lexical isogloss». Other scattered examples include the negative par-


��L. Kogan

The special relevance of shared lexical innovations has also been recognizedpreviously (see, e. g., Hackett 1980�122, relying on a personal communica-tion by T. O. Lambdin; Tropper 1993�278ff. and especially Huehnergard1998�275–276, with many penetrating remarks but a somewhat skeptical gen-eral evaluation)�� Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge, this method hasnot yet been consistently applied to any sub-branch of Semitic.�� The presentcontribution, gratefully dedicated to the memory of Sevir Chernetsov — whosome 13 years ago introduced those who are now the co-editors of the presentvolume into the field of Ethiopian studies — is intended to fill this gap.��

1. Swadesh wordlist: the evidence

The Swadesh wordlist used in the standard glottochronological procedurewill serve as a convenient starting point for the present investigation as itmostly consists of semantically unambiguous notions that are primitive enoughto prevent — at least ideally — the corresponding terms from being bor-rowed from one language to another.��

ticles *�Vy vs. *�al p. 28, the numeral ‘nine’ *tis�- vs. *zah �t �an-, p. 29, the verbs*h �lf vs. *h�wr for ‘to go’ p. 59 etc. It is also noteworthy that the only feature fromamong «the first independent innovations that separated it [Ethiopian] from SouthArabian» HETZRON 1972�18 mentioned by Hetzron on p. 129, namely the fact that«the same morphemic exponent is used adnominally in the meaning of ‘like’ andadverbially as a purposive ‘in order that’», is actually a lexical feature. It is attributedby Hetzron to an early Agaw influence but an identical use is observable for Akk.k�ma at least in Old Assyrian� kaspam meh�r�tim irramin�kunu k�ma tagammil�ninniid��ma ‘das Silber, die Gegenwerte, legt, um mir gef�llig zu sein, von eurem ei-genen’ HECKER 1968�255. That both Akk. k�ma and Gez. kama are widely used tointroduce dass-Stze is commonplace.

9 For a somewhat contradictory presentation of the relevance of lexical isoglos-ses in the genetic subgrouping of Ethiopian v. APPLEYARD 1977:4–5.

10 A classical study dealing with shared lexical innovations in Indo-European isPORZIG 1954.

�� The method of shared lexical isoglosses has been applied by the present authorto the problem of the genealogical setting of Ugaritic to appear soon as a specialstudy). Another contribution dealing with the lexical evidence for the continuity be-tween Old and Middle Aramaic��.

12 In most cases, I will rely on the lists compiled for Geez, Amharic, Tigrinya,Soddo and Harari by Alexander Militarev partly published in MILITAREV 2000 andMILITAREV 2004, a fruit of many years of thorough work with lexicographic tools andnative speakers. My independent check of various positions of these lists has provi-ded abundant proof for the semantic accuracy of Militarev’s choice in sharp contrastwith RABIN 1975 or BENDER 1968, both full of quite arbitrary decisions, minor changesintroduced by myself being thus quite insignificant. Needless to say, my etymologi-cal evaluation of many concrete cases is quite different from that proposed in Mili-



My first step was to separate the stock of positions which can be more orless safely regarded as reflecting the hypothetic Proto-Ethiopian stage. In myopinion, a root reflected with the same basic meaning in Geez, Tigrinya or/and Tigre, Amharic and/or Argobba, Harari and/or Eastern Gurage and oneof the «Gunnän-Gurage» languages (for practical reasons, most often Soddo)can be attributed to Proto-Ethiopian without serious doubts. Such positionsare represented by 41 examples. To these one can add, with a high degree ofcertainty, 16 roots which are present in Geez, Tigrinya or/and Tigre and atleast two South Ethiopian subdivisions. A relatively small residual (11 exam-ples) comprises various less reliable combinations (Gez., Tgr./Tna. and oneS.-Eth. subdivision; all or most of Neo-Ethiopian but not Geez, etc.). In sum,no less than 68 positions can be qualified as Proto-Ethiopian, more than 80 �

of them in a highly reliable way.��

By their diachronic nature, these Proto-Ethiopian roots can be subdividedinto the following sections.

1. ´Trivialª retentionsThis group is constituted by terms which are exact phonological and se-

mantic descendants of their Proto-Semitic ancestors. The latter, in their turn,are very likely to be the only (or at least the principal, or basic) terms for therespective notions in the proto-language.�� It includes the following positions�

tarev’s studies so that all positive and negative solutions offered in the present articleare my responsibility alone. For Tigre, a list compiled by Dr. M. Bulakh with the help ofa native speaker was used. On the problem of borrowing in the Swadesh wordlists ofES languages v. Section 4 below.

13 This means that less reliable examples 11 can be easily eliminated from thediscussion without prejudicing its basic conclusions. The same is true of the fewcases which, in principle, could have been included in the Proto-Ethiopian stock butfor various reasons were not e. g., *t ��s- or *tann- for ‘smoke’, *zV for ‘that’.

/4��

��/<�//<�/0<

-/<�-5<�.-<�.=<�4/<�4-<�44<�50<�3,<�30<�3=<�=4<�=5��:��=<

.0<�.3<�4,<�43��

>��

��u�� k �k ��?� @��k��tu�?� @ and kabittu vs. am tu�?��@��<��

�� !��

��

�� <��<��

� �� A��

B��

�� B��C��

��<�D��<�E��<��<�F�� >��<��

��B��


��L. Kogan

1. ‘all’ — Gez. k�� ll-, Tna. k�� llu, Amh. hullu etc. (LGz. 281) < PS*kull-;

7. ‘to bite’ — Gez. nasaka, Tna. näkäsä, Amh. näkkäsä, Sod. näkkäsä,Har. näxäsa (LGz. 402) < PS *nt �k/nkt � (the metathetic variation, well attestedfor this root within and outside Ethiopian, is intriguing, but can hardly beregarded as an obstacle for postulating an eventual etymological identity ofboth variants);

9. ‘blood’ — Gez. dam, all Modern Ethiopian däm (LGz. 133) < PS *dam-;10. ‘bone’ — Gez. �as� �m, Tna. �as �mi, Amh. a ��nt, Sod. a ��m, Har. � �

(LGz. 58) < PS *�at �.m-;11. ‘claw, nail’ — Gez. s �� fr, Tna. s�� fri, Amh. �� f�r, Sod. �� f�r, Har. �ifir

(LGz. 549) < PS *t �.Vpr-;17. ‘to die’ — Gez. mota, Tna. motä etc. (LGz. 375) < PS *mwt;19. ‘to drink’ — Gez. sätya, Tna. sätäyä, Arg. �� Har. �� (LGz.

518) < PS *šty;21. ‘ear’ — Gez. ��zn, Tna. ��zni, Sod. �nz�n, Har. uzun (LGz. 52) < PS

*�ud�n-;25. ‘eye’ — Gez. �ayn, Tna. �ayni, Amh. ayn, Sod. in, Har. �� (LGz. 80) <

PS *�ayn-;28. ‘fire’ — Gez. �� Tgr. ��sat, Amh. �sat, Sod. äsat, Har. �� (LGz.

44) < PS *�iš(-��)-;32. ‘full’ — Gez. m�lu�, Amh. m�lu etc. (LGz. 342 < PS *ml�);37. ‘hand’ — Gez. ��d, Tna. �id, Amh. ��, Sod. ä�, Har. i� i (LGz. 7) <

PS *yad-;38. ‘head’ — Gez. r��s, Tna. r��si, Amh. ras, Har. �� (LGz. 458) < PS

*ra�š-; 39. ‘hear’ — Gez. sam�a, Amh. sämma etc. (LGz. 501) < PS *šm�;40. ‘heart’ — Gez. l�bb, Tna. l�bbi, Amh. l�bb, Sod. l�bb (LGz. 305) <

PS *libb-;41. ‘horn’ — Gez. ��arn, Tna. ��ärni, Amh. ��änd, Sod. ��är, Har. ��är (LGz.

442) < PS *��arn-;42. ‘I’ — Gez. �anä, Tna. �ane, Amh. �ne, Muh. anä, Har. �� (LGz. 26)

< PS *�anV;44. ‘knee’ — Gez. b�rk, Tgr. b�r�k, Tna. b�rki, Sel. b�rk, Wol. b�rk (LGz.

105) < PS *bVrk-;48. ‘liver’ — Gez. kabd, Tna. kabdi, Cha. xäpt, Har. � � (LGur. 333) <

PS *kabid-;54. ‘moon’ — Gez. warh �, Tna. warh �i, Har. wah �ri, Sel. wäri, Wol. wäri

(LGz. 617) < PS *war(i)h �-;56. ‘mouth’ — Gez. �af, Tna, �af etc. (LGz. 8); as argued in SED I No.

223, the ES forms must be derived from PS *pay- ‘mouth’ (clearly the basicPS term with this meaning) but the �a- extension is highly specific and al-most certainly goes back to the Proto-Ethiopian period (to be explained by



the influence of similar Cushitic forms or/and contamination with PS *�anp-‘nose’);15

57. ‘name’ — Gez. s�m, Amh. s�m, Har. s�m etc. (LGz. 504) < PS *šim-;59. ‘new’ — Gez. h �addis, Tna. h �addis, Amh. addis, Sod. a�� is, Har. h �a��

(LGz. 226) < PS *h �dt �;60. ‘night’ — Gez. lelit, Tna. läyti, Amh. let, lelit, Gaf. litä (LGz. 314) <

PS *lay(liy)-;61. ‘nose’ — Gez. �anf, Tgr. �an� f, Tna. (Hamasen) �anfi, Sod. afunna,

Har. � (LGz. 28) < PS *�anp-;63. ‘one’ — Gez. �ah�adu, Tna. h �adä, Amh. and, Sod. att, Har. ah �ad (LGz.

12) < PS *�ah�ad-;68. ‘root’ — Gez. s��rw, Tna. sur, Amh. s�r etc. (LGz. 535) < PS *Svr-;73. ‘seed’ — Gez. zar�, Tna. zar�i, Amh. zär, Sod. zär, Har. zär (LGz.

