THE UNITY OF HAMITO-SEMITIC

AND
SUMERIAN LANGUAGE FAMILIES1

A comparative study of their sound, lexical and grammatical systems

El Rabih Makki

1
This is a revised version of the work published by LINCOM GmbH, 2017.
 DETAILED
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Language Cited: Hamito-Semitic xv

Language Cited: Indo-European xv
Abbreviations for some Dictionaries and References xvi
Grammatical Terminology and Other Abbreviations and Symbols xvii

PREFACE 1

CHAPTER ONE
HAMITO-SEMITIC LANGUAGE FAMILY 5

1.1 Hamito-Semitic languages 5

1.1.1 Semitic languages 6
1.1.1.1 Acadian 6
1.1.1.2 Canaanite 6
1.1.1.3 Aramaic 7
1.1.1.4 Classical Arabic 7
1.1.1.5 South Arabic 8
1.1.1.6 Ethiopic or Ge‛ez 8
1.1.2 Hamitic languages 8
1.1.2.1 Egyptian 8
1.1.2.2 Berber 8
1.1.2.3 Cushitic 9
1.1.2.4 Chadic 9
1.2 Late PHS sound system 10

i
1.2.1 Sound correspondences between Semitic and Egyptian 11
1.2.1.1 Stops 18
1.2.1.2 Fricatives 20
1.2.1.3 Nasals 24
1.2.1.4 Laterals 24
1.2.1.5 R-sound 24
1.2.1.6 Glides 25
1.2.1.7 Consonants /ś/, /ḫ/ and /ḿ/ 26
1.2.2 Vowels 29
1.2.3 Diphthongs 33
1.3 Hamito-Semitic grammatical system 34
1.3.1 stem I 35
1.3.2 stem II 35
1.3.3 stem III 35
1.3.4 stem IV 36
1.3.4.1 Other HS causative prefixes 36
1.3.4.2 Hamito-Semitic causative affixes and world’s languages 38
1.3.5 stem V 38
1.3.6 stem VI 39
1.3.7 stem VII 39
1.3.8 stem VIII 40
1.3.9 stem IX 40
1.3.10 stemX 41
1.3.11 stem XI 41
1.3.12 stem XII 41
1.3.13 Some other stems 41

CHAPTER TWO
SUMERIAN 43
2.1 Introduction 43
2.1.1 Sumerian dialects: Emegir and Emesal 44
2.1.2 Sumerian and other languages 48
2.1.3 Typological classification of Sumerian 51
2.1.3.1 Typology and stages of language development 52
2.1.4 Sumerian writing system 54

CHAPTER THREE
SUMERIAN AND HAMITO-SEMITIC: SOUNDS AND LEXICONS 57

ii
3.1 Introduction 57
3.1.1 Technique employed in the current study 58
3.1.2 Sumerian sound system 61
3.1.3 Methodological procedures 62

3.2 Sumerian Stops 64

3.2.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /p ~ b/ 67
3.2.1.1 Sumerian bar(6, 7)vb “to shine, be bright; etc.” 67
3.2.1.2 Sumerian bar “outside”; vb “to open, see, etc.” 68
3.2.1.2.1 Sumerian bar “outside” 68
3.2.1.2.2 Sumerian bar “soul, innards” 68
3.2.1.2.3 Sumerian bar “to open” 68
3.2.1.2.4 Sumerian bar “to see” 69
3.2.1.2.5 Sumerian bar “to divide, to split; to distribute, to select” 70
3.2.1.2.6 Sumerian bar adj. “foreign” 71
3.2.1.3 Sumerian pana, pan, ban “bow” 71
3.2.1.4 Sumerian bi “this (one), that (one)” 72
3.2.4.1 Sumerian bi ‘a possessive suffix -its’ 73
3.2.1.5 Sumerian bi, bé “to speak, say” 73
3.2.1.6 Sumerian bìr “team of donkeys/animals” 75
3.2.1.6.1 Sumerian bìr “team of donkeys/animals” 76
3.2.1.7 Sumerian ba “portion; rations”; vb “to give; pay; divide, etc.” 76
3.2.1.8 Sumerian pa(4), pab, pap “father; brother; man; leader” 77
3.2.1.9 Sumeriana-bala “drawing of water” 83
3.2.1.10 Sumerian aba, ab “sea, lake” 84
3.2.1.11 Sumerian peš “womb; palm frond; three”; vb “to expand; wide” 84
3.2.1.12 Sumerian peš-peš “very wide, spacious; physically handicapped” 85
3.2.1.13 Sumerian buru(14), bur(14)“harvest; hot season, harvest time” 85
3.2.1.14 Sumerian pa-sa-lal-a “a bundle of brushwood” 86
3.2.1.15 Sumerian pa-tar “cut-off branches/twigs” 86
3.2.1.16 Sumerian pah “leg” 86
3.2.1.17 Sumerian bala “to pour, as a libation” 86
3.2.1.18 Sumerian bala-bala “speech” 86
3.2.1.19 Sumerian bala “to uproot, transgress” 87
3.2.1.20 Sumerian dab(2, 4, 5)dib(2) “fetter”; vb “to hold; to take, seize” 87
3.2.1.21 Sumerian pad(3) “to show, reveal, choose, call, remember, etc.” 87
3.2.1.22 Sumerian barag, bara(2, 5, 6), para(10), “seat of honor, chamber, etc.” 88
3.2.1.22.1 Sumerian par(6), para(10), etc. “seat of honor, king; dwelling” 88
3.2.1.22.2 Sumerian par(6), para(10), etc. “box, sack” 88
3.2.1.22.3 Sumerian par(6), para(10), etc. “penitential robe; comb” 88
3.2.1.23 Sumerian pa “leaf; bud” 88
3.2.1.24 Sumerian abzu “sea, abyss” 89

3.2.2 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /t ~ d/ 89

3.2.2.1 Sumerian di-di “to play” 89

iii
3.2.2.2 Sumerian tu(15) “wind” 89
3.2.2.3 Sumerian ada, ad “father; shout; song” 89
3.2.2.4 Sumerian ta, dá “characteristic, nature” 89
3.2.2.5 Sumerian da “arm; side” 90
3.2.2.5.1 Sumerian da “be near, nearness” 90
3.2.2.6 Sumerian taka, taga, tak, tag, tà “to touch; handle; strike, hunt, etc.” 90
3.2.2.6.1 Sumerian taka, taga “to touch, approach” 91
3.2.2.6.2 Sumerian taka, taga “to strike, hit, push” 91
3.2.2.6.3 Sumerian taka, taga “to hunt, to fish” 91
3.2.2.6.4 Sumerian taka, taga “to start a fire” 91
3.2.2.6.5 Sumerian te “to approach” 92
3.2.2.7 Sumerian tuš “home”; vb “to (cause to) dwell” 92
3.2.2.8 Sumerian tur “child; young” 92
3.2.2.8.1 Sumerian tur “child, young” 92
3.2.2.8.2 Sumerian tur “second in rank” 92
3.2.2.9 Sumerian tùr, tur(5) “birth-hut; byre; sheepfold” 93
3.2.2.10 Sumerian tur(5), tu “newborn; weakness” 93
3.2.2.10.1 Sumerian tu “be born, newborn” 93
3.2.2.10.2 Sumerian tur(5), tu “be sick; weakness; sickness; weak” 93
3.2.2.11 Sumerian ad(4) “lame, cripple” 93
3.2.2.12 Sumerian a-dùg “freshwater” 93
3.2.2.12.1 Sumerian dùg “gladness, sweetness; sweet, beautiful” 93
3.2.2.12.2 Sumerian dug “vagina” 93
3.2.2.13 Sumerian dug “to do” 94
3.2.2.14 Sumerian dumu “child; son; daughter” 94
3.2.2.15 Sumerian dú “to bear, give birth” 94
3.2.2.16 Sumerian dam “spouse (husband or wife)” 94
3.2.2.17 Sumerian dim “bond, tie; rope” 96
3.2.2.18 Sumerian dub “tablet; document”; vb “to move, heap, etc.” 96
3.2.2.18.1 Sumerian dub “to move in a circle; heap up, etc.” 96
3.2.2.18.2 Sumerian dub “to heap up, store” 96
3.2.2.18.3 Sumerian dub “to pour out” 97
3.2.2.18.4 Sumerian dub “to strew” 97
3.2.2.18.5 Sumerian dub “to dye (fabrics)” 97
3.2.2.18.6 Sumerian dub “(clay) tablet; document” 98
3.2.2.19 Sumerian dulbu “a kind of tree” 97
3.2.2.20 Sumerian ada, ad “song; shout” 98
3.2.2.21 Sumerian dar “francolin, pheasant” 98
3.2.2.22 Sumerian dul(2) “mound, heap, ruins, tell” 98
3.2.2.23 Sumerian duru(5), dur(5) “irrigated, moist” 99
3.2.2.24 Sumerian dumdam-ze “to grumble, rumble” 99

3.2.3 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /k ~ g/ 99

3.2.3.1 Sumerian gal “big, great, mighty; a large cup; eldest son; chief” 99

iv
 3.2.3.1.1 Sumerian gal “big, great, large, mighty” 99
3.2.3.1.2 Sumerian gal “a large cup” 99
3.2.3.1.3 Sumerian gal “chief” 99
3.2.3.1.4 Sumerian gal “eldest son” 100
3.2.3.2 Sumerian ab-gal “sage, wise man, wizard” 100
3.2.3.3 Sumerian lugal “king, master, owner” 101
3.2.3.4 Sumerian a-gal “overflow of flood waters” 102
3.2.3.5 Sumerian a “water” 102

3.2.3.6 Proto-World *Wa- “water” 103

3.2.3.6.1 Proto-World compound of {prefixed proot + *-Wa-} 105
3.2.3.6.1.1Proto-World *na-Wa- 105
3.2.3.6.1.2 Proto-World *ša’-Wa- 108
3.2.3.6.1.3 Proto-World *da’-Wa- ~ *ta’-Wa- 110
3.2.3.6.1.4 Proto-World *ma-Wa- 111
3.2.3.6.2 Proto-World compound of {*Wa- + suffixed proot} 113
3.2.3.6.2.1 Proto-World *Wa-r- 113
3.2.3.6.2.2 Proto-World *Wa-d/-t- 114
3.2.3.6.2.3 Proto-World *Wa-b/-p- 116
3.2.3.6.2.4 Proto-World *Wa-k/-g-(-ķ-) 118
3.2.3.6.3 Proto-World complex word: *da-(n)-naw- ~ *ta-(n)-naW- 120
3.2.3.6.4 Proto-World complex word: *na-W- plus *-d-/-t- 121
3.2.3.6.5 Proto-World complex word: *Wa + a liquid 122
3.2.3.6.6 Proto-World complex word: *na + *Wa- + -b/p- 123
3.2.3.7 Sumerian gabari “to confront” 123
3.2.3.7.1 Sumerian gaba “breast, chest” 124
3.2.3.7.2 Sumerian gabari “to confront” 124
3.2.3.7.3 Sumerian gabazi “to retreat” 125
3.2.3.8 Sumerian gùb-bu “left arm” 125
3.2.3.9 Sumerian gù “voice, noise, sound” 126
3.2.3.10 Sumerian igi “face, aspect, eye(s)” 127
3.2.3.10.1 Sumerian igi “face” 127
3.2.3.10.2 Sumerian igi “eye(s), glance, looks; front” 128
3.2.3.10.3 Sumerian igi “before, in front” 129
3.2.3.10.4 Sumerian ig “door” 129
3.2.3.11Sumerian gú, gíd “to stretch the neck; side, edge; front; district” 129
3.2.3.11.1 Sumerian gú, gíd “to stretch the neck” 129
3.2.3.11.2 Sumerian gú “river bank, side, edge” 130
3.2.3.11.3 Sumerian gú “front” 130
3.2.3.11.4 Sumerian gú “land, district” 130
3.2.3.12 Sumerian gun, gún, gú “back of a man's neck” 130
3.2.3.13 Sumerian gú-mar “to pile up” 130
3.2.3.14 Sumerian ki “earth; place; area” 130

v
 3.2.3.14.1 Sumerian ki-ri “to scratch the ground” 131
3.2.3.14.2 Sumerian kír “a large vessel; beer keg” 131
3.2.3.14.3 Sumerian ki-sum-ma “onion-growing land” 131
3.2.3.14.4 Sumerian ki-ùr “territory; living grounds” 131
3.2.3.14.5 Sumerian ki-za “to bow down, submit” 132
3.2.3.14.6 Sumerian kir, gir “cow or mare” 132
3.2.3.15 Sumerian kur “mountain; highland” 132
3.2.3.15.1 Sumerian kúr “stranger; enemy; hostility” 133
3.2.3.16 Sumerian kungal, gukkal “fat-tailed sheep” 133
3.2.3.17 Sumerian kir(11) “female lamb” 133
3.2.3.18 Sumerian káb “flaxen measuring string” 133
3.2.3.19 Sumerian gir(4), kir(13) “oven, kiln” 133
3.2.3.20 Sumerian gig “pain” 134
3.2.3.21 Sumerian gi(4), ge(4) “to return; send; reject; restore; answer” 134
3.2.3.21.1 Sumerian gi(4), ge(4) “to return, come back” 134
3.2.3.21.2 Sumerian gi(4), ge(4) “to reject, dislike” 134
3.2.3.21.3 Sumerian gi(4), ge(4) “to to restore” 135
3.2.3.21.4 Sumerian gi(4), ge(4) “to answer” 135
3.2.3.22 Sumerian gir(10), gi(9), ge(9) “anger, fury” 135
3.2.3.23 Sumerian kúm “heat; summer; fever”; vb “to heat”; adj. “hot” 135
3.2.3.23.1 Sumerian kug, kù “bright, white, pure” 135
3.2.3.23.2 Sumerian kúm “to heat; heat; summer; fever” 136
3.2.3.24 Sumerian ge “to be” 136
3.2.3.25 Sumerian aka, ak, ag, a(5) “to do, act; to place” 137
3.2.3.26 Sumerian gan “to bear” 137
3.2.3.27 Sumerian gi(4) “to besiege, surround; to lock up; circle” 137
3.2.3.28 Sumerian ku(6), kua “fish” 138
3.2.3.29 Sumerian kaba “to speak, talk, converse” 138
3.2.3.30 Sumerian gur, gir “to be, feel” 138
3.2.3.31 Sumerian gi(6)-an-na “at night” 138
3.2.3.32 Sumerian gú-šè “to the other side” 138
3.2.3.33 Sumerian gána, gán “tract of land, field parcel” 139
3.2.3.34 Sumerian kaš(4) “to run, travel, gallop” 139
3.2.3.35 Sumerian kaš(3) “to urinate” 139
3.2.3.36 Sumerian kar(2), kara(2), guru(6) “to encircle, to besiege” 139
3.2.3.37 Sumerian géme(2), ḡeme(2) “workwoman, female slave” 139
3.2.3.38 Sumerian gigir(2) “wheel(s), chariot” 139
3.2.3.39 Sumerian gu(2), gud, guř “bull” 139
3.2.3.40 Sumerian ku(2), gu(2) “to eat” 140
3.2.3.41 Sumerian gi(17) “young man” 140
3.2.3.42 Sumerian gi(4) “to besiege, surround; to lock up” 140

3.2.4 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with stop /’/ 140

3.2.4.1 Sumerian uš, ús “foundation” 141

vi
3.2.4.2 Sumerian ba “portion out” 147
3.2.4.3 Sumerian a-gig “bitter tears” 147
3.2.4.4 Sumerian agam “swamp” 147
3.2.4.5 Sumerian gam “to decline, incline” 147
3.2.4.6 Sumerian a-kúm “hot water” 147
3.2.4.7 Sumerian gú-è “to cover” 149
3.2.4.8 Sumerian du “to walk, go, come” 149
3.2.4.9 Sumerian lú “man, person” 149
3.2.4.10 Sumerian u(3, 4)-da “if” 150

3.3 Sumerian fricatives 150

3.3.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /ħ/ 150
3.3.1.1 Sumerian har, (àr, ur(5)) “millstone; ring; link; small, young” 150
3.3.1.1.1 Sumerian har, (àr, ur(5)) “small, young” 150
3.3.1.1.2 Sumerian har “coil or spiral of silver” 150
3.3.1.2 Sumerian hur “hole; limb, stem” 151
3.3.1.2.1 Sumerian hur “to dig, to scratch” 151
3.3.1.3 Sumerian he, hi “to mix” 151
3.3.1.4 Sumerian húb, húp “acrobat, athlete” 151
3.3.1.5 Sumerian hul(3) “evil”; vb “to destroy” 151
3.3.1.6 Sumerian Sumerian dih “sickness, fever, torpidity” 152
3.3.1.7 Sumerian hub “recess, hole, pit” 152
3.3.1.8 Sumerian haš “lower abdomen, loins, back, upper thigh, buttocks” 152
3.3.1.9 Sumerian hal “to separate, split apart, make an opening, pierce” 152
3.3.1.10 Sumerian huš “be angry” 152
3.3.1.11 Sumerian habrud “animal burrow; pit, hole” 152
3.3.1.12 Sumerian nihuš “terrifying, powerful” 152

3.3.1.13 Did Sumerian have /γ/ 153

3.3.2 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /h/ 153

3.3.2.1 Sumerian é “house, household” 155
3.3.2.2 Sumerian ní, ne(4) “fear, frightfulness, awe, respect” 155
3.3.2.3 Sumerian mah adj. “high, exalted, great” 156
3.3.2.4 Sumerian máh an adjective for ‘cows’ 156
3.3.2.5 Sumerian hé “let it become, let there be” 157
3.3.2.6 Sumerian ugar(2, 3) “field” 157
3.3.2.7 Sumerian haš, haz, haš “to break or cut off; to thresh grain” 158
3.3.2.8 Sumerian hu “bird” 158
3.3.2.9 Sumerian huš “to be angry” 158
3.3.2.10 Sumerian dalhamun(4) “confusion, disorder” 158

3.3.3 Pre-Sumerian /ђ/ 158

3.3.3.1 Sumerian he(2) “abundance; abundant” 158

vii
3.3.3.2 Sumerian é-tùr “cattle pen” 158
3.3.3.3 Sumerian luh, làh “to wash; to be fresh” 159
3.3.3.4 Sumerian uru(4), ur(11), -ru “to plow, till, cultivate” 159
3.3.3.5 Sumerian uru(16) “valiant, strong, mighty” 159
3.3.3.6 Sumerian ùš “placental membrane, afterbirth” 159
3.3.3.7 Sumerian lá “to have a beard; to accuse” 159
3.3.3.7.1 Sumerian lá “to have a beard” 159
3.3.3.7.2 Sumerian lá “to accuse, denounce” 160

3.3.3.8 Sumerian é-kur “prison” 160

3.3.3.9 Sumerian ér, ír “lamentation; tears” 160
3.3.3.10 Sumerian me(3,6,7,9) “battle” 160
3.3.3.11 Sumerian mer(2), mir(2); gùr “north(wind), storm” 160
3.3.3.11.1 Sumerian mer(2), mir(2); gùr “north, north wind” 160
3.3.3.11.2 Sumerian mer(2), mir; gùr “storm wind, violent storm” 161
3.3.3.12 Sumerian suh “diadem, crown, crest” 161
3.3.3.13 Sumerian háš; haš(4) “lower abdomen; loins” 161
3.3.3.14 Sumerian lah, àh; uh “to dry up; to dry” 161
3.3.3.14.1 Sumerian lah, àh, uh “to sparkle, shine” 161
3.3.3.15 Sumerian alim “wild ram; bison; aurochs” 161
3.3.3.16 Sumerian áma, am “wild ox or cow”161
3.3.3.17 Sumerian hal-hal-la “slanderer”; “dissolved, completely destroyed” 161
3.3.3.18 Sumerian hada “to shine brightly” 161
3.3.3.19 Sumerian hili “beauty” 162
3.3.3.20 Sumerian alal “pipe, conduit, gutter” 162
3.3.3.21 Sum. anše “ donkey; ass” 162
3.3.3.22 Sumerian ú “plant, vegetable, grass, pasture; food, bread” 162
3.3.3.23 Sumerian ama(4, 5), ame(2) “woman’s quarters” 162

3.3.4 Pre-Sumerian /‛/ 162

3.3.4.1 Sumerian á “arm” 162
3.3.4.2 Sumerian ir(10) “to accompany” 162
3.3.4.3 Sumerian ir(10) “to lead (away)” 162
3.3.4.4 Sumerian ir(10), er “to bring” 163
3.3.4.5 Sumerian ir(10) “to go; to drive along or away” 163
3.3.4.6 Sumerian úr “thighs, leg(s); root, trunk of a tree, floor” 163
3.3.4.6.1 Sumerian úr “thighs, leg(s)” 163
3.3.4.6.2 Sumerian úr “root, trunk of a tree” also “floor, base” 163
3.3.4.7 Sumerian a-ri-a, a-ru-a “district; desert, waste land” 164
3.3.4.8 Sumerian il(2), ila(2) “to lift, to be high” 164
3.3.4.9 Sumerian erin “cedar tree, wood” 164
3.3.4.10 Sumerian e(11) “to rise; to descend” 164
3.3.4.11 Sumerian u(8) “adult female sheep” 164
3.3.4.12 Sumerian uga, ugu(2) “raven, crow” 165

viii
3.3.5 Sumerian /s/ and its Hamito-Semitic correspondent 165
3.3.5.1 Sumerian si, su, sa, sa(5) “to fill up, to inundate” 165
3.3.5.2 Sumerian si, su, sa, sa(5) “grow weak” 166
3.3.5.3 Sumerian su “empty” 166
3.3.5.4 Sumerian si “to stand upright, to be straight; line” 166
3.3.5.4.1 Sumerian sisi “horse” 166
3.3.5.4.2 Sumerian si “line” 166
3.3.5.5 Sumerian su “to spread” 167
3.3.5.6 Sumerian sa(10) “to be equivalent; to buy” 167
3.3.5.7 Sumerian si-ig, si(-g) “to silence, strike down; level”; “silent; weak” 167
3.3.5.7.1 Sumerian si-ig, si(-g) “to silence; silent” 167
3.3.5.7.2 Sumerian si-ig, si(-g) “to strike down” 168
3.3.5.7.3 Sumerian si-ig, si(-g) “level” 168
3.3.5.7.4 Sumerian si-ig, si(-g) “weak” 168
3.3.5.8 Sumerian sig-sig “narrow” 168
3.3.5.9 Sumerian sig(5, .9), sag(10) “(to be) mild, sweet, good; of fine quality” 168
3.3.5.10 Sumerian sigga, šeg(8, 9) “snow” 168
3.3.5.11 Sumerian má-su(-a) “sunken boat” 169
3.3.5.12 Sumerian sa(4)”to name; to call by name” 169
3.3.5.13 Sumerian sig(7), se(12) (-g), sa(7) (-g) “to let live; to create; to live” 169
3.3.5.14 Sumerian sar, šar “vegetables”; vb “to write; to begin; run, etc.” 170
3.3.5.14.1 Sumerian sar, šar “to write” 170
3.3.5.14.2 Sumerian sar, šar “to begin” 170
3.3.5.14.3 Sumerian sar, šar “to make hurry, run” 170
3.3.5.14.4 Sumerian sar, šar “vegetables” 170
3.3.5.15 Sumerian sám, šám, sa10 “(barter) purchase” 170
3.3.5.16 Sumerian sa(9) “half” 171
3.3.5.17 Sumerian gi-sa, gi(16)-sa (-a), gi(16) “parched wheat” 171
3.3.5.18 Sumerian su “body; flesh; skin; animal hide” 171
3.3.5.19 Sumerian sun(5), su(16) “humble, with bowed head” 171
3.3.5.20 Sumerian sun(2) “a wild cow” 171
3.3.5.21 Sumerian sig(2), sik(2) “hair” 172

