The implications of lislakh for nostratic.pdf

ТНЕ IМPLICAТIONS OF LISLАКН FOR NOSTRAТIC 

CARLETON Т. НОООЕ 

Iпdiana University 

Nostratic as now practiced, whether of the Moscow school or Bornhard's, 

uses sets of sound сопеsроndеnсеs among the constituent languages to establish 

its validity (cf. Orel 1996). Тhe two schools of thought do not agree оп 

сопеsроndеnсеs, and hence оп etymologies. It follows that anything that can 

more [mnlу establish the interconnectionsshould ье we1come. Both approaches 

usua11yinclude the two groups of languages known as Afroasiatic (AAs) and 

Indo-European (Ш) as part of Nostratic. In ту view, the two together form а 

single phylum, which 1 have termed Lislakh (LL), and are so presented here. 

(Lislakh is coined from the AAs root *lis- 'tongue', as in Лr. lisan, and 

Sturtevant's Indo-Hittiteroot *lakw- 'people, arшу', as in Gk.laos 'people'.) 

Тhe application of comparative linguistics to the LL languages meets 

problems in the establishment of regular sound сопеsроndеnсеs. This is true 

even within а single branch, such as Semitic, as well as between branches, such 

as Semitic and Egyptian. Тhis has led to the acceptance of multiple 

сопеsроndеnсеs between languages and between branches. An example is Sem. 

1сопеsроnding sometimes to 1,sometimes to r and other times to п in Egyptian. 

Ehret has endeavored, unsuccessfully in ту opinion, to account for these Ьу а 

complicated set ofrules (l995:39~395), but most have simply connected etyma 

with these iпеgularitiеs as if they were norma1. Having such an unsatisfactory 

state of affairs оп the AAs-IE level throws doubt оп the use of reconstructions in 

these branches for broader comparisons, whether Nostratic or other. 

It is the purpose here to show that some of the iпеgularitiеs mау ье fitted into 

regular pattems and better сопеsроndеnсеs established. This should шakе асcurate 

comparisons with other families and phyla easier. Тhe approach must of 

necessity ье elementary, as problems arise a1mostimmediately. 

Leslau's Coтparative Dictionary ofGeCezcontains what is to ту knowledge 

the largest published collection of Semitic comparative data. In his etymologies 

he distinguishes between regular cognates which follow the accepted sound 

сопеsроndеnсеs and those which do not follow the rules but are nevertheless to 

ье considered 'related' (etymologica11y connected, 1987:xxii). Тhe list of

238 CARLETON Т. НОООЕ 

scholars cited Ьу Leslaи as sиpporting sиch etymologies is impressive, inclиding 

as it does Dillmann, Brockelmann, Noeldeke, Driver, Fraenkel, Grimme, W. 

Mиller, etc. Differences are briefly noted as 'altemation of labials', 'altemation of 

liqиids', et sim. ТЬе recognition of sиch altemations goes back to the early stиdy 

ofthe Hebrew text (see Greenspahn 1984), and they Ьауе kept their legitimacy as 

'related' despite the interim establishment of regиlar Sernitic soиnd 

correspondences. 

Following is а list of sиch altemations, cиlled from Leslaи. Тhere is по 

attempt at completeness, bиt examples were selected to ье phonetically 

representative. Page references in parentheses are to Leslaи 1987, where more 

data are to ье foиnd. 

Set 1. Noп-coпforтist sets iп Seтitic 

Labials 

1.1 Ь-р О. kasaba 'circumcise' НеЬ. kasap 'break' (295) 

О. barra 'to fly' Ar. farra 'fly' (107) 

1.2 Ь - р1 О. hep1a 'strike' Ar.habba 'cut' (221) 

1.3 р1 - р О. k?"alap1a 'bind, tie' О. k?"alafa 'Iock, close' (429) 

1.4 р1- Ь О. karap1a 'cleanse' SAr. m-k-r-b 'purified опе' (293) 

1.5 Р - m О. fa4ak1a 'scrape off Ar. maJ:mqa 'efface' (157) 

1.6 Ь - m О. Cabbala 'makе' Ar. cami1a 'make' (54) 

1.7 m - Ь О. lamlama '00 verdant' РВНеЬ. liЫёЬ 'cause to sprout' (315) 

1.8 w- Ь О. d1awasa '00 weakened' О. d1absa '00 weakened' (153) 

Deпtals 

1.9 t1 - t О. d1abat?a 'grasp' Akk. ~abatu 'sieze' (148) 

1.10 t? - d О. СаЬЬааа 'соmреl service' НеЬ. cabad 'work' (55) 

1.11 d-z О. caddama 'appoint а time' Ar. Сazaша 'invite (to dinner)' (56) 

1.12 r-d О. cak?"ara 'roHир' Ar. Caqada 'tie' (68) 

Sibilaпts 

1.13 s - ~а.fЩiasа 'examine' Ar. [a1}a~a 'scrutinize' (157) 

1.14 s1 - s О. cak1k1as1a 'entangle' Syr. c:Jqisa 'twisted' (68) 

1.15 s-z О. kalsasa 'bjnd sheaves' Ar. kalaza 'gather' (284) 

О. saraba 'flood ' Ar.zariba 'flow' (511) 

Ar. sariba 'flow' 

1.16 s - d О. sa1)ak1a 'Iaugh' Ar. daJ:rika 'laugh' (528) 

1.17 z-d О. zaraba 'strike' (music) Ar. daraba 'strike' (music) (642) 

1.18 s1 - t1 О. cas1afa 'OOnd' О. cat?afa 'fold' (74, 76) 

1.19 s1 - d О. cas1afa 'OOnd' Soq. ca~ 'fold' (74) 

ТНЕ IМРLIСАПОNS OF LISLАКН FOR NOSТRAТIC 239 

Liquids/Nasal n 

1.20 1- r G.I):Jnbal 'saddle, headrest' О. l):Jnbar 'wooden headrest' (236) 

Ar.l)ama1a 'to load' РВНеЬ. l)amar '1000' (235) 

О. d1arnr 'wool' Ug. ~-m-I 'wool' (150) 

1.21 1- n О. batana 'disperse' Ar. batala 'separate' (112) 

1.22 r-n О. dandar 'thistle' Ar. dardar 'thistle' (137) 

Velars 

1.16 k1-k (аЬоуе) 

1.26 k1 - g (below) 

1.23 k-l) G.la1aka 'send' НеЬ. sala1) 'send' (303) 