642) < PS *d �ar�/�-;80. ‘star’ — Gez. kokab, Tna. kokob, Amh. kokäb, Sod. kokäb, Zwy. kokkäb

(LGz. 280) < PS *kabkab-;81. ‘stone’ — Gez. ��bn, Tna. ��mni, Sod. �mmayyä, Har. � (LGz.4) <

PS *�Vbn-;87. ‘thou’ — Gez. �anta, Tgr. ��nta, Amh. antä, Gaf. ant, Sel. atä (LGur.

102) < PS *�anta;89. ‘tooth’ — Gez. s�nn, Tna. s�nni, Sod. s�nn, Har. s�n (LGz. 504) < PS

*šinn-;90. ‘tree’ — Gez. ��s� �, Tgr. �� ät, Cha. �� ä, Wol. �� e (LGur. 12) < PS

*�is� �-;94. ‘water’ — Gez. �� Tna. may, Har. ��, Sel. mäy, Wol. mäy (LGz.

376) < PS *ma_�y-;

95. ‘we’ — Gez. n�h �na, Tna. n�h �na, Amh. �ñña, Sod. �ñña, Har. �ñña(LGz. 395) < PS *nVh�nV-;

96. ‘what’ — Gez. m�nt, Amh. m�n, Sod. m�n, Har. min (LGz. 352) < PS*��-;

97. ‘who’ — Gez. mannu, Tna. män, Amh. man, Cha. m�an, Har. ��(LGz. 348) < PS *man(n)-.

It may be argued that in some of the above cases (Nos. 19, 28, 54, 59, 61,63) the status of the respective PS root as the basic exponent of the notion inquestion is somewhat less certain than in the remaining ones. But even forthese examples such a possibility is, in my opinion, so feasible that the pre-servation of the respective roots in Ethiopian can be regarded as highly non-specific.

15 In this sense, the present term can be treated not only as a trivial retention fromPS but also as a rather specific formal innovation.


��L. Kogan

2. ´Non-trivialª retentionsFor some notions included into the Swadesh wordlist the exponents are so

diverse throughout Semitic that it has been impossible to reconstruct a singlebasic term for PS. Such cases may be explained in several alternative ways�either no basic term with this meaning altogether existed, so that all the cor-responding words in the daughter languages are equally innovative; or one ofthe terms is the direct descendant of the basic PS term, which did not surviveanywhere else with this meaning; or several synonyms without substantialsemantic difference already coexisted in PS and have been subsequently ge-neralized in particular languages. In other words, the terms in question dohave reliable cognates in other languages, but it cannot be demonstrated thatthe basic meaning like ‘bird’ or ‘black’ is a direct retention from PS and notan independent semantic evolution. Examples of this type include�

6. ‘bird’ — Gez. �of, Tna. �uf, Amh. wof, Sod. wof, Har. � (LGz. 78).� From PS *�awp- ‘bird’, in its turn possibly going back to the verbal root

�wp ‘to fly’ (though a reverse development cannot be excluded). Ethiopian isthe only branch of Semitic where *�awp- became the basic term for bird,though this general meaning is also widely attested for Hbr. �� (KB 801,mostly used as a collective; also applied to other flying beings), Jud. ��(Ja. 1055) and Syr. �� (Brock. 517).

8. ‘black’ — Gez. s�allim, Tna. s�ällim, Har. �äy, Wol, �em, Sel. �� (LGz. 556).� From *t �.lm, mostly attested with the meaning ‘(to be) dark’ rather than

‘(to be) black’ (v. Bulakh 2003�5–7). The latter is, however, also typical ofAkkadian s�almu (CAD S � 77). It is uncertain whether the meaning ‘to be black’should be considered an independent innovation of Akk. and ES or a parallelretention of the original meaning (as Bulakh is apparently inclined to think).

77. ‘small’ — Gez. n��us, Tgr. n��uš, Tna. nu�us, Amh. t�nn�š, Arg. mans,Gaf. �nsä, End. �ns (LGz. 382).

� Probably a semantic evolution of PS *�nš ‘to be weak’ represented byAkk. �� ‘to be weak, impoverished, shaky’ (CAD E 166), Hbr. �nš ‘to besickly’ (KB 73). The meaning ‘to be small’ is also present in Soq. �énes (LS68, without adjectival formations). An eventual etymological relationshipbetween the two metathetic variants (N.-Eth. *n�s and S.-Eth. *�ns) can hardlybe put to doubt.

16. ‘to come’ — Gez. mas ��a, Tna. mäs ��e, Amh. mä � �a, Sod. mä � �a, Sel.mät �a, Wol. mät �ä (LGz. 370).

� From the PS verb of motion *mt �.� (possibly ‘to reach, to arrive’)� Akk.mas �û ‘to be equal to, to amount to’, D ‘to make reach to’ (CAD M1 344),Ugr. mt �.� ‘to meet, run into’ (DUL 608), Hbr. ms �� ‘to reach, meet, find’ (KB619), Bib. m �� ‘to reach, attain to; come over’ (ibid. 1914, with references toother Arm.), Sab. mt �.� ‘to reach, arrive, come to’ (Biella 273), ‘to go, pro-ceed, march; to reach a place’ (SD 89), Qat. mt �.� ‘to enter, go through’ (Ricks



96), Min. mt �.� ‘se trouver à un endroit’ (LM 64), Jib. míd �. í ‘to reach (to)’ (JJ169), Soq. m �y ‘venir, arriver, atteindre’ (LS 241).

26. ‘fat’ — Gez. s��bh �, Tna. s�bh �i, Amh. s�b, Cha. s�wä, Har. säbah(LGz. 525).

� From *s�Vbh�-, one of several Common Semitic terms for ‘fat, tallow’(outside Ethiopian reliably attested in MSA, where it also became the mainword for this notion, v. SED I No. 261).

31. ‘foot’ — Gez. ��gr, Tna. ��gri, Amh. �g�r, Sod. äg�r, Har. ingir(LGz. 11).

� The origin of the ES terms for foot and their counterparts in some Arb.dialects (v. ibid.) is a matter of controversy� reflexes of an independent PS root(SED I No. 7) or an evolution of *rigl- ‘foot’ (so most recently Voigt 1998).

33. ‘to give’ — Gez. wahaba, Tna. habä, Arg. hawa, Sod. abä, Sel. w��

Wol. wabä (LGz. 609).� From *whb ‘to give’ (Arm., Arb., ESA, sparsely also Hbr.). Within the

Common Aramaic suppletive paradigm of the verb ‘to give’ *whb became,side by side with *ntn, one of the two basic roots with this meaning.

43. ‘to kill’ — Gez. ��atala, Tna. ��ätälä, Wol. ��ätälä, Cha. ��ä �ärä (LGur.508).

� From *��tl/�� l ‘to kill’, mostly attested in Aramaic and Arabic where italso became the main verb with this meaning.

49. ‘louse’ — Gez. �� Tna. ��mal, Amh. ��mal etc. (LGz. 432).� From *�� ‘kind of harmful insect, louse’� Old Arm. ��ml ‘louse’ (HJ

1013), Arb. ��aml- ‘poux’, ��ummal- ‘petites fourmis; petites sauterelles quin’ont pas encore d’aile’ (BK 2 816), Sab. ��mlt ‘insect pests, locusts?’ (SD105). For a metathetic variant *��Vlm- v. Jud. ��alm�� ‘vermin’ (Ja. 1378),Syr. �� ‘pediculus’ (Brock. 668), Sab. ��lm, ��lmt ‘insect pest, locusts?’(SD 105), Qat. ��lm ‘Lausbefall’ (Sima 2000:131). Syr. �� and Arb.��ummal- also became the basic terms for louse in the respective languages.

65. ‘rain’ — Gez. z�� Tna. z�nab, Amh. z�nab, Sod. z�nab, Har. z�n��(LGz. 641).

� From *d �VnVn-/*d �VnVm-, one of the common Semitic terms for rain(Akk. zunnu, Sab. d �nm, v. ibid.). The last radical b in Neo-Ethiopian must bedue to dissimilation.

69. ‘round’ — Gez. k�bub, kabib, Tna. käbbib, Amh. k�bb, Sod. k�bb,Wol. kub (LGz. 273).

� From *kb (with various extensions), one of Common Semitic verbalroots for ‘to be curved, bent; to make a circular movement, to encircle’� Arb.kbb ‘pencher, incliner; pelotonner, rouler sur un peloton; faire des boulettes,des boules’ (BK 2 850), kbkb ‘renverser, culbuter’ (ibid. 855), Mhr. �� ‘tostoop’ (JM 201), Hrs. �� (JH 66), Jib. ekbéb id. (JJ 124), possibly also Hbr.pB. �� (also ��) ‘an arched round vessel’ (Ja. 608), Jud. ��‘vine cask; turret of a fort’ (Ja. 616), Akk. �� ‘shield’ (CAD K 1). PS


��L. Kogan

*kp with the same meaning represented by Akk. �� ‘to bend, curve’ OBon (CAD K 175), kippatu ‘loop, tendril’ (ibid. 397), Hbr. kpp ‘to bend, bowdown’ (KB 493), pB. �� ‘arch, doorway, bow; skull-cap’ (Ja. 635), Jud.kwp ‘to bend’ (ibid. 623), �� ‘vault, arcade; bow, curve’ (ibid. 636), k�pap‘to bend’ (ibid. 661), Syr. �� ‘flexit’ (Brock. 323), kap ‘inclinavit, curbavit’(ibid. 339), Mnd. kup, kpa, kpp ‘to bow, bend, curve’ (DM 208), Arb. kff X‘entourer qch., faire un cercle autour; se rouler en spirale (se dit d’un ser-pent)’, kiffat- ‘tout object rond’ (BK 2 910) is almost certainly related as avariant root.

71. ‘to say’ — Gez. b�hla, Tna. bälä, Amh. alä, Sod. balä, Har. ��(LGz. 89).