3.3.6 Sumerian /š/ and its Hamito-Semitic correspondent 172

3.3.6.1 Sumerian ša “to dry up” 172
3.3.6.2 Sumerian še “grain, corn, barley” 172
3.3.6.3 Sumerian še(10) “excrement, dung” 173
3.3.6.4 Sumerian šà-sur “to have diarrhea” 173
3.3.6.5 Sumerian ša(5) “to cut, break (reeds)” 174
3.3.6.6 Sumerian šìr, šur “song”; vb “to sing” 174
3.3.6.7 Sumerian šar(8) “to explain, interpret” 174
3.3.6.8 Sumerian šen šen “combat, strife” 174
3.3.6.9 Sumerian še sa “roasted” 174
3.3.6.10 Sumerian šè “portion” also “as far as, up to, to” 175

ix
3.3.6.11 Sumerian šu bar “to release, let loose” 175
3.3.6.12 Sumerian šu-a-la “paralyzed” 176
3.3.6.13 Sumerian šu-ḡal(2) “to hold by the hand” 176
3.3.5.14 Sumerian šu-tag “to decorate” 176
3.3.6.15 Sumerian še (3, 7) , še(7) “rain; to rain” 176
3.3.6.16 Sumerian kuš, kus “skin, hide, leather” 177
3.3.6.17 Sumerian kiši(4) “half; forelock” 177
3.3.6.18 Sumerian kaš(4), kas(4) “to run fast; to gallop; to travel fast” 177
3.3.6.19 Sumerian kúš “to be tired; to be out of breath; to worry” 177
3.3.6.20 Sumerian kaš, kás “alcoholic beverage, beer” 177
3.3.6.21 Sumerian aš, aš-a “(number) one” 177

3.3.7 Sumerian /z/ and its Hamito-Semitic correspondent 177

3.3.7.1 Sumerian zu, sú “wisdom, knowledge”; “to know; to understand” 178
3.3.7.1.1 Sumerian zu, sú “wisdom, knowledge” 178
3.3.7.1.2 Sumerian zu, sú “to know” 178
3.3.7.2 Sumerian sú, zu is nu-zu “ignorant” 178
3.3.7.3 Sumerian nu-zu-a “unknown” 178
3.3.7.4 Sumerian azu, úzu, zu(5) “physician, doctor” 179
3.3.7.5 Sumerian izi “fire” 180
3.3.7.6 Sumerian uzu(5) “evening, sunset” 180
3.3.7.7 Sumerian ezinu “grain, cereal; the deity Ašnan” 181
3.3.7.7.1 Sumerian ezinu “the deity Ašnan” 181
3.3.7.8 Sumerian zal, zalag, zalah “brightness, light” 181
3.3.7.9 Sumerian: Emesal ze(2)ed “to hit, beat”; Emegir tud(2) 181

3.4 Sumerian nasal consonants 181

3.4.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /m/ 182
3.4.1.1 Sumerian má “boat” 182
3.4.1.2 Sumerian ma(4): to leave, depart” 182
3.4.1.3 Sumerian maš, máš “interest” 182
3.4.1.4 Sumerian umu, um “wise or skillful teacher” 182
3.4.1.5 Sumerian mí, mu(10), munus “woman; female” 183
3.4.1.6 Sumerian máh is an adjective for cows 183
3.4.1.7 Sumerian mu(5) “well-formed, beautiful” 183
3.4.1.8 Sumerian múš-dub “comb” 183
3.4.1.9 Sumerian maš “young male goat, goat” 183
3.4.1.10 Sumerian mušen “bird” 184
3.4.1.11 Sumerian mù, ma(5) “to burn, to mill, grind” 184
3.4.1.12 Sumerian múd “blood” 184
3.4.1.13 Sumerian ma(3); ḡá: “to go” 184
3.4.1.14 Sumerian eme “speech, tongue” 186
3.4.1.15 Sumerian méli, míli, ḡèle, ḡìli “throat, pharynx; voice” 186
3.4.1.16 Sumerian mel(3) “scorching” 186

x
3.4.1.17 Sumerian tam(2), tamu(2, 3) “to obtain; fit; deliver, cary out” 186
3.3.1.18 Sumerian mer(2), mir(2) “belt, waistband” 186
3.3.1.19 Sumerian mana, mina, man, mìn “partner; companion” 187
3.3.1.20 Sumerian muš “snake” 187
3.3.1.21 Sumerian mes, meš “son, prince, young man” 187
3.3.1.22 Sumerian mes, meš “hackberry tree; nettle tree” 187

3.4.2 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /n/ 187

3.4.2.1 Sum. en(2, 3) “time” 187
3.4.2.2 Sumerian na(4), na “pebble, rock” 188
3.4.2.3 Sumerian na(5) “chest, box” 188
3.4.2.4 Sumerian mina, min(5, 6) “two; second” 188
3.4.2.5 Sumerian nè, ní “strength, vigor” 188
3.4.2.6 Sumerian nu “image, likeness” 188
3.4.2.7 Sumerian an “sky, the god An” also “grain ear”; prep. “in front” 188
3.4.2.7.1 Sumerian an “to be high”; adj. “high” 188
3.4.2.7.2 Sumerian an prep. “in front” 189
3.4.2.8 Sumerian na “human being” emphatic in past 189
3.4.2.9 Sumerian na: modal prefix, emphatic in past tense; prohibitive 190
3.4.2.10 Sumerian en “dignitary; lord; high priest, noble” 190
3.4.2.10.1 Sumerian en adj. “noble” 190
3.4.2.11 Sumerian nu(11) “light; fire, lamp” 190
3.4.2.12 Sumerian nir “prince, lord” 191
3.4.2.13 Sumerian nír “a precious stone” 191

3.4.3 Sumerian /ḡ/ 191

3.4.3.1 Sumerian gíg, ḡíg, ku(10), gi(25) “night” 193
3.4.3.2 Sumerian ḡiri(5), ḡir(5) “stranger; refugee”; vb “to run; to seek refuge” 193
3.4.3.2.1 Sumerian ḡiri(5), ḡir(5) “stranger, refugee” 193
3.4.3.2.2 Sumerian ḡiri(5), ḡir(5) vb “to run” also “to seek refuge” 194
3.4.3.3 Sumerian ḡánun “storage area” 194
3.4.3.4 Sumerian ḡar “to establish, set down, place” 194
3.4.3.5 Sumerian ḡir(5)-ra “courier” 195
3.4.3.6 Sumerian ḡiri(2, 3), ḡir(2, 3) “booty; captive” 195
3.4.3.7 Sumerian ḡi(6) sá “stay to midnight” 195
3.4.3.8 Sumerian ḡir(2) “scorpion” also “sword, knife, razor, thorn” 195
3.4.3.8.1 Sumerian ḡir(2) “scorpion” 195
3.4.3.8.2 Sumerian ḡir(2) “sword, knife, razor” 195
3.4.3.9 Sumerian ḡír-dù “to cut off” 195
3.4.3.10 Sumerian ḡír-zal “scalpel” 196
3.4.3.11 Sumerian níḡ-ra: “to throw something; to beat (up)” 196
3.4.3.12 Sumerian hur-saḡ “mountain” 196
3.4.3.13 Sumerian ḡiš, ḡeš “tree; wood; stick” 196
3.4.3.14 Sumerian ḡá “box, basket” 197

xi
3.4.3.15 Sumerian ḡèle, ḡìli, míli, méli, mél, mèl “throat, pharynx; voice” 197
3.4.3.16 Sumerian si-ḡar “door lock; clamp; neck-stock for captives” 199
3.4.3.17 Sumerian aḡi(6) “flood” 199
3.4.3.18 Sumerian naḡa(3, 4) “to crush, to break” 199

3.5 Sumerian /r/ 199

3.5.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /r/ 199
3.5.1.1 Sumerian šar(2), sar(2) “totality, all” 199
3.5.1.2 Sumerian uru(2), iri, rí; iri(11) “city, town, village, district” 200
3.5.1.3 Sumerian: gúr “sphere; circle, ring; loop” 200
3.5.1.4 Sumerian ùru “watch fire; light; glowing” 201
3.5.1.5 Sumerian ur(2,3,4) “to surround; to flood” 202
3.5.1.6 Sumerian ùr “roof; entrance; mountain pass; beam” 202
3.5.1.7 Sumerian ur(5) “liver; spleen; heart, soul; main body; foundation” 202
3.5.1.7.1 Sumerian ur(5) “foundation” 202
3.5.1.8 Sumerian ur “dog; carnivorous beast; servant; young man, warrior” 202
3.5.1.8.1 Sumerian ur “dog; carnivorous beast” 203
3.5.1.8.2 Sumerian ur “warrior” 203
3.5.1.8.3 Sumerian ur “enemy, young man” 203
3.5.1.9 Sumerian uru (2, ,5, 18) “thunderstorm, devastating flood” 203
3.5.1.10 Sumerian ra “inundation” 203
3.5.1.11 Sumerian ra-ra “to flatten; to make wide” 204
3.5.1.12 Sumerian dar(4), dara(4) “blood” 204
3.5.1.13 Sumerian ra-gi(4) “to thunder” 204
3.5.1.14 Sumerian rab(3), rap “fetter, shackle, ring, clamp” 204
3.5.1.15 Sumerian šur, sur “to rain, to flow” 204
3.5.1.16 Sumerian šer, ser(4) “testicle(s)” 205

3.6 Sumerian /l/ 205

3.6.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /l/ 205
3.6.1.1 Sumerian ul “ancient, enduring; remote; flower; to glitter, shine, etc.” 205
3.6.1.1.1 Sumerian ul “ancient, enduring; remote, distant (in time)” 205
3.6.1.1.2 Sumerian ul “to glitter, shine” also “star” 205
3.6.1.1.3 Sumerian ul “flower, bud” 206
3.6.1.1.4 Sumerian ul “ornament” 206
3.6.1.2 Sumerian húl, úl “joy” 206
3.6.1.2.1 Sumerian húl, úl “joy, pleasure, satisfaction” 206
3.6.1.2.2 Sumerian úl in sil “pleasure, joy, bliss” 206
3.6.1.3 Sumerian ul “to be quick; to hurry, hasten” 207
3.6.1.4 Sumerian limmu(2,4,5), lím “four” 207
3.6.1.5 Sumerian má-lá “cargo boat” 209
3.6.1.6 Sumerian dal “a large, wide-mouthed jar for oil” 209
3.6.1.7 Sumerian galdi “mighty judge” 210
3.6.1.8 Sumerian lú-di-da “opposing party (in a legal case)” 210

xii
3.6.1.9 Sumerian li “juniper, cedar tree” 210
3.6.1.10 Sumerian pala(2, 3) “vestments, clothing; robe” 210
3.6.1.11 Sumerian gala, ga(14) “vagina” 210
3.6.1.12 Sumerian la-e “weak, cripple, bound” 210

3.7 Sumerian /ř/ (or /dř/) 211

3.7.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic possible cognates with /ř/ 211

3.8 Sumerian glides 212

3.8.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /y/ 212
3.8.1.1 Sumerian è “go out” 212
3.8.1.2 Sumerian imi, im, em “clay, loam, mud” 213
3.8.1.3 Sumerian áb “cow” also “middle” 213
3.8.1.4 Sumerian di “lawsuit, case; judgment” 213

3.8.2 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /w/ 213

3.8.2.1 Sumerian ús, úz “side, edge; distance” 213
3.8.2.2 Sumerian u(3, 4, 8) “cries, screams, battle” 214
3.8.2.3 Sumerian ri “to throw, expel; pour; blow; beget; plan, remove, etc.” 214
3.8.2.3.1 Sumerian ri “throw, throw away, cast, expel” 214
3.8.2.3.2 Sumerian ri “to inundate, pour” 215
3.8.2.3.3 Sumerian ri “to beget”” 215
3.8.2.3.4 Sumerian ri “to blow, said of a storm” 215
3.8.2.3.5 Sumerian ri “to moor a boat” 214
3.8.2.3.6 Sumerian ri “to plan something” 214
3.8.2.3.7 Sumerian ri “to place” 215
3.8.2.3.8 Sumerian ri “to remove” 215
3.8.2.4 Sumerian adda(4), ád “to send; to drive away” 215
3.8.2.5 Sumerian ù “and” 216
3.8.2.6 Sumerian alulu “woe” 216
3.8.2.7 Sumerian ua, ua ua “woe” 217
3.8.2.8 Sumerian ḡi(6)-di “to pass the night” 217

3.9 Sumerian vowel system 217

CHAPTER FOUR
SUMERIAN AND HAMITO-SEMITIC GRAMMARS 219
4.1 Introduction 219

4.2 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic: Plural markers 221

4.2.1 The noun 221
4.2.1.1 Sumerian [e-ne ~ -ne] = HS w-n- 221
4.2.1.2 Syntactic features of Sumerian and HS nouns 222

xiii
4.2.2 Reduplication of nouns in Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic 223
4.2.2.1 Reduplication and duality 224
4.2.3 Other methods for indicating plurality 224

4.2.4 Reduplication of Adjectives 227

4.2.5 Reduplication of verbs 227

4.3 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic gender systems 228

4.3.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic interrogatives 229

4.4 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic causatives 230

4.5 Sumerian Cases 231

4.5.1 Sumerian genitive -ak/-ag 231
4.5.2 Sumerian dative -r(a) 234
4.5.3 Sumerian terminative -š(e) 234
4.5.4 Sumerian adverbiative –eš 234
4.5.5 Sumerian locative case –a 234
4.5.6 Sumerian comitative –da 235
4.5.7 Sumerian equative -gim, -kim 235
4.5.8 Sumerian ablative case prefix -ra- 236

4.6 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic negatives 236

4.6.1 Sumerian nu 236
4.6.2 Sumerian nan 237
4.6.3 Sumerian bara 237
4.6.4 Sumerian la- and li- 237

4.7 Sumerian non-negative preformative [na] 237

4.8 Other grammatical elements 238
4.9 Sumerian and Semitic religions 239

REFERENCES 243

xiv
 Hamito-Semitic Languages
Akk. = Akkadian
Aram. = Aramaic
Assyr. = Assyrian
B = Biblical
BAram. = Biblical Aramaic
Berb. = Berber language division
BHeb. = Biblical Hebrew
CA = Classical Arabic
Chad. = Chadic language division
Can. = Canaanite
Cush. = Cushitic language division
DA = Aramaic texts from deir ‛Alla
E. = Epigraphic (before a language name as in EHeb = Epigraphic Hebrew)
Egyp. = Old Egyptian
ESA = Epigraphic South Arabian
Eth. = Ethiopic or Ge’ez
Heb. = Hebrew
HS = Hamito-Semitic
JAram. = Jewish Aramaic
JP = Judaic Palestinian Aramaic
Mand. = Mandaic
MSA = Modern Standard Arabic
NWS = North-west Semitic
O = Old (before a language name)
OAram. = Old Aramaic
OffAram. = Official Aramaic
Palm. = Palmyrenean
PHS = Proto-Hamito-Semitic
Phoen. = Phoenician
Pun. = Punic
SA = South Arabian
Sab. = Sabaean
Sem. = Semitic language division
Syr. = Syriac
Tham. = Thamudian
Ug. = Ugaritic

Indo-European Languages
Av. = Avestan
Br. = Breton

xv
Gaul. = Gaulish
Goth. = Gothic
Grm. = Germanic (for general Germanic)
Grk = Greek
Hitt. = Hittite
IE = Indo-European
Ir. = Irish
Lat. = Latin
Let. = Lettish or Latvia
Lith. = Lithuanian
M. = Middle (before a language name as in MIr = Middle Irish, etc.)
O = Old (before a language name)
OCS = Old Church Slavic
OE = Old English
OHG = Old High German
OIr. = Old Irish
ON = Old Norse
OPers. = Old Persian
Skt. = Sanskrit
Toch. = Tocharian
W. = Welsh

Abbreviations for Some Dictionaries and References

DHSR = Decomposition of Hamito-Semitic roots into their ultimate primeval
components: Including deep comparative studies of Hamito-Semitic and Indo-
European and Hamito-Semitic and Sino-Tibetan on all levels of structure. El
Rabih Makki.

DRS = Dictionnaire des Racine Sémitiques. David Cohen.

EG = Egyptian Grammar. Alan Gardiner.

EHD = Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, 2 Volumes. E. A. Wallis Budge.

HAS = Hamito-Semitic and Austronesian language families: Obvious genetic

relatedness. El Rabih Makki.

HED = Harari Etymological Dictionary. Wolf Leslau.

HSED = Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vladimir E. Orel and Olga V.

Stolbova.

IECD = An Indo-European Comparative Dictionary. Stuart E. Mann.

xvi
LA = Lisān Al Arab, a Classical Arabic dictionary, 4 Volumes. Jamāl Ad Dīn Ibin
Manḏūr

NWSI = Dictionary of the North-West Semitic inscriptions, 2 Volumes. J. Hoftijzer and

K. Jongeling.
OT = Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. William Gesenius.

SS = A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. Carl

D. Buck.

VPHS = Sur le Vocabulaire et la Phonetique du Chamito-Semitique. Marcel Cohen.

WP = Walde, Alois and Pokorny, Julius. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indo-

germanischen Sprachen.

Grammatical terminology
and
other abbreviations and symbols
acc. = accusative
adj. = adjective
arch. = archaic
C = class or stem of verbs as in CA CI kataba, CII kattaba, CIII kātaba, etc.
C = consonant
caus. = causative
coll. = collective
dial. = dialect(s), dialectal
du. = dual
ed. = editor
e.g. = for example
ext. = extension
f. = following, pl. ff., after a page number or section number
fem. = feminine
gen. = general as in gen. Sem. = general Semitic
gen. = genitive
Hadith = sayings, correspondence and speeches of the Prophet and other leading men in
early Islam
ibid. = in the same work
id. = the same meaning
i.e = that is
imp.= imperative
imperf. = imperfect tense
ind. = indicative
inf. = infinitive
inst. = instrumental
xvii
intrans. = intransitive
lit. = literal(ly)
masc. = masculine
n. = noun
n. = number, numbers
nom. = nominative
orig. = origin(al)(-ly)
part. = participle
pass. = passive
perf. = perfect tense
pers. = personal
pl. = plural
prep. = preposition
pron. = pronoun, pronominal
proot = p(rimeval) root. It is the ultimate primeval ‘unit of sound and meaning’ that was
first used by our remotest ancestors before the dispersion of languages and the
development of what we call ‘root or word-base’.
r. = root, roots
redupl. = reduplication
sg. = singular
trans. = transitive
transl. = translated
v. = vowel
vb = verb
vd = voiced
vl. = voiceless
vs = versus
* = asterisk, used before a linguistic form to indicate that the form is unattested.
W = unidentified semivowel /y, w, or ’/
= signifies, has the same meaning as, corresponds to
> develops into, becomes
< comes from, is derived from
~ variant of, alternates with
; = a derivative of, derives into as in kataba “write”; kattaba “make one write”
ˉ = macron, a sign of vowel length
Ø = zero
( ) = anything between parentheses can be dropped.

xviii
 PREFACE
Man has preserved intact one obvious trace unveiling his origin; it is
language. If this origin is not found in Hamito-Semitic, it will never be
found elsewhere.

The present research is a continuation of two earlier works: Decomposition of

Hamito-Semitic roots into their ultimate primeval components: Including deep
comparative studies of Hamito-Semitic and Indo-European and Hamito-Semitic
and Sino-Tibetan on all levels of structure and Hamito-Semitic and Austronesian
language families: Obvious genetic relatedness. Its aim is to conclusively
demonstrate a genetic relationship between Hamito-Semitic and Sumerian, the
two linguistically earliest attested language families in the world. Both language
families are strikingly similar to each others on all linguistic levels: phonology,
morphology, lexicon and grammar. Much more important than the just cited
levels is the conspicuous fact that they share in common, together with world’s
language families, the stock of proots inherited from their common ancestor.
What is ‘a proot’, one may ask?
A proot is the ultimate primeval ‘unit of sound and meaning’ that was first used
by our remotest ancestors before the dispersion of languages and the development
of what we call ‘root or word-base’. It is is an indivisible or atomic entity
representing the deepest phonological and semantic structures underlying tens up
to hundreds of words found in a scattered manner in world’s languages. Sumerian,
for instance, has over 50 compound and complex words based on lu(2) “man”.
Hence, all languages are supposed to preserve the proot. As it will plainly be
shown in this research from cognates drawn from world’s languages, there is no
human language that has lost visible traces of the proot. Another marked
characteristic of the proot is that it expresses a general meaning such as ‘water’,
‘light’, ‘food’, ‘tree’, and ‘mountain’. In our earnest search for proots, copious
evidence will show that what we recognize as Sumerian roots are in their
overwhelming majority mere compounds and complex words. This is evidence
that Sumerian had undergone extensive changes in prehistoric times before it died
out.

1
 On the other hand, a root is a divisible entity and, from its very first inception,
includes a number of elements combined together, i.e. a compound or complex
word consisting of a proot combined with another proot or with grammatical
elements and expresses a very special meaning such as ‘salty water’, ‘light of the
sun’, ‘flesh-food”, and “top of the mountain”. The relation between the nature of
the thing or idea language deals with and the root by which it is expressed is
definitely arbitrary. Unlike the underlying proot, not all the roots are common to
all language families; each family has preserved some of them.

N.B. For unquestionable evidence on what has been said so far concerning the
distinction between ‘proot’ and ‘root’ and their presence in world’s language families,
see, for example, §§3.2.3.6; 3.2.4.1, 3.2.1.8 below.