1.24 k-g О. k:Jl)da 'deny' Ar. ja1)ada 'deny' (279) 

Оа8. Ar. l)akas 'Iimp' Syr. l)aggisa 'lame' (237) 

1.25 k1 - k О. dak1ak1a 'crush' Ar. Шkkа 'crush' (140) 

О. dak1k1asa '00 sleepy' Ar.dukas 'sleepiness' (140) 

1.26 g - k1 О. da1aga 'Ье violent' О. da1ak1a '00 agitated' (131) 

О. l)aggaga 'Iay down laws' О. l)ak1ak1a 'make exact' 

Ar. l)aqq 'right, truth' (227,240) 

О. gWaras1a 'bite' Ar. qara~a 'bite' (204,444) 

1.27 g-y Ar. lajlaja 'stammer' Ar. laya 'make speaking епоrs' 

(304) 

1.28 s1 - у О. nas1s1ara 'watch, observe' Ug. n-y-r 'protect' 

Glottals/Pharyпgeals 

1.29 c_h О. gaCara 'cry оиС Ar.jahura '00 loud' (174) 

Ar. dacasa 'trample' Ar. dahasa 'trample' (128) 

1.30 h-l) О. gah:Jha 'to dawn' О. gol)a 'to dawn' 

Syr. gahgah 'dawn' Оа8. Ar. jawa1) 'to dawn' (207, 186) 

Тhere Ьауе been а nиmber of efforts to explain some of these altemations 

phonologically. RilZicka devotes а long monographto dissirnilationin Sernitic, in 

which Ье treats а nиmberof sиch variants (1909). Hebrew l-r-п altemations Ьауе 

been considered а matterof stylistics (Fitzgerald 1978), ignoring the fact that the 

variants mиst already exist in the langиage to ье chosen for stylistic pиrposes. 

Gиrage r and 1were at one time considered Ьу Leslaи to ье in complementary 

distribиtion (1950:13). Sиch treatmentsЬауе failed to establish а credible soиrce 

for most variables. 

At least one of the аЬоуе sets is а case of 'rnistaken identity', that which 

eqиates Ug. п-y-r with п-~-r,i.e., with the roots derived from proto-Sernitic *n- 

~-r (Leslaи 1987:406). Тhis identification has been accepted Ьу Gordon 

(1965:445), Aistleitner (1963:209), Роре (1973:53-54), Dolgopolsky (1977: 

12n.8) and others withoиt qиestion. Ug. п-y-r is rather from the root *y-r/y-y-r 

'to protect', НеЬ. c"jr 'city', i.e., 'fortified' (cf. Dahood 1966:56, 1970:314,

'1 240 CARLETON Т. HODGE ТНЕ IMPLICAnONS OF LISLАКН FOR NOSТRAТIC 241 

though the Сат1т of Psa1m 9 тау Ье from **h-l 'high' and hence 'exa1ted ones'; 2.2 

see Hodge 1993). Indo- 

From the numerous authorities cited as proposing the irregular relationships, Egyptian Semitic Berber Chadic Omotic Cushitic European 

it is clear that а great many of them are widely accepted Ьу Semitists. Where the t *twiy- *w-t-h *t-w-y SOm. *tA?- *Шi-sforms 

are indeed related, there is an urgent need for сопеsропdепсеs between *its 

them to ье made part of а wider regularity. We must also posit pr6to-forms from 'bread' 'eat' 'eat' 'eat' 'eat' 'eat' 'dough' 

which as тапу of these as possible сап ье derived in а predictable manner. 

We are now in а position to use the data from other branches of LL to help 

solve this problem. It is true that тисЬ more needs to Ье done, and not just in the 

African branches, in order to have reliable reconstructions. Nevertheless, what 

we have in the way of data is very useful. It is not difficult to make а list of forms 

2.3 

-k (т.) 

-с (f.) 

*-ka (т.) 

*-ю (f.) 

*;:Ik(т.) 

*ik (f.) 

*-ka (т.) 

*-ю (f.) 

SCu. 

*ku (т.) 

*ю (f.) 

from a1l branches of LL, which offer clear evidence that these languages are 'thou' 'thou' 'thou' 'thou' 'thou' 

related. Following is such а list, based оп core vocabulary. 

2.4 

Set 2. Core vocabulary 

Egyptian Semitic 

related etyma. 

Berber Chadic Omotic Cushitic Indo- 

European 

t-k-3 

'Пате' 

*-qluw- 

'roast' 

*k-V*k-r/ 

*k-n 

'burn' 

*kal- 

'burn' 

*ker- 

'heat,fire' 

2.1 

р-3 

'Пуир' 

Тои. 

fereret 

'take flight' 

*p-r 

'Пу,jump' 

Ometo 

ра1- 

'Пу' 

*par- 

'Пу,jump' 

*per- 

'Пу' 

2.5 

b-n-w-t 

'sandstone' 

2.6 

*?аЬn- 

'stone' 

Тат. Ьnи 

'build' 

*b;:lna 

'grindstone' 

DimeЬш 

'build' 

*?аЬ- 

'stone' 

*wer- 

'Ьеауу' 

n-р-3-р-3 

'flutter' 

*f-r-f-r 

'Пу' 

На. 

filfilwaa 

*pal- 

'flutter' 

~b-s 

'clothe' 

*I-b-s 

'clothe' 

*I-s-h 

'clothe' 

*b-s 

'sew' 

ЕСи. *huww- 

'wear' 

*wes- 

'clothe' 

'fluttering' 

2.7 

p-r-? *-prur- НЕСи. *ful- *per- b-c-b-c-t *-nЬаС- *wac- 

'go out' 'Пее' 'go out' 'forward' 'streaт' 'gush' 'flow' 

p-r-t 

'fruit' 

*pary- 

'fruit' 

*-р-I 

'flower' 

*per- 

'bear 

offspring' 

2.8 

?-[w-13-d *-wlid- 

Тои. 

Iщl1;:1Q *vurd- *wrnd- 

*fer- *pel- 

'Ьоу' 'bear 

(child)' 

'sprout' 'give birth' 'root' 

'throw' 'thrust' *roo- 

*-р-I 

'birth' 

'spear' 2.9 

d-q-r *-dkuk- *d-k *dheigh- 

'powder' 'pound' 'beat' 'form, 

knead'

242 CARLETON Т. нооаЕ ТНЕ IМPLICA ТIONS ОР LISLAIrn FOR NOSТRA ТIC 243 

2.10 

2.17 

Indo- Egyptian Semitic Berber Chadic Omotic Cushitic Indo- 

Egyptian Semitic Berber Chadic Omotic Cushitic European European 

n-g-b а. gabbaba *gub? Afar. gab *gёu s-n *e-(w- )п *s-n *sun;! *sint?- *isI)w- *sent- 

'turn aside' '00 bept' 'knee' 'Ье OOnt' 'OOnd' 'smell' 'smell 'know' 'nose' 'nose' 'nose' in Lat. 

