Version of 2016-09-23

Wersja polska • Bilanguage version • Wersja dwujęzyczna

Grzegorz Jagodziński

Indo-European and Semitic languages

1 – 2 – 3

Lexicon

Below there is an incomplete list of lexical similarities between both language families. It is worth noticing that there exists especially much convergence between the Semitic languages and the Germanic branch (more on this here). In a lot of instances it is hard to guess whether we observe words which are inherited from a distant proto-language, borrowings that took place in a newer epoch, or there is a simple coincidence. That is why the commentary is limited to minimum. Sometimes a given comparison seems to be unbelievable, however you should not forget numerous instances of irregular phonetic changes, including changes in the sequence of consonants in words. Such changes are enough frequent in both IE and Semitic languages.

Among the Semitic languages, Arabic forms are give first as a rule, because in that language the consonant structure of words is the least modified when compared to the Semitic proto-language.

Remark: the table above contains instances of words which appear in only one group of the Indo-European languages, or such instances which are present in various groups of IE and in Semitic but with no counterparts in other Nostratic languages. Agricultural lexicon is also included because it might be borrowed from one group into another (in the time of the Afro-Caucasian protolanguage agriculture had not been known yet). And so, there are no examples of words which can also be found in other languages in the shape which suggests that they are inherited rather than borrowed.

Postscript

Information on phonetics of reconstructed IE forms

For the Proto-IE language 3 proper short vowels are usually reconstructed: a, e, o, from which a was able to occur only under special conditions (after a laryngeal). Those vowels were able to form the diphthongs ai, ei, oi, au, eu, ou. As the result of diphthong reduction the high vowels i, u developed. Morphological processes led to developing of the long vowels ā, ē, ō as well as respective long diphthongs.

Combinations of vowels or diphthongs and the following laryngeal formed long vowels of a new gender which differed from the previous ones with intonation. Developing of long ī, ū was also possible.

As the result of reduction of short vowels the reduced vowels ^{a, e, o} developed, and as the result of reduction of groups with long vowels and the following laryngeal the ə (schwa) developed. Groups with proper vowels and r, l, m, n (e.g. ar, el, om) bring up the rear of the list of Proto-IE vocalic elements, as well as their morphologically lengthened forms, their forms which were lengthened as the result of disappearing of the subsequent laryngeal, and finally their forms which were reduced to the vocalic consonant r̥, l̥, m̥, n̥, which were able to be morphologically lengthened as well as lengthened as the result of disappearing of the laryngeal (more details here).

The list of IE consonants contained:

• Two semivowels w, j; certain facts suggest also the nasal variant w̃ as the third semivowel (perhaps it was the velar nasal ŋ instead).
• Two liquids r, l.
• Two nasals m, n; the third one might have been the sometimes postulated ŋ which developed into m or w.
• Four voiceless spirants, including s as well as 3 so called laryngeals (in fact possibly velars), marked as H₁, H₂ and H₃ (mor correct symbols would be x́, x, xʷ). In the vicinity of H₁ – e developed, in the vicinity of H₂ – a, and finally in the vicinity of H₃ – o. The voiced spirant z was only a variant of s before a voiced consonant. Thoughts on existing PIE interdentals of the type of θ are today obsolete – they were taken from incorrect interpretation of rare groups of the type tk.
• 5 voiced aspirated consonants bh, dh, ǵh, gh, gʷh.
• 5 voiced non-aspirated consonants b, d, ǵ, g, gʷ (b was very rare, and it might have occurred only in borrowings).
• 5 voiceless non-aspirated consonants p, t, ḱ, k, kʷ.

The real number of consonants could have been greater. Some scholars think that labialized variants of palatals ǵʷh, ǵʷ, ḱʷ also existed in PIE. Others suggest the existing of a number of voiceless aspirated consonants ph, th, ḱh, kh, kʷh. However, they seem to have been the result of development of groups with a laryngeal.

Information on Semitic phonetics

For the Proto-Semitic stage only 3 vowels a, i, u are reconstructed, together with their lengthened counterparts, just like in classic Arabic. There also existed the diphthongs aj, aw which usually were only combinatory variants of the vowel and a subsequent consonant.

Consonants in the Semitic languages are comparably little variable. Their original set of them is reconstructed basing on data from various Semitic languages.

Explanation:

• Bottom-dotted consonants, i.e. c̣, č̣, ĉ̣, ḍ, ṗ, ṣ, ṣ̂, ṭ, t̞, ẓ are emphatic, which means velarized (like the Russian hard l) or glottalized (with the root of the tongue retracted back towards the rear face of the throat).
• The consonants kʷ, gʷ, qʷ, ḫʷ are labialized, i.e. pronounced with rounded lips.
• The Semitic consonants ṯ, ḏ are pronounced like Eng. th respectively in think and this. In Hebrew and Aramaic the symbols b̲, ḏ, ḡ, k̲, p̄, ṯ mark spirants which are variants of respective simple stops, which occur after a vowel. In real, the b̲, p̄ were pronounced as v, f. In Hebrew the ḡ, k̲ were uvular, i.e. identical like Arabic ġ, ḫ, in Aramaic they were velar: ḡ was pronounced as the Polish ch in klechda, k̲ as ch in kochać.
• The consonants c̣, c, ʒ, č̣, č, ǯ, ĉ̣, ĉ, and also ṗ, are reconstructed for a previous stage of the Proto-Semitic language basing on data from other Afro-Asiatic languages. They do not appear in modern Semitic languages (even if in Ethiopian languages similar sounds may have developed in borrowings from Cushitic).
• The consonant ʒ was an affricate similar to the Polish dz, ǯ – similar to Polish dż or English j, č – similar to Polish cz or English ch, š – similar to Polish sz or English sh. In individual Semitic languages the pronunciation of š can be closer to Polish or English pronunciation.
• The consonant ŝ is spelt in Hebrew with the letter š with a diacritic mark and today it is read just like simple s (such a marked šin is termed sin). So, its original pronunciation had to be between s (samek̲) and š (šin). A hypothesis of lateral character of this sound has been formulated lately (the -ls- group in the loadword balsam is said to be a trace of ŝ). The reconstructed ĉ̣, ĉ had to be pronounced in a similar way. In the literature the symbols ś, ć, ć̣ are also used.
• The consonant q is uvular. In the literature it is also marked as ḳ (which means emphatic k).
• The consonant ḫ is the fricative counterpart of the q and it is pronounced like German ch in ach. At the same time, it is more “hoarse” than the Polish ch.
• The consonant ġ is the voiced counterpart of the previous one. It resembles the French uvular r.
• The consonant ḥ is a pharyngeal voiceless fricative consonant, pronounced with the root of the tongue retracted back towards the rear face of the throat (with “contracted throat”). It has not even approximated counterparts in any of European languages.
• The consonant ʕ is the voiced counterpart of the former. Its correct pronunciation needs many exercises from Europeans.
• The consonant h is pronounced like the English voiceless h. None of the Semitic consonants h, ḥ, ḫ is identical to Polish ch/h. Also voiced ġ, ʕ are not identical with Polish dialectal voiced h which is popular among people from eastern parts of the country.
• The consonant ʔ is the laryngeal stop (in British pronunciation, t can be pronounced as ʔ at the end of the syllable).
• The consonant j is similar to the English y, not j (the symbol is compatible with IPA), the consonant w is pronounced like in English.
• The symbol 0 means no consonants.

• Non-Indo-European Vocabulary in Germanic
• Indo-European Etymological Dictionary
• Etymology of Numerals