� From *bhl, a verb of speaking (possibly with an original connotation ofpraying, imploring)� Akk. ba�� ‘to pray, to beseech’ SB (CAD B 2), Arb.bhl ‘maudire’, VIII ‘implorer, invoquer, supplier’ (BK 1 173), Mhr. b��‘word’ (JM 45), Hrs. �� id. (JH 16), Jib. b�hlét id. (JJ 24), Soq. bíleh‘chose’ (LS 83).

72. ‘to see’ — Gez. r��ya, Tna. rä�ayä, Har. ri�a, Zwy. �� (LGz. 459).� From *r�y ‘to see’ whose attestation outside Ethiopian is mostly res-

tricted to Hbr., Arb. and ESA (v. ibid.). It is the basic word for ‘to see’ also inHebrew and Arabic.

79. ‘to stand’ — Gez. ��oma, Tna. ��omä etc. (LGz. 456).� From *��wm ‘to stand, stay’, attested in Hbr., Arm., Arb. and ESA (v. ibid).

It became the main term for ‘to stand’ also in Aramaic and Arabic.

3. Certain or likely innovationsThis group consists of those typically Ethiopian roots which can be more or

less reliably traced back to PS terms with a different meaning, i. e., Ethiopiansemantic innovations. The following positions can be classified in this way�

3. ‘bark’ — Gez. l�h �s �, Tna. l�h �s �i, Amh. l� �, Muh. l� �ä, Wol. l�� e (LGz.312, LGur. 383).

� As suggested in LGz. 312, probably derived from PS *lh�s �/h �ls � ‘to drawoff’� Arb. lh�s � II ‘épurer en séparant les parties moins propres; enlever, tirer,extraire la partie la plus pure et la meilleure’ (BK 2 980), Hbr. h �ls � ‘to drawoff’ (KB 321), pB. Nip. ‘to be peeled off’, Syr. h �ls � pa. ‘rapuit, spoliavit’(Brock. 237), see further KB 321–322. For a similar semantic development v.Latin cortex, according to WH I 279 < *(s)qer-t- ‘schneiden’ «als ‘abge-schälte, abgeschnittene Rinde’».

4. ‘belly’ — Gez. kabd, Tgr. käb�d, Tna. käbdi, Amh. hod (LGz. 273).� Generalization of PS *kabid- ‘liver’ (in Gez. and Tna. the meanings

‘belly’ and ‘liver’ are not distinguished at all whereas in Amh. *kabid- withthe meaning ‘liver’ is replaced by gubbät). While the meaning shift ‘liver’ >‘interior’ is also present in Arabic (‘cavité du ventre’, BK 2 852) and Ugarit-ic (‘innards, entrails’, DUL 424), the development of *kabid- into the main



term for external belly (abdomen) is specifically Ethiopian (the only — puz-zling — parallel is the expression ka-ba-tum-ma ‘on the belly’ in the AmarnaCanaanite, cf. SED I No. 141).

22. ‘earth’ — Gez. m�dr, Tgr. m�d�r, Tna. m�dri, Amh. m�d�r, Sod.m�d�r (LGz. 330).

� Generalization of a PS term for a type of soil, ground (probably ‘clod ofearth’)� Hbr. pB. mädär ‘ordure (material used for vessels)’ (Ja. 735), Syr.�� ‘gleba (terrae), terra, lutum, pulvis’ (Brock. 375), Arb. madar- ‘bouesèche et tenace, sans sable’ (BK 2 1078), Mhr. mdêr ‘Lehmziegel’ (Jahn210). Replacing PS *�ars� �- ‘earth’ (no trace in ES). A similar semantic evolu-tion of *mVd(V)r- is apparently observable in Sabaic (mdr ‘territory, ground’,SD 83 and Biella 267) but �rs� � clearly remained the main term for earth through-out ESA (note especially mr� s

1myn w�rs� �n ‘lord of heaven and earth’ in the

inscriptions from the monotheistic period, SD 7 and Biella 27).23. ‘to eat’ — Gez. bal�a, Tna. bäl�e, Amh. bälla etc. (LGz. 95).� A semantic development from PS *bl� ‘to swallow’ (Hbr., Arm., Arb.,

MSA, v. ibid. and KB 134). PS *�kl is completely ousted as a verbal rootthroughout ES but a Proto-Ethiopian deverbal derivate *�i/ukl- ‘corn, cere-als’ is preserved in most languages (LGz. 15).

82. ‘sun’ — Gez. s� �ah�� Tna. s�äh�ay, Amh. �ay, E�a � �et (LGur. 190).� As argued in LGz. 149, probably derived from a verbal root *s�h �w/*s� �h �w

‘to shine, to be bright’ (v. ibid. 553 for an extensive list of cognates). Aninherent connection with sun, sun-heat is possible as suggested by Hbr. h ��ah� ‘glowing heat’ (Is 18.4), � a �� s�ah� ‘glowing wind’ (Je 4.11) and especial-ly Akk. s�� ‘light, shining appearance of the sun, moon and stars, sultryweather, open air, open sun’ (CAD S� 150), ‘Glut, heller Schein, Hitze’ (AHw.1095). A�similar derivation from this root is known from Arabic (d �uh�an ‘heuredu jour où le soleil est déjà élevé sur l’horizon, matinée avancée; clarté, lu-cidité; soleil’, BK 2 12 and d �ih�h �- ‘soleil’, ibid. 10) but its evolution into themain term for sun (with a concomitant extinction of the main PS term forsun *SVmS-�� ) is spefically Ethiopian.

91. ‘two’ — Gez. k� l�e, Tna. k� l� tte, Amh. hulätt, Sod. kitt, Har. ko�ot(LGz. 282).

� A semantic development from PS *kil(�)- ‘both’� Akk. �� Hbr.kil�ayim, Arb. �� Mhr. k�� (ibid.). The only remnant of PS *t �� ‘two’ inEthiopian is Gez. ��y ‘the next day’ (ibid. 509).

4. Proto-Ethiopian terms with uncertain statusThis section includes positions occupied by roots which are highly speci-

fic to Ethiopian but have no reliable etymology. It is, therefore, impossible todemonstrate whether they are inherited terms completely lost throughout the

16 Tgr. šäm�š is obviously an Arabism.


��L. Kogan

Semitic languages (or, at least, with meager traces outside Ethiopian), or bor-rowed from an unknown source, or innovated through some unusual phono-logical and/or semantic shifts. The following examples should be attrributedto this category�

2. ‘ashes’ — Gez. h �amad, Tgr. h �amäd, Amh. amäd, Sod. amäd, Har. h �amäd(LGz. 231)��

� None of the two alternative etymological approaches to this Proto-Ethi-opian root outlined by Leslau is fully convincing�

— Arb. h �md ‘être intense (se dit de la chaleur)’, h�amadat- ‘pétillement dufeu qui brûle’ (BK 1 488); cf. also Hbr. pB. h�md ‘to produce shrivelling by heat’(Ja. 475) and, possibly, Akk. h�� ‘shrivelled or withered’ (CAD H� 57);

— Arb. h�md ‘cesser de flamber (se dit du feu, quand la flamme s’éteint,quoqu’il y ait encore des tisons qui brûlent)’, h�� ‘lieu où l’on couvrele feu, où on éteint les flammes, en conservant les tisons pour les rallumer’(BK 1 630), Mhr. h �� ‘to be extinguished, burnt out’ (JM 443).

46. ‘leaf’ — Gez. ��as�l, Tna. ��äs �li, Amh. �� äl, Sod. �� äl, Har. ��u � �i(LGz. 450).

� A number of terms with the root ��s�l and various botanical connotationsare attested in Arabic� ��as �l- ‘fleur de l’arbrisseau épineux salam-; rebut, par-ties que l’on jette en nettoyant le grain’, ��as�lat- ‘tendre et flexible (arbre);gerbe (de céréales fauchées)’, ��as �� ‘fourrage vert coupé pour les chevaux’(BK 2 755). One wonders whether these terms, together with the ES wordsfor leaf, may go back to a verbal root *��s�l ‘to cut’ attested in Arb. (��s�l ‘couper;trancher, abattre’, XI prendre, saisir’, ibid.) and Soq. (��ós �el ‘couper (lescheveux)’, LS 381). For possible examples of ‘leaf’ derived from ‘to peel,strip off’ v. Buck 525.

51. ‘man’ — Tna. säb�ay, Amh. säb, Sod. säb, Har. usu� (LGz. 482).� Included in the present corpus of evidence because of its reliable attes-

tation in Tna. and its wide spread throughout South Ethiopian. One cannotexclude that the collective meaning ‘people’ attested for Gez. sab� (vs. b��si‘man’) and Tgr. sab (vs. ��nas) is an innovation of these languages but thereverse is also possible. The etymology of Proto-Ethiopian *sab�- is unclear.It should probably be compared to Sab. s

1b� ‘carry out an undertaking (e. g.,

a military campaign)’, s1b�t ‘expedition, undertaking, journey’ (SD 122), Qat.

s1b� ‘to set out, go’ (Ricks 157), supposing an original meaning ‘gang, mili-

tary or working commando’�� A generalization of the ethnonym s1b� ‘Saba,

17 The relationship between the present root and Tna. h �am�kw�šti ‘ashes’ is un-

certain h �amäd means ‘earth, soil, dirt’ in Tna..18 Cf. also Arb. sub�at- ‘long voyage’ BK 1 1040, Mhr. h�b ��

��átbi ‘to struggle back home, make one’s way slowlyto people to get help’ JM 151; that Mhr. h is < *� is suggested by Soq. mi�teb‘pauvre’ LS 411; according to Leslau, < �by.



Sabaeans’ (cf. LLA 359 and Appleyard 1977�8) should, in my opinion, alsobe seriously considered. Comparison with Mhr. h�� ‘people’ accepted inLGz. 482 is not convincing for various reasons (cf. the evidence collected inJM 2 which plainly suggests that ��-/h ��- in this form belongs to the definitearticle rather than to the root whereas no expected š- is present in the cognateJibbali form).