(intr).' sentire 

2.11 'perceive' 

Tou. ECu *sano 

2.12 

п-f-t *?anр- uпfas *п(;!)ph;!- *nAр- *pneu- 'nose' 

'breath' 'nose' 'breath ' 'breathe' 'breath ' 'breathe' 

*n-p-s *n-f Sam *neef 2.18 

'breathe' 'тап' 'breath' ?-d-n *?uon *d?-ng *ous-en- 

'ear' 'ear' 'ear' 'ear' 

*d-l-mI Hamer 2.19 

g-3-w *:i;i1l- *t?yuhay *d-r ts?ia *9А1- *dher- *b-d-r/ 

'night' 'shade' 'darkness' 'black' 'black' 'dark' 'darkness' z-r-? *-orac- *Ь-z-r *zar ECu *daraaro *dhel- 

'spread' 'sow' 'seed' 'seed' 'flower' 'Ыооm' 

2.13 

z-3 Ar.ouniya *z-rl*d-r ECu *d?al- *dherq-s 

q-s-t *е-yasah *k?-sз *k?us *kЛс[с]- *kost- 'son' 'offspring' 'brother' 'OOget' 'cover' 

2.14 

'Ьопе' 'bow' 'Ьопе' 'Ьопе' 'Ьопе' 'Ьопе' 'Ьопе' *-za1- 

b-3-q *barзq- *Ь[Н]-1 *b-r-k? *bark? *bhereg- 2.20 

'bright' 'lightning' 'Ьurn' 'lightning' 'to flash' 'shine' ECulSCu 

ECu х-Ь-3 *х-Ь-l На. hawni *hub- *bhel- 

*bank?o 

'lightning' 

'destroy' 

2.21 

'harm' 'executioner' 'injure' 'harm' 

2.15 

?-3-q-t *w-r-q *waray *l-k 

Ау. 

уатkзs-n 

'they' 

Akk. -sunu 

'they' 

*-san 

'they' 

*sun 

'they' 

HECu *isina 

'they' 

'vegetables' 'green' 'yellow' 'lеаГ 'leaГ 2.22 

2.16 

s-n-w 

* 

s-n 

ARROW- 

*sinn- 

'tooth' 

Tou. esin 

'incisor' 

*san- 

'tooth' *sAl;1An- 

'tooth' 

*ser- 

'sickle' 

е-п-у *sin *s-r cf. *sen- НЕАО 

'two' 'two' 'two' 'two' 'apart' 

'Ьоу'

:1 

244 CARLETON Т. НОООЕ ТНЕ IМРLIСАПОNS OF LISLАКН FOR NOSTRAТIC 245 

2.23 2.30 

Indo- Egyptian Semitic Berber Chadic Omotic Cushitic Indo-European 

Egyptian Semitic Berber Chadic Отойс Cushitic European w-? На. (naa)wa НЕСи *ее *we- 

b-3-?-w *wabl- *b;)l;) HECubale *wel-g- 'те' 'mine' 'те' 'we' 

'damp' 'stream' 'wet' 'well' 'wet' (?-п-)w-(k) 

b-3-b-3-t *Ь-п '1' 

'inshore 

eddy (?)' 

'rain' 

2.31 

*mb-l/*m-I 

'water' 

or (da)mbal 

'flood plain' 

*mel- 

'soft' 

~-q-3-t 

(а measure) 

*~aql- 

'field' 

*k?-I 

'count' 

*~iik?- 

'grind (grain)' 

*agro- 

'field' 

2.24 

?-3-Ь{ Galila 

2.32 

c_r 

*Ч-у *у-I НЕСи *ale *al- 

?-п-Ь *Iibb- *wilih *I-b liBa *I-b- *reu-to- 

'mount ир' 'goup' 'stand ир' 'over' 'beyond' 

'heart' 'heart' 'heart' 'Ьеllу' 'Ьеllу' 'chest' 'intestines' 

NOТE.Forms cited only as consonants are hyphenated for legibility. In 2.22 

2.25 

n-s 

Co.las 

*Iisan 

'tongue' 

Тои. il;)s 

'tongue' 

*I-sз 

'tongue' 

I 

ARROWНEAD in srna11 capita1 letters refers to the object represented Ьу the 

hieroglyph, not to its meaning. Some revised va1иes of Egyptian words Ьауе 

been tacit1y introdиced. ТЬеу are in the literatиre. 

'tongue' 

Set 3. Sound correspondencesfound in Set 2. 

2.26 

т-3-3 

'see' 

*?-m-r 

'see' 

Тои.атеl 

'show' 

*т-I 

'show' 

*mAIIA-с- 

'Iookat' 

*(s)mer- 

'remember' 

2.1 

2.11 

2.2 

Egyptian 

р 

f 

t 

Semitic 

р 

р 

t 

Berber 

f 

f 

t 

Сhшliс 

p/f 

ph/f 

t 

Omotic 

р 

Cushitic 

p/f 

f 

t 

Indo-European 

р 

2.27 

2.3 

2.4 

k/c 

k 

k 

q 

k k 

k 

k 

k k 

ffi-w 

'water' 

*тау- 

'water' 

*hamatun 

'water' 

*mь- 

'water' 

*та?- 

'Ьеwet' 

*та- 

'damp' 

2.5 

2.6 

2.24 

Ь 

Ь 

Ь 

Ь 

Ь 

Ь 

Ь Ь 

Ь 

Ь 

Ь 

В 

Ь 

w 

Ь 

w 

w 

w 

2.28 2.23 Ь Ь Ь Ь w 

т 

'who, 

what?' 

*та 

'what?' 

*та 

'what?' 

*mi/*m;) 

'what?" 

*атЬ 

'how 

(тanу)?' 

*тА- 

'what?' 

