Diachronica XIV:1.131-136 (1997).

Semitic and Indo-European: The principal etymologies. By Saul Levin. (= Current Trends in Linguistic Theory, 129.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995. Pp. xxii, 514. Reviewed by ALLAN R. BOMHARD, Charleston, S.C. In the book under review, Levin continues work he began half a century ago and which had led to the publication of his book The Indo-European and Semitic Languages in 1971. While the earlier book was devoted mainly to a study of morphological similarities between Semitic languages and several Indo-European languages, the current book deals with etymological material. Future volumes are planned. The approach that Levin follows in choosing which languages to compare is quite different from what I and others would do, have done, and are doing. In fairness, in my earliest writings, I, too, compared Indo-European directly with Semitic, for the most part ignoring the other Afroasiatic languages. However, I found that the results that could be achieved by such a comparison, though promising, were handicapped by not fully integrating Semitic within Afroasiatic as a whole, and, therefore, I subsequently expanded the scope of my research to include other Afroasiatic languages. It was in so doing that I discovered that other Afroasiatic languages contained a tremendous amount of data as a group that could be used in a comparison with IndoEuropean (and other Nostratic languages). Moreover, it is only by investigating Semitic within Afroasiatic that one is able to understand how Semitic relates to other Afroasiatic daughter languages and to discover that Semitic has developed its own unique characteristics. In other words, I belong to that group of scholars that believes that Semitic is more closely related to other Afroasiatic languages by a long shot than it is to Indo-European or to any other language or group of languages. Thus, it follows that it is Afroasiatic as a family that must be compared with Indo-European (and other Nostratic languages) and not Semitic alone, which represents just one branch of Afroasiatic, and probably not even the most representative branch. At best, only limited and misleading results can be achieved by comparing Semitic directly with Indo-European to the exclusion of the remaining Afroasiatic daughter languages.

132

ALLAN R. BOMHARD: REVIEW OF LEVIN (1995)

Levins understanding of how one makes use of traditional methodologies such as the Comparative Method and Internal Reconstruction appears to differ from that of others in the field. Since this has serious consequences, it might be useful at this point to summarize the basic principles underlying the Comparative Method. The first step involves the arduous task of data gathering, placing special attention on gathering the oldest data available. Once a large amount of lexical material has been gathered, it must be carefully analyzed in order to try to separate what is ancient from what is an innovation and from what is a borrowing. After the native lexical elements have been reasonably identified in each phylum, the material can be compared across phyla to determine potential cognates. Once a sufficient body of potential cognates have been identified, one can begin to work out the sound correspondences. Not only must the regular sound correspondences (that is, those that occur consistently and systematically) be defined, exceptions must also be explained. Here, widely-attested sound changes (palatalization, metathesis, syncope, assimilation, dissimilation, etc.) provide the key to understanding the origin of most exceptions. In other cases, the analysis of the influence that morphology has exerted provides an understanding of how particular exceptions came into being. Some exceptions, though clearly related, simply defy explanation. All of these must be scrupulously noted. The final step involves the reconstruction of ancestral forms and the formulation of the sound laws leading to the forms in the descendant languages, identifying the laws that have produced the regular sound correspondences as well as the exceptions. The same principles apply to the reconstruction of grammatical forms and rules of combinability and to the identification of the historical transformations leading to the systems found in the daughter languages. I believe that Levins failure to adhere rigorously to established methodologies is one of the major shortcomings of his book. For example, there are no tables of sound correspondences in the book. Indeed, instead of the identifying regular sound correspondences (that is, those that occur consistently and systematically), one finds statements like [b]y this argument, except for voicing would stand for nearly the same sound as (p.65), or [t]he affricated {j} is fairly close to the Hebrew {c} (p.89), or [t]he sound of [hde] is fairly close to [hazz], although the double voiced sibilant is at several removes from the single voiced plosive (p.346), or [t]he Semitic {r} corresponds loosely to the nasal consonant [in IE ARB] (p.427), etc. Ancestral forms (that is, Proto-Indo-Semitic forms) are not reconstructed, and no attempt is made to explain in a consistent, systematic manner how the

REVIEWS / COMPTES RENDUS / BESPRECHUNGEN

133

attested forms came into being. To be sure, Levin does provide explanations, but each form is dealt with individually, and no attempt is made to understand the overall structure and how the individual forms fit into the overall structure that is to say, there is no way to tell whether they are to be seen as regular developments or whether they are exceptions. It is not always clear whether Levin thinks that a particular etymology represents a true cognate or whether it is a borrowing. Moreover, by not establishing regular sound correspondences, Levin is led astray by forms that have a superficial resemblance but which cannot possibly be related. These points can be illustrated by looking at some of his proposed etymologies: 1) One of the most important etymologies in the book (#1.A) is the word for bull, represented, for example, on the Semitic side by Arabic {awran} and on the Indo-European side by Greek . Other scholars are nearly unanimous in considering the Indo-European form to be a borrowing from Semitic, as suggested, for instance, by Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1995:439). 2) In the etymology (#1.B) for horn, represented on the Indo-European side by Latin cornu(m) and on the Semitic side by Arabic {qarnu(m)}, we may also be dealing with borrowings, at least for some of the languages involved, as many scholars have long suspected. On the other hand, it is not impossible that these are merely chance resemblances since both have good etymologies within their respective language families. 3) The next group of etymologies proposed by Levin compares Hebrew {"zen} with Old High German ["]oren ear, Hebrew {yin} with Old English ["]e(a)gan eye, and Hebrew {cm} with Sanskrit {astn} bone. Not one of these is a convincing etymology. These etymologies demonstrate the importance of understanding the prehistoric developments within each language family separately before comparing across phyla. Let us look at just one of these comparisons to illustrate this point. Hebrew {"zen} ear is cognate with the following forms in other Semitic languages: Arabic "udn ear, Akkadian uzun ear, and Geez "zn ear. The Semitic proto-form may be reconstructed as *#un- or (earlier) *#n- ( = o), which Diakonoff (1992:22) derives from ProtoAfroasiatic *H- but which Orl & Stolbova (1995:32-33) derive from Proto-Afroasiatic *#udun- or *#uun- (with [a]n unexpected *d ~ * variation in the root) on the basis of material from Semitic, Egyptian, and East Chadic. Old High German ["]oren ear, on the other hand, is