52. ‘many’ — Gez. b�zuh �, Tna. b�zuh �, Amh. b� zu, Gog. b��ä, Har. bä��(LGz. 117).

� Clearly related to Arb. bd �h � ‘être grand, haut; s’élever à une grande hau-teur; e�tre fier, orgueilleux’ (BK 1 101) which is, however, hardly sufficientfor postulating a reliable PS reconstruction.

66. ‘red’ — Gez. ��ayy�h �, Tna. ��äyy�h �, Amh. ��äyy, Har. �� (LGz. 456).� The origin of Proto-Ethiopian *��yh � ‘to be red’ is obscure. ESA ��yh� ‘red’

adduced without reference by Leslau is Hapax Legomenon in the Hadramiticinscription RES 2693�2 where it is used as an attribute of d �hb ‘bronze’ (Sima2000:320; cf. Pirenne 1990:75 for a different interpretation of d �hb in thispassage). The following possible cognates (none of them fully convincing)can be mentioned (some of them tentatively suggested by M. Bulakh in per-sonal communication)�

— Arb. ��uh�h �- ‘pur, franc, sans mélange’ (BK 2 677), ��wh � ‘balayer lamaison’ (BK 2 831);

— Sab. h-��wh� ‘complete satisfactory, finish off, level, plaster’, m��h � ‘suc-cess, triumph’ (SD 110), Qat. s

1-��h � ‘to prepare, set in order’ (Ricks 143);

— Arb. ��ayh�- ‘pus (qui n’est pas mêlé de sang)’ (BK 2 844), ��wh� ‘sup-purer (se dit d’une plaie)’ (ibid. 831);

— Jud. ��h �ah � ‘to be dull, faint’, ��h �� ‘faint-colored, gray?’ (Ja. 1345);— Akk. ��û ‘copper, bronze’ OB on (CAD Q 291).93. ‘warm’ — Gez. m�ww��, Tna. mo��, Amh. mu��, Sod. mu��nna, Har.

mu�� (LGz. 375).� The origin of Proto-Ethiopian *mw�� ‘to be warm, hot’ is unknown.

5. Certain or likely CushitismsThis group includes Ethiopian terms with no fully reliable Semitic ety-

mology but widely attested in Cushitic. Some of them are obvious Cushitisms,the status of some other is disputed�

14. ‘cloud’ — Gez. �� Tna. dämmäna, Amh. dämmäna, Sod.dämmäna, Har. �� (LGz. 134–135).

� Thought to be borrowed from Cushitic�� in Dolgopolsky 1973�51 andAppleyard 1977�36 (v. Militarev 2004�299–300 for a different opinion).

19 Which means, here and elsewhere below, from some particular Cushitic lan-guage(s) or from an undetermined stage of development of Common Central or EastCushitic.


��L. Kogan

24. ‘egg’ — Gez. �an��o��h �o, Tna. ��n��a��h �o, Sod. an��o, Har. a��uh�(LGz. 31).

� Borrowed from Cushitic according to Dolgopolsky 1973�282, 319 buttreated as cognate to the corresponding Cushitic forms in Militarev 2004�309(cf. SED I No. 160). The situation is complicated by the fact that no basic PSterm for egg can be safely reconstructed.

29. ‘fish’ — Gez. ��s��, Tna. �asa, Amh. asa etc. (LGz. 73).� Clearly borrowed from Cushitic (Dolgopolsky 1973�293).36. ‘hair’ — Tgr. � ��gär, Tna. s�äg�ri, Amh. �ägur, Sod. ��gär, Har. ��igär

(LGz. 550).� Included into the present corpus of evidence because of its wide attesta-

tion throughout Modern Ethiopian (the main Gez. term for hair seems to bes��rt though s�ag�r is also attested). Borrowed from Cushitic (Appleyard1977�17).

53. ‘meat’ — Gez. s��, Tna. s�ga, Amh. s�ga (LGz. 526).� Clearly borrowed from Cushitic (Dolgopolsky 1973�99).

This list is essentially in agreement with that proposed in Ehret 1988�649.Both include terms for cloud, fish, hair and egg. Ehret treats the term formeat as borrowed into Proto-North-Ethiopian (but observes� «also in Am-haric»). I have not found compelling reasons for treating * �� ‘smoke’, *brr‘to fly’ and *�w�� ‘to know’ as the main Proto-Ethiopian terms for the respec-tive notions though, obviously, such a possibility is not excluded for each ofthe three cases.

2. Swadesh wordlist: analysis and discussion

As mentioned above, there are 68 probable Proto-Ethiopian roots and themajority can be reconstructed quite reliably. From the standpoint of the nor-mal glottochronological procedure, this number is very high and unambigu-ously points to a rather close genetic relationship� compare, e. g., 56 positionsin common between Harari and Geez as opposed to some 23 between Harariand Qur�anic Arabic or some 17 between Harari and Mehri. Within the presentapproach, however, bare numbers in themselves are not sufficient. The obvi-ously heterogeneous mass of coincidences is to be carefully analysed in orderto evaluate the classificatory relevance of each of its segments.

Examples attributed to Group 1 («trivial retentions») represent a clearmajority (37). In my opinion, these 37 positions do not prove the commonorigin of ES since the corresponding roots with the same basic meanings arewell preserved in many other Semitic languages. A striking example is Heb-rew where all 37 roots are present in the respective positions, and Akkadianwith its 33 examples is not too far behind. A more or less massive loss ofthese roots in a given Semitic language (cf. some 25 positions preserved inArabic and some 20 in Mehri) may probably be interpreted as pointing to



their relatively prolonged separate status but certainly does not suggest thatthe remaining languages (such as Ethiopian, Hebrew and Akkadian) are closelyrelated. In other words, if a text in a previously unknown Semitic language isdiscovered, the presence of these roots is likely to suggest that it is neitherArabic nor MSA, yet does not help to determine whether it is Ethiopian orCannanite. In sum, trivial lexical retentions can hardly be helpful in the gene-tic subgrouping based on the lexical evidence, a symmetrical counterpart ofthe widely accepted opinion concerning the classificatory value of trivial mor-phological retentions� thus, the imperfect ya-��tul-u is an important innovationproving the unity of Central Semitic but the preservation of *yV-��attVl saysnothing about the relationship between Akkadian, Ethiopian and MSA.

14 examples my be qualified as «non-trivial retentions» (Group 2). Theclassificatory value of each of them is conditioned by the degree of its spe-cificity, the evaluation of which is necessarily subjective. Roots specializedwith the respective meaning in other West Semitic languages (*��wm, *r�y,*��tl, *whb) are, in my opinion, the least significative in this respect (insome cases approaching those included in Group 1) whereas some others(*bhl or *n�s) are so highly specific that practical difference between suchterms and those included in the next section is sometimes elusive. The clas-sificatory value of this segment as a whole is, therefore, not unimportant� alanguage exhibiting all 14 roots can be almost safely qualified as Ethiopianbut even the combination of, say, *�awp- for ‘bird’, *t �. lm for ‘to be black’,*whb for ‘to give’, *mt �.� for ‘to come’ and *s�Vbh �- for ‘fat’ is highly sugges-tive in this respect. Nevertheless, since all these terms are retentions (ineach case inherited from a more or less restricted pool of options) ratherthan innovations, there is always the possibility (even if purely theoretical)for an identical or very similar set of options to be offered by another Se-mitic language.

The six examples included in Group 3 («certain or likely innovations»)are decisive for qualifying a Semitic language as Ethiopian and provide reli-able evidence as to the common origin of ES. Admittedly, the relevance ofparticular cases is uneven. Thus, *kil�ay for ‘two’ is perhaps the most impor-tant one� highly specific from the semantic point of view (at least completelywithout precedent in Semitic), attested throughout Ethiopian and accompa-nied by an almost complete elimination of *t �in- (the only PS term for ‘two’).��

The least significant may be *kabd- ‘belly’ < ‘liver’, present only in NorthEthiopian and Amharic and, possibly, with a precedent in early Canaanite.Nevertheless, even if one of the above roots is present in a Semitic text withthe respective meaning, its Ethiopian background is very likely (and abso-lutely certain if there are two or three of such terms).

20 The high relevance of this innovation was fully realised by such a prominentauthority of modern Semitics as J. CANTINEAU (1932:179).


��L. Kogan

The diagnostic relevance of the six terms of Group 4 is high in spite oftheir uncertain status� as I have just shown, both groups to which they can bealternatively attributed (non-trivial retentions and likely innovations) are sig-nificant from the point of view of subrouping.

As for the Cushitisms included in Group 5, their relevance depends onwhether they are thought to be borrowed independently into various Ethiopianlanguages or into the hypothetic Proto-Ethiopian. No convincing solution tothis interesting problem can at present be proposed (see further below).

3. Evidence from other lexical fields

Since the method of lexical innovations is not bound to any fixed numberof positions, one can operate freely with various basic notions not included inthe Swadesh wordlist. Such an inquiry has yielded several additional exam-ples of lexical innovations, probably going back to Proto-Ethiopian�

*�r�� ‘to be naked’� Gez. �ar��a, Tgr. �ar��a, Tna. �arä��ä, Amh. arrä��ä(LGz. 71). It remains to be established whether the element �� attested withthis meaning throughout West Gurage can be taken back to the present rootwith n < *r and �� < *��.

� From PS *�r�� ‘to gnaw, strip away’� Arb. �r�� ‘dépouiller l’os de la chair’(BK 2 228) and other cognates in LGz. 71; replacing PS *�rw.

*blh� ‘to be sharp’� Gez. balh�a, Tgr. bälh �a, Tna. bälh �e, Sod. bulä honä,Har. bäläh �a (LGz. 95).

� As argued in Kogan forthcoming, probably from PS *bl� ‘to be at theedge, to reach the point’ (Arb. bl� ‘parvenir à un point; atteindre à..., arri-ver à...’, BK 1 161), cf. especially Arb. mabla�- ‘terme, point extrême oùparvient une chose’ (BK 1 162) vs. Tgr. m�blah� ‘point (of the horn)’ (LH269).