2.8 

2.9 

2.10 

Ь 

d 

d 

g 

d 

d 

g 

d 

mЬ/т 

d 

d 

g 

тЬ 

g 

т 

d 

d1 

g 

2.29 

m-w-t *mawt- *(h-)m-t *m-w-t *mUt- 

2.18 

2.19 

d 

z 

z 

о 

о 

о 

d? 

z/d 

z/d 

z d 

d? 

s 

d1 

d1 

'die' 'death' 'die' 'die' 'die' 2.26 

2.27 

т 

т 

т 

т 

т 

т 

т 

mь 

т 

т 

т 

т 

2.28 т т т т тЬ т 

2.1 1 r 1 r r 

1 1 

r l/r l/r

246 

Egyptian Semitic 

2.4 1 1 

2.12 1 1 

2.14 1 r 

2.15 1 r 

2.32 r 

2.21 n n 

2.11 n n 

2.5 n n 

2.20 1 

2.18 n n 

CARLETON Т. HODGE 

Berber 

r 

n 

n 

n 

Chadic Omotic Cushitic Indo-European 

l/r/n 1 r 

l/r 1 r 

1 r r/n r 

1 

1 

n n 

n n n 

n n 

n 

ng n 

Before discussing the correspondences noted here, some remarks regarding 

the phonetics are in order. In many branches р andl тау a1temate,e.g. Лkk. р, 

Ат. f. In Hausa they are a11ophonesor dia1ectica1lydeterrnined. In Egyptian оп 

the other hand, р was presumably [р]while 1 was an aspirated lаЫа1, [ph]or [bh] 

(cf. Шiс-Svityс 1966:33-34). Two other importantphonetic observations must 

ье made aboutEgyptian. The ЕGУРПANVULТUREhieroglyph (Sign List G 1)was [1] 

in the 01d and Мiddle Кingdoms. It is here transcribed "3", as the closest readily 

avai1able symbol to the double, reversed, hamza traditiona11yused. In Set 3 it is 

given its phonetic уа1ие1.Ву New Кingdom times this phoneme had Ьесоте [1], 

[у] (from [Р]) or was lost in the standard language. It survived dia1ectica11y,as is 

shown Ьу Coptic, especia1ly Fayumic (see Vycicbl 1983:93). Тhe other 

observation concems REEDLEAF (Sign List МI7). This was [1], as shown Ьу its 

frequent use as а prothetic glotta1stop, and is so transcribed here. It was not [у]. 

Misunderstanding regarding the va1ues of these two hieroglyphs has resulted in 

many wrong etymologies. 

Turning to Set 3, some of the variations can ье explained as dia1ectvariants. 

Semitic *3 yields АтаЫс о, but a1so, colloquia11y,d and z. So also, in 2.18 and 

2.19, Egyptian has both d and z corresponding to Semitic о. Indo-European s in 

2.18 is due to the merger of s and z. This does not explain the d? of Chadic in 

2.18 or the dh of Indo-European in 2.19, for which see bel0W. The с of Egyptian 

-с 'уои (f.)' in 2.3 is due to palata1ization,corresponding as it does to Semitic -ki 

and Chadic -ki. 

Aside from such, standard procedure would ca1l for а different reconstructed 

phoneme for each linе that was different in Set 3. This would result in an 

unacceptable number of proto-phonemes. One a1temative is to accept what 

appears to Ье the attitude of many scholars, that these are simply sporadic, 

unexplained phonologica1 a1temations. This, to те at least, is unacceptable. А 

thirda1temativeis to look for а solution which will a110wvariation in the proto- 

ТНЕ IMPLICATIONS OF LISLАКН FOR NOSTRAТIC 247 

language to explain the differences. it is this last approach which is followed 

here. 

In order to set the stage for the interpretationwhich is found below, we first 

exarnine the pattem of the stops in the phylum as а whole. 

Set 4. Stop systeтs 01 Lislakh. 

Egyptian Semitic 1 Semitic 2 Berber 

р t k Р t k р t k t k 

Ь d g Ь d g Ь d g Ь d g 

f g q q р? d?/t? k? d 

СhaШс (So.) Omotic Cushitic Indo-European 

р t k р t k р k р t k 

Ь d g Ь d g Ь d g b/w d g 

ь? d? k? ь? d? k? р? t? k? bh dh gh 

ть nd ng 

Sources: Egyptian - Gardiner 1957:27; Semitic - Bergstrasser and Daniels 

1983:3, but with р? and t? added; Berber - Prasse 1972:1.105; Chadic 

Jungraithmayr and Shimizu 1981:19-20; Omotic - Fleming 1988; Cushitic - 

Ehret 1987:143; Indo-European- Szemerenyi 1970:48. 

Semitic has been divided into two sets, опе with pharyngea1izedconsonants, 

as in АтаЫс, the other with glotta1izedconsonants, as in Ethiopic. This presumes 

that the difference is pre-Semitic. For p?see below. 

All in Set 4 except Egyptian are reconstructions, but асша1languages have 

like patterns, e.g., Hausa р t k Ь d g ь? d? k? In each such consonant pattem а 

voiceless-voiced pair occurs, as against а third рЬопете which has по voice 

contrast. This pattem, with the third series aspirated, glotta1ized or 

pharyngea1ized, is typologica11ythe same for a1l branches. The third series in 

Indo-European, traditiona11ygiven as bh dh gh, is thus typologica11ypara11elto 

the glotta1izedseries in Hausa, Ь? d? k? 

The a1temationЬ - т, found as we have seen both within Semitic and in the 

broader comparisons, promptedGreenberg to posit а proto *mЬ for Afroasiatic 

(1965). Тhe Chadic reconstruction of Jungraithmayr and Shimizu extended the 

nasa1element to d and g (1981). Шiс-Svitус, dea1ingwith labials, interpretedthe 

nasa1plus consonant as а cluster, т plus Ь (1966: 17). Newman a1so felt that the 

nasa1was а separate phoneme and did not reconstructunitprenasa1ized phonemes 

(1977). The nasal plus consonant is here treated as а cluster except when quoting 

forms from Jungraithmayr and Shimizu.

248 CARLETON Т. HODGE 

ТЬе next thing to ье observed is that, in the Jungraithтayr and Shimizu list of 

Chadic roots, the same root тау occur with а plain consonant and with one 

glotta1izedor prenasa1ized. 

Set 5. Proto-Chadic roots. 

plain glotta1ized 

k-b k-b? 

b-r 

d 

k-d 

d? 

k-d?-r 

with nasa1 

'to close' 

'to go out' 

'to do' 

'fat' 

This suggests that we Ьауе not only а nasa1affix but severa1 others. One, а glotta1 

stop, is foиnd in Set 5, forming ь? and d? Those in Set 6 тау ье put together 

with the 'to do' forms in 5. 