Sumerian has a few roots and very numerous compound and complex words.
Its roots are by and large invariable and its basic lexical unit is the compound and
complex words rather than the individual word as in other languages. The
following examples give an idea about the complexity of Sumerian vocabulary:
lú(2) šar(2) “numerous individuals, myriads”, a compound consisting of
lu(2) “men, people” + šar(2) “be many; totality” {< “be many” + “ring”}
dilidu-a “individual, walking alone”, a complex word including
dili “alone” + du “to walk” + -a nominative
mangaga “palm fiber”, consisting of
man “partner” + gag “peg, nail” + a(k) genitive case
gi(2) anna “at night”, a complex word consisting of
gi(2) “black” + -an “heaven”+ na locative
lú(2) kaš(4) “courier”, a compound of
lu(2) “man” + kaš(4) “fast runner”
Such unusual complexity of Sumerian vocabulary requires a special
comparative technique or approach to cope effectively with it and pay equal
attention to both roots and compound and complex words. Accordingly, to prove
that Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic are genetically related, we will plainly show
on the vocabulary level that Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic share in common not
only the very same roots, but also the compound and complex words as well as
the constituent elements of such compound and complex words. There are,
however, some cases where phonotactic constraints do not permit certain sound
sequences in Hamito-Semitic and there are also constraints on the number of
consonants that can occur in a Hamito-Semitic word. For example, while Hamito-
Semitic has the constituent elements of the Sumerian compound lu(2)šar(2) above
(§§ 3.2.3.3 & 3.5.1.1 below), the word itself cannot occur in Hamito-Semitic for
phonotactic consideration. With the notable exception of phonotactic constraints

2
in Hamito-Semitic, with Sumerian long complex words and cultural terms, it can
be said that the two families share in common the same ancestral stock of words,
together with their underlying proots.
The striking similarities between Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic is not confined
to phonology and lexicon, but also extend to grammar. Chapter Four shows that
both share the most essential and primeval grammatical elements and that the
differences between them is similar to differences found between related
languages. All grammatical similarities between Sumerian and Akkadian
previously mentioned by scholars have been completely ignored in this research
whose basic and sole aim is to discover new facts. Hence, it is abundant with new
discoveries on the grammatical level. One of the marvelous discoveries is that
Sumerian shares in common with Hamito-Semitic the formation of the passive
voice and past participle; another the methods of forming plural nouns (e.g.
ablauted plurals and all others); some others the causative affixes {’a-, ša-, and
da-}, etc. In addition, most of the Sumerian cases are found in Hamito-Semitic as
either cases, especially the genitive case [-ak], or prepositions performing
functions identical with their Sumerian counterparts.

The three other chapters of this research study in depth the following topics:
1) Chapter One presents a sketch of the Hamito-Semitic linguistic family and
an adequate account of its grammatical structure necessary for any comparative
study involving it, with emphasis on ‘causative affixes’ since they are also found
in Sumerian and other language families. A new discovery in this chapter is that
long vowels are originally proots (not phonemes) having definite grammatical
functions. It will be left for the evidence presented in favor of this discovery to
give its final word.

2) Chapter Two offers a brief account of Sumerian; its dialects, writing system,
and typological classification. For what concerns Sumerian dialects, concrete
evidence shows that differences between Emesal and Emegir are, in contrast to
the common belief, inherited from Proto-Sumerian. As to typological
classification of languages, the introduction of ‘proot’ as a criterion and the
demonstration that almost all roots of agglutinative and isolating languages are
from earlier compound and complex words, compels us to reconsider our
definitions and classifications of languages. The Chapter also explains why
proposals for linguistic affinities between Sumerian and other language families
(e.g. Dravidian, Munda, Basque, Ural-Altaic, Hungarian, Sino-Tibetan, Dené-
Caucasian, etc.) have failed.

3) Chapter Three includes a comparative study of Sumerian and Hamito-

Semitic sounds and words and is full to the brim with astonished discoveries
supported by hard evidence. Most of Sumerian roots and compound/complex

3
words are compared with their Hamito-Semitic counterparts and found to be the
same phonetically and semantically. Attention is paid to Sumerian polysemes (a
polyseme is a word with multiple senses or meanings) and each sense is examined
in depth to make sure whether it is related to other senses expressed by the same
polyseme.
The most surprising discovery about Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic, however,
is that both follow the very same syntactic method in the formation of compound
and complex words. This prominent linguistic feature also holds true for all
world’s languages (see §3.2.3.6 below) and provides indisputable evidence that
such words are inherited from their common ancestor. I often use in this chapter
data from world’s languages extracted from both references and Swadesh lists for
languages and language families (both are cited in the bibliography) to support a
point under discussion or to prove that the entire world’s languages share
common tendencies in their historical evolution.
I have benefited from all works on Sumerian cited in the bibliography.
However, to enable the readers to check the Sumerian data, I confined myself to
two references: John Halloran’s Sumerian lexicon: A dictionary guide to the
ancient Sumerian language. I used this valuable and indispensible reference for
any student of Sumerian in tracing Sumerian compound and complex words into
their ingredient elements. The other reference is Abraham-Hendrik Jagersma’s A
Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian, whose detailed and accurate description of
Sumerian, especially its grammar, has greatly enriched my knowledge of the
language.
The discovery that Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic are genetically related and
the inclusion in this research of data from nearly all world’s language families for
the basic and indispensable terms open up a window on prehistory by showing
how language was created by man proot by proot, word by word and compound
by compound as his needs demand. Copious evidence shows that visible traces of
proots created are preserved by all languages, while compounds are found in a
scattered manner in world’s languages.

4
CHAPTER ONE

HAMITO-SEMITIC LANGUAGE FAMILY

1.1 Hamito-Semitic languages

The Hamito-Semitic family of languages, also called Afrasian or Afro-Asiatic
because of the geographic distribution of its language divisions in western Asian
and Africa, is linguistically the most important of all language families since it
has the longest recorded linguistic documents of any language family, extending
from the 4th millennium BC to the present. The earliest written document of
Hamito-Semitic is an Egyptian inscription dates back to 3400 BC (5400 years
ago), a date around which most proto-languages of the world’s language families
are conjectured to have been spoken. Semitic languages are also attested in
written form from an early date, with Akkadian and Eblaite texts appearing about
the third millennium BC in Mesopotamia and Syria respectively. Ablaite, or
Ablan, named after the ancient city of Ebla in western modern Syria, is known
from about 15,000 clay cuneiform tablets.
The common ancestral language from which all Hamito-Semitic languages are
assumed to have descended is called Proto-Hamito-Semitic. Before its speakers
began to leave their homeland and migrate to their present locations, Proto-
Hamito-Semitic had been spoken in a limited area at some time in the remote

5
past. Opinions as to the cradle-land of Proto-Hamito-Semitic and to the time at
which it was spoken differ widely. The home has been localized in North Africa,
in the Sahara Desert, in Central Arabia, etc. The consensus of opinion, however,
favors Arabia as the homeland of the Semitic peoples and North Africa of the
Hamitic peoples, while the homeland of Proto-Hamito-Semitic is still a
controversy. Similarly, scholars’ estimates of the date at which Proto-Hamito-
Semitic was spoken fall within a range between 7500 BC and 16000 BC. On the
other hand, while the Hamito-Semitic family as a whole is widely accepted and
well-established, the internal classification of branches and sub-branches within it
is still controversial.
As the compound term ‘Hamito-Semitic’ may suggest, the whole family is
traditionally divided into two major groups of languages: Semitic and Hamitic,
with each comprising a number of language divisions.

1.1.1 Semitic languages

The Semitic languages are a group of closely related languages spoken natively
by more than 450 million people across much of western Asia, North Africa, and
the Horn of Africa. It is traditionally divided into three subgroups: North-East
(Akkadian), North-West (Canaanite and Aramaic), and South-West (North
Arabic, South Arabic, and Ethiopic).

1.1.1.1 Akkadian. Akkadian was spoken in ancient Mesopotamia, north of

Sumeria, and named after the Mesopotamian city of Akkad by linguists even
though the language itself predates the founding of Akkad by many centuries.
Akkadian has a rich literature of inscriptions and clay tablets (written in a
cuneiform script adopted from the Sumerian), running from 2800 BC to the
closing centuries BC and making Akkadian the third attested language in the word
after Sumerian and Egyptian. Akkadian personal names, however, began to
appear in written record in Mesopotamia from the late 2900 BC. Around 2000 BC
Akkadian was split into two dialects: Assyrian, spoken in northern Mesopotamia,
and Babylonian, spoken in central and southern Mesopotamia- the language of
king Hamourabi and his code. In its oldest form, Akkadian shows considerable
linguistic decay, e.g. pharyngeals /ђ/ and /‛/, glottal fricative /h/, voiced velar
fricative /γ/, and glottal stop /’/ fell together as /’/, the confusion of uvular stop /ķ/
and velar fricative /g/, the reduction of Proto-Hamito-Semitic distinctive
phonemes /đ/, /ḏ/, and /ş/ into /ş/, etc. Similar phenomena of linguistic decay are
found in all other Hamito-Semitic languages with different proportions, except
CA, Ug., and OSA.

1.1.1.2 Canaanite. This group includes Old Canaanite, Ugaritic, Phoenician,

Hebrew, Moabite, and Amorite. Old Canaanite is known to us from ‛Amarna

6
letters found in tell-el-‛amarna and date from as early as the 15th century BC,
Ugaritic from tablets discovered in Rās Shamra (in Syria), which flourished
before the 12th century BC and date from at least the 14th century BC and
Phoenician from numerous inscriptions, the earliest of which are inscriptions of
the kings of Byblos and date from the 13th century to the 10th century BC.
Phoenician died out in the 2nd century AD. Its descendant Punic continued to be
spoken in North Africa (Carthage) until the 6th century AD.
Old Hebrew, or Biblical Hebrew, is the language in which most of the Old
Testament was written and may be dated between 1200 and 200 BC. In addition,
there are some short inscriptions of the 9th and 8th centuries BC.
Moabite is known to us from one inscription inscribed on the Mesha (king of
Moab) Stone dating from about the 9th century BC and from some proper names
found in the Old Testament, while Amorite is only known from proper names
dating from about the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. Another poorly known
language is Ammonite. All such languages were probably replaced by Aramaic.

1.1.1.3 Aramaic. This group falls into West and East Aramaic. The former group
includes Old Aramaic, which is known from inscriptions dating between the 10th
and 8th centuries BC, Biblical Aramaic, the language of the non-Hebrew part of
the Old Testament, dates from the 5th century to the 2nd BC, Palmyrene is known
from inscriptions running from the 1st century BC to the 3rd century AD,
Nabatian, from the 1st century BC to the 4th century AD, Palestinian Aramaic,
spoken at the time of Jesus Christ and it was his native tongue. Other Western
Aramaic languages are Official or Imperial Aramaic , Judaic Aramaic, Samaritan,
and Christian Palestinian Aramaic.
Among East Aramaic languages are Syriac, first known from some inscriptions
dated from the first three centuries AD. It has a fairly abundant literature starting
from the 3rd century, and in the course of the 14th century it ceased to be a spoken
language, though remains the liturgical language of the Syriac churches to this
day. Another East Aramaic language is Mandaean or mandaic, the language of
the Mandaean Gnostic sect.

1.1.1.4 Classical Arabic (or North Arabic) is first known from Thamūdian,
Liђyānian, and Şafawiyan (or Şafāyitic) inscriptions whose dates range from the
5th century BC to the 4th century AD, and from pre-Islamic poetry and later the
Kor’ān (7th century). The first mention of Arabs appears in Assyrian records of
the mid 9th century BC and also in the 7th century BC where battles with the Arabs
were mentioned. The proto-Sinaitic inscriptions dating from about 1800 BC could
be, as Van Den Branden sees, Proto-Arabic (see Moscati, 1969: §3.5).
Classical Arabic is the language of the Kur’ān and the vehicle of one of the
greatest literatures of the world. It is still employed as a literary medium by Arab

7
writers throughout the Arab world.
Before the last quarter of the 2nd century of Islam, the 1st Classical Arabic
standard dictionary, entitled Al ‛Ain, had been compiled (in 8 volumes) by Khalīl
Bin Ahmad Al-Farāhīdi, who arranged it according to the point of articulation,
starting with laryngeals and ending with bilabials, and its grammar, including a
comprehensive and accurate description of phonology (with its two subsystems:
phonetics and phonemics), morphology, and syntax, had been written by Al-
Farāhīdi’s pupil Sībawayh, entitled Al Kitāb, i.e. the book, a monumental work of
two volumes. None of the later brilliant works on Classical Arabic grammar have
been able to replace Al Kitāb.

1.1.1.5 South Arabic or Epigraphic South Arabic (ESA) includes the extinct
Minaean, Sabaean, Qatabanian, Hađramautian, and Himyaritic. They are known
from great numbers of inscriptions found in Yemen and ranging from the 8th
century BC to the 6th century AD. Some Sabaean inscriptions are also found in
Ethiopia, and a good number of Himyaritic words are recorded by Classical
Arabic lexicographers such as Ibn Manḏūr’s LA. Modern South Arabic dialects
include Mehri, Soqotri, Shħuri, Jibbali, and Harsusi.

1.1.1.6 Ethiopic or Ge‛ez

Ethiopic is first known from Aksūmite inscriptions of the 4th century AD and
has a fairly abundant literature from the 5th century to the 10th. It ceased to be a
spoken tongue in the 14th century, but is still used as the liturgical language of the
Ethiopic Church. Its direct descendants are Tigrina or Tigrinya, spoken in
Northern Ethiopia, and Tigre. Among other Ethiopic languages are Amharic, the
official language of Ethiopia spoken by over 25 million people, Harari, Gafat,
Argobba and Gurage. The last named includes the following dialects: (West)
Chaha, Eža, Ennemor, Gyete, Endegn, Muher, Masqan, Gogot, (East) Selti,
Ulbarag, Wolane, and (North) Aymellel.

1.1.2 Hamitic languages

Hamitic languages are spoken in Africa (North Africa, in the Sahara, in the
horn of East Africa, in parts of Central and West Africa) and traditionally grouped
into four subgroups: Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic, and Chadic.

1.1.2.1 Egyptian. Egyptian records extend from 3400 BC to the 3rd century AD
The history of the language is divided into Old (3400-2240 BC), Middle (2240-
1573 BC), and New (1573 BC to the 3rd century AD), after the 3rd century, the
language is called Coptic, which became extinct in the 16th century, but has
continued to be used as a religious language by the Coptic Church.

1.1.2.2 Berber or Libyan-Berber. This Hamitic group is spoken in isolated

8
pockets scattered throughout North Africa and the Sahara desert in Morocco,
Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Senegal. Its oldest records
are inscriptions dating perhaps from the 4th century BC and scattered from Sinai
to the Canary Islands. Among the Berber languages are Ahaggar, Awgila,
Ghadames, Guanche, Kabyle, Nefusa (Nafusi), Shilђa (or Tashelhit or Tašlhait),
Siwi, Snus, Tamazight, Tarifit, Tawlemet, Tamasheq or Twareķ (Taureg), and
Zenaga.

1.1.2.3 Cushitic. This group is spoken in southern Ethiopia, in the eastern corner
of Africa and in parts of the red sea coast. Among the Cushitic languages are
Somali, the official language of Somalia, spoken in Somalia, Djibouti and parts of
Ethiopia by 15.5 million people. Oromo (formerly called Galla) spoken in parts of
Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania, ‛Afar, Agaw, Alagwa, Bedawe, Beja, Bilin, Gidole,
Guara, Hadiya, Kaffa, Kambatta, Janjero, Iraqw, Saho, Sidamo (dialects:
Kambatta, Hadiya, Darasa, etc.), Rendille, Walamo, Xamir, Xamta, etc.
Omotic languages, spoken along the Omo River in southern Ethiopia and
Kenya and have complex tonal systems, are considered here a sub-branch of
Cushitic. The position of the Omotic group in the Hamito-Semitic family is
controversial; it has been considered a fifth branch of the family by some scholars
and a Cushitic subgroup by some others. There are still few scholars who question
the inclusion of Omotic languages in Hamito-Semitic (see Comments of 1.1.2.4
below). Among the languages of this group are Bambassi, Hozo, Seze (Mao
languages); Ari (or Aari), Basketo, Bench, Chara, Diziod (Dizi, Nayi), Kafa,
Wolaytta, Oyda, Malo, (formerly called Gimiri), Yem or Yemsa and Ometo.

1.1.2.4 Chadic. This group is spoken in the central part of Chad, Northern
Nigeria, Southern Niger, Northern Cameroon, and Central African Republic. It
includes some 195 languages, many of which are spoken by small numbers of
people and some are on the brink of extinction, or are extinct.
The most important Chadic language is Housa, spoken as a first language by 25
million people in Nigeria, Niger, and in parts of Cameroon, Togo, and Benin. It is
also used as a lingua franca across West Africa.
Among other Chadic languages are Angas, Ankwe, Bachama, Bokkos, Bolewa,
Boghom, Dangla, Dera, Fyer, Gwandar, Karekare, Kera, Kotoko, Kulere,
Logone, Mandara, Margi, Mbara, Migama, Mofu, Mubi, Ngamo, Pero, Sha,
Sokoro, Sura, Tangale, Tera, tumak, Warji.

Comments on
the classification of Hamito-Semitic languages
As has already been mentioned in §1.1 above, there is no general agreement
among scholars on the internal classification of Hamito-Semitic language
divisions into Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, Chadic and Cushitic. In addition, little
9
agreement exists on the position of Omotic in the family (see §1.1.2.3 above).
Diakonoff (1996) classifies Hamito-Semitic into two groups: East-West Hamito-
Semitic (Semitic, Berber and Cushitic) and North-South Hamito-Semitic
(Egyptian and Chadic), and excludes Omotic from Hamito-Semitic. On the other
hand, Vladimir Orel and Olga Stolbova (1995) divide Cushitic into at least five
independent branches and group Semitic with Berber and Egyptian with Chadic.
On the other hand, a classification set forth by Fleming (1981) and Ehret (1995)
divides Hamito-Semitic into two major branches Omotic and Erythraean, with
Erythraean consisting of the non-Omotic languages. Newman (1980), however,
divides the family into two branches: one including Berber and Chadic and
another Egyptian and Semitic. He refrains from recognizing Omotic languages as
Hamito-Semitic.
The inclusion of Omotic languages by some scholars in the Hamito-Semitic
family and its exclusion from the family by some others is evidence that this
group of languages has not been sufficiently studied. The same holds true of
Ongota (also called Birale), spoken in a small village in southwest Ethiopia by a
handful of elderly native speakers; some scholars consider it Hamito-Semitic,
while some others Nilo-Saharan.
Meroitic, too, has been classified by some scholars as Hamito-Semitic and by
some others Nilo-Saharan. It is the language of the Kushite kingdom (what is now
the Republic of Sudan) with its imperial capital at Meroe. The language became
extinct in 300 AD.

1.2 Late PHS sound system

Proto-Hamito-Semitic sound system is essentially the same as that assumed for
Proto-Semitic. It includes the following phonemes:
Labial Interdental Dental Palatal Velar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottal
Stops: vl. p, f t ţ k ķ ’
v. b d g

Fricatives: vl. θ s ş š ħ ђ h
v. δḏ z γ ‛

Nasals: m n

Laterals: l đ

Trill/Flap: r

Semivowels: y w

Vowels: short i a u
long ī ā ū

10
Diphthongs: au (or aw) ai (or ay)

1.2.1 Sound correspondences between Semitic and Egyptian

Our study of sound correspondences will be limited to the two oldest branches
of the Hamito-Semitic language family: Egyptian and Semitic. For additional
information on sound correspondences between Hamito-Semitic language
divisions, see Vladimir Orel and Olga Stolbova, 1995, Christopher Ehret, 1995,
Marcel Cohen 1969, and David Cohen 1970, 1993, 1995.
The following facts should be taken into consideration:
1) Admitting that language change is constant as long as it is spoken entails that
the PHS sound system as set forth above, though may be valid for ‘late PHS’, is
most certainly invalid for ‘early PHS’. In this early stage, the number of
contrastive phonemes should have been relatively smaller. Facts of language
show that the more we go back in time, the smaller the number of linguistic
elements (sounds, affixes, words, roots, etc.) we encounter.

2) The interchange of consonants with the same or similar point of articulation

is quite common in both Semitic and Egyptian which strongly suggests that
‘voicing’ was not phonemic in PHS in both stops and fricatives. This phenomenon
and its causes have already been explained in DHSR whenever opportunity
permitted: see, for example, §3.13.9 and references to sections cited there for
more evidence.
Moreover, in this current research we will frequently cite for each Sumerian
word a minimal pair of Hamito-Semitic cognates, i.e. words that are alike in all
but a single phonetic feature– which is ‘voice’, in order to test whether the feature
of voice is phonemic or functional. The result of the test shows clearly in each
case that the difference in this feature is uncorrelated with a difference in meaning
in Hamito-Semitic (see, for example, §3.2ff). This is by itself sufficient evidence
for establishing ‘voice’ as unfunctional in the family.
Generally speaking, the distinction between ‘voiced’/ ‘voiceless’ and
‘emphatic’ / ‘non-emphatic consonants’ stops and fricatives is of relevance only
for language roots and words, but not for proots. When language elements (all
monosyllabic) are combined to form roots and words, a voiceless consonant may
become voiced in the vicinity of voiced sounds or between two voiced sounds,
and vice-versa. In the course of times, conditioned changes, which are restricted
to specific environments, will give way to unconditioned changes where sounds
undergo modifications in all environments. This factor may explain the gradual
emergence of ‘voice’ as a distinctive feature in the majority of world’s languages.
Another similar fact needs to be stressed here is that the phonemic distinction
between lateral /l/ and /r/ is valid and quite obvious on the surface structure, i.e. in

11
roots and derivatives, and anyone can effortlessly cite hundreds of minimal pairs
showing the conspicuous contrast between the consonants in question. When it
comes to proots, however, the phonemic contrast between /l/ and /r/ may become
quite rare or disappear.
What has been said in the foregoing paragraph is not a hypothesis; it is rather a
fact supported by copious evidence from individual language families as well as
from language families taken together. For example, in all language families one
will find a proot [-l-] and/or [-r-] “eye; to see” and such proots can occur alone,
i.e. ’al, ’ar (no matter if you shift the order as la’, ra’) or in combinations with
other proots: for this root in HS, Sumerian and IE, see 3.5.1.4. Similarly, [Wal] ~
[War] (W= w, ’, or zero) stand for “human being, often child” in all language
families (cf. §3.2.1.8 below), and so forth.

3) In affinity with what has been stated in n. (1) above, a basic question arises:
Is there conclusive evidence that Proto-Hamito-Semitic had a set of long vowels?
It is only recently that I seriously begin to question the presence of a set of long
vowels /ī, ā, ū/ corresponding to the short /i, a, u/. Hamito-Semitic long vowels
have been traditionally considered as phonemes since they contrast with one
another and with short vowels and serve to discriminate meanings as in CA γāḏa
“to anger, enrage” - γīḏa “were enraged”, etc. It should be noted here that both /-
ā-/ and /-ī-/ are from an underlying /-y-/. In addition, /-ī-/ expresses the passive
voice.
As we know, a phoneme is strictly speaking a distinctive sound that has no
meaning of its own; it rather has only a function in language and this function is
to distinguish one meaning from another. Does this definition of ‘phoneme’ apply
to ‘long vowels’? In fact, it does not at all.
In my decomposition of HS roots into their ultimate component parts (DHSR),
I discovered that all HS long vowels are originally either (a) morphemes having
definite grammatical functions or meanings (b) variant forms of the semivowels
/w, y/ and in some cases of the glottal stop /’/. Moreover, their status as functional
morphemes is a later development and results from the compensatory loss of
earlier /w, y, & ’/, which they were alone used to express such grammatical
functions. Like all other types of language change, the reason for this loss is ‘ease
of pronunciation’. To say *banawatu “girls or daughters” in CA is difficult; it is
far easier to say banātu, the only form in use. For this type of plurals in HS, see
DHSR: §3.9.
Although this topic is outside the scope of the present research, yet some
suggestive examples may be necessary to give both an idea about it and to shake
the ground on which the long vowel system rests. The following four examples,
two of which applies to several hundreds of roots, have been carefully selected so
that they will be, due to the weight of evidence, both indisputable and, at the same

12
time, sufficient to compel us to re-consider the status of long vowels.