*batr- ‘branch, shoot, stick, rod’� Gez. batr, Tgr. bät�r, Tna. bätri, Amh.bätt�r, Sod. bätt�r, Har. bärti (LGz. 112).

� Possibly derived from PS *btr ‘to cut off’ (cf. DRS 80)� Hbr. btr ‘to cutin pieces’ (KB 167), Arb. btr ‘couper la queue à un animal’ (BK 1 82), Tgr.(t�)bättära ‘to become unarmed’, bätray ‘leafless (tree)’ (LH 287), Jib. �t�r‘to chop’ (JJ 30). For an exact semantic parallel v. Buck 523 in connectionwith Greek kládos.

*grm ‘to be formidable, amazing, awesome’� Gez. garama, Tgr. gärrä-ma, Tna. gärämä, Amh. gärrämä, Sod. gärrämä, Sel. gärämä (LGz. 203).

� Probably derived from PS *gVrm- ‘bone; body’ with a semantic evolu-tion otherwise attested in Semitic (v. SED I No. 94).

*h �mm ‘to be sick, ill’� Gez. h �amama, Tgr. h �amma, Tna. h �amämä, Amh.ammämä-w, t-ammämä (LGz. 233).

� From PS *h�mm ‘to be hot, feverish’ (v. LGz. 233 and SED I No. 120),replacing PS *mrs � �.



*l��h � ‘lend’� Gez. la��h �a, Tgr. �alä��h �a, Tna. �alä��h �e, Amh. tälä��a,Har. (a)��äh�a (LGz. 317).

� A causative formation from PS *l��h � ‘to take’.*��- ‘wind’� Gez. �� Tna. n�fas, näfas, Amh. n�fas, Sod. n�fas,

Wol. n�fas (LGz. 389).� From PS *npš ‘to breathe’.*na�a ‘come� up�’� Gez. na�a, na�� ‘come, come now’, Tgr. n��a,

Tna. nä�a, Amh. na, Sel. Zwy. na (LGur. 445).� This interjection (partly serving as a suppletive imperative for ‘to come’)

goes back to a PS verb of movement *n� with various extensions (v. KB 681for references). The verbal origin of *na�a is clear from its full conjugationin Gez. n�� n�� , n��.

*ma��- ‘honey’� Gez. ma�� Tgr. mä�ar, Tna. mä�ar, Amh. mar (LGz. 326).� From PS *wa�r- ‘honeycomb’ (Hbr. ya�ar, KB 423), a meaning still

preserved in Gez. (note the meaning ‘wax’ for the reflexes of *ma��- inHarari and Gurage, LGur. 386). Partly replacing PS *dibš- (preserved in Epi-graphic Geez, Harari, Gafat and Argobba, LGz. 122). See further Appleyard1977�28–29.

*��- ‘god’� Gez. �� Tgr. �amlak, Tna. �amlak, Amh. amlak (LGz.344).

� A broken plural from *malk- ‘king’ unattested in Ethiopian (Appleyard1977�56), completely ousting PS *�il-.

*mar��- ‘bride; daughter-in-law’ (and related forms connected with wed-ding, marriage)� Gez. mar�� Tna. mär�at, Amh. m�rat, Sod. märat, Wol.märat (LGur. 424).

� Derived from the verbal root *r�w ‘to join’ present in Gez. �ar�ut,Arb. �ur�uwwat- ‘yoke’ (cf. Latin conjux, Russian ��). Replacing PS*kallat-.

*ngs � ‘to rule, to be king’� Gez. nags�a, Tgr. nägsa, Tna. nägäsä, Amh.näggäsä, Sod. näggäsä, Har. nägäsa (LGz. 393).

� From PS *ngs � ‘to push, press, drive (to work)’, replacing PS *mlk,*mal(i)k-, supposed to be preserved in *��- ‘god’ only (v. above). Seefurther Appleyard 1977�51.

*rkb ‘to find’� Gez. rakaba, Tgr. räkba, Tna. räkäbä, Amh. räkkäbä, Msq.räkkäbä, Sel. räkäbä (LGz. 469).

� Almost certainly derived from PS *rkb ‘to ride; to join, connect’ eventhough exact details of the semantic evolution remain obscure (v. extensivediscussion in LGz. 469).

*rs� ‘to forget’� Gez. ras�a, Tgr. t�räss��a, Tna. räss��e, Amh. rässa,Sod. ärässa, Har. räsa�a (LGz. 474).

� Likely developed from PS *rš� ‘to be wicked, ruthless’ via ‘to be negli-gent’ (v. especially Akk. ruššû ‘to behave thoughtlessly, imperiously, to actin contempt or disrespect of others’, CAD R 429). Almost completely ous-


��L. Kogan

ting PS *nšy which is possibly preserved in Gez. �� saya (LGz. 395; theorigin of -h�- is unclear).

*� ��bw ‘to suck’� Gez. � ��abawa, Tna. � ��äbäwä, Tgr. � ��äba, Amh. � �äbba, Sod.� �obbä, Har. � ��äba (LGz. 587).

� Derived from PS (and Proto-Ethiopian) *� �Vb- ‘teat, breast’ (SED INo. 247).

*wald-, *lid- ‘son’� Gez. wald, Tgr. wäd, Tna. wäddi, Amh. l��, Sod. wäld,Har. li��i, waldi (LGz. 613).

� PS *bin- is ousted by derivatives of *wld ‘to bear’ (preserved only inGez. b�nta �ayn ‘pupil of the eye’). The lack of distinction between ‘son’ and‘boy’, ‘child’ observable throughout Ethiopian is atypical of Semitic and maybe due to the substratum influence.�� While *wVld- for ‘son’ is attested insome Arabic dialects, its use there is restricted to filiations (DRS 546), *bin-clearly remaining the basic term for this notion.

*zi�b- ‘hyena’� Gez. z��b, Tna. z�b�i, Amh. ��b, Arg. ��b (LGz. 630).� A semantic evolution of PS *d �i�b- ‘wolf, jackal’, replacing PS *s� �ab(u)�-

‘hyena’ which is reflected in Gez. only (s� ��b�, LGz. 147; very scarcely attest-ed). The notion ‘wolf’ is mostly expressed by Cushitic borrowings like Gez.tak� �� See further Appleyard 1977�44.

Besides, a (by no means exhaustive) list of isoglosses with no reliableSemitic etymology, thus corresponding to group 4 in the above classification,can be adduced�

*�ilat-, *ma�alt- ‘day’, *w�l ‘to spend the day’� Gez. Tgr. mä�al, m��l,��lät, Tna. mä�alti, ��lät, Sod. may, Har. mä�� ‘day (in daytime)’,�� ‘day (24 hours)’ (LGz. 603).

� Replacing PS *yawm- (preserved with the meaning ‘today’ in Gez., Tgr.and Tna., LGz. 627).

*b�� ‘to fit, to be sufficient’� Gez. ba�� a, Tgr. bä��a, Tna. bä��e, Amh.bä��a, Sod. bä��a, Har. bä��a (LGz. 99).

� Note Arb. b�� ‘se contenter, être satisfait de qch.’ (BK 1 150).*f� �n ‘to be fast’� Gez. fa� �ana, Tgr. fä� �na, Tna. fä� �änä, Amh. fä� �� änä, Sod.

fä� �� änä, Har. fä� �äna (LGz. 171).� Compared by Leslau to Arb. f� �n ‘être intelligent, avoir de la sagacité’

(BK 2 613). MSA verbs with the meaning ‘to remember; to be clever’ (JM108, JH 36, JJ 66) must be borrowed from Arabic. According to Biella 402,Sab. f� �n ‘assign, ordain’ may also be related (supposing an original meaning‘to proclaim’).

*g�dl ‘to be missing’� Gez. g�adala, Tna. g�ädälä, Amh. g�äddälä, Sod.g�äddälä (LGz. 182).

21 V. such Cushitic examples as Saho �u k-� ‘kind, son, tochter, knabe, mädchen’(RSa. 76) and Beja �ôr ‘knabe, son’ (RBed. . 27).



*gz� ‘to dominate; to own, possess’� Gez. gaz�a, Tgr. gäz�a, Tna. gäz�e,Amh. gäzza, Sod. gäzza, Har. gäza�a (LGz. 210).

*h �wr ‘to go’� Gez. h �ora, Gaf. horä, End. wä �rä (juss. y�x�är), Har. h ��(LGz. 249).

� Compared by Leslau to Arb. rwh � ‘aller’ (BK 1 945) and h �wr ‘revenir,retourner’ (ibid. 509). That Sab. h �wr ‘to settle in a town’ (SD 73) goes backto an original meaning ‘to go’ (as assumed by Leslau) is by no means certain.

*h �zl ‘to carry on the back’� Gez. h �azala, Tna. h �azälä, Amh. azzälä, Msq.ezzälä, Har. h �azäla (LGz. 253).

� Note Arb. h �ud�al- ‘giron; ceinture dans le caleçon, cette partie par laquelleon le fixe sur le corps’ (BK 1 398).

*h�s� �b ‘to wash’� Gez. h �as� �aba, Tgr. h �as �ba, Tna. h �as �äbä, Amh. a� �� äbä, Sod.a� �� äbä, Har. h �a� �äba (LGz. 259).

� Compared by Leslau to Arb. h �d �b ‘se teindre les mains, les ongles, labarbe ou les cheveaux’ (BK 1 584). Replacing PS *rh �s� � which is preserved inGaf. and East Gurage (in other languages with a meaning shift into ‘to sweat,perspire’ only).

*k�b ‘to do again, to double’� Gez. ��b, Tgr. kä�abä, E�a xabä, Wol.kabä, Ancient Har. ka�ab (LGz. 271).

� Note Arb. ka�b- ‘jointure, articulation des os’ (BK 2 907).*��sl ‘to be wounded’� Gez. ��asla, Tna. ��äsälä, Amh. ��ossälä, Sod.