Set 6. 

d 

Eg. w-d-? 

IE *dб 

'to рlасе' 

'to give' 

d+ 

r-g-? 

*dhё- 

'to give' 

'to set, put' 

Another affix is, then, an h, the combination resulting in an aspirated series 

para1lelto the glottalized one. ТЬе exact natиreof Egyptian g is not known, bиt it 

сопеsроnds to the pharyngea1izeddenta1sof Semitic, and to the glotta1ized and 

aspirated ones. We Ьауе, then, three proto-affixes - а glotta1 stop, an h and 

something which results in the pharyngealization of the consonant. Басh 

langиage has only one such series. It is possible that a1l three had а common 

origin, say а glotta1stop as an affix. This cannot Ье determined. At present a1l 

three are represented Ьу Н in reconstructions, while N is used to designate the 

nasa1. In Set 5 Ы is from **ЬН, mЬ from **Nb, d? is from **dH, nd from 

**Nd. In Set 6, g and dh are from **dH. (Forms reconstructed Ьу те are given 

doиble asterisks.) 

Selected examples from Set 1, i11ustratinghow the system works, are given 

in Set 7. 

Set 7. Н aпd N combiпatioпs withр aпd Ь. 

р а. k?Walafa ЬН 

Ь Ar. ЬаЬЬа ЬН 

р а. fal:1ak?a Nb 

Ь а. СаЬЬа1а Nb 

а. k?Walap?a 

а. Ьер?а 

Ar. mal:1aqa 

Ar. Сaшilа 

ТНЕ IMPLICATIONS ОР LISLАКН FOR NOSTRAТIC 249 

(Geezfis from *р.) ТЬе plain proto-consonants **р and **Ь in а given protoroot 

тау take the affixes Н and N, the resulting combinations being without 

voicelesslvoiced contrast. Proto **р or **Ь plus Н yields **ЬН; proto **р or 

**Ь plus N yields **Nb. ТЬе **Nb cluster is not infrequently simplified to т. 

ТЬе example of Ar. habba 'cut' and а. hep?a 'strike' (Set 1.2) is of 

particular interest. Geez р? is said to Ье used only for loanwords, primarily from 

Greek. This is largely Ьоmе out Ьу the initia1 оссuпеnсеs given Ьу Leslau 

(1987.414-16), but the аЬоуе ехатрlе does not bear this out. Another which 

runs counter to the accepted view is а. p?eryoпiп 'ехilе, emigration'. This is 

clearly from the Lislakh root **р-l 'to separate, go out' (examples in 2.1), which 

a1sounderlies а. farya 'bear fruit'. ТЬе latter would Ье **p-r before the shift of р 

tof, and р plus Н gives **ЬН, then р? For Geez to Ьауе transcribed Greek and 

Coptic loans, which did not Ьауе glotta1izedconsonants, into glotta1izedforms in 

Ethiopic, the Ьопоwing language must Ьауе had р?, as well as tl, kl, to begin 

with. 1 Ьауе therefore putр? in the Proto-Semitic 2 inventory (Set 4.) 

We now make а genera1 survey of the a1temationsfound in Sets 1 and 2 

which fit this pattem: plain consonant,consonant plus Н, and/or consonant plus 

N. ТЬе order is: р Ь t d k g h s 01. 

**р 1.3 Р from **р. р? from **ЬН. 2.11 Eg. f and СЬ. ph from **ЬН. 

Elsewhere р andfare from **р. 1.5 G.ffrom **р, Ar. т from **Nb. 

**Ь 2.5, 2.6 (prob 2.7) Ь and w from **Ь. 1.2, 1.4 Ь from **Ь, р? from 

**ЬН. 2.10 Ы from **ЬН, others (b/w) from **Ь. 1.6, 1.7 Ь from **Ь, т 

from **Nb. 2.23 

**Nb. 

Ь and w from **Ь, т and тЬ from **Nb. 2.27 a1lfrom 

**t 1.9 t from **t, t?from **dH. 

**d 1.10 d from **d, t?from **dH. In 2.12 only СЬашс d represents proto 

**d, the others are from **dH. 

**k 1.16, 1.25 k from **k, k? from **gH. 2.4, 2.9 q from **gH, k from 

**k.2.13 q, k?and у are from **gH, k from **k. 2.15 q and у are from 

**gH, k from **k. 

**g 1.26,2.14,2.31 g is from **g, q and k?from **gH. 2.18 п and пg from 

**Ng. 2.18 пg тау Ье from **Ng. 

с from **ЬН. (1.30 is unexplained.) 

**Ь 1.29 h is from **Ь, 

**s 

**0 

1.13 s is from **s, ~from **sH. 1.14 s from **s, s?from **sH. 

1.17 z is from **0, d from **ОН. 2.18 d, о and s from **0, d? from 

**dH. 2.19 z, о and d are from **0, d?and dh from **dH. 

**1 1.20, 2.1, 2.8, 2.12, 2.14, 2.15, 2.19, 2.26, 2.31, 2.32 1 is from **1, r 

from **Ш. 1.21,2.11,2.20,2.23, 2.25 1is from **1, п from **Nl. 1.22,

11 

250 CARLETON Т. HODGE ТНЕ IМPLICATIONS OF LISLАКН FOR NOSТRAТIC 251 

2.5,2.22 r is from **lН, n from **Nl. 2.4, 2.14, 2.24 1is from **1, r from 

**lH, n from **Nl. 

Note. IE w corresponding to other Ь is norma1(see 2.5, 2.6, 2.23, 2.24). There 

are sporadic surviva1s of Ь (Skt. balaт 'strength'), and there are conditioned 

surviva1s. An example of the latter is the Ь of Lat. bis 'twice' from **dbis, where 

cluster simplification results in Gk. dis and Lat. bis. The a1temateLatin form 

dwis shows that ordinary Indo-European Ь a1temates with w. LL **Ь is the 

source of both AAs Ь and tE b/w, and the scarcity of b's as reconstructed for 

Proto-Indo-Europeanis due to the genera1shift to w. There is по place here for 

the idea that the ordinary Indo-European Ь was rea11y[р?], together with [11]for 

d and [k?] for g, as claimed Ьу the glotta1ichypothesis. Тhe evidence is clear that 

AAs Ь corresponds to IE b/w. Glotta1izedconsonants fit the Н series. 