Example I: plural ending -ū

CA katabū “they wrote”: kataba “he wrote”;
Akk. katbū “they wrote”: katib “he wrote”;
BHeb. kātebū “they wrote”: kātab “he wrote”;
Eth. katabū “they wrote”: kataba “he wrote”.
Final /-ū/ of katab-ū above has always been considered as a suffixed personal
pronoun ‘they’ grammatically functioning as the subject of the verb. I discover
that /-ū/ is not at all a suffixed personal pronoun, i.e. it has nothing to do with
“they”, nor is it a phoneme. It is simply a bound morpheme serving as a plural
marker and is from an earlier –wu: cf. Egyp. rn “name” > rnw “names” and sn
“brother” > snw “brothers”, etc. see 4.2.1.1, n. i, ii, iii below. All plural personal
pronouns whether they are independent or affixes in all languages were originally
created by the addition of plural suffixes to their corresponding singular pronouns
and such plural suffixes have been wrongly understood as personal pronouns as in
the case of Hamito-Semitic. The language families that have preserved this
parental system outnumber by far those which have undergone some minor and
explainable changes in the course of time.
Breaking down the plural personal pronouns into their ultimate parts in world’s
languages has other linguistic advantages; it enables us to discover the most
ancient plural marker in each language or language family involved and to see
whether the plural marker has been kept, lost or modified in each case.
The prevalent plural endings in world’s languages are on the surface: -m, -n, -l
(~-r), -w, -t, -k, -š and Ø (zero). Nearly all exist in Hamito-Semitic and found in
scattered manner in the entire language families. In most cases the plural ending
has become part of the pronoun, but in few cases it remains separate from the
pronoun as, for example, [l] in some Sino-Tibetan languages which has become
part of the root in some other language families (e.g. Siouan below). We start with
Hamito-Semitic, and then we cite similar examples from some world’s language
families.

Hamito-Semitic:
CA ’anta “you masc. sg.” > pl. ’antum: [-m] is a HS pl. ending (e.g. Ug. rђt
“hand” > rђthm “hands”, etc.),
’anti “you fem sg.” > pl. ’antunna: [-n] is a HS pl. ending (e.g. CA
binu “son” > banūn, etc.),
huwa, -hu “he” > pl. hum: [-m] is a HS pl. ending,
hiya, -hā “she” > hunna: [-n] is a HS pl. ending,
’anā “I” > pl. naђnu, from PHS ’anaђnū (see above).

13
 The long /-ū/ appears in -nā “us, our” as in ra’ānā “(he) saw us” (ra’ā “(he)
saw”), kitābunā “our book” (kitābu “book”). The proot /-ђ-/ seems to be a plural
marker and it corresponds to Berber /-k-/ as in Shilha nukni “we masc.”; nuknti
“we fem.”, Tarifit nǝššin “we”, etc. However, -naђnu may be originally “we
inclusive” and -naknu “we exclusive”. Available evidence from Egyp. presents
two possibilities: -ђ- a plural marker: cf. Egyp. ђw(’) “plenty, overabundance,
surplus” (see §3.3.2.1 below) or “self”: cf. Egyp. ynwk-ђw “I (= ynwk) myself”.
The third personal pronouns above are also found in some other HS languages
such as Ug., Heb., Aram., phoen., Eth., SA: Sab., etc. Their corresponding
pronouns in some other HS languages have an initial /š-/ instead of /h-/, e.g.

PHS [šuw-] “he”: Akk. šū (i.e. šw) “he”, ESA (except Sabaean) s¹w, Egyp.
suffix-pronoun sw id.
PHS [šuwn-] “they masc.”: Akk. šunu “they”, ESA s¹m “they masc.”, Egyp.
masc./fem. sn “they”.

PHS [šiy-] “she”: Akk. šī (i.e. šy) “she”, ESA s¹y- = Egyp. suffix-pronoun sy
id.
PHS [šiyn-] “they fem.”: Akk. šina “they fem.”, Egyp. masc./fem. sn above.

Dene-Yeniseian: Kott ai “I” > ayon “we”,

au “you sg” > auoŋ “you pl.”,
hutu “he” > hatien “they”.

Ket āt “I” > ǝt, ǝtn “we”.

bū “he” > būŋ “they”.

Oto-Manguean: Otomi nuga “I” > nugawi “we”,

nu'i “you sg.” > nu'iwi “you pl.”,
nu'ä “he” > nu’u “they” < *nu’uw.

Algonquian: Mi'kma nin “I” > ninen “we”,

kil “you sg.” > kinu (< *kilnu)“you pl.”,
nekm “you sg.” > nekmow “they”.
The pl. ending in -w are also seen in other sister languages as in Ojibwe giin
“you sg” > giinawaa “you pl”, wiin “he” > wiinawaa “they”.

Sino-Tibetan: Gan no “I” > no li “we”,

“you sg” > li “you pl”,
tɛiɛ “he” > tɛiɛ li “they”.

Apatani ngo “I” > ngunu “we”,

no “you sg.” > nunu “you pl.”,
mo “he” > molu “they”.

14
 Burmese nga “I” > nga do “we”,
nin “you sg.” > nin do “you pl.”,
thu “he” > thu do “they”.

Tibetan nga “I” > nga tsho “we”,

khyed “you sg.” > khyed tscho “you pl.”,
kho “he” > kho tscho “they”.
Like Apatani above, Amoy Min Nan adds -n to the singular pronoun to express
its corresponding plural form, e.g.
góa /gua/ “I” > gún “we”,
lí “you sg.” > lín “you pl.”,
i “he” > in “they”.

Comments
Tibetan tsho could be from an earlier [-k ]: cf. CA -k (see DHSR: §2.1.6.8) or -
š: cf. Egyp. yš (see Comments II of §3.2.1.11 below).

Siouan: Crow bii “I” > biilu “we”;

dii “you sg.” > diilu “you pl.”;
ii “he” > iilu “they”.

Korean jeo “I” > jeohui “we”,

neo “you sg.” > neohui “you pl.”,
geu “he” > geudeul “they”.

Basque zu “you sg. (polite)” > zuek “you pl.”,

hau “he, she, it” > hauek “they”.
The suffix -ek/-ak. is a pl. ending in Basque as in hau “this” > hauek “these”; suge
“snake”: sugeak “snakes”; arrano “eagle”: arranoak “eagles”. It also has the
same function in some other languages such as Seri -uk ktam "man" ktamuk
"men".

Quechuan: Southern Quechuan ñuqa “I” > ñuqayku “we (exclusive)”: from
earlier *ñuqakuna,
qam “you sg.” > qamkuna “you pl.”,
pay “he” > paykuna “they”.

Sumerian -zu “your sg.” > -zu-ne-ne “your pl.”,

a-ne “he/she” > a-ne-ne “they”.

Uto-Aztecan: O'odham 'a:pi: “you sg.” > a:pim “you pl.”;

i:da “he” > i:dam “they”

Eskimo-Aleut: Aleut ting “I” > tingin “we”,

15
 ilaa “he” > ilaan “they”.

Sirenik menga “I” > mengaketa “we”;

ɬpi “you sg.” > ɬpisi “you pl.”,
langa 3rd sg. > langwi/uket “they”.

Example II: Class of hollow roots, e.g. root mwt “to die”
Akk. mātu “to die”
CA māta “to die”
Aram. mēt “to die”
BHeb. mūt “to die”
Chad.: Housa mūtu “to die”
Sura muut “to die”
Angas muut “to die”
Sokoro mūta “to die”
Tumak māde “to die”
Egyp. mwt, mίt: Coptic mōut “to die”
Ug. mwt “to die”
ESA mwt “to die”
What pronounceable word should we reconstruct for PHS word *māt- or
*mawat?
i) The tentative form *māt- represents the surface form of the root and not its
underlying one, which is supposed to account for all other forms derived from it.
The deep form is *mawat- with ‘no long vowel’.
ii) If we reconstruct the form *māt-, we will find that it can not explain the
disappearance of /-ā-/ in stem II causative mawwat- “cause to die”, which is made
from CI by doubling its ‘real’ second radical as in CA kataba “to write”: kattaba
“make one write”, etc. See the formation of CII stems in §1.3.2 below.
The long /ā/ disappears in CII stem simply because its length is due to the loss
of /-w-/; its lengthening is therefore compensatory.
The HS root [mwt] “die” belongs to a class of weak roots called ‘middle weak
roots’ or ‘hollow roots’ because their medial radical is /w/ or /y/. All what have
been said about the origin of /-ā-/ in māta applies to long vowels found in all
hollow roots without any exception.

Example III: Class of weak-final roots, e.g. root rmy “to throw”
Akk. irmī “to throw”
CA ramā “to throw”
BHeb. rāmā “to throw”
Aram. remā “to throw”
Eth. ramaya “to throw”, etc.
The root rmy represents another class of weak verbs, called ‘final or last

16
consonant weak’, and what applies to the long vowel of this root applies to that of
all similar roots without exceptions.
One may note that it is Eth. alone which has preserved intact the original
form; CA ramaya “to throw or he threw” is not very common for the 3rd pers.
masc. If we suppose that the long vowel of ramā is original, we will soon find
that it fails to account for the presence of the genuine /-y-/ in the process of
conjugation, e.g. CA ramay-tu “I threw”, ramay-ta “you masc. sg. threw”, ramay-
nā “we threw”, ramay-tum “you masc. pl. threw”, ramay-tum-ā “you both threw”
lit. ‘threw + they (= -tum, i.e. you masc. sg. (= -ta) + -m = masc. plur. marker + ā
“both’), etc.
It may be important to note that the 3rd pers. fem. form is rama-t. In this form
it is the underlying /-y-/ which has disappeared and never /-ā-/: cf. the
corresponding fem. pl. ramay-tu-nna shows clearly the re-appearance of [-y]. It
appears evident that the final long vowel in the above cited Semitic forms is a
result of the loss of /-y-/; the length is therefore compensatory.

Comments
One may wonder why I give to CA ramaya above two significations “to throw”
and “he threw”. The word means only “he threw”, but because the 3rd pers. sing.
‘Perfect’ (or past tense) is the simplest form of the verb, it is commonly used as
paradigm in Hamito-Semitic languages.

Example IV: Dual marker /-ā-/

Akk. šarru “king”: acc.-gen. dual šarrēn; nom. dual šarrān
CA bintu “girl”: acc.-gen. dual bintay-n(i); nom. dual bintā-n.
Akk. long vowel of šarrēn and long vowel of šarrān, together with CA /-ā-/ of
bintā-n, are not phonemes, but rather morphemes performing an obvious
grammatical function, which is ‘the mark of the dual form’. They are from *ay or
*-y, which becomes /ā/ in the nom. case. Some CA syntactic constructs may
demand bintay and some others bintā. In ESA the dual marker is /-y/ and so is in
Ug. as in -ny “we both”, the dual of -n “we”. Egyp., too, has -y as in ny “we two”,
again the dual of -n “we”. It thus appears quite evident that there is originally no
long vowel in the dual marker, and that the lengthening of /-ē-/ or /-ā-/ is merely
compensatory.

4) The Semitic and Egyptian cognate words below, exactly like all of their
other cognate words, are in their entirety compound and complex words, each
consisting of a number of proots agglutinated together. The very same statement
holds true for all words found in the world’s language families. One of the
essential tasks of this research is not only to demonstrate scientifically the
correctness of the statement, but also to provide the methods and criteria for
establishing genetic relatedness among all world’s language families.

17
1.2.1.1 Stops
a) Semitic has two bilabial stops /p, b/, whereas Egyp. has distinct hieroglyphs
for two bilabials /p, b/ and a labiodental /f/; both /p/ and /f/ often interchange and
correspond to Sem. /p/.

PHS *p is /p/ in Akk, Ug., Phoen.; /p, p or f/ in Aram., BHeb. (see Comments
below); /f/ in CA, ESA, Eth.; /p, f/ in Egyp., e.g.
Akk., Aram. prš “to separate”, CA frš “to spread, stretch out” = Egyp. prš
“to stretch out”.
Akk. pitū “to open”, Ug., Phoen., BHeb. ptђ, CA fataђa id. = Egyp. ptђ “to
open”.
CA fa‛fa‛ā-ni arch. “butcher” = Egyp. f‛-t “knife”.
CA fataķa “to rip, tear, rend” = Egyp. ftķ “to hack in pieces” (~ fdķ “to
rip, cut off, hack” ~ fdk “to cut”).

PHS *b remained unchanged in Sem. and Egyp., e.g.

Ug. bt, CA, BHeb. byt “house” = Egyp. b’t id.
Akk. būru, CA bi’ru (bu’r- also exists), BHeb. b’r “well (of water)” =
Egyp. b’r id.
BHeb. bķķ “to pour out” = Egyp. bķbķ id.
In CA baķķa signifies “to pour out copiously”, e.g. ‘rain, water’ (said of the sky)
and ‘words’ (said of the mouth), etc. Its near antonym is maķķa.

b) Semitic has three dental stops /t, ţ, d/, whereas Egyp. has distinct
hieroglyphs for two /d/ and /t/, which often interchange. Sem. /ţ/ may correspond
to Egyp. /d/ (/t/).

PHS *t remained unchanged in Sem. and Egyp., e.g.

OAram. tr‛ “door”, CA tur‛a-tu “door-still, doorstep” = Egyp. try’, tyry’
“door”.
Phoen. tm, BHeb., Aram. tmm, CA tamma “to complete, finish” = Egyp.
tmm id. ~ dm’m id.
BHeb. tāw “a mark, sign”, CA tiwā’ “a mark” = Egyp. t’ “boundary”.

N.B. As has already been mentioned in (b) above, Egyp. /t/ and /d/ often
interchange as in tm’ ~ dm’ “to bind together”, ytnw ~ ydnw “deputy, vicar, agent”
and bt ~ bd “to shine”.

PHS *ţ is /ţ/ in Akk., Ug., Phoen., Heb., Aram., CA, ESA, and Eth., but /d (t)/ in
Egyp., e.g.
CA CII ђaţţama “to destroy” = Egyp. ђdm id.
CA našiţa “be energetic, active” = Egyp. nšd “be strong”.

18
 Akk. ţabāħu “slaughter”, Ug. ţbħ id., Sab. ţbħ “meat” = Egyp. dbħw “to
slaughter”.

PHS *d remained unchanged in Semitic = Egyp. /d, t/, e.g.

Ug., Aram, BHeb. yd‛ “to know” = Egyp. ’d‛y “one who knows”.
CA mi-dya-tu inst. “knife”: *dāya “to divide, cut” = Egyp. ty “to break”;
tay-t “share”.
CA fadda “to stamp with the feet”; fadfada lit. “to injure the feet from
treading so heavily or strongly on the ground or from running”; fadda “to run
away” = Egyp. pd “foot”; pdpd “to take to flight”; pd “to run away”.

c) Semitic has two velar stops /k, g/ and uvular stop /ķ/ corresponding to Egyp.
/k, g/ and /ķ/ respectively.

PHS *k and *ķ remained relatively stable in Semitic and Egyptian, while */g/
remained unchanged in all except CA, where it became a palatal stop /ĝ/, e.g.
OAram., OffAram. kpr “village”, BHeb. kāpār, CA kafaru id. = Egyp. k’pr
“village”.
BHeb. brk, CA bāraka “to bless”, Phoen., Aram. brk id. = Egyp. b’rk “to
bless”.
CA rakā “to lean on, to incline toward”, OffAram. rk-n “to bend, to bow”
(CA also has rkn) = Egyp. lk, rk “to incline toward”.
CA ķurra-tu fem. “frog” = Egyp. ķrr id.
CA ķamђu coll. “wheat, grain”, BHeb. ķemaђ “flour”, Eth. ķmђ id.,
OffAram. ķmђ id. = Egyp. ķmђw “bread made of fine wheaten flour”.
Akk. kīmu “family”, CA ķaumu “people, clan”; ’iķāma-tu “residence”,
Phoen. mķm id. = Egyp. ķm’m “parent”.
CA ĝurδu “rat” = Egyp. grt “a kind of rat”.
CA ĝabūbu “earth, soil, face of the earth” = Egyp. gbb “earth, ground”.
Ug., Aram. lg “liquid measure”, CA luĝĝa-tu “wave; water” = Egyp. lg’ί
“liquid”.

d) Semitic has a glottal stop /’/ corresponding to Egyp. /y, ’/.

PHS *’ is /’/ in Sem., /y, ’/ in Egyp., e.g.

Akk. abu, CA ’abu, Ug. ’ab “father” = Egyp. ’b id.
CA ’annā an interrogative “how, when(ever), wherever” = Egyp.yn-n’ = an
interrogative.
Akk. uķnu “lapis lazuli”, CA ’uķna-tu fem. “house built with stone” =
Egyp. ykn “a kind of stone”.
CA šā’a “to will, want”, in derivatives “ordain, decree, etc.” = Egyp. š’ “to
decree, ordain, determine, predestinate”; š’-t “something decreed or ordained by

19
God” = CA ma-šī’a-tu (+ God) id.

Comments
In Aramaic and Hebrew, Proto-Semitic /p, b, t, d, k, g/ were softened to the
corresponding fricatives /f, v, θ, δ, ħ, γ/ in postvocalic position when are not
doubled, a phonological process called spirantization. This change must have
taken place long after the change of Proto-Semitic fricatives /θ, δ, ħ, γ/ to Hebrew
/š, z, ђ, ‛/ and to Old Aramaic /t, d, ђ, ‛/ respectively. Later, the change becomes
phonemic only in medial and final position.
Proto-Semitic /ķ/ interchanges with /g/ in Akk. as in ķaat = gaat “hand” and so
do /k/ and /g/. In addition, the change of /b/ to /p/ is not rare. For the interchanges
of /k/, /g/ and /ķ/, see DHSR, esp. §3.13.9, n. 2. and ft 180.

1.2.1.2 Fricatives
a) Semitic has three interdentals /θ, δ, ḏ/, while Egyp. has only /θ/, which
interchanges with /t/ and in some cases with /s/.

PHS *θ is /θ/ in CA, ESA, and Ug.; /š/ in Akk., BHeb., and Phoen.; /s/ in Eth.; /t/
in Aram. In Egyp. /θ/ interchanges with /t/, in some words with /đ/ and in some
others with /s/. Some examples are:
CA θaraya “to sprinkle, moisten”; θarā “dew” = Egyp. θrί “to sprinkle,
moisten”.
CA θattu “split, crack, as in rock” = Egyp. θt “to separate”.
On the other hand, Egyp. /θ/ may also correspond to Sem. /t/ or to an
interdental fricative. In most such cases, it is most scientific to reconstruct PHS
/θ/, e.g.
Egyp. θ’w “olive”; θ’yty “olive” also “a kind of plant” = Ug. zt (< zyt),
Phoen., BHeb. zyt “olive”, CA zayt id.; zaytun coll. “olive tree”.
Egyp. θ’ί “to take, steal, plunder, seize, lay violent hands on” = CA tā‛a
“to take with the hand”.
Egyp. θ “thou” ~ t id. = Sem. ’an-ta, -ta, ta- “thou”.
Egyp. θ’rty “bread made of fine flour” = BHeb., BAram. slt “fine meal,
flour”, CA sultu “a kind of wheat, white barley”.
Egyp. k’θ’t’ “covering” = CA kuswatu, BHeb. kəsūt, Ug. kst, Phoen. ksy
id.
Egyp. θr-t “willow tree” = CA sarwa-tu id.
In some cases, Sem. /θ/ = Egyp. /s/, e.g.
Akk. (w)šābu “to sit”, BHeb. yšb, Ug. yθb, ESA wθb id., CA waθaba
expresses both “to sit” and also “to rise” = Egyp. ysb-t “seat”.
Phoen. šny “two”, CA θny id. = Egyp. sn id.
Akk. šalgu “snow”, CA θalĝu, BHeb. šeleg id. = Egyp. s’rķw id.

20
In some other cases, Egyp. /θ/ = Sem. /δ/, the voiced counterpart of /θ/, e.g.
Egyp. θbθb “to suspend, tie dead bodies to a wall” also “to dance”, with n-
ext.: θbn “to hop, frisk (of animal)” = CA δabδaba “to suspend, hang, swing”,
δabba, in a fixed expression, “to go and come”.
Egyp. θwp’r “scribe” = BAram. sāpēr “scribe”, BHeb. sāfar “to write;
writing, scribe”, CA sifru “a book”: comp. CA δabara ~ “to write” also “to reflect
on and comprehend fully”.
A third variant is seen in CA zabara = δabara in meaning = Sab. zbr “to write”.
A fourth CA variant is dabara “to reflect on and comprehend fully” (LA, r.
δbr). In addition, CA Koranic dabara id. = Phoen., Ug. dbr “to speak, say”,
BHeb. dibbēr, Aram. dbr, etc. id. Note that [spr] may also express “to speak, to
discourse” as in BHeb. sapēr imp. (OT, 732).
A fifth CA variant is undoubtedly sabara “to probe”.

PHS *δ is /δ/ in CA and ESA; /δ, d/ in Ug.; /z/ in Akk., Phoen., BHeb., and Eth.;
/d/ in Aram.; and /d (~ t), θ/ in Egyp., e.g.
Akk. zību “wolf”, CA δi’bu, BHeb. z’b, Aram. d’b, Eth. ze’b = Egyp. dyb
~ sy’b id.
CA δaffa “to hasten” = Egyp. dfn id.
Sab. δ “this” also “one who, that which”, CA δū nom. id. = Egyp. d’ “the”.
CA ĝurδu “rat” = Egyp. grt “a kind of rat”.

PHS *ḏ is /ḏ/ in CA, Ug. and ESA; /ş/ in Akk., Phoen., BHeb. and Eth.; /ţ/ in
Aram.; /đ/ in Egyp. which interchanges with /d, t/, e.g.
CA ḏubba-tu “blade of sword, pointed edge of a spear, of a dagger” =
Egyp. đb “spear, javelin, harpoon”.
CA ḏami’a “be thirsty”, BHeb. şm’, Eth. ţm’ = Egyp. đm‛ “dry land,
parched ground”.
Akk. uşşu “arrow”, Ug. ђḏ id. = Egyp. ђđ-t “spear”.
CA ḏa’mu “brother-in-law” = Egyp. đ’m “young man”.
CA naḏara “to see, watch over, observe”, Sab. nḏr id. also “evil eye” =
Egyp. ndr “eye”.
b) Semitic has three dentals fricatives /s, z, ş/, while Egyp. has distinct
hieroglyphs for two interchangeable consonants, which could probably be /s, z/.
By Middle Egyp., however, they had become fused.

PHS *s is /s/ in Sem.; /s/ in Egyp., e.g.

Akk. saħħu “meadow” = Egyp. sħ-t “field, meadow”.
Ug. ђsp “a kind of wine” = Egyp. ђsp (ђsb ~ ђsw) “vine land, vineyard”.
Ug. sk “a kind of garment”, BHeb. skk “to weave, to cover” = Egyp. sk “to
cover, to dress”.

21
PHS *z is /z/ in Sem.; /s, đ/ in Egyp., e.g.
CA zaħħu “haste, rapidity”; zaħħa “to hurry, hasten” = Egyp. sħsħ “to
flee”; sħw-t “a hastening”.
CA wāzā “be parallel to, be equal”: mi-wzānu “balance” = Egyp. ’wsw
“balance”,
N.B. Semitic /z/, like /ş/ below, is in many words from an earlier /đ/, e.g.
Phoen. ‛zr “to help; help”, CA ‛azara “to help, assist”, BHeb. ‛āzar “to
help, aid”; ‛ēzer “help” = Egyp. ‛đr “help, assistance”.

