comparison.AFRASIAN.3_germanic.htm

Tlazoltéotl

PROTO-LANGUAGE PHONEMES

in IE and Afrasian

(Egyptian and Arabic)

by Patrick C. Ryan

(2/24/98)

Roman Marble. circa 100 PE

I. GERMANIC AND SEMITIC

A. Coincidence or Common Origin?

1. It is well-known that Germanic exhibits phonological patterns of correspondences that are nearly unique within IE but it is not appreciated that these patterns show intriguing similarities with Semitic, for which we will use Arabic as a example.

2. IE p^h (aspirated /p/) is represented in all the dialects except Old Irish, Armenian, and Germanic as p. In Old Irish, it is 0; in Armenian, hw, and in Germanic: f.

a. Since IE p^h derives from Nostratic p^h, and Afrasian p^h (Ehret's p) derives from Nostratic p^h also, it is extremely interesting to see that the Semitic response to Afrasian p^(h) is f.

3. In fact, the entire series of stops and affricates is parallel:

Proto- Language Nostratic (author's formulation) Indo- European Germanic / Armenian Semitic (Arabic)

P[H] p^h p f / hw⁽¹⁾ f

T[H] t^h t th / th th

K[H] k^h k h⁽²⁾ / s⁽³⁾ kh (/x/)

P[?] p^? b p / p b / f⁽⁴⁾

T[?] t^? d t / t t

K[?] k^? g k / c⁽⁵⁾ k

PF[H] pf^h p^[h]⁽⁶⁾ f / hw f⁽⁷⁾

TS[H] ts^h t^[h] th / th dh

KX[H] kx^h k^[h] h / s gh

P[?]F p^?f bh b / b b

T[?]S t^?s dh d / d d

K[?]X k^?x gh g / z (j)⁽⁸⁾ j⁽⁹⁾ (/dzh/)

a. with the only exception that Afrasian (Arabic) has different reflexes for the same reflexes in IE for voiceless aspirated stops and affricates; and

b. Afrasian developed special responses to Nostratic stops and affricates in the apical series accompanied by a velar (^w) glide:

1) Nostratic t^?wa -> Afrasian T (dotted t; "emphatic", originally retroflex); t^?s^wa -> Afrasian D (dotted d; "emphatic"; originally retroflex); t^hwa -> Afrasian S (dotted s; "emphatic", originally retroflex); ts^hwa -> Afrasian Z (dotted z; "emphatic"; originally retroflex).

4. Also, the spirants are mostly correspondent:

Proto- Language	Nostratic (author's formulation)	Indo- European	Germanic / Armenian	Semitic (Arabic)
F[H]	w	w	w / (g/v)	w
S[H]	s	s	s / h	s
X[H]	x	k^w	hw / kh	S (/sh/⁽¹⁰⁾
F	w	w	w	w
S	z	s	*s (z)⁽¹¹⁾ / h**	z
X	G (/gamma/)	g^w	kw / k	S (/sh/)⁽¹²⁾

a. Notice that the Germanic/Armenian consonantal responses to PL F[H]/F have been leveled; if Germanic z can be reconstructed, then both agree on s and z for PL S[H] and S; only on the dorsals spirants X[H] and X does Germanic (h^w and k^w) have substantially different responses from Semitic (S and S).

5. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the non-Germanic/Armenian branches remained together with the Afrasian branch after the other speakers of IE had dispersed; and that they shared common developments (until circa 15K BPE) with the exception of reflexes to the inherited Nostratic voiceless aspirated affricates (but cf. Ossetic), and the special responses to velarized apicals (with only minor discrepancies in the spirants).

There is an excellent article on The Early History of Indo-European Languages by Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov, published in Scientific American (March 1990), which will be of great interest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

END OF GERMANIC AND SEMITIC

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bomhard, Allan R. 1984. Toward Proto-Nostratic: A New Approach to the Comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company

Forthcoming. Lexical Parallels between Proto-Indo-European and Other Languages

and John C. Kerns. 1994. The Nostratic Macrofamily A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 74. Berlin, New York City: Mouton de Gruyter

1996. Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis. Studia Nostratica, 1. Charleston, S. C.: Signum Desktop Publishing

Brugmann, Karl. 1888. A Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages. 5 vol. 2nd reprint 1972. Varanasi, India: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office

Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca and Cavalli-Sforza, Francesco. 1995. The Great Human Diasporas: The History of Diversity and Evolution. New York etal. Helix Books. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company

Childe, V. Gordon. 1926. The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins. 2nd reprint 1987. New York: Dorset Press

Colarusso, John. 1994. Phyletic Links between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Northwest Caucasian. Mother Tongue 21. January 1994.

Ehret, Christopher. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone, Consonants, and Vocabulary. University of California Publications in Linguistics: Vol. 126. Berkeley and Los Angeles. University of California Press

Klimov, Georgij A. 1977. Tipologija Jazykov Aktivnogo Stroja. Moscow: Nauka

-------------------------1983. Printsipy Kontensivnoi Tipologij. Moscow: Nauka

Moscati, Sabatino, et alii. 1969. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology. Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz

Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Volume I. Bern and Munich: Francke Verlag

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

the latest revision of this document can be found at

HTTP://WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/Athens/Forum/2803/comparison.AFRASIAN.3_germanic.htm

Patrick C. Ryan * 9115 West 34^th Street - Little Rock, AR 72204-4441* (501)227-9947

PROTO-LANGUAGE@email.msn.com

1. Armenian has a voiceless labial (hw), which is functionally comparable to the voiceless labio-dental (f) of Germanic.

2. It is presumed that Germanic h represents /x/.

3. through /ç/.

4. this *p, though unaspirated, also became f, except when derived from PL P[?]A, when it became b.

5. through /k^y/.

6. p^h, t^h, and k^h occur in Old Indian but are not recognized as IE phonemes but all IEists.

7. Instead of expected *v, we find f.

8. through /g^y/.

9. through /g^y/.

10. through /ç/.

11.

Germanic does have a z but it is reputedly of secondary origin.

12.

presumably, through /zh/.

Proto- Language	Nostratic (author's formulation)	Indo- European	Germanic / Armenian	Semitic (Arabic)
*P[H]*	p^h	p	f / hw⁽¹⁾	f
T[H]	t^h	t	th / th	th
K[H]	k^h	k	h⁽²⁾ / s⁽³⁾	kh (/x/)
P[?]	p^?	b	p / p	b / f⁽⁴⁾
T[?]	t^?	d	t / t	t
K[?]	k^?	g	k / c⁽⁵⁾	k
PF[H]	pf^h	p^[h]⁽⁶⁾	f / hw	f⁽⁷⁾
TS[H]	ts^h	t^[h]	th / th	dh
KX[H]	kx^h	k^[h]	h / s	gh
P[?]F	p^?f	bh	b / b	b
T[?]S	t^?s	dh	d / d	d
K[?]X	k^?x	gh	g / z (j)⁽⁸⁾	j⁽⁹⁾ (/dzh/)

comparison.AFRASIAN.3_germanic.htm

PROTO-LANGUAGE PHONEMES

in IE and Afrasian

I. GERMANIC AND SEMITIC

There is an excellent article on The Early History of Indo-European Languages by Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov, published in Scientific American (March 1990), which will be of great interest.

END OF GERMANIC AND SEMITIC