There are а numberof consonants which тау ье modified Ьу Н or N which 

are not represented in our sample (Sets 1 and 2). Those given are sufficient to 

show how the system works and that it explains many apparent irregularities. It 

is a1so evident that this analysis, which 1 have ca1led the consonant ablaut 

hypothesis, significantly reduces the number of proto-phonemes which need to 

ье posited. (Comparethe more complex system of Proto-Afroasiatic phonemes in 

Diakonoff 1987:9-30.) 

The extent to which this framework makes it possible to relate iterns in а 

forma1manner can hardly ье overestimated. There are ambiguities, to Ье sure, 

and there are secondary developments, such as the pharyngea1izationof 1in Ar. 

7аДаЬ 'Allah', but there are far more problem solved than raised. А few of the 

problems will serve as illustration. 

Тhe ЛrаЫс word 1)атl is defined as 'portage, gestation, foetus, fruit (of а 

tree)' (Hava 1915). Leslau considers a11ofthese to ье from the same root, that of 

1)aтala 'carry, bear'. Investigation shows that there were two different roots 

which have merged in an ablauted form. One is **p-l 'to separate, go out; to 

fruit, flower' (examples in Set 2.1). With the prefix 1)-and N ablaut of р, we 

have а base form **(?H-)Nb-l. (The Н ablaut of 7, ?Н, is historic 1).)The other 

root is **b-l 'arm, carry' (**bH-lН from **b-l yields IE *bher- 'carry'). With 

the prefix 1)-and N ablaut of Ь, we have а base identica1to that above, **(?Н-) 

Nb-l. There are other words involving produce, derived from **p-l with the 

same prefix and ablaut, such as Tigrinya 1)amli 'vegetables', Tigre 1)aтli 

'vegetables', Arnharic Mт~l 'garden'. It is reasonable to assume that Лr. 1)атl is 

а merger of two sources, 'portage' and 'gestation' ('carrying') going back to 

**b-l, while 'fruit' and other produce words are from **p-l 'go out from'. 

(Ethiopic examples from Leslau 1987:232.) 

Another example of problem solving 1take from Hebrew. In his commentary 

оп Leviticus 14.41 Мilgrom notes that the verb q-~-h 'scrape off is 'considered 

equiva1entto' q_~_C'scrape off (1991:873). Scholars have wanted to 'correct' 

the -h to _С, but Milgrom points out that both forrns are well-attested roots. They 

are, of course, consonant ablaut variants, one from **-h, the other from **-hН, 

as a1soin Set 1.29 above. 

It is clear from the above discussion that there are many affixes other than Н 

and N involved. For example, in Set 2.6 the 1)-of Eg. 1)-b-s'clothe' is an affix, 

as is the 1-of Sem. *l-b-s. The 1)-a1sooccurs in Sernitic, e.g. Ar.1)abasa 'to hold 

back, confine'. Тhe basic idea is seen in На. bisG.'оп'. The 1)- denotes the 

effecting of the root. Тhe result of putting something оп mау ье 'clothe, 

clothing', as in Eg. 1)-b-s,or 'restraint', the putting оп of bonds or gyves, as in 

Ar.1)abasa which comes to mean 'to imprison'. Тhe 1-means 'relating to', so that 

l-b-s 'pertaining to [putting]оп' тау a1so mean 'clothe', as in Sem. *l-b-s, or it 

mау have а more specia1ized meaning as in Eg. 7-З-Ь-s'(roya1)headdress' (given 

as 7-b-sЬу Faulkner [1962:16], who a1so gives the hieroglyphic spelling 7-З-Ь-s 

as а variant but without transcribing it). Тhe ablaut form **(Nl-)Nb-s occurs in 

Eg. n-m-s 'roya1head-cloth', where the n- ablaut of 1-means 'pertaining to'. 

We тау trace the origin ofthese affixes sti11further. As noted above, 1)is the 

Н ablaut of 7. Тhe latter is а well known agentive affix, e.g., causative 7- in 

ЛrаЫс, indefinite subject 7а- in Hausa. The 1)is a1so found in Indo-European, as 

in Нitt. newahh- 'to renew' (see Hodge 1991 оп the va1ues of Нittite h). Тhe 

Нittite first person ending -hhi is most reasonably explained as this agentive 1) 

with reference to oneself. The plain (поп н) form -70ccurs as а first person 

suffix in Egyptian. 

Тhe 1-affix is from а directiona1use of the base **l-C 'mouth', hence the 

'pertaining to' meaning (cf. Лr. li- 'to, for'). From the same root we get Eg. r-7 

'mouth' and r-7 'toward', as well as 7-r-7-y'one pertaining to'. 

Тhe semantics of the affixes Н and N have not been researched. If Н has а 

single origin, it could ье from **? N coиld ье from **l-C. Whatever the origin, 

they are morphemes. 

Some affixes are derived from common noиns, often ones designating body 

parts, sиch as **l-C. Another example is **Ь-С 'foot', which yields affixes of 

person, place or thing: На. bahaw§ee 'one who speaks Haиsa', Eg. b-q-s-w 

'spine' (place of bones, see 2.13 above), Eg. b-w n-f-r 'goodness', and with 

**Nb, Лr. maktab 'office' (writing place). Some are of deictic origin: **t- 'that 

one', **k- 'other', **s- 'the aforesaid' (and **?- above). Many occur as 

formants in the pronornina1system, the same consonant occиrring in a1l three 

persons: Лr. -tu '1' (verba1sиffix), -ta 'уои (т.)' (with direct -а), -ti (уои (f.)'


(with indirect -о, -at 'she', Лkk. -ku '1' (stative suffix), -ka 'уои (т.)', -ki 'уои 

(f.)'. Third person k a1sooccиrs, as in SOm. *ket 'they' (Flerning 1976:315). ln 

Indo-Eиropean the k element тау ье found in the Greek kappa perfect. (For 

genera1 discussion see Hodge 1969 and 1994.) 

lt wi11 ье observed that the identification of affixes 1eaves roots of two 

consonants. The idea that the 1arge1ytriconsonanta1roots of Sernitic саше from 

biconsonanta1ones goes back to the Мidd1eAges and appears to ье the prevai1ing 

view today. Les1au tacit,1y acceptsbiconsonanta1 roots in many of his 

etym010gies, e.g. ?azara/cazara 'to spatter, sprinkle' he re1atesto zaгшга 'scatter' 

(1987:81). Of Afroasiatic Diakonoff says that the 01dest common roots are 

biconsonanta1 (1988:42), and many other sch01ars cou1d Ье cited. Му own 

research соnf1fП1Sthis, and it is rare to find аtriconsonanta1root which cannot ье 

so ana1yzed. 

lt remains to illustrate, Ьу means of а few roots taken from Set 2, how the 

various consonant ablaut forms of these are reflected in the extant languages. ln 

Set 2.1 we have forms from the proto-base or root **р-l, which we have also 

met in Ar.l;1.aтl. The genera1idea seems to ье 'to separate from а given position', 

either intransitive ('to take off', '1еауе', 'go out', etc.) or transitive ('to effect а 

separation', 'to open ир', 'to let something 100se', 'to throw', 'to shoot', 'to риН 

off', etc.), often, of coиrse, with affixes. Тhe basic combinations which **р-l 

тау have with Н and N are: 

Set 8. **p-l plus Н aпd N. 