PHS *ş is /ş/ in Sem.; /đ/ in Egyp, e.g.

CA şabaγa, BHeb. şābā‛ “to dye” = Egyp. đ’b’gί “to dip, immerse”.
CA şa‛aķa, BHeb. şā‛aķ “to cry out” = Egyp. đ’‛ķ id.
CA şarra “to tie up, wrap”, BHeb., Aram. şrr “to bind, wrap up” = Egyp. đr
“to tie up, bandage, envelop”.
CA şara‛a “to kill, to smite to the earth, strike”, BHeb. şāra‛ “to smite
heavily, strike” = Egyp. đr‛’ “to smite to the earth, strike”.
Ug. uşb‛(t) “finger”, CA ’uşba‛u ~ ’işba‛u, BHeb., Sab. şb‛ “finger” =
Egyp. đb‛ id.
Akk. şābu (şa-a-bu) “soldier”, BHeb. şābā “to go forth to war as a soldier;
war, soldier” = Egyp. đ’b’ “host, army, soldiers” = Sab. đb’ “to wage a war,
fight”; đb’t “military operation, battle”.
It is important to keep in mind that Proto-Sem. /ş/ has a number of different
origins, one of which is PHS /đ/, another is /ḏ/ (DHSR, chapter II).

c) Semitic has a palatal /š/ corresponding to Egyp. /š, s/.

PHS *š is /s/ in CA; /s¹/ in ESA; /š/ in all other Sem. languages; /š, s/ in Egyp.,
e.g.
CA sawţu, BHeb. šwţ “whip” = Egyp. š’d id.
CA sāķu, BHeb. šwķ “leg” = Egyp. sbķ id.
CA šaiyiķu “filled with yearning desire, desirable, captivating” = Egyp.
š’ķίķ “to delight in”.
CA, Eth. ђsb, BHeb. ђšb “compute, calculate, estimate”, Aram. ђšb id. =
Egyp. ђsb id.

d) Semitic has two velar fricatives /ħ, γ/, while Egyp. has the voiceless /ħ/.

PHS *ħ is /ħ/ in Akk, Ug., CA and ESA; /ђ/ in Phoen., BHeb. and Aram.; /ħ/ in
Egyp., e.g.
CA ħarra “to kneel down, fall to the ground” = Egyp. ħr “to fall to the
ground”.
Akk. ђaţţu “trunk, branch” = Egy. ħt “wood, tree, branch”.
Phoen., Aram., BHeb. ђtm “to seal up”, CA ħatama “to seal, close up,
22
finish” = Egyp. ħtm “to seal, seal up, close, finish” also “seal of the god” ~ ħdm
“to close up”.

N.B. A rare sound correspondence is seen in the following unexpected example

where Egyp. /ħ/ = Sem. /θ/:
Egyp. ħmn “8” = Phoen., BHeb. šmn, CA θamān-in, θamāni- id., Sab. θmn
id.
This type of correspondence persists in their derivative words for ‘eighty’:
Egyp. ħmnί, CA nom. θamānūn, Sab. θmny.

PHS *γ is /γ/ in Ug., CA, and ESA; /’/ in Akk.; /‛/ in Phoen., BHeb. and Aram.;
/‛/ (and rarely /ħ/ or /g/) in Egyp., e.g.
BHeb. ‛ānā, CA γannā = Egyp. ‛’nn “to sing”.
CA γurru “jaw-bone, mandible” = Egyp. ‛r-t “jaw-bone, the lower jaw”.
CA γawā “do evil, be led astray, to err”; ta-γāwī “committing evil deeds,
evil doing”, Sab. γwy-t “harsh, exemplary punishment” = Egyp. ‛w “evil deeds”.
with n-ext., becoming part of the root in both Egyp. and CA: Egyp. ‛wn “to
commit deeds of violence” = CA ta-γauwunu “insistence on committing evil
deeds”.
In some cases /γ/ corresponds to Egyp. /ħ/, e.g.
CA γurāb “crow”, BHeb. ‛r’b id. = Egyp. ħwryb “bird-goddess”.
Egyp. ħmn-ί “80” = Sab. θmn-yy id., CA θamān-īn id.

e) Semitic has two laryngeals /ђ, ‛/ and a glottal fricative /h/ which correspond to
Egyp. /ђ, ‛/ and /h/ respectively.

PHS *ђ is /ђ/ in Ug., CA, ESA, Phoen., BHeb., Aram. and Eth.; /’/ in Akk.; /ђ/ in
Egyp., e.g.
CA ђubbu “love” = Egyp. ђb “rejoicing”.
CA swђ = Egyp šwίђ “to journey, travel”.
CA ђurra-tu “cheek” = Egyp. ђr “face, visage, aspect”.
N.B. One of the earlier meanings of the CA ђurr- above is “face”, hence ђurru
“the part of one’s face you see when he is in front of you or coming toward you”
= Egyp. ђr- “facing, opposite”.

PHS *‛ is /‛/ in Ug., CA, ESA, Phoen., BHeb., Aram. and Eth.; /’/ in Akk.; /‛, ’, ί/
in Egyp., e.g.
Ug. δr‛ “upper arm”, OCan., BHeb. zr‛, CA δirā‛u “arm” = Egyp. đr’-t
“hand”.
Ug. ‛bd “slave”, Sab. ‛bd, CA ‛abdu id. = Egyp. ‛’bd id.
CA ‛arasu “astonishment”; ‛arisa “be amazed, astonished” = Egyp. ‛rš “be
amazed, stupefied”.
CA bala‛a “to swallow” = Egyp. b’lί id.
23
PHS *h is /h/ in Ug., CA, ESA, Phoen., BHeb., Aram., and Eth.; /’/ in Akk.; /h/ in
Egyp., e.g.
BHeb. hāwā “to fall, ruin”, CA hawā “to fall, fall down” = Egyp. hw “to
fall, to go down”.
BHeb. hmh “to hum, growl”, CA hamhama “to hum, roar” = Egyp. hmhm
“to roar, bellow”.
Ug. hr “pregnancy”: hry “become pregnant”, OAram. hry “to conceive,
become pregnant” = Egyp. hr “to conceive, be with a child”.

1.2.1.3 Nasals
Semitic has two nasals /m/ and /n/ corresponding to Egyp. /m/ and /n/
respectively.

PHS *m remained unchanged in Sem. and Egyp., e.g.

CA mannā “to remain” also “be strong, firm” = Egyp. mn “remain”; mnw
“firm”.
CA mara’a “to see” = Egyp. mr id.
CA mā “no, not” = Egyp. m id.

PHS *n remained unchanged in Sem. and Egyp., e.g.

CA nāma, BHeb., Eth. nwm “to sleep” = Egyp. nm id.
Ug. nhr “river”, CA nahru id. as a vb nahara “to pour out, flow” = Egyp.
nhr’ “flow away”.
CA ta-nahhada “to sigh (usu. out of distress)”; nahada “to help an ally in
wars, to rise against an enemy and fight him” = Egyp. nhd “to complain”; nhdhd
“be bold, courageous”.

1.2.1.4 Laterals
Semitic has two laterals /l/ and /đ/ which correspond to Egyp. /r, l/ and /đ/
respectively.

PHS *l is /l/ in Sem. and /r, n, l/ in Egyp. e.g.

CA lisānu “tongue”, Phoen. lšn id. = Egyp. ns, ls id.
CA ḫalla-tu “low-lying land” = Egyp. ħrw, ħlw id.
Akk. ailu “buck”, Phoen., Ug. ’yl “buck, deer”, CA ’yl “stag, deer” = Egyp.
’ίr “stag”.
BHeb. mђr obsol. “to sell, to buy”, hence mǝђīr “price” = Egyp. mħr “buy,
sell” and also “price”.

PHS *đ is /đ/ in CA, ESA, and Eth.; /ş/ in Akk., Ug., Phoen., BHeb.; /‛/ in Aram;
in Egyp. /đ/, which often interchanges with /d/, e.g.

24
 CA ђađa’a “to flame up a fire” = Egyp. ђđ “become bright, illumine”.
CA đaw’u “light (sunlight, daylight); mu-đī’u “luminous, giving light” =
Egyp. dw’ “the morning”, dw’ίt “the dawn, the early morning”.
CA ‛uđwu = Egyp. ‛dί “member”.
N.B. Hamito-Semitists consider Egyp. /đ/ as being equivalent to Sem. /g/ in few
words. The most commonly cited cognates are Egyp. đnђ “wing” = CA ĝanāђ id.
The two words are based on [nāђ-] “side” (DHSR: §3.2.51) and are therefore
‘implicit cognates’.

1.2.1.5 R-sound
Semitic /r/ corresponds to Egyp. /r/.

PHS *r is /r/ in Sem.; /r/ in Egyp., e.g.

Akk. rakāsu “to bind”, Ug. rks “to bind”, CA rikāsu “a cord, noose” =
Egyp. rksw “a yoke (of horses)”.
OAram. ђr “master”, CA ђurru “nobleman, free-man”, Sab. ђrr “free-man”
= Egyp. ђr’ “master”.
CA ’ariya “to work, do, make” = Egyp. ’ry “to make, do, form, create,
fashion”.
BHeb. mђr obsol. “to sell, to buy”, hence mǝђīr “price” = Egyp. mħr “buy,
sell” and also “price”.

1.2.1.6 Glides
Semitic has two glides /w/ and /y/, while Egyptiam has distinct hieroglyphs for
three: /w/, /y/ and /ί/. The last named often interchanges position with /y/.
The two Semitic glides, or semivowels, are preserved intact in CA only; any
change or interchange of /w, y/ in derivatives is subject to rules that admit no
exceptions. In Ug., Phoen., Aram., and BHeb., initial /w-/ usually became /y-/; in
Sabaean and Minaean /w-/ sometimes became /y-/.
Sem. /w/ = Egyp. /w, y/ and Sem. /y/ = Egyp. /’, y, ί/. e.g.
CA waħā, ta-waħħā = Egyp. wħ’ “to seek”.
Akk. (w)šābu “to sit”, Phoen., OAram., BHeb. yšb, Ug. yθb, ESA wθb id.,
CA waθaba expresses both “to sit” and “to rise”; wiθābu “seat(s)” = Egyp. ysb-t
“seat”.
Akk. šāu, CA šawā “roast” = Egyp. šw “dry”.
CA wa’yu “promise, pledge” = Egyp. ywy “to take in pledge”,
Phoen. ’y “island”, BHeb. ’y id. = Egyp. y’ “island”,
Ug. ’d “father”, Phoen. ’d id. = Egyp. ίt, yt “father”,
CA yammu “sea”, Phoen, BHeb. Ym id. = Egyp. ίm “sea”.

25
1.2.1.7 consonants /ś/, /ḫ/ and /ḿ/
In addition to all consonants enumerated above, there are still three consonants
/ś/, /ḫ/ and /ḿ/. The first is found in some Semitic languages and the two others in
Egyp. The phonemic status of either sound in the Hamito-Semitic family is not
generally agreed upon.

/ś/
A consonant phoneme /ś/ is found in South Arabic represented with /s²/, in
BHeb. with ‫שׂ‬, i.e., the symbol for ‫ ש‬/š/ and a diacritic mark, and in Aram. dialects
with /s/. The attribution of this consonant to PSem. is debatable (cf. Moscati,
1969: §8.29). It interchanges with /š/ and /s/ in BHeb. (see DHSR, ft 73) and
corresponds to /š/ in all other principle Semitic languages, e.g.
BHeb. ‛śr, Sab. ‛s²r “ten” = Akk. ’ešri “ten”, CA, Eth. ‛ašru, Phoen.,
OAram. ‛šr id.
Sab. s²ms¹ “sun”, but BHeb. šmš, Ug. špš, OAram, Phoen. šmš, Akk.
šamšu, CA šamsu id.
BHeb. śph “lip” = CA šapa-tu fem., in pause šapah, where suffixed -t is
regularly /-h/, Akk. šaptu “lip”, Egyp. sp-t id.
BHeb. śml “left (hand), north”, Sab. s²’ml, s²’m “north” = CA šimāl, š’ml,
“the left (hand), north” (also š’m “north”), Akk. šumēlu “the left (hand), north”,
Egyp. smr “the left hand”.
BHeb. śāmēђ, šāmaђ “rejoice”, SA s²mħ id. = Akk. šamāħu, Ug. šmħ id.,
CA šamaħa “be proud, high, exalted”.

/ḫ/
There is still another consonant /ḫ/ found only in Egyp. and represented with a
distinct hieroglyph. This Egyp. consonant interchanges with /š/ and /ħ/ in many
words and corresponds in some words to Sem. /ħ/, in some others to /š/ and still
others to /ħ/ ~ /š/, e.g.
Egyp. ḫmm “to smell” = CA šamma id. Egyp. also has ḫmd “to smell”, this
is from earlier ḫmm-t “a smell” (= CA šamma-tu id.): compare CA ħamma
“become stinky, give a bad smell”.
Egyp. ḫn “to be sick, to trouble, be disturbed internally”; ḫnn “nausea” = ħn
“to disturb, stir up trouble” = Egyp. šn “nausea, trouble; sickness, illness” = CA
šannu “be physically weak, emaciated, hungry”; šanū’a-tu “feeling nausea, feeling
sick”.
Egyp. ḫn “hide, skin, water-skin, leather bottle” = CA šannu “any worn-out
receptacle or vessel made from hide, water-skin”.
Egyp. ḫrt “the mole-god” = CA ħuldu “mole”.
Egyp. ḫ’d, ḫ’rd “boy, child” = CA ħaudu “pretty young girl”.

26
Like Egyp., CA also used infixed /-r-/ as part of the root, hence ħarūdu “virgin
girl”.
Egyp. ḫnmίt “fountain, spring” = CA šanimu “water, esp. cold water”.
Egyp. nḫ’ “to sprinkle; emissions” ~ nš “to sprinkle”; nšnš “emission,
saliva”; nš-t “moisture, saliva” = CA naššu “emission (of water)”; našša “to ooze,
leak water”; naššāša-tu, said of land, “never dry”.
If a palce (land, etc.) or an object (cistern, etc.) does not hold water due to
leaking and the like, it will reach a stage where it becomes ‘empty of water’, i.e.
‘dry’, hence BHeb. nāšā “to dry up, to fail, as water”, CA našša “to dry up (only
water)”.
On the other hand, the difference between CA nšf, as in nāšif, “dry, only in the
sense empty of water” and Egyp. nšf “moisture” is that the CA word is based on
našša “be dry” above”, while its Egyp. cognate is based on nš “moisture,
emission” above.
Egyp. ḫrί “the last, the lower” = CA ’āħīru “the last”, BHeb. ’ђr id., Sab. ’ħr
“the last, latter”.

Egyp. /ḫ/ is seen in some Semitic languages as /s/ (< /š/) in few cases, e.g.
Egyp. ‛nḫ “mirror” = CA ‛inās arch. id.
Egyp. ‛nḫ, ‛nšħ, ‛nš “to live; life” = Assyr. nēšu “to live”, CA na‛aša “to
enliven”. All include an affixed proot /n-/, occurring as an infix in Egyp. and
prefix in Semitic, and are from the root in CA ‛āša “to live”; ‛aišu “life”. Tham.
has /-s/ instead of /-š/: ‛yys “to live” = CA CII ‛ayyaša caus. id. Some other Egyp.
and Semitic derivatives of this root are:
Egyp. ‛nħ-t “stalk, stick; plant of life”, CA ‛ašša-tu fem. “a kind of tree whose
branches are slim and like sticks; a kind of palm trees with no or little fronds and
slim from below” also lit. “with a small head and little fronds”.
Egyp. ‛nħ, ‛nḫ also expresses “to live upon something” = CA ‛āša “to live upon
‛aišu (= food, i.e anything one eats or drinks)”; ma‛āšu “the means or things you
live on”, nowadays “salary”, SA ‛aiš “food”.
Egyp. ‛nħ “life and content forever” also “life, stability, prosperity or content”,
a formula of good wishes which follows each mention of the king’s name in
official documents: life, all prosperity, all stability, all health (and) joy of heart;
‛nħw, ‛nḫw “the beautified in heaven, i.e. the living”, CA ‛āša “long-live (+
mention of the king or president’s name).
Egyp. ‛nħ, ‛nḫ “living place, house”, CA ‛āša “to live” in both senses “be alive,
to exist” and “to reside, dwell in a place”.
Egyp. ḫr “evil, wickedness” = CA šarru “evil, bad”. In BHeb. the root has an
initial /s/: sārar “be evil, be bad”; sar “rebellious, refractory” = CA šārra “to
quarrel”; šārru “adversary, opponent”.

27
 Egyp. /ḫ/ ~ /ħ/ may correspond to Semitic /ђ/ in few cases, e.g.
Egyp. ħ’m “burning hot”; ḫ’m “be hot, to blaze”; s-ḫ’mm caus.
“make hot” ~ ħ’mm “heat, fire, hot” = Akk. emēmu “be hot”, CA ђamma
“to burn, heat”; ђammu “hot, heat”, Ug. ђm id.
However, a variant form with /ħ-/ appears in all HS languages with or without
caus. /ša/ and with or without suffixed /-m/ or /-n/. See DHSR: §3.2.28.

/ḿ/
Egyptian still has two bilabial nasals represented with two different
hieroglyphs:
a) the ordinary /m/ and is common to all languages,
b) the other consonant is represented with a combination of two hieroglyphs,
the first is the symbol for /m-/ and the second for the voiced pharyngeal /‛/, i.e.
/m‛/. This sound will be represented here with a symbol /ḿ/. The Egyptian
digraph /m‛/ corresponds to /m/ in other Hamito-Semitic languages, e.g.
1) Egyp. ḿš’, ḿš‛ “to walk, march, go” = CA mašā id., Sab. ms²y ~ ms²w
“to go away”,
2) Egyp. ḿħr “dowry, price” = CA mahru id., BHeb. mihar “price, paid for
the bride to her parent”, OffAram. mhr’ id.,
3) Egyp. ḿhr, ḿh’r “to be skilled, expert” = CA māhiru id., Pun., OffAram.
mhr “skilled, capable, efficient”,
4) Egyp. ḿg’dίr “tower, fortress” = Ug. m-gdl, CA mi-ĝdalu, pl. ma-ĝādilu,
BHeb. m-gdl “tower”,
5) Egyp. ḿtn, mdn “road, way” = CA matnu id.,
6) Egyp. ḿđd “to squeeze; the extract or juice of something; squeezed or
pressed out” = CA mđđ (apparently from *mđd) id.
7) Egyp. ḿhr-w pl. “young cattle” = CA muhru sg. “foal, colt”.
In Egyp., too, /ḿ/ was also simplified to /m/ in a good number of words, e.g.
ḿh’rί ~ mhrί “milkman”,
ḿđ’b “a fetter” ~ mđ’b “to fetter”,
ḿš’, ḿš‛ ~ mš‛ “to march, walk, go”,
ḿš‛ ~ mš‛ “soldier”,
In addition, in some cases we find that Egyp. /ḿ-/ appears in the derivatives of
roots with /m-/, e.g.
ḿ’t “dead body”, but the Egyp root and derivatives do not include
/ḿ-/: mίt “to die”, etc. < m “death” = CA māta “to die”; mayyit “dead”,
s-mḿ caus. “to make burn up”: m’ “to burn up”.
As to the distribution of Egyp. /ḿ/ in words, it is seen in some dictionaries in
the initial position (cf. EHD), but rarely in medial or final position. For example,

28
EHD treats /ḿ/ as variant of /m/ and represents it with /m‛/, i.e. two phonemes, in
some words and /m/ in some others as the following examples show:
Y’mίt “a god” < Y’ḿίt (EHD I, p. 20),
ymm “grain, barley or wheat” < ymḿ (EHD I, p. 50),
m‛, m’, mί “who is it” < ḿ (EHS I, 279),
m‛ “see, behold” < ḿ (EHD I, 279),
m‛m‛ “divine seed” < ḿḿ (EHD I, p. 280),
m‛m‛ “fountain” < ḿm (EHD I, p. 280),
ḫm‛w “a class of workmen” < ḫḿ‛w (EHD I, p. 547),
s-m‛r caus. “to please” < s-ḿr (EHD II, p. 670).
It seems that the sound frequently interchanges with the sequence /m‛/ and
much less frequently with /m + semi-consonant/, e.g. m‛, m’, mί “who is it” < ḿ
(EHS I, 279). Note the root of this word is in Egyp. m‛ “who, what” = BHeb. mī,
mā(h) id. In CA the form was split into two: man “who (+ human)” and mā “what
(- human)”, Phoen. m “what” but ’m “who”.
To sum up, Egyptian /ḿ/ appears to be complicated and difficult to understand
for three reasons:
i) the limited number of words in which it occurs in Egyptian,
ii) The only Semitic consonant it corresponds to is /m/,
iii) it has been overlooked by scholars.
The purpose of the foregoing discussion of Egyp. /ḿ/ is of twofold:
i) to shed some light on its phonological nature, distribution in words and its
corresponding sound in other HS languages,
ii) to draw scholars’ attention to the previous existence of this sound in Egyp.
and to the possibility that it could have been a phoneme in Egyp.

1.2.2 Vowels
The vowel system of PHS has been preserved intact only in CA. Moscati
(1969: §8.68) finds that
«The Proto-Semitic vowel system has an exact reflection of Arabic whose
full network of graphic symbols mirrors the phonemic position. The
history of Arabic and its dialects shows clearly in what manner vowels of
other timbres have evolved in the Semitic languages and have, in the
course of time, acquired phonemic status».
Similarly, O’Leary (1969: §41) puts forward the same triangular system,
considering that
“The original Semitic vowels show three timbres, a, i, and u. Other
timbres exist, ä, e, o, ü, but all these are derived from the three original
sounds by dialectal variation, or else by the influence of neighboring
consonants”.

29
 Gardiner (EG, 3) sees that
«The entire vocal system of Old Egyptian may indeed proved to have
reached a stage resembling that of Hebrew or modern Arabic as
compared with classical Arabic».
Akkadian has a vowel system similar to that of CA, but with the addition of /e/
(short and long), which developed from short and long /a, i/. In Old Bab.,
however, /i/ occurs so frequently for /e/.
Old Canaanite, like Akkadian, developed a vowel /e/ from an original /a, i/.
According to Moscati (op.cit: §8.70, 8.74), Old Canaanite /e/ “now appears to be
established as part of the phonemic system, even though it started as an
allophone”. Moscati (op.cit: §8.73) also finds that “Amorite exhibits a vowel-
system identical with that of Akkadian– with the sole exception that e does not
appear to be an independent phoneme but rather an allophone of i”. Similarly,
Hasselbach (2005: 107) considers it unlikely that /e/ was an independent phoneme
in Old Akkadian.
As for the Ugaritic vowel system, Moscati (op.cit: §8.75) finds that Ug. /’/ has
three symbols according to the vowel which follows, i.e. i/ī, a/ā, u/ū. He tends to
infer that «the Ugaritic vowel-system corresponds substantially to that of Proto-
Semitic». In the light of all such facts, we may conclude that Proto-Hamito-
Semitic had only the above-mentioned triangular system of vowels with its two
sets: short and long.
All other Semitic languages have developed a number of additional vowels,
esp. /e, ē, ō, o, ǝ/.
The following examples give an idea about the vowel correspondences among
Semitic languages:

1.2.2.1 Short Vowels

PHS /i/: CA ḏillu “shadow”, Akk. şillu, BHeb. şēl, Aram.: Syr. ţellālā, Eth.
şǝlālōt id.: ESA ḏll “to cover”, Ug. ḏl “shadow”.