��ässälä (LGz. 446).� Compared by Leslau to Arb. ��s �l ‘couper’ (BK 2 755).*kyd ‘to tread, trample, walk’� Tgr. keda, Tna. kädä, Amh. hedä, E�a hedä,

Har. xe��a (LGz. 301).� Compared by Leslau to Arb. kdd II ‘donner une chasse vigoureuse, re-

pousser et poursuivre’, �� ‘sol foulé par les bêtes à sabot’ (BK 2 872).Note Arb. kdkd ‘marcher lentement et lourdement’ (BK 2 875), Mhr. �� ‘tomake (a camel) trot’ (JM 203), Jib. kédé ‘(camel) to trot’ (JJ 126).

*lmlm ‘to be green, verdant’� Gez. lamlama, Tgr. lämläma, Tna. läm-lämä, Amh. lämällämä, Sod. l�mällämä (LGz. 315).

� Note Arb. lmm IV ‘arriver à son terme; avoir les dattes presque mûres’(BK 2 1022) and Akk. lammu ‘almond tree; sapling’ (CAD L 68).

*ls�y ‘to shave’� Gez. ��aya, Tna. las�äyä, Amh. ��ä, Sod. ��ä (LGz. 319).� Note Arb. lys� ‘remuer et ôter une chose de sa place’ (BK 2 1048).

*mh �l ‘to swear’� Gez. mah�ala, Tgr. mäh �ala, Tna. mäh �alä, Amh. malä,Sod. malä, Zwy. �� (LGz. 335).

� Sab. mh �ly in Gl 1533.6 is tentatively interpreted as ‘oath’ in SD 84 andBiella 271. Note Hbr. pB. �� al ‘to forgive, pardon’ (Ja. 761), Jud. id. (ibid.)compared by Leslau. It is unclear whether Arb. mh �l III ‘agir avec astuce àl’égard de qn.’ (BK 2 1069) may also be somehow related.

*��- ‘sterile, childless’� Gez. ��, Tna. mäkan, Amh. mäkkan,mähan, Gog. mäkan, Zwy. mähan (LGz. 340).


��L. Kogan

*mrh � ‘to guide, lead’� Gez. marh �a, Tna. märh �e, Amh. märra, Sod. märra,Sel. mära (LGz. 358).

� One wonders whether Syr. �� ‘audax’ (Brock. 404), Arb. mrh �‘marcher avec fierté, en levant la tête’ (BK 2 1087) may be related.

*nbr ‘to sit; to live, stay’� Gez. nabara, Tgr. näbra, Tna. näbärä, Amh.näbbärä, norä, Sod. näbbärä, Har. näbära (LGz. 284).

� At least partly replacing PS *wt �b ‘to sit’ (usually thought to be pre-served in Gez. �awsaba ‘to take a wife’, LGz. 619). Etymology fully uncer-tain (note perhaps Arb. �� ‘cul, derrière’, BK 2 1183). Nöldeke’s attemptto relate Gez. nabara with Arb. nbr ‘to be high, elevated’ (Nöldeke 1910�49)does not look attractive from the semantic point of view.

*ndd ‘to burn’ (intr.)� Gez. nadda, Tna. nädädä, Amh. näddädä, Sod.näddädä, Har. nädäda (LGz. 385).

� Compared by Leslau to Arb. nd� ‘faire un petit creux dans les cendreschaudes pour y mettre le pain etc., qu’on veut faire cuire’ (BK 2 1224).

*ngd ‘to travel’� Gez. nagada, Tgr. nägda, Tna. nägädä, Amh. näggädä,Sod. näggädä, Har. nigdi �� (LGz. 391).

� Compared to Syr. n�gad ‘traxit; se effudit’ (Brock. 413) in LLA 693(with cognates in other Arm.� Ja. 871-2, DM 288).

*s�m ‘to kiss’� Tgr. sä�ama, Tna. sä�amä, Amh. samä, Sod. samä, Sel.�� (LGz. 481).

� Compared by Leslau with Yemenite Arb. sa�am ‘kiss’ (after W. W. Mül-ler; v. now Behnstedt 559) which, in view of its isolated position within Ara-bic, must be due to (Proto-)Ethiopian influence.

*s�bb ‘to be narrow’� Gez. s �abba, Tgr. s�äbba, Tna. s �äbbä, Amh. � �äbbäbä,Sod. � �äbbäbä, Har. � �äbäba, Zwy. � �äbäbä (LGz. 545).

� Compared by Leslau to Arb. d �bb ‘empoigner une chose, prendre avectoute la main’ (BK 2 2) and d �aff- ‘étroit’ (ibid. 30) and similar forms in -p inHbr. and Arm. Likely replacing PS *s� �y�� (which may be preserved in Sel.,Wol. � �ä��ä��ä, Msq. � �ä��ä��ä ‘to be narrow’, LGur. 628).

*w�y ‘to be hot, to burn’� Gez. w��ya, Tna. wä�ayä, Enm. wi�ä, Har. w�y(LGz. 603).

� Tentatively related by Leslau to Arb. w�y ‘exciter la sédition, les tumul-tes (BK 2 1571)’.

*wl� �/lw� � ‘to change’� Gez. walla� �a, Tna. läwwä� �ä, Amh. läwwä� ��ä, Sod.liwwä� �ä (LGz. 614).

� One wonders whether the Ethiopian roots can be related to PS *lw� � ‘totwist, turn, do a second time’ (v. LS 230 for concrete forms). Akk. � � �u ‘hostage,pledge’ (CAD L 223) is rather close semantically to the meaning ‘to change’ butit is thought to be derived from lâ� �u ‘to confine, to keep in check’ (ibid. 113).

To collect and analyse all non-trivial lexical retentions of ES is an impor-tant but difficult task clearly beyond the scope of the present article. Twoexamples of Proto-Afrosiatic roots widely attested in Ethiopian but with no



reliable parallel anywhere else in Semitic can show how instructive such aninvestigation could be�

*maray-t- ‘earth, soil, dust’ (LGz. 361� Gez., Tgr., Tna., Amh.), clearlyrelated to Berber *ta-mur-t- ‘earth’ (Militarev 2004�307);

*hlw ‘to be’ (LGz. 218� passim), probably to be compared to Berber, Cus-hitic and Chadic terms with the same meaning (HSED No. 28).

4. Problem of borrowing

One of the main reasons underlying Hetzron’s reluctance to deal with thevocabulary in his studies in Semitic classification was the possibility of lexi-cal borrowing� «One must also be very careful with vocabulary in classifica-tion. ... Neighbour languages may use the same root and it is sometimes dif-ficult to find out whether it is a recent borrowing from one of them or an oldone going back to the proto-language. ... One must proceed with extremeprudence in dealing with the vocabulary of limitrophe languages» (Hetzron1972�12–13). The first illustration adduced by Hetzron to justify his claim israther unlucky� no one would group together Harari, Gurage and some Cush-itic languages because of the fact that they all have borrowed Arb. �azw-‘raid’ as gaz. His second example is of a different nature, however. Accor-ding to Hetzron, «the use of the Northern root *ngr for ‘to say’ in Amharic ...can be explained by the northern character of the Amhara civilization, and bythe fact that (in historical times at least) Amharas had much more contactwith the North than with other South Ethiopic speakers» (ibid.). Since ‘tosay’ clearly belongs to basic rather than cultural notions, Hetzron’s argumentcan be easily expanded to a degree that all coincidences in the basic vocabu-lary of ES would be explained as interborrowings resulting from a series of«wave innovations» (Hetzron 1975�108), thus completely invalidating theresults of the present investigation.

In my opinion, there are several reasons to believe that Hetzron’s hypoth-esis, while not improbable in some particular cases (*ngr may well be one ofthem), is hardly suitable as a general explanation.

First of all, in order to explain the pan-Ethiopian spread of such terms as*bl� or *kil�ay one would have to postulate not just a single act of borrowingfrom language X into language Y but virtual chains of loanwords involvinghalf a dozen languages at least. While quite conceivable for a term meaning‘raid’, this spread would be a rarity for such highly conservative notions as‘two’, ‘sun’ or ‘to eat’.

Secondly, ES lexical innovations usually exhibit a deeply structured pat-tern common to all the languages affected by them. Thus, if PS *�ars ��- ‘earth’or *SVmS- ‘sun’ disappear from Ethiopian, they are eliminated completelyfrom all the languages of the group (if one of them does not display the com-mon Ethiopian innovation, in most cases it does not preserve the old root


��L. Kogan

either but opts for another replacement, such as Har. � for ‘sun’)�� But evenif *�kl ‘to eat’ does leaves a trace, it is — formally and semantically — thesame trace in all Ethiopian Semitic languages, namely ��kl ‘cereals, food’(with fully regular correlates throughout ES). Not a shade of any other nom-inal or verbal formation from *�kl is attested. Simultaneously, the originalmeaning of the newly established basic root undergoes a similar systematicshift� as soon as PS *bl� becomes specialized with the neutral meaning ‘toeat’, its earlier meaning ‘to swallow’ disappears completely and is now ex-pressed by a different root (*wh� � �). This picture is suggestive of a compact andwell-shaped proto-language whose main lexical features were faithfully in-herited by its daughter tongues rather than through a chain of borrowings thatby their very nature could hardly be so systematic.

Thirdly, cognate terms derived from Proto-Ethiopian roots undergo allregular phonological shifts typical of Modern Ethiopian languages� palatali-zation, loss of nasal sonorants, spirantization of velars and labials, loss of s �,insertion of n, the shift *-rn- > -nd- etc. Since earlier stages of Modern Ethio-pian are poorly documented, the chronology of most of these processes can-not be established with certainty, but none of them is very recent (as one canlearn from Podolsky 1991�22–23, 32, 35, 45, 48, 51, they are all more or lesswell represented in the earliest Amharic documents dating to the 14th–15thcenturies). Accordingly, the hypothetic chains of borrowings, if they evertook place, must have occurred during a period whose cultural-historical cir-cumstances (at least those which could justify a massive borrowing in thebasic vocabulary) are completely out of our control.