р plus Н 

N plus Р 

р-l 

ЬН-l 

Nb-l 

1plusН 

p-lН 

bH-lН 

Nb-lН 

N plus 1 

p-Nl 

bH-Nl 

Nb-Nl 

We would expect actиa1 forms as reflexes to have shapes such as the foHowing: 

Set 9. 

1 р-l 

2 Ы-l, f-l, bh-l 

3 т-l 

Some forms which we actua11y get are: 

4 p-r 7 p-n 

5 Ы-r, f-r, bh-r 8 Ы-n, f-n, bh-n 

6 ffi-r 9 ffi-n 

I 

I 

~ 

Set 10. Reflexes о/ *p-l. 

1.Eg.р-З 'fly ир' 

Си. *раl- 'flutter' 

IE *(s)pel- 'split' 

2. WCh. *b?ul- 'ореп (door)' 

IE *bhel- 'Ыоот' 

З. Sem. а. (?a/.1)malmala 'grow' 

СЬ. *т-l 'throw' 

IE *mel- 'а limb' 

ТНЕ IМРLIСАПОNS OF LISLАКН FOR NОSТRAПС 253 

4. СЬ. *p-r 'fly, jump' 

Си. *par- 'fly' 

IE *per- 'forward' 

5. WCh. *p?ar- 'break' 

Си. *p?ar- 'ореп (eyes)' 

IE *bhre(u)- 'sprout' 

6. Sem. НеЬ. т-г-? 'to soar' 

СЬ. *mb-r 'jump' 

НЕСи. *mar- 'go' 

7. Eg. р-п(-s) 'риН out 

hair' 

Hitt. paппiya- 

'drive away' 

8. IE *ЬЬеп- in 

мна Ьапе 'road' 

9. СЬ. *т-п 'соте' 

IE *теп- 'to 

project' 

These were selected to illustrate the different ablauts. There is по attempt at а 

complete inventory of forms known to ье from this root. 

**k-l 'Ьиrn,heat, Ьиrnblack, shine' we have met in Set 2.4. 

Set 11. * *k-l plus Н aпd N. 

k plus Н 

N plus k 

k-l 

gH-l 

Ng-l 

Set 12. Reflexes о/ **k-l. 

1. СЬ. *k-l 'Ьиrn' 

Си. *ka1- 'Ьиrn' 

IE *kel;:l- 'warm' 

2. Sem. *-qlu(w)- 'roast' 

СЬ. *k?-y-l 'smoke' 

IE *ghel- 'shine' 

1plus Н 

k-lН 

gH-lН 

Ng-lН 

4. Со. krбт 'fire' 

СЬ. *k-r 'Ьиrn' 

IE *ker- 'heat, flfe' 

5. Eg. q-r-r 'flfe (pottery)' 

IE *gWher- 'heat, warm' 

6. Ar. паг (n-w-r) 'fire' 

СЬ. *n-r(-n) 'charcoal' 

*n-y-r 'black' 

The root **I-d 'to bear, to ье Ьоrn' occиrs in Set 2.8. 

N plus 1 

k-Nl 

gH-Nl 

Ng-Nl 

7. СЬ. *k-n 'Ьиrn' 

IE *keni- 'ashes'


ТНЕ IМPLICA 110NS ОР LISLАКН FOR NOSТRA llС 255 

Set 13. **l-d plus Н aпd N. setting ир of regular sound correspondences needs the best possible 

1plus Н 

1plus N 

l-d 

lH-d 

Nl-d 

d plus Н 

l-dН 

lH-dН 

Nl-dН 

Set 14. Reflexes о/ **l-d. 

1. Eg. (?-w-)З-d 'Ьоу' ,4. Eg. (w-)3-g 'young, 

Sem. G. 100 'child' 

IE *al-d- 'make grow' 

fresh' 

Ber. Тои. ludlud 

'produce fresh shoots' 

IE *leudh- 'grow ир' 

2. СЬ. *(vu)rd 'give ЬЫЬ' 5. Eg. r-g-w 'efflux' 

Sem. НеЬ. (l;1e)ret 

'to cast' 

IE *(we)rdh- 'to grow' 

N plus d 

l-Nd 

lH-Nd 

NI-Nd 

8. НЕСи.*randa 'girl' 

З. Sem. Amh. (w)aпd 'son' 9. Sem. НеЬ.nln 'offspring' 

(Some obvious affixes Ьауе been put in parentheses. Тhe 7- of Eg. 7-З-d is 

probably prothetic before а consonant cluster. Taking -w- from Sernitic, the word 

reads *?-w-3-d.) Тhe аЬоуе examples эrе typical of the spotty nature of the 

known reflexes. 

То sum ир: 1. Basing the selection оп core vocabulary, а significant number 

of forms Ьауе been found to ье relatable in most branches of Lislakh. 2. Тhe 

examples in Set 2 could ье multiplied several times over. 3. Affixes of а 

pharyngeal nature (н) and а nasal one (N) эrе found throughout the рЬуlит. Тhe 

addition of these affixes to а base results in nine or more possible variants of the 

base. 4. Recognition of the various ablauts of а base and of the plain consonant 

form involved enable us to relate forms to еасЬ other in а far more accurate 

fashion, resulting in more regular sound correspondences. 5. А number of affixal 

morphemes Ьауе also been identified, and these, too are sometimes found 

modified Ьу Н or N. 6. Recognition of the affixes involved has enabled us to 

reconstruct biconsonantal roots (or bases). 