PHS /a/: CA ’arđu “earth”, Akk. ’erşetu (< erşu plus the fem. marker -tu),
BHeb. ’ereş, Aram.: Syr. ’ar‛ā id.: Ug. ’arş, Phoen. ’rş “land”, ESA ’rđ id.

PHS /u/: CA ’uδnu “ear”, Akk. ’uznu, BHeb. ’ōzen, Aram.: Syr. ’ednā, Eth.
’ezn id.: Ug. ’udn, ESA ’δn id. also “to allow someone to depart or leave” =
CA’aδina id.:’iδnu “permission” = Ug. ’idn id.

1.2.2.2 Long Vowels

PHS /ī/: CA ba‛īru “beast of burden, ass”, Akk. bīru, bēru “young bull”, BHeb.
bǝ‛īr “cattle, bovine”, Aram.: Syr. bǝ‛īrā “cattle, beast of burden”, Eth. bǝ‛ǝrāy
“ox, cow, cattle”: ESA b‛r “big livestock, domestic animal”.

PHS /ā/: CA θamānū (θamānī gen., acc.) “eight”, Akk. šamānū, BHeb. šǝmōnē,
30
Aram.: Syr. tǝmānē, Eth. samānī id.: ESA θmn, θmnt id.

PHS /ū/: CA θūmu “garlic”, Akk. šūmu, BHeb. šūm, Aram.: Syr. tūmā, Eth.
sōma-t id.

Comments
Parallel developments similar to those noted in Semitic languages are seen in
modern Arabic dialects, e.g.
CA banāt “girls” > banēt,
CA bāb “door” > bēb,
CA ‛alīm “knowledgeable” > ‛alēm,
CA ’anā “I” > ’anē,
CA bin “son” as in bin ‛alī “Ali’s son” > ben ‛alē, etc.
The change set forth above is generally known as ‘Imālah’ (or ‘deflection’), i.e.
the conditional change of CA /ā/ to either /ē/ or /ī/ (see Comments on Imālah
below). It was also common in some Old dialects and was first described in the 8th
century and explained in terms of the phonological environments that may or may
not permit the change. Accordingly, the mid front /e/ whether it is short or long
has never been a phoneme in any form of Arabic; it has always been a mere
allophone of /i/ and /a/ occurring in well-defined phonological environments.

Comments on Imālah
Two types of Imālah must be recognized in modern and old Arabic dialects, the
weak (or Imālah ħafīfah, lit. ‘light’) and the strong (Imālah θaķīlah, lit. ‘heavy’),
as follows:
a) Imālah ħafīfah: CA /ā/ > /ē/ as in bāb “door” > bēb,
b) Imālah θaķīlah: CA /ā/ > /ī/ as in bāb “door” > bīb.
In combinations with other words or affixes, Imālah of /ā/ to /ī/ disappears
completely and the choice is between the more common bāb or the less common
bēb:
CA bābī “my door” > bābī (or bēbī),
CA bāb (= door) (’a)l (= of, i.e. belonging to) bait (house) > bāb l bait (rarely
bēb l bait).
Similarly, the change of CA /u/ to /o/ in modern dialects is always conditioned,
e.g.
CA ђurru “free” > ђorr, but CA ђurriy-tu “freedom” > ђurriyī id.
CA bairūt “Beirut” > bairōt, but CA bairūtī “one from Beirut” > bairūtī.

Comments on Imālah in some Semitic languages

The phonological phenomenon just noted in modern Arabic dialects as words
are combined with suffixes find a parallel in some Semitic languages. For
example, the PSem. term for ‘a dog’ is [kalb-] as in Akk., CA kalbu, Eth. kalb,

31
but in BHeb. keleb. The addition of [-ī] “my” to Heb. keleb has the effect of
restoring the root vowel of PSem., hence BHeb. kalb-ī “my dog”. Another
example is PSem. [δikr-] “remembrance”, etc.” as in Akk. zikru, CA δikru, BHeb.
zēker, but zikr-ī “my remembrance”, etc.
In some cases, however, the addition of a suffixed pronoun, though may not
recover the original vowel, it nevertheless brings the Heb. word very close to the
PSem. form as far as the syllable structure is concerned, e.g. PSem. monosyllabic
[’uδn-] “ear” is in Akk. ’uzn-u, CA ’uδn-u (-u is the nom. case), but the BHeb.
cognate ’ōzen is of two syllables. The original monosyllable, together with its
short vowel, reappears upon attachment of suffixes, hence ’ozn-ī “my ear”: comp.
CA ’uδn-ī id. (Gray 1967: §9.17).
The same phenomenon noted in BHeb. is also seen in modern Arabic dialects
and manifests a tendency to insert a vowel /e/ or /ǝ/ in order to break up a cluster
of two consonants, e.g.
PSem. [‛abd-] “slave” as in CA ‛abdu, Akk. ’abdu, but in BHeb. ‛abed and in
modern Arabic dialects ‛abed. The original form can reappear upon the
attachment of suffixes, hence BHeb. ‛abd-ī and modern Arabic dialects ‛abd-ī
“my slave”. This phenomenon is also seen in other Semitic languages: Bab.
şipirētu “letters” ~ şiprētu (CA şifru sg.), but it is quite rare in OAkk. and in CA,
though some examples may exist. PSem. [’uδn-] “ear” above has a conditioned
variant in OAkk. ’uzunu and CA ’uδunu; the epenthetical vowel must be identical
with that of the preceding syllable.
BHeb. and perhaps also Aram. often exhibit the same Imālah θaķīlah (heavy)
seen in old and modern Arabic dialects, e.g. CA ’asāsu “foundation” > dialects
’asīs = BHeb. ’ašīš id.; CA tamāmu “perfect” > dialects tamīm = BHeb. tamīm
id., etc.

More on Imālah
In addition to the environments which may or may not allow Imālah as
illustrated above, there are certain consonants preventing Imālah in both old and
modern Arabic dialects. According to Sibawayhi (died in 160 or 180 H) in his
book Kitāb II, 264, Imālah cannot occur if /ā/ is preceded or followed by any of
such consonants as /ş/, /đ/, /ḏ/, /ţ/, /ħ/, /γ/ and /ķ/ as in şāra “became”, đārru
“causing harm”, ḏālimu “unjust”, ţāri’ “incidental, unforeseen”, ħālu “maternal
uncle”, γā’ibu “absent” and ķāla “said”. Sibawayhi called such consonants
‘musta‛liyah’. For more information on Imalah in old Arabic dialects, see
Sibawayhi op.cit: 259-271.
To Sibawayhi’s list of consonants preventing Imālah, I add the laryngeals /‛/
and /ђ/, esp. when occurring initially, as in ‛ām “common, general”, ‛ālam
“world”, ‛āĝiz “impotent, aged”, ma‛āš “salary”; ђāl “condition”, ђār “hot”, ђāĝiz
“barrier”, maђāl “never”, and so forth.

32
1.2.3 Diphthongs
Classical Arabic «preserves the diphthongs in their entirety» (Moscati, 1969:
§8.102). In other Semitic languages the two diphthongs /au/ and /ai/ underwent
various modifications. In Akk. they became /ū/ and /ī/ respectively, while in
phoen. and BHeb. they became /ō/ and /ē/ respectively. In some cases, the
diphthongs remained unchanged in BHeb. Aram., Eth., etc. (cf. O’Leary, 1969:
§§49-50; Moscati, op.cit: §§8.97-8.104). The following are some illustrative
examples of the developments of PHS diphthongs in Semitic languages:

1) /ai/ or /ay/
1a) PHS [baitu] masc. “house” in CA baitu, Akk. bītu, Assyr. bētu, BHeb.
bayit, bēt, Aram. bēth, baitā, Eth. bēt, Sab. byt id.

1b) PHS [lailu] masc. “night”, fem. [laila-tu] in CA masc. lailu, fem. laila-tu
“night”, Akk. līlātu, BHeb. lailāh, Aram. lelyā, Eth. lēlīt , Sab. lyl, fem. llt id.

1c) PHS [kai] “in order that” in CA kai, Akk. kī, BHeb. kī, Syr. kai, Eth. kē,
Sab. k-, ky id.

2) /au/ or /aw/
2a) PHS [θauru] “bull” in CA θauru, Akk. šūru, BHeb. šōr, Aram. (Palm.)
tōrā, Syr. taurā, Eth. sōr, Ug. θr, Sab. θwr id.

2b) PHS [mautu] “death” in CA mautu, Akk. mūtu, BHeb. māwet, Aram.
mautā, Eth. mōt, Ug. mt, Sab. mwt id.

2c) PHS [’au] “or” in CA ’au, Akk. ’ū, BHeb. ’ō, Syr. ’au, Eth. ’au, Sab. ’w id.

Comments
CA diphthongs have undergone changes in modern dialects analogous to those
found in Semitic languages. The diphthong /ai/ may become /ē/ or remain
unchanged, as in the above mentioned Semitic languages, depending on the
phonological environments, e.g.
CA baitu “house” > bēt, but CA baitī “my house” > baitī.
CA ħailu “horses” > ħēl, but CA ħailī “my horses” > ħailī.
The diphthong remains unchanged as in the following examples:
CA ђaiyyu “alive” > ђai id.
CA fai’u “shade” > fai id.
CA kai “in order to” > kai id.
Similarly, CA diphthong /au/ may change to /ō/ (rarely to /ū/) in most modern
dialects or remain unchanged, but the change is always conditioned. Consider the
following examples:
33
 CA θaubu “dress” > θōb ~ θaub, but CA θaubī “my dress” > θaubī id.
CA lauђu “board” > lōђ ~ lauђ, but CA lauђī “my board” > lauђī id.
The diphthong /au/ remains unchanged as in the following examples:
CA ħaufu “fear” > ħauf id.
CA lau “if” > lau id.
CA mautu “death” > maut id.
CA kaukab “star” > kaukab id.

1.3 Hamito-Semitic grammatical system

An understanding of Hamito-Semitic roots and the ways stems are derived
from such roots is prerequisite for any comparative study involving Hamito-
Semitic family of languages since the whole grammatical system of the family is
based upon them. Moreover, the grammatical elements used to form the stems
have become permanently attached to them in some or in all of their occurrences
in all Hamito-Semitic languages. These very same grammatical elements have
also become part of the root in nearly all language families. For this reason, it is a
necessity to keep in mind the first ten stems outlined and illustrated below, along
with the affixes used to form them. Most of such grammatical affixes have
already been proved to be present in Indo-European language family (see DHSR:
chapter IV) and in Austronesian language family (see HSA). It will be proved in
this research that the same affixes are also present in nearly all world language
families.
The following outline of Classical Arabic derived stems is intended to give a
general idea about derived stems in Hamito-Semitic and the grammatical elements
used to form them, bearing in mind that there are some variations in the formation
of derived stems in the family. For this reason, all essential variations– whether
they are in CA or in its sister languages– will be brought to light, explained and
illustrated with examples. In addition, it is for the first time that nearly all
Egyptian corresponding stems will be identified and discussed.
The combination of root and vowels gives rise to the so-called ‘the basic (or
ground) stem’. The addition of one or more consonants to the basic stem serves to
form complex stems, which express various modifications of the root meaning. It
is possible, according to old Arab grammarians, to derive from the CA root [f‛l]
“do, make” as many as fifteen different stems covering all verbs and the
overwhelming majority of nouns and adjectives, among some other parts of
speech. This number, however, excludes some important reduplicated stems
actually present in the language (see Comments at the end of this section) as well
as some archaic stems found in the language, but overlooked by Old Arab
grammarians and Semitists. By symbolizing the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd radical consonants

34
of the root by the letters /F/, /‫ﻉ‬/, and /L/ respectively, the entire verbal system
looks as follows:
I. Fa‫ﻉ‬aLa VI. taFā‫ﻉ‬aLa XI. ’iF‫ﻉ‬āLLa    
II. Fa‫ﻉﻉ‬aLa VII. ’inFa‫ﻉ‬aLa XII. ’iF‫ﻉ‬aw‫ﻉ‬aLa    
III. Fā‫ﻉ‬aLa VIII. ’iFta‫ﻉ‬aLa XIII. ’iF‫ﻉ‬awwaLa    
IV. ’aF‫ﻉ‬aLa IX. ’iF‫ﻉ‬aLLa XIV. ’iF‫ﻉ‬anLaLa    
V. taFa‫ﻉﻉ‬aLa X. ’istaF‫ﻉ‬aLa XV. ’iF‫ﻉ‬anLā   
1.3.1 CI stem is the ground or basic stem; it may be Fa‫ﻉ‬aLa (CA kataba,
BHeb. katab “to write”), Fa‫ﻉ‬uLa (CA maruđa, Akk. maruş “be sick”), or Fa‫ﻉ‬iLa
(CA yabisa, BHeb. yābēš “be dry”). The passive is formed by ablaut and has a
stem Fu‫ﻉ‬iLa as in CA kutiba “be written” and ’ukila “be eaten”, BHeb. ’ukkal
“be eaten”. 

1.3.2 CII stem is intensive and formed from the basic or ground-stem by
doubling the second radical consonant (Fa‫ﻉ‬aL- > Fa‫ﻉﻉ‬aL-) as in CA kassara
against kasara “to break”, Akk. ukabbis against ikbus “to tread” (= CA kabbasa
“press heavily on”), ušabbir against išabir “to break”.
CII stems may also have a causative aspect as in Akk. unammir against imnir
(*inmir) “to shine” and CA đaђђaka against đaђika “to laugh”, ‛allama “to
teach”, i.e. make one learn, against ‛alima “to learn (about), know”.
The manner of forming CII stems exists in Egyp. as in nm‛ “to build, construct”
> nmm‛ id.; mnķ “to bring to an end, finish, complete” > mnnķ “to complete”; n‛ί,
n‛ “to come, to go, to sail” > n‛‛ “to sail away” = BHeb. nw‛ “to sway to and fro,
move to and fro”, CA nā‛a id., Egyp. nm “to sleep” > nmm “to stretch onself out
to sleep” = CA nwm “to sleep” > CII nwwm “make one sleep, put one to sleep”,
BHeb. nwm “to slumber, fall asleep”, Aram. nwm id.

1.3.3 CIII stem is formed from CI by changing the vowel /a/ of the 1st syllable
into /ā/ (Fa‫ﻉ‬aL- > Fā‫ﻉ‬aL-) as in CA kātaba “to correspond” against kataba “to
write”, bāraka, Eth. bāraka “to bless”, etc. Traces of this stem are also found in
some other Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic (O’Leary, 1969: 217).
Old Arab scholars assert that CIII stem is derived from CI verb by lengthening
the vowel of CI first syllable as has already been mentioned above. This
formation is correct and it applies to many CIII stems. There are, however, many
other CIII stems, too, which are derived from substances since their supposed CI
verbs do not exist in the language as in bāraka “to bless” (from baraka-tu “bless,
growth”), whose supposed CI baraka expresses “to kneel down, bend the knee”,
BHeb. bārak, Eth. baraka, etc. id. Similarly, CIII stem ĝāwaba “to answer, reply,
respond” is from ĝawāb “a reply”. Note that CI ĝāba expresses “to bore, cut”,
etc. 

35
1.3.4 CIV stem is causative formed by prefixing /’-/, esp. in CA, Eth., and
Aramaic dialects (DHSR: §3.3) as in CA ’anzala “make one descend” against
nazala “to descend”, ’asma‛a “make one hear” against sami‛a “to hear”. The
prefix is found as an inseparable part of the root in some of its occurrences in the
just mentioned languages.
In all other Hamito-Semitic languages, however, the grammatical prefix is part
of the root as in Akk. ’bd, etc. gen. HS “to perish, destroy” = CA CIV ’abāda
“make perish, destroy”: CI bāda “to perish, destroy”; ’abad-ta (also pronounced
’abat-ta: regressive assimilation. Note that shortening of /ā/- from original /W/- of
the 2nd syllable (’abad-ta) is a rule that admits no exceptions) = Egyp. yb’t-t’
“thou hast destroyed” (see DHSR: §3.3.3). Some examples from Egyp. are:
bs “to rise” > ybs “make to rise”;
đr “strong” > yđr “make strong”;
pђ “to arrive” > ypђ “make to arrive”,
ħr “to fall” > yħr “make to fall”, etc. (DHSR: §3.3).
It is important to note that caus. /’-/ also appears as /y-/ in Phoenician and its
dialect Punic and is also frequent in Egyp.

1.3.4.1 Other HS causative prefixes

Other supposed causative prefixes in CA and all other Hamito-Semitic
languages which have also become permanently attached to the root in some or in
all of the occurrences in the entire language family are:

1) /š-/, esp. in Akk., Ug., and Egyp. as in Akk. uš-abri against ibri “to see”,
Egyp. s-dmy against dmy “to join, be united to”. Old Arab scholars identified
correctly this prefix as ‘an extra letter’ in some words.
In Chadic and Cushitic, /š/ appears as a suffix as in Housa čise “to feed” against
če “to eat”, Kafa ķayis “to finish” against ķay “to complete”, Somali gaadsi
against gaad “to reach, arrive”, Oromo jamsa “to blind” against jama adj. “blind”,
damfisa “to boil” against damfa id., etc. (see DHSR: §3.2).
In Semitic, too, this causative can be a suffix as in CA ħalbasa “to enchant,
captivate”: ħalaba id. LA states here that “it is most likely that ħalaba is the root
and that /s/ is one of the extra letters in the language”.

2) /h-/, esp. in OAram., BHeb., Sab., and Tham. as in Sab. h-šb‛ against šb‛ “to
surrender”, BHeb., BAram. hnpķ against npķ “to go out”. The causative prefix
exists in CA as variant of /’-/: harāķa or ’arāķa “to pour out” and was identified
by old Arab scholar as ‘an extra letter’ equivalent to /’a-/ in function. The prefix
/h-/ is originally a variant form of /’a-/.
As has already been mentioned, the two causative prefixes /’a-/ and /ša-/, like all
affixes, have become inseparable from the root in all or in some of their

36
occurrences in the entire language family and in all Indo-European languages (see
DHSR: §§3.2, 3.3 and 3.4) as well as in many language families.

3) /y-/ is found in Phoen. and is due to the weakening of /’-/.

4) /d-/ expresses a causative meaning in the oldest recorded Hamito-Semitic

texts. With the notable exception of Egyp. and in some cases CA, the prefix is
inseparable from the root in the entire family. Examples of the Egyp. free
morpheme /d-/ performing a causative function are:
Egyp. d’ yrί “cause to do” (Egy. yrί “to do, make”, CA ’ariya id.),
Egyp. d’ mš’ “cause to walk”, to walk”: CA mašā “to walk”.
In many of its occurrences, this grammatical morpheme is also found as part of
the root in Egyp. itself as well as in the entire Hamito-Semitic languages, e.g.
Egyp. dbn “to circle” < bn “ring, ball” = Sab. dbl “ball of dates”, Eth.: Tna.
dəmbəlbəl bälä “be round”, Amh. tän-däballälä “roll”, Har. an-dōläla "make
round”; dulālu "round", A. əndəballä-m “circular”, Z. dumbululīt "round”. Arabic
dibla-tu fem. "ring of engagement" (DHSR: §2.1.6.5, n. 3d).
Egyp. dgg “to see, look at” < gg “to see, look at” = Cush.: Saho ḍag- “to know,
to learn”, Afar dag-, ḍag id., Kambatta dag-, deg- “to know”, Chad.: Kera ḍigi “to
think”.
Egyp. also has variants tg, tg’, tk’, dk’ id. (DHSR: §§2.1.6.5.6–2.1.6.5.7). The
Semitic cognate is seen in CA as daķķa “make appear, show”, BAram, Syr.,
Mand. dūķ “to look”, etc. (DHSR: §3.10.14, n. 4f). However, if we prefix proot
[ђa-] to the CA word, it does not matter then whether one says ђaddaķa [ђdķ] or
ђadaĝa [ђdĝ]; both words express two slightly different shades of “to see, to look
at”. The difference lies in the shape of the eyes when you ‘look at’.
Some examples from CA are:
daγala “to penetrate, enter into” < γalla id. (DHSR: §3.1.6.5.12).
dahwara “to make fall headlong, to imperil” < hauwara “to fall headlong, to
imperil” < hawā “to fall”, Egyp. hw id., Syr. hewā, BHeb. hāwā, etc. id.
dāmisu “very dark” as a vb damasa, said of the night, “make enter upon
darkness”. This is a complex word consisting of caus. [da-] + m- “time of” + [su-]
“night, evening”.
a) For CA [m-] “time of”: cf. CA ma-γrib “time of sunset , i.e. evening”:
γaraba, said of the sun only, “to set”, Egyp. m “time of”.
b) For CA [su-]: cf. Akk. šiwī-t “evening”, Egyp. sw “evening, night” = CA
mu-syu “evening”: see DHSR: §3.10.13.
It is important to note that the two elements [m-] and [su-] above became an
indivisible root [msy or msw] in Hamito-Semitic languages in the course of time
as in CA musyu “evening”, Akk. mūšu “night”.
For a comprehensive study of prefixed [d-], see DHSR, esp. §2.1.6.5ff. The

37
prefix is also part of the root in Indo-European and many other language families.

N.B. In my comparative study of Hamito-Semitic and Austronesian language

families, I showed that [da-] exist in Austronesian language family: see HSA:
§3.7.1ff. As will be seen in this research, the same morpheme also exists in other
language families.

4) /pa-/. I didn’t pay much attention to this prefixed proot in DHSR on the
assumption that it is a very ancient variant of *baW- (DHSR: §3.13). However, I
dealt with it in the same work on some occasions as when I compared Hamito-
Semitic and Indo-European derivatives of PHS-IE proot [’aW] “to give”:
HS: Egyp. f’ί “to present” = CA fā’a “to bestow” also “go back” < Ug. ’uš-n
“gift”, CA ’aus-un id.; ’us-tu “I give”, etc.
IE: Hitt. pai- “to give” also “to go” < Grk. aisa “fate”, Toch. ai “to give”, etc.
The original root has been preserved in CA hā’, variant of the difficult to
pronounce *’ā’ (from *’w’ or *’y’) “ask someone to give you something”; hai’
“gift” (< *’ai’). The common stem in early CA was CIV ’a-hā’a: see DHSR:
§4.4.48. The root was also preserved intact in Egyp. ’w “make an offering”; ’w ‛
lit. ‘gift’ (= ’w) + hand (‛ = “hand”), i.e. “gift, present” (from open hand) = Ug.
’w-š, CA ’aw-su above = Egyp. ’s, from ’ws, “an offering”, ’w-t “offering”.
The first serious study of proot [pa-] was in HSA esp. in §2.4.2. It is worth-
mentioning that Austronesian languages have preserved this prefix (see HSA:
§2.6.3), while HS languages have incorporated it into the root. CA has, however,
preserved intact a visible trace of it; it is the so-called ‘causative [fa]’ used as a
separate word (see HSA: Comments II of §2.4.2). I will deal with /b-/ and /p-/ and
briefly illustrate them with some examples in §3.2.1.5 below.