In sum, Hetzron’s caution is probably justified as far as some concrete ex-amples are concerned but does not seem to be warranted for the bulk of lexicalcoincidences in the basic vocabulary of Ethiopian.�� This conclusion can be atleast partly corroborated by an analysis of borrowings from ES into Central

22 This circumstance brings us to the interesting question of whether a system ofshared losses in the lexicon is significant for genetic subgrouping �the essentiallysimilar problem of morphological losses as classificatory criteria is well known tohistorical linguists�. Even if the spread of *bl� for ‘to eat’ is due to interborrowing, itis hard to suppose that its influence was strong enough to produce such a ubiquotouselimination of *�kl. In my opinion, this elimination can only be explained as a Proto-Ethiopian fact. The same conclusion can probably be applied to more culture-boundnotions� thus, the pan-Ethiopian spread of *�aml�k- ‘god’ or *n�g�s �- ‘king’ is per-haps less impressive than a total absence of such virtually pan-Semitic terms as *�il-and *malik-.

23 Even if some obvious examples of lexical borrowing and diffusion can beoccasionally detected in Swadesh word lists of Ethiopian Semitic languages: notesuch telling cases as Amh. s�ähay ‘sun’ and Tna. h �amlya ‘green’, clearly borrowedfrom Geez and Amharic respecively in view of their phonetic shape (suggested byM. Bulakh).



and East Cushitic and vice versa. As is well known, many years of mutualinteraction between ES and Cushitic have produced a virtual linguistic sym-biosis whose impact on the lexicon (cultural above all, but basic as well) ishard to overestimate. In many lexical fields interborrowings between ES lan-guages seem to be as frequent as those between them and a Cushitic languagelike Bilin. In this situation, it is important to check how deeply this interactionaffected the 68 positions of proto-Ethiopian lexicon as separated above.

Cushitic > Ethiopian SemiticWhile many Cushitic loanwords penetrated Swadesh lists of particular

Ethiopian languages, as we have seen above, only five examples can betreated as pan-Ethiopian.24 Their extremely wide spread throughout ES makesthe assumption of independent borrowings into particular ES languages fromone or several Cushitic source(s)�� unlikely. Therefore a progressive inter-dialectal infiltration as envisaged by Hetzron is a real possibility in thesecases. However, the number of such examples is so low in comparison withthe one hundred positions under scrutiny (or even those sixty-eight whichhave been qualified as proto-Ethiopian) that the methodological relevance ofthis process is rather insignificant (though, of course, not to be discardedcompletely). On the other hand, one should not forget that another, mucheasier explanation for such cases is at hand� the respective terms may wellhave been borrowed into proto-Ethiopian and inherited by its daughter lan-guages side by side with the native Semitic lexical items. This is especiallylikely in the case of *�� ‘fish’ since no PS term with this meaning can bereconstructed at all, this notion being expressed by different terms of uncer-tain origin throughout Semitic.

Ethiopian Semitic > CushiticIn view of a total lack of etymological expertise with Cushitic, my evalu-

ation of this problem heavily relies on Leslau’s comments «passed into Cus-hitic», «also in Cushitic» etc. scattered on the pages of LGz. and LGur.��

According to my initial impression, the degree of Semitic infiltration into thebasic lexicon of several Cushitic languages (Agaw, especially Bilin; Beja;

�� I purposely omit a few cases of similar terms widely attested in both ES andCushitic, but most likely dating back to a common Afroasiatic lexical stock such as*sim- ‘name’ �DOLGOPOLSKY 1999�44� or *SVr- ‘root’ �HSED No. 551�. An interac-tion between such terms is certainly possible and even likely �see above in connec-tion with Proto-Ethiopian *�ap- ‘mouth’� but one is hardly entitled to qualify thisinteraction as borrowing.

�� With the possible exception of the term for ‘meat’ which is less widely attested�Gez. s��g�, Tgr. Tna. Amh. s�g��.

�� I am therefore aware that additional examples not mentioned by Leslau mayhave escaped my attention but it seems that such cases can hardly be numerous.


��L. Kogan

Saho-Afar) was remarkable enough to provide a solid argument for the possi-bility of a similar spread of genuine (i. e., non-Cushitic) lexical isoglosseswithin Ethiopian Semitic. However, this impression does not seem to be con-firmed by a closer examination of the evidence. In the majority of cases, oneis faced with quite a traditional type of borrowing accompanied by semanticshifts and scarcely affecting the deep stucture of the native vocabulary.��

Thus, ES *s�lm ‘to be black’ is borrowed into Bilin as � �alam but its mea-ning is ‘finster, dunkel werden’ (RBil. 171), the main term for ‘black’ being�� (ibid. 286). Bilin �� is attested only in the derivatives with the mean-ing ‘die Speise’ etc. (RBil. 78), the normal word for ‘to eat’ being �� i (ibid.233). ES *bVrk- ‘knee’ was borrowed into Bilin as bäräk ‘auf die Knie fall-en’ (RBil. 86), Saho barak ‘fallen’ (RSa. 87) and Oromo birki ‘joint of fin-ger’ (LGur. 153), the normal words for ‘knee’ being girib (RBil. 159), ��(RSa. 153) and jilba ‘knee’ (Gragg 236) respectively. Bilin bä��a� and Quarabä�� mean ‘sich vermehren’ (RBil. 72, RQu. 41) while ‘viel’ is rendered as�� h � and ayû (ayi�û) in RBil. 157 and RQu. 21 respectively. Beja ��means ‘Wort’ and �� ‘sprechen’ (RBed �. 45) but ‘sagen’ is translated asan, di or yad ibid. 323; Beja sit means ‘Getränke’ (RBed�. 205), the normalword for ‘to drink’ being g��a (ibid. 86). Even if the borrowed term is attest-ed with the basic meaning, it most often co-exists with inherited synonymsdenoting the same notions� Bilin �� ‘die Rinde; der Bast’ (RBil. 253) butalso �� ‘die Rinde’ (RBil. 236); Saho bala� ‘essen’ (RSa. 80) but also �� ‘zu sich nehmen (Speise)’ (RSa. 93) and ��am ‘Tabak oder Speise in derMund nehmen, kauen, essen’ (RSa. 233), the latter being accepted as themain term for ‘to eat’ in Black 295. The only examples of true replacementsfound by me were Bilin � �iffer ‘Nagel, Klaue’ (RBil. 169), Bilin näkät- ‘beis-sen’ (ibid. 283) and Khamta bi��eq ‘viel’ (RCha. 346), to be supplemented bythe only example which can be qualified as pan-Cushitic� Beja dera� (RBed �.70), Khamta zíra (Appleyard 1987�504), Saho zäri� (RSa. 333) ‘seed’ (nodoubt, culturally determined).

Obviously, the degree of interaction between languages belonging to dif-ferent families is not to be automatically projected on a group of closely re-lated idioms. However, since geographical, historical and cultural circum-stances accompanying this interaction are often similar in both cases, theresults of these excursuses do provide some support for the main conclusionsof the present investigation�

— the degree of unity of the basic vocabulary of Ethiopian Semitic lan-guages is comparatively high;

— this unity is unlikely to be explained in terms of borrowing and wavespread but relects the lexical peculiarities of one hypothetic source-language;

�� Regrettably, I am unable to judge the degree of the phonological adaptation insuch cases.



— a deeply structured combination of innovations and speficic retentionsmakes the Proto-Ethiopian vocabulary markedly different from that of anyother Semitic subgroup and unambiguously points to the separate status ofthis sub-branch.

Abbreviations of Languages, Dialects and Linguistic Groups

Akk. — Akkadian, Amh. — Amharic, Arb. — Arabic, Arm. — Aramaic,Arg. — Argobba, Bib. — Biblical Aramaic, Cha. — Chaha, CS — CentralSemitic, End. — Endegeñ, Enm. — Ennemor, ES — Ethiopian Semitic,ESA — Epigraphic South Arabian, Gaf. — Gafat, Gez. — Geez, Gog. —Gogot, Har. — Harari, Hbr. (pB.) — Hebrew (post-Biblical), Hrs. — Harsu-si, Jib. — Jibbali, Jud. — Judaic Aramaic, Mhr. — Mehri, Min. — Minaic,Mnd. — Mandaic, MSA — Modern South Arabian, Msq. — Masqan, Muh. —Muher, N.-Eth. — North Ethiopian, OB — Old Babylonian, PS — Proto-Semiic, Qat. — Qatabanian, Sab. — Sabaic, SB — Standard Babylonian,Sel. — Selti, S.-Eth. — South Ethiopian, Sod. — Soddo, Soq. — Soqotri,Syr. — Syriac, Tgr. — Tigre, Tna. — Tigrinya, Ugr. — Ugaritic, Wol. —Wolane, WS — West Semitic, Zwy. — Zway

Bibliographic Abbreviations

AHw. — W. von SODEN, 1965–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wies-baden.

Behnstedt — P. BEHNSTEDT, 1992f. Die Nordjemenitischen Dialekte. T. 2:Glossar. Wiesbaden,

BK — A. de BIBERSTEIN-KAZIMIRSKI, 1860. Dictionnaire arabe-français.Vol. 1–2. Paris.

Biella — J. C. BIELLA, 1982. Dictionary of Old South Arabic. SabaeanDialect. Chico, CA.

Black — P. D. BLACK, Lowland East Cushitic: Subgrouping and Recon-struction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Yale University).

Brock. — C. BROCKELMANN, 1928. Lexicon Syriacum. Halle.Buck — C. D. BUCK, 1949. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the

Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago.CAD — OPPENHEIM, L., E. REINER, & M. T. ROTH (eds.), 1956ff. The As-

syrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute, the University of Chicago. Chicago.DM — E. S. DROWER, R. MACUCH, 1963. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford.DRS — D. COHEN, 1970ff. Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou at-

testées dans les langues sémitiques. La Haye.DUL — G. DEL OLMO LETE, J. SANMARTÍN, 2003. A Dictionary of the Uga-

ritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Leiden — Boston.Gragg — G. B. GRAGG, 1982. Oromo Dictionary. East Lansing.HJ — J. HOFTIJZER, K. JONGELING, 1995. Dictionary of the North-West Se-

mitic Inscriptions. Leiden — New York — Köln.