It is not yet known to what stage of the proto-language these forrnations 

belong. Тhey go back at least to Proto-Lislakh. Оп the other hand, there are 

secondary applications of such affixes (which must ье dealt with elsewhere), so 

that they occur as formants both in prehistoric and historic times. 

То the question at hand, what эrе the implications of these findings for the 

study of Nostratic? Nostratic or any other 10ng range work which involves 

reconstructions of the various language groups it wishes to relate. It is ту 

opinion that any such endeavor involving Afroasiatic and/or Indo-European 

should 100k for and utilize: 1) bases relatable to those reconstructed for Proto- 

Lislakh, 2) comparable ablaut pattems to those herein described, 3) affixes 

sirnilar to those identified for Lislakh. 

REFERENCES 

Aistleitner, Joseph. 1963. Worterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache. Berlin: Akademie- 

Verlag. 

Bergstrasser, Gotthelf. 1983. /ntroduction to the Semitic languages. Transl., with 

notes, Ьу Peter Т. Daniels. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 

Dahood, Mitchell. 1966, 1968, 1970. Psalms. 3 vols. (= Anchor Bible, 16, 17, 

17А.) Garden City: Doubleday. 

Diakonoff, 1. М.; А. Уи. Militarev, У. Уа. Poxormovskij & О. У. Stolbova. 1987. 

"Oblteafrazijskaya fonoligiceskaya sistema". Afrikanskoe istoriceskoe jazykoznanie 

ed. Ьу У. Уа. Poxormovskij, 9-36. Moscow: Nauka. 

Dolgopolsky, Aron В. 1977. "Emphatic consonants in Semitic". /srael Oriental 

Studies 7.1-13. 

Ehret, Christopher. 1987. "Proto-Cushitic reconstruction". Sprache und 

Geschichte in Afrika 8.7-180. 

_' 1995. Recoпstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian). (= University о! 

Califorпia Publications, Linguistics, 126.) Berkeley: University of Califomia 

Press. 

Faulkner, Raymond О. А concise dictionary о! Middle Egyptian. Oxford: 

Clarendon Press. 

Fitzgerald, Aloysius. 1978. "ТЬе interchange of l, п, and r in Biblical Hebrew". 

Jouтal о! Вiblical Literature 97.481-488. 

Fleming, Harold С. 1976. "Omotic overview". The non-Semitic languages о! 

Ethiopia, ed. Ьу М. Lionel Bender. (= Committee оп Ethiopian Studies, 

Occasional Papers 5.) 299-323. East Lansing: Michigan State University. 

_' "Proto-South-Omotic or Proto-Somotic consonant phonemes: stage опе". 

Cushitic-Omotic. Papers from the /nteтatioпal Symposium оп Cushitic aпd 

Omotic Languages, January 6-9, 1986 ed. Ьу Marianne Bechaus-Gerst & Fritz 

Serzisko, 163-175. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. 

Gardiner, Alan Н. 1957. Egyptian Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Oxford University 

Press. (See for Sign List.) 

Gordon, Cyrus Н. 1965. Ugaritic Textbook. (= Analecta Orientalia 38.) Rome: 

Pontifical Biblical Institute. 

Greenberg, Joseph Н. 1965. "ТЬе evidence for */тЬ/ as а proto-Afroasiatic 

рЬопеmе". Symbolae Linguisticae in Honorem Georgii Kurylowicz, 88-92. 

Wroclaw-Warszawa-Кrak6w: Polska Akademia Nauk.


Greenspahn, Frederick Е. 1984. Нарах legomena in Biblical Hebrew. (= Society of 

Biblica1 Literature Dissertation Series.) Chico: Scholars Press. 

Науа, J. а. 1915. Arabic-English dictionary. Beirut: Catholic Press. 

Hodge, Carleton Т. 1969. "Afroasiatic рсопоип problems". /nterпational Jourпal 

о! American Linguistics 35.366-376. 

_' 1988. "Consonant ablaut in Lislakh". FUCUS, а Semitic/Afrasian 

gathering in remembrance о! Albert Ehrman ed. Ьу Уоёl Arbeitman, 267-276. 

(= Сuпепt Issues in Linguistic Theory, 58.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John 

Benjamins. 

_' 1991. "The multivaience of Hittite h". The Seventeenth LACUS Forum 

/990 ed. Ьу Angela Della Уоlре, 368-374. Lake Bluff: LACUS. 

_' 1993. "Hallelujah". The Nineteenth LACUS Forum /993 ed. Ьу Peter А. 

Reich, 335-341. Lake Bluff: LACUS. 

_' 1994. "Some proto affixes". The Twentieth LACUS Forum /993 ed. Ьу 

Va1erie Becker Makkai, 526-536. Chapel Hill: LACUS. 

Illic-Svityc, У. М. 1966. "Iz istorii cadskogo konsonantizma: labijaljnye 

smycnye". Jazyki Afriki ed. Ьу В. А. Uspenski, 9-24. Moscow: Nauka. 

Jungraithmayr, Непmапп & Kiyoshi Shimizu. 1981. Chadic lexical roots П. (= 

Marburger Studien,Serie А, Afrika, 26.) Berlin: DietrichReimer. . 

Leslau, Wolf. 1950. Ethiopic documents: Gurage. (= Viking Fund Publications in 

Anthropology 14.) New York: Viking Fund. 

_' 1987. Comparative dictionary о! Gecez (= Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: 

Otto Напаssоwitz. 

Milgrom, Jacob. 1991. Levitcus /-/6. (= Anchor Bible, 3) New York: Doubleday. 

Newman, Раиl. 1977. "Chadic classification and reconstruction". Afroasiatic 

Linguistics 5.1-42. 

Orel, Vladimir. 1996. Review of Bomhard & Kems, The Nostratic macrofamily. 

Anthropological Linguistics 38.155-158. 

Роре, Marvin Н. 1973. Job. 3rd ed. (= Anchor Bible, 15) Garden City: Doubleday. 

Prasse, Karl-G. 1972, 1974, 1973. Manuel de grammaire touaregue. 7 vols. in 3. 

Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. 

Ruzicka, Rudolf. 1909. Konsonantische Dissimilation in den semitischen Sprachen. 

(= Beitriige zur: Assyriologie 6.) Leipzig: J. С. Hinrichs'. 

Szemerenyi, Oswa1d. 1970. Einfuhrung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. 

(Die Altertumswissenschaft.) Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 

Vycichl, Wemer. 1983. Dictionnaire etymologique de lа langue copte. Leuven: 

Peeters.

The implications of lislakh for nostratic.pdf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?