1.3.4.2 Hamito-Semitic causative affixes and world’s languages

Some of the Hamito-Semitic causative affixes, if not all, are found in the entire
world’s language families and it will be almost impossible to find a language
family free of some of those affixes. For example, all of them occur in Arawakan
language family (Wise, 1990: 89-111) and many others. The causative affix /s ~ š/
is present in Sino-Tibetan and Mayan language families as a suffix -es/-s (Fahey,
2004: 42) and, it will be shown below, that Sumerian has /’-/, /s ~ š/ and /d-/.
Furthermore, the examples of cognate words for ‘water’ drawn from world’s
language families leave no doubt of the earlier presence of all such causatives: see
§§3.2.3.6ff below, see also examples of cognate words for ‘earth’ in §3.2.4.1
below. The grammatical function of a causative affix is not merely confined to
forming causative verbs, it is rather widely used to form other parts of speech,
esp. nouns.

1.3.5 CV stem is reflexive and formed from CII verbs by prefixing /t-/
38
(Fa‫ﻉﻉ‬aL- > taFa‫ﻉﻉ‬aL-) as in CA taĝamma‛a against ĝamma‛a “to assemble”, Syr.
’etђaşşan “be fortified” (= CA taђaşşana id.), Amh. tänaffäsä “to breathe” (= CA
tanaffasa “to breathe”), Sab. tnşf “to perform service” (= CA CV tanaşşafa id.),
Sab. tfrķ “to scatter, be dispersed”(= CA tafarraķa id.), t‛bd “to submit oneself”
(= CA ta‛abbada id.), Akk.-Assyr. tabāku “to shed tears” = CA takākā of bakā “to
shed tears, cry” bheb “to stain, be stained” is from bālal id. For the last two
examples, see §3.2.1.9 below.

N.B. BHeb. and BAram. make a combination /ht-/ to express the same reflexive
idea as in BHeb. hitķaddeš “he sanctified himself” = CA taķaddasa id. It seems
evident that the combination includes caus. /h-/ (cf. CIV stems above) plus
reflexive /-t-/ and corresponds to Syr. ’itFa‫ﻉﻉ‬aL, i.e. caus. /’i-/ (see §1.3.4 above)
+ /-t-/ ‘self’ + CII stem Fa‫ﻉﻉ‬aL above. The very same development is noted in
modern Arabic dialects as in Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian, etc. ’it’addas (i.e.
’itķaddas, where CA /ķ/ is regularly /’/) “he sanctified himself”: lit. “(he) caused +
oneself + be sanctified”.
   In Hamitic languages, prefixed t- serves to form passive and reflexive stems as
in Berber: Shil. aš “to eat” > tšša “be eaten”. In Cushitic the same affix is used as
a suffix as in Bil. gadd “be rich” > gadd-t “become rich”, Bed. kami “be sad” >
kami-t “make oneself sad” (Barton, 1934: 23, n. 7).

N.B. Reduplicated CV stems are formed by prefixing /ta-/ but without doubling
the second radical, e.g.
CA δabδaba “to suspend, swing” > reflexive taδabδaba,
CA đa‛đa‛a “fall into decay” > reflexive tađa‛đa‛a.
In Egyp. prefixed /-t/ became part of the root. An obvious example is t’l’l’ “to
rejoice” = CA ta-la’la’a id.; ta-la’lu’u “complete joy, rejoice, glittering” < la’la’a.

1.3.6 CVI stem is reciprocal formed from CIII verbs by prefixing /t-/ as in CA
tamāθala, Eth. tamāsala “to resemble each other or one another” (CA māθala “to
resemble or be like someone”), Sab. t‛şr “to struggle with one another” (CA
ta‛āşara “to squeeze or press each other”?).
In some cases, the stem expresses ‘pretend to’ + ‘meaning of the word’ as in
tanāsā “pretend to have forgotten, feign forgetfulness”, taĝāhala “pretend or feign
ignorance”, etc.
In some other cases, however, the stem is more reflexive than reciprocal as in
CA tarāĝa‛a “turn back, recede, draw back or retreat by oneself”. The original
form of the word is tarāya‛a, which also exists in the language as an arch. form.
The earliest known meaning of this worldwide grammatical affix is ‘self’: cf. CA
δātuhā “herself” from δā “this” (= Egyp. d’ “the”, Sab. δ “this”, etc.) + *-tu “self”
+ -hā “her” (= BHeb. -hā, -ah, Eth. -(h)ā, etc. id.). For further evidence, see CX
stems below.
39
1.3.7 CVII stem is passive formed from CI by prefixing (’i)n-: Fa‫ﻉ‬aL- >
(’i)nFa‫ﻉ‬aL- as in Akk. naprusu “be separated” against parāsu “to divide,
separate”, ippalti (*inpalti) “be defeated” (plt “defeat”), lippašir “be loosened”
(*nippašir) against pašāru “to loosen”, CA ’insatara “be hidden” against satara
“to hide, conceal”, ’insa’ala “be asked” against sa’ala “to ask” = BHeb. nistar
“be concealed” and niš’al “be asked” respectively.
Egyp. ynђrђr “to rejoice”: ђrђr id.; ynmr “to love”: mr id.
There is rarely a language family on this planet which has completely lost this
passive affix, which may usually occur as a prefix in some languages and suffix in
some others. For example, In Austronesian language family the same [(’)n] is
used as a suffix, appearing as either -in, -en or -un in its various languages: see
HSA: §§2.6.4 and 5.2.16.

1.3.8 CVIII stem is middle voice formed by infixing -t- between the first and
second radical consonants of the ground-stem (Fa‫ﻉ‬aL- > -Fta‫ﻉ‬aL-) as in CA
’imtala’a against mala’a “to fill”, Akk. imtali against malū “to fill”, and Ug. yrtђş
“he washes himself” (= CA ya-rtaђiđu id.), Phoen. t-htpk “she is being
overthrown” against hpk “to overthrow” (cf. CA ta-htafiku), Sab. rtđђ “engage in
pitched battle” [r. rđђ].
In Egyp. the prefix is inseparable from the root, e.g. stp “to choose, select” =
CA (’i)şţafā id., from -ştf, where /-t-/ is regularly /-ţ-/ whenever preceded by an
emphatic consonant as in đaraba “to strike” > (’i)đţaraba, şabara “be patient” >
(’i)şţabara, etc.
An Egyp. derivative is stpw “the best chosen” = CA mu-şţafā id., lit. “one (who
is) [= mu-] the best chosen or selected” [= sţfw or sţfy] (DHSR: §3.8). The same
idea can also be expressed by CA CI şafwa-tu pl. “the best chosen, the elite”.

1.3.9 CIX stem is formed from the ground stem by doubling the third radical
(Fa‫ﻉ‬uL- > F‫ﻉ‬aLL-) as in CA ’iђmarra “become permanently red” as opposed to
CXI ’iђmārra “become temporary, or for a while, red”. Stems formed by repeating
the third radical exist in Semitic as Akk. utnennu “to pray”, Syr. ‛abded “be
enslaved”, etc.
As has already been mentioned (see CII stems: §1.3.2 above), the manner of
forming CIX stems exists in Egyp. as in nђm “to snatch away, seize” > nђmm “to
carry off, seize”.
On the other hand, repeating the last radical to express a type of intensive
meaning– i.e. ‘much/many’– is quite common in CA quadriliteral roots as in
(’i)smaγadda [smγd] “be swollen”. For many more illustrations, see DHSR,
Comments of §3.3.37. As in nearly all cases, the language itself speaks aloud
about the origin of the just cited quadriliteral: cf. mu-smaγiddu ~ mu-γiddu

40
“swollen”, where smγd is the caus. of mγd, and this is in turn from [γad]. The
ultimate origin of [γd] is a term for “the sun”: γadā “to move or go at the sunrise”;
γadā’ “breakfast at this time” (nowadays “lunch”); γadwu is the original form of
γadd, γada-n “tomorrow”, etc.

1.3.10 CX stem is causative reflexive made from CI by prefixing [(’i)st-]; a

combination of causative /š-/ and reflexive /-t-/ as in CA ’istama‛a “to listen”; the
real meaning is “make oneself listen” (sami‛a “to hear”), Akk. šutēšuru “to lead,
direct” (ēšēru “be straight”), Sab. stwfy “to accomplish” (wfy “fulfill an
obligation” (= CA ’istawfaya), Min. štwθķ “to guarantee” (wθķ “to trust” = CA
’istawθaķa “make certain”), Eth. ’estanfisa “to draw a breath” (nfs “breathe”).

The last five stems, except CXII, are of rare occurrences in the language and it
may be sufficient to give examples on two of them to illustrate both the mode of
formation and the meaning.

1.3.11 CXI stem expresses an ‘ephemeral or temporary state or condition’ as

opposed to a ‘permanent state or condition’ expressed by CIX above (see DHSR:
§3.19.2) as in ’iђmārra: CIX ’iђmarra “be red”, ’i‛wāĝĝa: CIX ’i‛waĝĝa “be
crooked”, etc.

1.3.12 CXII stem expresses the ‘highest point, degree, level, and the like +
meaning of the verb’, e.g. ђalā “be sweet” > CXII ’iђlawlā “to reach the highest
degree of sweetness”, ķalā “to rise” > CXII ’iķlawlā “to go up the highest point
(of a mountain), etc.

1.3.13 Some other derived stems

It should be kept in mind that there are still some rare stems in CA very
important for comparative study; for such stems, see DHSR: §2.1.7.3, n. a. Other
similar stems are also found in some Semitic languages, esp. Akk. Among such
stems are:
1) Akk. ušFa‫ﻉﻉ‬aL includes the caus. /š-/ added to CII causative stems above,
e.g. ušramma “to cause to dwell or inhabit” < ramū “to cast down, to inhabit” (cf.
CA rammā “cause to cast down” < ramā “to cast down”).
2) Akk. ištanaF‫ﻉ‬aL includes an infix /-tan-/ added to causative išF‫ﻉ‬aL, e.g.
ištanapar “to send” < preterit išpur “to send, to send to” (= CA sāfara “to travel”
< caus. /sa-/ plus [far] as in Egyp. pr “to depart, go out”, CA farra, etc. see
DHSR: §3.2.16).
The Akk. word exists in CA, but under a different morphological classification:
’istanfara, occurred in Hadith, “to ask someone (an ally) to come to help, esp. in
wars”, i.e. lit. “send a message to someone to come to help”; ’anifirū! imper. 3rd

41
pers. pl. “go (to help)!” (LA); it expresses nowadays “be on the alert”. This is a
combination of [sta-] of CX stems above + root [nfr] “to go, flee, etc” < na- + par
above (n. 2). In the light of this fact, it appears that the Akk. stem is originally a
compound of [’ista] plus the traditional trilateral [npr].
3) Akk. ittanaF‫ﻉ‬aL (< intanaF‫ﻉ‬aL) as in ittanasħar “to turn oneself toward” <
nasħuru “be turned” < saħāru “to turn”). This is a combination of [’in-] of CVII
stems above + infixed /-t-/ + a traditional quadriliteral root. As a rule, CA does
not prefix [’in] to quadriliteral roots.
4) Akk. iFtana‫ﻉﻉ‬aL, including infixed /-tana-/ after the first radical of CII
stems Fa‫ﻉﻉ‬aL above. For other stems, see Moscati, 1969: 16.24-16.27 and also
O’Leary, 1969, §§141 and 142.
Similarly, stems formed by all types of reduplication in Hamito-Semitic are
also excluded and so is the stem formed by infixing /-t-/ in an earlier biliteral
stem. The last named is found in all Hamito-Semitic languages as well as in
nearly all world language families. For this stem, see DHSR: §3.8. For
reduplication, see DHSR: §2.1.14.2 and also Comments of §3.3.37.

Comments on Akk. /-tan-/

Akk. infixed /-tan-/ (2-4 above) may be compared with Egyp. suffixed /-tn/.
Examples are:
a) Egyp. ystn “tie round, tie up, lace up, fetter” can be broken down into two
parts: [ys] “to tie, fetter, bind” as in Egyp. yss “to tie, to fetter”; yss-t “cord, rope”
~ ys-wt pl. id. and /-tn/.
b) Egyp. wstn r “to open the mouth wide”, i.e. wstn “make wide” plus the
Egyp. [r] “mouth”. Again, the Egyp. word can be broken down into ws “be broad,
wide” (= CA wāsi-‛) and /-tn/.
It is indisputable that Egyp. /-tn/ is a grammatical suffix, but the question
whether it is cognate with Akk. /-tan-/ cannot be answered with certainty.

42
CHAPTER TWO

SUMERIAN

2.1 Introduction
Sumerian was spoken in what is now southern Iraq (ancient Mesopotamia) in
the plain of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers from the 4th millennium BC until
about 2,000 BC, when it was gradually replaced by Akkadian as a spoken
language, though continued in use as a literary and liturgical language until about
the 1st century AD. It is one of the two earliest written languages in the world, the
second being Egyptian. The question whether Sumerian or Egyptian is the oldest
recorded language in the world is still debatable.
The name ‘Sumerian < Sumer’ came from Akkadian šumeru. The Sumerian
called themselves saḡ-ḡi(6)-ga “black-headed” (lit. head + black + nominative),
their land ki-en-gi-r “place of the noble lords” (lit. “place + lords + civilized”)
and their language eme-gi(7)-r, which includes the noun eme ‘tongue, language’
and a stem gi(7)r. The word gir signifies in Sumerian “noble, domestic, civilized,
belonging to the native in-group”, a compound of gi(7) “circle” and -r “city”.
The term for ‘Sumer’ is in Egyptian Sngr, in Hebrew Šin‛ār and in Hittite
Šanhar. The Hebrew term is apparently a compound of a least two elements: Šin-
(meaning ?) and -‛ār. The latter element is the HS term for “city” = Sumerian
uru(2), iri, rí; iri(11) “city, district” above (see §3.5.1.2 below). It seems, however,
that the Egyptian, Hebrew and Hittite terms are variants of the Sumerian term ki-

43
en-gi-r above, and that their initial fricative consonant is due to the palatalization
of the Sumerian initial /k-/ before a high front vowel. Tracing these words to
Sumerian ki-en-gi-r raises a serious question: How can we account for the
laryngeals in the Hebrew and Hittite words?
The source of the laryngeal must be from Sumerian and the Sumerian word ki-
en-gi-r must have been pronounced by early Sumerians as ki-en-gi-‛vr (v =
vowel), when borrowing occurred. Evidence will show below that Sumerian, like
Akkadian, had once upon a time, in addition to /ħ/ (the voiceless velar fricative), a
number of laryngeals, one of which was /‛/, the voiced pharyngeal fricative.
Accordingly, the Hebrew and Hittite words are borrowed from Sumerian before
the loss of /‛/. For evidence of the earlier presence of /‛/ in Sumerian, see §3.3.4
below.
Sumerian is classified as a language isolate, i.e. it has no relatives living or
dead and has not so far been convincingly proved to be related to any other
known language. Among other isolate languages are Ainu, Basque, Burushaski,
Purpecha, Seri and Tiwi. Therefore, language isolates are in effect language
families consisting of a single language.
The linguistic history of the language may be divided into at least four
historical periods:
1) The Archaic Sumerian covers a period from 3100 BC down to about 2600
BC and represented by texts of business and administrative character and word
lists. Such texts are still poorly understood and largely un-deciphered.

2) The Old or Classical Sumerian extends from about 2600 to 2300 BC and is
represented mainly by records of the early rulers of Lagash. They include
inscriptions, letters, and administrative and legal documents. It is on this corpus
that descriptive grammars of Sumerian are mainly based.

3) The Neo-Sumerian lasted from 2300 to 2000 BC. By the 23rd century BC the
Akkadians had succeeded in conquering the entire country and spread their
language to the entire empire. The use of Sumerian was limited to a small area in
Sumer. The Neo-Sumerian period came to an end about 2000 BC.

4) The Post Sumerian (after 2000 BC). It refers to the time when Sumerian
disappeared as a spoken language by the turn of the 2nd millennium BC, though
continued in use as a literary and religious language for another 2000 years.

2.1.1 Sumerian dialects: Emegir and Emesal

As has already been mentioned in §2.1 above, the Sumerians called their
language eme-gi(7)-r, and the signification of the term may be “native language”.
Besides Eme-gi(7)-r, a number of dialects can be distinguished, the most
important of which was Eme-sal.

44
 There are some important linguistic differences between Emegir and Emesal,
especially in phonology and vocabulary. For example, Emesal often uses /m/
instead of Emegir /ḡ/, e.g.
Emesal me vs Emegir ḡe(26) "I",
Emasal ma, ma-al vs Emegir ḡa(2), ḡal(2) “to bind”,
Emesal mir vs Emegir ḡir(2) “scorpion”,
Emesal mu vs Emegir ḡiš “wood”.
We also find that Emesal uses /ḡ/ instead of Emegir /m/ as in ḡe = Emegir me “to
be”.
Besides phonological differences, there are also vocabulary differences. Emesal
has a relatively large number of words different from their Emegir counterparts,
e.g.
Emesal me-ze(2)-er = Emegir mu-dur(7) “dirt, dirty”,
Emesal zeb = Emegir dug(3) “good”,
Emesal gašan = Emegir nin “queen, lady”,
Emesal umun = Emegir en “lord”,
Emesal aba = Emegir aga “back, rear”,
Emesal ba(2) = Emegir ḡa(2) “house”,
Sumerian scholars usually consider such words as cognate. Jagersma (2010: 9),
for example, believes that
“Most of the Emesal and standard Sumerian forms are obviously cognates, but
how they exactly relate to each other is less clear. Many involve a shift from a
labial to a velar consonant or vice versa. But with only fifty or so items it is not
easy to establish the rules behind the various sound correspondences”.
Halloran (2014) tends to hold a similar belief. For example, he regards Emesal
ḡe “to be” above as a different reading of Emegir me and traces Emesal gašan
“queen” above to Emegir nin on the account that nin become -šan. There are,
however, some instances where Emesal /š/ = Emegir /n/ such as Emesal še-er ḡal
(2) = Emegir nir ḡal(2) “have authority; authority, noble” and Emesal še-mur =
Emegir nimur “kiln, ashes”. There are still few cases where Emesal /š/ = Emegir
/s/ or /z/ such as Emesal še = Emegir zi “life, throat”.
The foregoing discussion shows that there are serious differences between the
two Sumerian forms. How can these differences be accounted for? Should we
consider the words as cognate or words of different origins?
Scientifically speaking, in order to establish Emesal and Emegir words as
cognate, we have to determine the phonological environments in which the
change may or may not occur. With the absence of such environments, the term
‘cognate’ becomes empty of content and ‘a scapegoat’ used to avoid a problem
that they are apparently unable to account for.

45
 Vocabulary differences between Emegir and Emesal can be classified into three
classes as follows:

a) Few of the Emesal and Emegir words are cognate and their differences are
due to sound change,
b) Some of Emesal and Emegir words above are cognate in the sense that the
members of each pair are based on the same proot as do the following Hamito-
Semitic traditional roots:
1) Egyp. ίr-t “eye”, Chad.: Lame iri “eye”, Mesme ir, Tala ge-ir, Fyer yeer,
Polchi yir “eye”,
2) CA ta’ara “to look fixedly at”, Pun. tr’h “observation” (DRHS: §3.7.11),
3) Akk. tārū “guard”; tērtu “directive, instruction”, BHeb. tōrā “instruction,
percept”, etc. DHSR: §3.7.31,
4) Egyp. mr “to see”, CA mara’a “to see” : ra’ā “to see”; mar’ā “sight, seeing”
= BHeb. mr’h “vision”, (DRHS: §3.10.11),
5) Ug., BHeb., Aram. ‛wr “blind”, CA’a-‛waru “one-eyed” (DHSR: §3.17.2),
6) CA ţara’a “to appear suddenly”,
7) OAkk. (w)arū “to guide”, Chad.: Sumray yēro “to see”, Sibine yara id.,
Cush.: Bilin ar’- “to know”, Iraqw ara “to see”, Burunge ar- id., etc. DHSR:
§3.7.31,
8) CA ra’ā “to see”, BHeb. r’h, Aram., Pun. r’y “to see”, Phoen. yr’t “regard,
respect”, Sab. r’, r’y “to see”; hr’t “oracular vision” (= CA ru’ya-tu “vision”),
9) CA tariyya-tu fem. “the yellowish liquid a woman sees when her monthly
period is over” is correctly traced by old Arab to ra’a “see”.
The above-cited HS roots represent only a small list of roots based on [r’ or ’r],
each root is a compound including, in addition to [r’ or ’r], either a proot (e.g. n. 5
above) or grammatical element (e.g. n. 3). All had been traditionally considered as
roots of different origins until the publication of DHSR.

c) The members of each pair are from two different Proto-Sumerian words. In
this respect, the differences between the two Sumerian dialects mirror the
differences found among the ancient dialects of Arabic as the following Huthaiyil
words and their CA counterparts show:
Huthaiyil fa‛fa‛ā-nī = CA ĝazzāru “butcher”,
Huthaiyil ‛anaĝu = CA raĝulu “man”,
Huthaiyil šabaђu “high door” = CA phrase: bāb-un (= door) + ‛āli-n (=
high) “high door”,
Huthaiyil ladda = CA ђabasa “to jail”,
Huthaiyil falīlu [r. fll] = CA līfu [r. lyf] “fibers” (metathesis),
Huthaiyil sinnimāru “thief” = CA liṣṣu id.

46
The differences noted between Huthaiyil and CA can be accounted for with
reference to HS language family. We may say that Huthaiyil fa‛fa‛ā-nī above, for
example, is from *pa‛ and its final -nī is genitive, i.e. ‘associated with or
belonging to *pa‛”: cf. Egyp. p‛-t “knife”, whereas CA ĝazzāru is from *gzr “to
cut up, slaughter” as in CA gazara id., Aram. gzr “to cut up”, BHeb. gzr “to cut”,
etc. Huthaiyil šabaђu “high door” = Egyp. sbħ “door”.
In some cases it may be due to sound change, e.g. Huthaiyil falīlu [r. fll] = CA
līfu [r. lyf] “fibers” above, where the Huthaiyil form was subject to both
metathesis and change of /-y-/ to /-l-/.
In some other cases the change reflects a semantic change, e.g. Huthaiyil ladda
(= CA ђabasa “to jail”) above is a natural development of the idea expressed by
CA ludda (Koranic 19: 97) “contentious, opposing, opponent (people)” =
Sumerian lú-di-da “opposing party (in a legal case)”: see §3.6.1.8 below.