��L. Kogan

HSED — V. E. OREL, O. V. STOLBOVA, 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymologi-cal Dictionary. Materials for a Reconstruction. Leiden — New York — Köln.

Ja. — M. JASTROW, 1996. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babliand Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York.

Jahn — A. JAHN, 1902. Die Mehri-Sprache in Südarabien. Texte und Wör-terbuch. Wien.

JH — T. M. JOHNSTONE, 1977. H �ars�si Lexicon. Oxford.JJ — T. M. JOHNSTONE, 1981. Jibb�li Lexicon. Oxford.JM — T. M. JOHNSTONE, 1987. Mehri Lexicon. London.KB — L. KOEHLER, W. BAUMGARTNER, 1994–2000. The Hebrew and Ara-

maic Lexicon of the Old Testament. (revised by W. Baumgartner andJ. J. Stamm). Leiden — New York — Köln.

LGur. — W. LESLAU, 1979. Etymological Dictionary of Gurage (Ethio-pic). Vol. III. Wiesbaden.

LGz. — W. LESLAU, 1987. Comparative Dictionary of Ge�ez (ClassicalEthiopic). Wiesbaden.

LH — E. LITTMANN, M. HÖFNER, 1956. Wörterbuch der Tigr�-Sprache.Tigre-deutsch-englisch. Wiesbaden.

LLA — A. DILLMANN, 1865. Lexicon linguae aethiopicae. Leipzig.LM — M. ARBACH, 1993. Le mad�bien: Lexique, Onomastique et Gram-

maire d’une langue de l’Arabie méridionale préislamique. T. I. Lexique mad-d�bien. Thèse de doctorat — Nouveau régime. Université de Provence AixMarseille I. Centre d’Aix. Aix-en-Provence.

LS — W. LESLAU, 1938. Lexique Soqot �ri (Sudarabique moderne) aveccomparaisons et explications étymologiques. Paris.

RBed �. — L. REINISCH, 1895. Wörterbuch der Bed�auye-Sprache. Wien.RBil. — L. REINISCH, 1887. Die Bilin-Sprache. Bd. 2. Wörterbuch der

Bilin-Sprache. Wien.RCham. — L. REINISCH, 1884. Die Chamir-Sprache in Abessinien. Wien

[Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der KaiserlichenAkademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, 106/1].

Ricks — S. D. RICKS, 1989. Lexicon of Inscriptional Qatabanian. Roma.RQu. — L. REINISCH, 1885. Die Quara-Sprache in Abessinien. Wien [Sit-

zungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Kaiserlichen Aka-demie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, 109].

RSa. — L. REINISCH, 1890. Wörterbuch der Saho-Sprache. Wien.SD — A. F. L. BEESTON, M. A. GHUL, W. W. MÜLLER, J. RYCKMANS, 1982.

Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic). Louvain-la-Neuve.SED I — A. MILITAREV, L. KOGAN, 2000. Semitic Etymological Dictio-

nary. Vol. 1: Anatomy of Man and Animals. Münster.WH — A. WALDE, J. B. HOFFMANN, 1938. Lateinisches etymologisches

Wörterbuch. Vol. 1–2. Heidelberg.



References

Appleyard 1987 — D. APPLEYARD. «A Grammatical Sketch of Khamtan-ga, II». BSOAS 50: 470–507.

Appleyard 1977 — D. APPLEYARD. «A Comparative Approach to the Am-haric Lexicon». Afroasiatic Linguistics 5/2: 43–109.

Appleyard 1996 — D. APPLEYARD. «Ethiopian Semitic and South Arabi-an. Towards a Re-examination of a Relationship». Israel Oriental Studies 16:203–28.

Bender 1968 — L. BENDER. «Remarks on Glottochronology of NorthernEthiopian Semitic Languages». JES 6/1: 1–11.

Bulakh 2003 — M. BULAKH. «Etymological Notes on the Akkadian Co-lour Terms». In: L. Kogan (ed.). Studia Semitica (Festschrift for AlexanderMilitarev). Moscow, 3–17.

Cantineau 1932 — J. CANTINEAU, «Accadien et Sud-arabique». BSLP (Bul-letin de la Societé de linguistique de Paris). 1932 [no number]: 175–204.

Cohen 1970 — D. COHEN. «Le vocabulaire de base sémitique el le classe-ment des dialectes du sud». In: ID. Études de linguistique sémitique et arabe.La Haye—Paris, 7–30.

Dolgopolsky 1973 — A. DOLGOPOLSKY. Comparative-Historical Phone-tics of Cushitic. Moscow (in Russian).

Dolgopolsky 1999 — A. DOLGOPOLSKY. From Proto-Semitic to Hebrew.Phonology. Milan.

Ehret 1988 — C. EHRET. «Social Transformation in the Early History ofthe Horn of Africa: Linguistic Clues to Developments of the Period 500 B. C.to A. D. 500». In: Taddesse Beyene (ed.). Proceedings of the Eighth Interna-tional Conference of Ethiopian Studies. Addis Ababa, vol. 1, 639–651.

Faber 1997 — A. FABER. «Genetic Soubgrouping of the Semitic Langua-ges». In: R. Hetzron (ed.). The Semitic Languages. London, 3–15.

Goldenberg 1998 — G. GOLDENBERG. «The Semitic Languages of Ethio-pia and Their Classification». In: ID. Studies in Semitic Linguistics: SelectedWritingds. Jerusalem, 286–331.

Hackett 1980 — J. A. HACKETT. The Balaam Text from Deir �All�. Chico.Hecker 1968 — K. HECKER. Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte. Roma.Hetzron 1972 — R. HETZRON. Ethiopian Semitic. Studies in Classifica-

tion. Manchester.Hetzron 1975 — R. HETZRON. «Genetic Classification and Ethiopian Se-

mitic». In: J. Bynon, T. Bynon (eds.). Hamito-Semitica. The Hague, 103–121.Hetzron 1976 — R. HETZRON. «Two Principles of Genetic Reconstruc-

tion». Lingua 38: 89–108.Huehnergard 1998 — J. HUEHNERGARD. «What is Aramaic?» ARAM 7:

261–282.


��L. Kogan

Huehnergard 2002 — J. HUEHNERGARD. «Comparative Semitic Linguis-tics». Israel Oriental Studies 20: 119–50.

Kogan 2005 — L. Kogan. Lexical Evidence for the Historical Unity ofAramaic. Babel und Bibel 2 (in print).

Kogan, forthcoming — L. KOGAN. «� in Ethiopian». To appear in: Fest-schrift R.-M. Voigt.

Leslau 1975 — W. LESLAU. «What Is a Semitic Ethiopian Language?» In:J. Bynon, T. Bynon (eds.). Hamito-Semitica. The Hague, 129–131.

Militarev 2000 — A. MILITAREV. «Towards the Chronology of Afrasian (Afro-asiatic) and Its Daughter Families». In: C. Renfrew, A. McMahon, L. Trask(eds.). Time Depth in Historical Linguistics. Cambridge. Vol. 1: 267–307.

Militarev 2004 — A. MILITAREV. «Another Step towards the Chronologyof Afrasian (I)». Babel und Bibel 1: 283–342.

Nöldeke 1910 — T. NÖLDEKE. Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwis-senschaft. Strassburg.

Pirenne 1990 — J. PIRENNE. Les témoins écrits de la région de Shabwa etl’histoire. Paris.

Podolsky 1991 — B. PODOLSKY. Historical Phonetics of Amharic. Tel-Aviv.Porzig 1954 — W. PORZIG. Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprach-

gebiets. Heidelberg.Rabin 1975 — Ch. RABIN. «Lexicostatistics and the Internal Divisions of

Semitic». In: J. Bynon, T. Bynon (eds.). Hamito-Semitica. The Hague, 85–102.Ratcliffe 1998 — R. RATCLIFFE. «Defining Morphological Isoglosses: the

«Broken» Plural and Semitic Subclassification». Journal of Near EeasternStudies 57: 81–123.

Renfroe 1992 — F. RENFROE. Arabic-Ugaritic Lexical Studies. Münster.Sima 2000 — A. SIMA. Tiere, Pflanzen, Steine und Metalle in den altsüd-

arabischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden.Tropper 1993 — J. TROPPER. Die Inschriften von Zincirli. Münster.Ullendorff 1961 — E. ULLENDORFF. «Comparative Semitics». In: G. Levi

Della Vida, H. Cazelles (eds.). Linguistica Semitica: presente e futuro. Roma,13–32.

Voigt 1998 — R. M. VOIGT. «“Fuss” (und “Hand”) im Äthiopischen, Syro-arabischen und Hebräischen». Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 11: 191–199.

Zaborski 1991 — A. ZABORSKI. «The Position of Arabic within the Semi-tic Dialect Continuum». In: K. Dévényi, T. Iványi (eds.). Proceedings of theColloquium on Arabic Grammar. Budapest, 365–75.



SUMMARY

The present contribution offers a comprehensive analysis of lexical isoglossesbehind the linguistic unity traditionally defined as «Ethiopian Semitic». In spiteof the relatively small number of pertinent phonological and morphological fea-tures common to all Semitic languages of Ethiopia and Eritrea, their commonlexical heritage has never been systematically studied. As is revealed in the courseof the present study, there are several important semantic innovations affecting anumber of key positions of the basic lexicon of all or most Ethiopian Semiticlanguages. Such innovations (together with a considerable number of non-triviallexical retentions) strongly suggest that all these languages developed from a com-mon ancestor rather than from several independent sources.


COMMON ORIGIN OF ETHIOPIAN SEMITIC: THE LEXICAL ...

Documents

Transcript of COMMON ORIGIN OF ETHIOPIAN SEMITIC: THE LEXICAL ...