134

ALLAN R. BOMHARD: REVIEW OF LEVIN (1995)

cognate with Gothic ause ear, Latin auris ear (< *aus-is), and Lithuanian auss ear, all of which Lehmann (1986:51), for example, derives from Proto-Indo-European *ews-, *us- ear and which Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1995:688, n. 14) derive from *o(H)us-. The earliest ProtoIndo-European form may be reconstructed as *HeHu-s-/*HoHu-s-, or the like, with suffixal *-s-, which would then allow us to reconsider the proposal made by Sturtevant (1942:47 46a) that the Hittite form ehurati(ear-)plug, from an unattested *ehu(r)- ear, might belong here (note: this comparison is rejected by Puhvel [1984.1/2:253], but it is accepted by Tischler and others [see references at Tischler 1977:102]). Thus, it is clear that the Afroasiatic forms cited by Levin cannot possibly be related to the Indo-European forms he cites when all of the relevant data are considered. I could go on and on reviewing each of the etymologies proposed by Levin, but I think enough has been given to illustrate the point I am trying to make. That is not to say that there are not some valid etymologies in the book indeed there are. However, they are in the minority. Some of the better etymologies include: 1) Semitic (Arabic) {"arTan}: IE (Old English) ["]eoran earth (#1.F). 2) Semitic {(-)q(-)n(-)} : IE (-)g(-)n(-) (be)get (#2.C). 3) Semitic (Hebrew) *{pQt} : IE (Latin) patet it is wide open (#2.L). 4) Semitic (Hebrew) {Har()-} : IE (Hittite) {arazi} plows (#2.V). 5) Semitic (Hebrew) {-nu} : IE (Sanskrit) {ne, na
} us, our (#3.B). 6) Semitic (Hebrew) {TE-} : IE (Latin) t you (#3.C). 7) Egyptian {nt(y)} : IE (Latin) ante in front of (#4.C). 8) Semitic (Akkadian) {ana} : IE (Gothic) ana at, on (#4.D). 9) Semitic (Akkadian) {in} : IE (Latin) in in (#4.E). 10) Semitic (Hebrew) {ba} : IE (Gothic) sibun seven, (Sanskrit) sapt seven (#5.A). This is a possible etymology. Indeed, it is one that I have also proposed. There are some scholars, however, who consider the Indo-European forms to be loans from Semitic. It should be noted that there is often a great deal of discussion surrounding the individual etymologies, and these notes demonstrate Levins deep understanding of Hebrew and Arabic on the Semitic side and of Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit on the Indo-European side. However, there are more than a few errors in the forms cited and in the interpretations offered when other languages are brought into the discussion.

REVIEWS / COMPTES RENDUS / BESPRECHUNGEN

135

In conclusion, this book should be used with caution and even then only after one has a good grasp of the relevant literature comparing Semitic (or better, Afroasiatic) and Indo-European. Reviewers address: Allan R. Bomhard 88 Queen Street, Apt. B CHARLESTON, S.C. 29401-2427 U. S. A.
e-mail: bomhard@aol.com

REFERENCES Bomhard, Allan R. 1984. Toward Proto-Nostatic: A new approach to the comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ----------. 1996. Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis. Charleston, S.C.: Signum Desktop Publishing. ---------- & John C. Kerns. 1994. The Nostratic Macrofamily: A study in distant linguistic relationship. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Diakonoff, Igor M. 1992. Proto-Afrasian and Old Akkadian: A study in historical phonetics. (= Journal of Afroasiatic Languages, 4:1/2.) Princeton: Institute of Semitic Studies. Ehret, Christopher. 1980. The Historical Reconstruction of Southern Cushitic Phonology and Vocabulary. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. ----------. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, tone, consonants, and vocabulary. Berkeley & Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. & VjaDeslav V. Ivanov. 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. English translation by Johanna Nichols. 2 vols. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lehmann, Winfred P., ed. 1986. A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Levin, Saul. 1971. The Indo-European and Semitic Languages. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press. Orl, Vladimir & Olga Stolbova. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a reconstruction. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Puhvel, Jaan. 1984 . Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin & New York:

136

ALLAN R. BOMHARD: REVIEW OF LEVIN (1995)

Mouton de Gruyter. Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1942. The Indo-Hittite Laryngeals. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America. Tischler, Johann. 1977 . Hethitisches etymologisches Wrterbuch. Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt Innsbruck.