In order to establish the classification as set above for the Sumerian dialects as
valid, we need evidence. Since the evidence needed cannot be provided by
Sumerian, which is a language isolate, it must be sought for outside Sumerian. For
the same reason, Sumerian monosyllabic roots can by no means be broken down
into their formative elements without a proof from other language families. Of all
language families, the only candidate to prove the validity of the classification is
Hamito-Semitic since it is also the only one that can measure a sword with
Sumerian with respect to datable records. Other language families may only add
further evidence. In addition, the possible decomposition of any Sumerian root
demands evidence from Hamito-Semitic. The following examples are intended to
illustrate the types of differences between the two Sumerian dialects:

1) An example illustrating that some of differences between Emesal and

Emegir are due to sound change may be the following:
Emesal me-ze(2)-er = Emegir mu-dur(7) “dirt, dirty” above
HS [mδr] as in CA adj. maδira-tu, n. maδaru/maδru “very bad
smell, emitting a bad smell, rotten, as an egg, filthy, as a man”; ’amδaru adj. “one
who goes to bathroom exceedingly” also “emitting a bad smell”, Syr. mdr
“rotten”, Mand. maduria id.
It seems that Proto-Sumerian had a phoneme *δ which was split into /z/ in
Emesal and /d/ in Emegir. Its corresponding PHS *δ was also split into /δ/ (CA,
SA and Ug.), /z/ (Akk., Phoen., BHeb., etc.), and /d/ (Aram., etc.).

2) Two examples illustrating that some of differences between Emesal and

Emegir are due to different origins of their synonymous words may be the
following:
Emesal ba(2) = Emegir ḡa(2) “house”

47
 2a) PHS *baW- “house” = Proto-Sumerian ba(2) “house”:
Egyp. b “abode, place”; b’ “cave, tomb”; bw “house, place”; b’-t “tomb”; b’t
“house”, CA baitu, Phoen. bt, OAram. byt, by, etc. “house”.
Also belong here CA bā’a-tu “house”; ta-bauwa’a “to dwell in a house” =
Egyp. bw above and in compounds as in bw w‛ “one place”, bw nb “every place”,
etc., Chad.: Gera, Montol bi “place”, etc. see DHSR: §3.9.22 for many more
cognates.

IE: Goth. bauan “to dwell”, ON. būa id., OSaxon., OE. bū “dwelling”, Albanian
buj “to dwell, live”, W. byw id., Lith. buti “to be”; butas “house”, Skt. bhū- “to
become, be”, Av. bū- id., Lat. fu-ī “I was”, OE. bēon “to be”: PIE *bheu-. See
DHSR: §3.9.4

2b) PHS *gaW- with various extensions “house” = Proto-Sumerian ḡa(2)

“house”:
CA ĝaw “region, district, province”, Harari ge “city”, Wolane ge “country”,
Argobba ge “country”, Selti ge “village”. The same CA gaw expresses in other
Semitic languages “community, people” as in Sab. gw-m “community group”,
Akk. ga’, gaw- “people”, etc.
With r-extension: Harari. gār “house, room”, Wolane gar “house”, Selti gār
id.; Cush.: Moča käro "house", Somoli guri, guuri “house”, Oromo gooroo
“wall”; Chad.: Mubi gir “shed”, Housa gure “place”, Mbara guru “enclosure”,
Berb.: Nefusa a-grur “enclosure, wall”, Ahagar a-gror “enclosure”, Kabyl agrur
id.; CA ĝawāru having to do with dār. i.e. ‘house’, perh. a structure connected to
the house and courtyard, BHeb. gūr “to sojourn, to dwell for a time”, etc. The
root also expresses “to be, to exist” as in Somali gir-, Oromo gir-, etc. see
§3.2.3.30 below = Sumerian gir, gur “to be”.
The proot *gaW was studied in depth in DHSR and in a number of sections,
together with its very ancient variants *kaw and *ķaw. A sample of traditional
roots that have developed from them over time were also analyzed. The only
plausible meaning that can be assigned to the original proot– whether it is *gaW,
kaW, or ķaW– is “cave”, later “dwelling, house, living, residing”, much later “to
live, to be, to exist”, etc. It is the proot that lies beneath PHS *gaW-, kaW- “to be”
and Emasal ḡe id.: see §3.2.3.24 below.

IE: Skt. jīv- “to live”, Av. jīv-, OCS žiti, Lat. vivere id., etc. SS: §4.75.

2.1.2 Sumerian and other languages

As has already been mentioned above, Sumerian is not related genetically to
any known language. Like any language or language family, however, Sumerian
has been, ever since its decipherment, the subject of attempts to show its
genealogical relation to languages or language families such as Kartvelian,

48
Munda, Dravidian, Basque, Ural-Altaic (including Turkish), Hungarian, Sino-
Tibetan, Dene-Caucasian and the so-called Nostratic language families. All such
proposals for linguistic affinity have naturally failed for three reasons, of which
the first is the most important and explains why all attempts to establish affinities
between known language families have not been successful.

i) Linguists involved in any comparative study of two or more language

families consider the root or word-base as a free morpheme. They do not know
that the ‘root’ is originally a compound of two or more proots, and that what a
language has lost of syllables and sounds of the original compound in the course
of time is in most cases much more than it has preserved. Accordingly, what they
are actually doing is comparing historically compound and complex words from
different languages and wrongly thinking that they are roots. As we know, the
formation of compounds may differ from language to language morphologically,
syntactically and semantically.
It may be interesting here to unveil ‘a fact’ of great magnitude:
the sole reason why such a language family as Indo-European or Hamito-Semitic,
for example, has been successfully established is the consequence of one and only
one single fact that its members have undergone similar developments from their
immediate ancestral language (PIE or PHS) and thus preserved most of its
surface forms. Otherwise, their genetic relatedness will be impossible to prove
without the discovery of ‘proot’.
For example, if most Hamito-Semitic languages preserved roots of the type (of
those based on [ra’] “eye; see” above) or of CA s‛r “to burn”, d‛r “smoke”, Ug.
b‛r “to burn”, Egyp. ‛r id., etc. which are traditionally considered separate roots,
how are we going to prove their kinship? These have been established beyond
doubt as cognate in DHSR along with very numerous other traditional roots such
as ’wr, ’wm, nwr, ’rr, ’ry, ’θy, ’ws, etc. All are based on [’au] or [’ai]: for
evidence, see DHSR: §3.17.1.
A similar example from Indo-European is Lat. nō, nāre “to swim”, OE and
common Germanic swimman, OIr. snaim “to swim”, etc. which are, according to
Indo-europeanists, unrelated and from three distinct PIE roots. All are actually
based on a Proto-World proot *Wa- “water”, and to this proot still belong
numerous IE words. If we want to cite the words or roots that have been
developed from this proot in world’s languages we surely need to compile a
sizeable dictionary (see §3.2.3.6.1.1ff below).
It is important to note that the absence of [-n-] in the Germanic word is so
significant for comparative study. The word is much older than all its IE cognates;
its causative /s-/ is added directly to the proot *Wa-, while OIr., together with
other sister languages, adds causative /s-/ to the compound *naWa-. Suppose we
can cite several other examples displaying the same structural morphology as

49
Germanic and OIr. words, our classification of Indo-European languages will be
drastically modified. All are further discussed in §3.2.3.6.1.1 below.

i) The scholars who attempted to prove the relationship between any two
language families knew the surface structure of one language family and lacked
adequate knowledge of the other,

ii) The scholars who attempted to prove the relationship lacked the knowledge
necessary of either language family structure for arriving at a decision.
Edzard evaluates the previous attempts to relate Sumerian to a wide variety of
languages, stating that
“Scholars have wasted much effort looking for living cognates of
ancient Sumerian, not realizing that the problem is practically
insoluble for the following reasons… There is a gap of at least two
thousand years between that time [= the oldest records of Sumerian]
and the oldest reconstructible form of any of the languages which have
been compared to Sumerian (e.g. Turkish, Hungarian, Sino-Tibetan,
etc.). Efforts to find cognates have been exclusively based on the sound
of individual words”.
In the course of elapsed decades I have read numerous attempts aiming at
establishing genetic relatedness between different language families, among them
were some involving Sumerian. My firm conclusion has always been from the
first attempt I read to the present that the problem does not of course lie in the
language families being compared– all have been adequately described and
studied and we have sufficient data of nearly all of them; the ‘destructive’
problem lies only in the persons who are conducting the comparative studies. I
describe the problem as ‘destructive’ because when others read their shallow and
superficial studies they become convinced that languages are indeed of different
origins. If you taste a cook and find it inedible and nauseating, the problem does
not lie in its ingredients, but in the cook who is neither trained nor informed about
the art of cooking.
To sum up, in any comparative study that has thus far been written on two or
more language families, it is always the case that the writer ‘may possibly’ know
only the surface structure of one language family, but he certainly lacks the
knowledge of the other or other language families. The surface structure on which
all studies are based is always deceptive and it is the final product of unlimited
number of hundreds of millennia of constant change.
From my knowledge of Sumerian I can say: it is utterly fruitless and futile to
include Sumerian in any comparative study or attempt to connect it with any
language family before proving its historical relation to Hamito-Semitic. It is only
Hamito-Semitic with its two wings Semitic, most notably Classical Arabic, and

50
Egyptian that can be compared with Sumerian on the levels of sound, vocabulary
and grammar. This does not mean at all that the elements of Sumerian grammar
and proots forming its compound and complex words are not found in other
language families, but rather that such elements and proots are almost impossible
to determine in nearly all language families without prior evidence from Hamito-
Semitic. I repeat here a fact stated in the introduction of DHSR: if the origin of
language is not found in Hamito-Semitic, it will never be found elsewhere.

2.1.3 Typological classification of Sumerian

Typologically speaking, Sumerian is agglutinative, rather than inflective such
as Hamito-Semitic. An agglutinative language is a type of synthetic language in
which words are made up of a sequence of different morphemes and each of these
morpheme (including stems and affixes) has a distinct meaning and remains
unchanged when combined. Among typologically similar languages are Aleut
(Aleut, Inuktitut, and Yupik), Athabaskan, Austronesian, Bantu (Swahili,
Luganda, etc.), Basque, Elamite, Hurrian, Japanese, Kartvelian, Korean,
Mongolic, Muskogean, Quechua, Siouan (Lakota, Yuchi), Tungustic, Turkic, and
many Uralic languages (Hungarian, Finnish, etc.). Examples of agglutination are:

Swahili: ni- li- -mw- ona yula mtu

st
1 sg. past obj. see ind. the person
“I saw the person”
Another type of synthetic language is called inflective, which can also have
words with many morphemes as Agglutinative languages do, but each morpheme
does not have one distinct meaning and is in some way modified in either or both
phonetics and spelling within a word. Among inflectional languages are Hamito-
Semitic and Indo-European languages.
For example, CA katabta “you (masc. sg.) wrote” is morphologically divisible
into two morphemes: stem /-katab/ “wrote” and suffix /-ta/. The suffix /-ta/,
though morphologically cannot be further divisible, expresses several separate
grammatical categories: second person, masculine gender, singular number,
indicative mood and possibly the past tense and active voice. One may argue that
‘the past tense’ is expressed by the verb stem /katab/ since /ktub/ is the present
stem as in ta-ktub “you masc. sg. write”, and that ‘the active voice’ is also
expressed by the verb stem /katab/ since /kutib/ is the passive stem. The question
whether the position of dependent personal pronoun /ta/ (-ta or ta-) or the form of
the stem (katab-, -ktub or kutib-) is the determinant of both ‘tense’ and ‘voice’
remains open because such two grammatical categories cannot be expressed
without changing both the position of the pronoun and verb stem.

51
 Extremely synthetic languages are called polysynthetic or incorporating
which may be viewed as a mixture of agglutinative and inflectional features,
where words are very complex and sometimes constitute complete sentences, with
the widespread use of inflection, derivation and compounding. Eskimo and many
American Indian languages and some Australian languages are examples of this
type. An example from Tiwi, an aboriginal Australian language, may be:
ngirruunnthingapukani “I kept on eating”
ngi “I”; rru “past”; unthing “for some time”; apu “eat”; kani “repeatedly”.
A similar structure is not hard to find in infletive languages, esp. when the verb
is transitive, e.g. CA tazawaĝuhā “he married her”, sayas’alhumā “He will ask
them both”, and (Koranic, 15:22) fa’asķaynākumūh “thus we made you drink it”.
An isolating or analytic language is a language in which almost every word is
typically a free morpheme that can occur by itself and does not have inflectional
affixes. Grammatical relationships are chiefly indicated through the word order.
Analytic languages are found in East and Southeast Asia, West Africa and South
Africa. The following two illustrative examples are from Chinese and
Vietnamese:

Chinese: Tā kuai zŏu le

He soon leave imminent action
“he is leaving soon”

Vietnamese: Khi tôi dến nhà bạn tôi, chúng tôi bắt dầu làm bài
When I come house friend I pl. I begin do our lessons
“When I arrived at my friend’s house, we began to do our lessons.
The findings of the current research do not support the traditional definition of
isolating languages as stated above. Nor do they assert that there is a purely
unmixed type of language. All languages belong to a hybrid type, though
proportions vary considerably: see §2.13.1 below.

2.1.3.1 Typology and stages of language development

Attempts to classify languages under typological schemes may perhaps be
fruitful and of interest only if the whole purpose is to determine the earliest type
of language and the order of historical development from that type to others.
Once the earliest type is determined, we can see the earliest stages of language
developments and how different types of language began to impend. One of the
reasons for the emergence of types lying within the scope of this study is the
reduction of full words to grammatical affixes and the adoption of the affixes as
an part of the proot in some or in all of their occurrences in world’s languages in
their entirety. This stage is followed by another which deepened differences
among dialects: compound and complex words whose various constituent

52
elements were distinct in Proto-Language fused into roots in subsequent stages
(for concrete evidence, see §§3.2.3.5-3.2.3.6ff below).
The fusion just mentioned above had far-reaching effects on the phonological
structure of such words, where adjacent sounds and syllables were subject to
various processes of sound change such as assimilation, reduction, and loss.
Based on my current comparative study of Hamito-Semitic and Sumerian, I can
say that the ancestral language type that the unequivocal evidence proposes is the
prooting type, where every word is typically a ‘proot’ that can occur by itself.
The next stage which I postulate is the agglutinative, where many full words were
reduced to (or also used as) affixes for the purpose of indicating grammatical
categories and grammatical functions and such affixes were kept apart from one
another. It is most scientific to consider agglutination as a transitional stage
between the prooting and inflective languages. If this indispensible link were not
found, we will have to postulate and reconstruct since it is a necessary stage for
understanding both the linguistic situation at late ‘Zero Stage’ of language change
and how language began to develop at the earliest part of ‘First Stage’. For the
linguistic characteristics of both stages, see DHSR: §3.25, esp. 6aff.
The final stage witnessed the emergence of inflective languages in which
almost all affixes used by agglutinative languages were often fused together and
mixed or modified in form. Such languages also distinguished themselves by the
extensive use of inflection, derivation, compounding and changing the internal
structure of words as an additional means of indicating both grammatical
categories and grammatical relationships.
As to polysynthetic languages, they do not constitute a type, but rather a
subtype and an extreme case of the inflectional type.
For what concerns the isolating type, the unambiguous evidence again tells that
this is a hybrid type of the prooting and the inflectional.
At this point, one may naturally ask: Where is that evidence?
I have deliberately chosen a very productive and resourceful proot common to all
languages and so vital to all living creatures without which life is impossible; it is
the proot *Wa- “water”. The purpose is to conduct a scientifically linguistic
experiment in order to show that all languages tend to develop in similar ways and
that in all languages, without any single exception, Proto-World compound and
complex words based on *Wa- have become roots. For proot *Wa-, see §3.2.3.6ff
below.
For what concerns typology, if we study very carefully the developments of the
above-mentioned compounds in world’s language families, we will surely come
to a unanimous agreement that all our definitions and views of agglutination and
isolating must be drastically modified. Similar linguistic experiments involving

53
such indispensable terms as ‘father’, ‘mother’, ‘(young) man’ (§3.2.1.8 below),
‘earth’ (§3.2.4.1 below), and ‘tree’ (§3.4.3.13 below).

2.1.4 Sumerian writing system

Writing is a medium of human communication that represents language
through the inscription or recording of signs and symbols. When a language, any
language, is committed to writing for the first time, writing represents the
language as it is spoken by its native speakers. Its signs or symbols faithfully
reflect the current sounds found then in the language. For this reason, Akkadian
writing system, for example, does not include symbols for such sounds as the
laryngeal /ђ, ‛/, the voiced velar fricative /γ/, glottal fricative /h/ and interdental
fricatives /θ, δ/ because when the Akkadians began to write their language all
such sounds had been lost or merged with other sounds. This fact about Akkadian
does not mean at all that such sounds were not present in pre-Akkadian or Proto-
Semitic, for they indeed were. It is from this angle that we should view the
relation between the earliest Sumerian signs with linguistic content and the
sounds that had existed in pre-Sumerian or proto-Sumerian.
Around the end of the 4th century BC the Sumerian invented a system of
writing on clay, called ‘cuneiform’ (a wedge-shaped script), in which pictures
were drawn on clay tablets with a pointed stylus. In the course of the first half of
the 3rd millennium BC, the pictorial representations started gradually to develop to
a system based on a mixture of logographic and phonographic writing. A
logogram, or word sign, represents a word, i.e. a unit of sound and meaning, and
most logograms were originally pictures of the represented objects, while
phonograms, or sound signs, represent a sequence of phonemes.
One of the major characteristics of the Sumerian cuneiform script is that the
same sign may stand for a large number of different words, called ‘homonyms’,
i.e. words have the same sounds but differ in meaning. Another characteristic of
the Sumerian writing is polysymy, i.e. the existence of several meanings for a
single sign or word. A polyseme is therefore a word with multiple senses or
meanings. For example, ul expresses “flower”, “ancient”, “joy” and “star”,
‘remote”, “ornament”, “shine”. By convention Sumerian words are differentiated
from one another by numbers and/or diacritic marks over vowels (acute or grave
accent) as the following illustrative examples show:
ù “sleep, to sleep”,
ú “plant, vegetable, grass”,
uru (2) “city, town, village, district”,
uru(2) “to watch, guard”,
uru (9) “stanchion, support”.

54
 Polysemy is quite common in CA in which the number of polysemes is
considerably large, and the meaning of the word can only be known from the
context. For example, a word like ђālu may express “self”, “soft soil”, “wife”,
“back (part of body)”, “milk or curdled milk”, “flesh of a donkey’s inner thigh”,
“leaves (of a kind of tree)”, “condition, situation”, “hot ashes”, etc. This linguistic
phenomenon is due to language change, esp. the loss of meaningful syllables that
were once present in the word and serving to distinguish it from all other words.
For both Sumerian and CA polysemes, it is naive to assume that all meanings
expressed by a single word must have had the same historical origin, and that all
words which are pronounced or spelled the same must have been phonetically
identical. Such two immature assumptions entail that language does not change
and must have, therefore, no place in any scientific study of language.
In some cases the exact meaning of a Sumerian sign may not be clear. For
example, the signification of KA in the sentence KA-ğu(10) ma-gig “my KA hurts
me” could be any of these body parts: KA “mouth”, kir(4) “nose” or zú "tooth". In
addition, some signs have multiple syllabic values; UTU “sun” can also be read
ud “light, day, time”, babbar “shining, white”, àh “dried, withered”. This feature
is called polyphony.
Sumerian did not have separate signs for every word and, in addition, it had
words whose meanings are not suitable for depiction. To solve these problems,
Jagersma (2010: §2.3) tells, the Sumerians made a logogram representing a word
acquire a new logographic value either through association with the meaning of
the word or through association with its pronunciation. This association is referred
to as ‘polyvalency’ or ‘multivalency’.
“through meaning association an existing word sign could come
to be used also for another word with a different pronunciation but
a related meaning. Thus, the logogram for the word ka ‘mouth’
also became the word sign for zú ‘tooth’, kiri3 “nose”, inim
“word”, and du11.g “speak”, because all these words are in some
way conceptually associated with the word ka “mouth”.
Through sound association an existing logogram could come to
be used also for another word with a different meaning but a
similar pronunciation… It was sound association that caused the
words si “horn”, si “fill”, and si.g “put into” to be written with the
same word sign”.
Besides making a logogram represent two or more words through the principle
of polyvalency, the language also used to combine two or more signs in order to
create new word signs.
To determine the exact value of a given polyvalent sign, Sumerian used some
determinatives which are signs placed before or after words and serve to specify

55
their semantic categories, e.g. wooden, persons, deities, birds, etc. For example,
MUŠEN (mušen “bird”) follows names of birds as in ugamušen “raven”, KU6 (ku(6)
“fish”) follows names of fish as in nir-padku6 “a fish”, GIŠ (ḡiš “wood, tree”)
precedes wooden objects ḡištizú “barbed arrow” and NA4 (na(4) “stone”) precedes
terms for stones and stone objects as in na4za-gìn “lapis lazuli”.
As a result of all modifications of the Sumerian writing system outlined above,
a Sumerian sign may have, according to Foxvog (2014: 15), “three kinds of uses:
1) It will usually have one or more logographic values, each with a different
pronunciation. A single value may itself have more than one meaning…

2) One of the logographic values of a sign may function as a determinative.

3) One or more of the logographic values may function as a syllabic sign”.

Finally, the Sumerian writing system lacked the means for writing closed
syllables; hence, syllable-final consonants were often ignored in the spelling of
words. This makes it difficult to ascertain the form of the word. Kramer 1963:
297-298) argues, however, that Sumerian final consonants were not normally
pronounced in speech unless followed by a grammatical particle beginning with a
vowel, e.g. Sumerian ašg “field” was pronounced aša. But when followed by /-a/,
it was pronounced ašag-a “in the field”, not aša. Similarly, dingir “god” was
pronounced in speech dingi. But when followed by /-e/ “by”, it was pronounced
dingir-e, not dingi.

56
CHAPTER THREE

HAMITO-SEMITIC AND SUMERIAN:

SOUNDS AND VOCABULARIES

3.1 Introduction
The reconstruction of Sumerian sounds and how its cuneiform signs were
pronounced and their meanings is much influenced by our understanding of
Akkadian phonology. The Akkadians are the Semitic-speaking people who
dwelled north of Sumeria and adopted the Sumerian cuneiform script and used its
logograms to write their own language, along with all of its homophonous sounds.
About the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. the Akkadians conquered Sumeria
and established themselves in Mesopotamia.
Sumerian and Akkadian were not just neighboring languages spoken side by
side and sharing many cultural and religious values; there was also extensive
linguistic contact between them, beginning in the early 3rd millennium BC. Their
extensive influence on each other is not confined only to lexicon, but also extends
to phonology and grammar (Jagersma, 2010: §1.2.1).
Relying on Akkadian in the reconstruction of Sumerian sounds and seeing such
sounds in the Akkadian eyes could be risky mainly because Akkadian lost a large
number of Hamito-Semitic phonemes: the glottal fricative /h/, the laryngeals /ђ, ‛/,
and the velar fricative /γ/ all merged with the glottal stop /’/ and so did /w/ and
/y/; the Hamito-Semitic phonemes /ḍ, đ, ş/ fell together as /ş/; the interdentals /θ/

57
and /δ/ merged with /š/ and /z/ respectively. Suppose, for example, that Sumerian
had a phoneme /θ/; this hypothetical phoneme would naturally be perceived by
the Akkadians as /š/, or perhaps /s or t/, because the sound /θ/ did not exist in their
sound system.
The current study will partly take into account Sumerian graphic alternations
and Sumerian ‘true’ loan-words in Akkadian and vice-versa. However, since our
main concern in this study is to prove a close genetic relationship between
Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic, we will rely for the most part on Hamito-Semitic
and Sumerian cognates in determining the phonetic nature of Sumerian sounds,
which is to say that all Sumerian illustrative examples of its phonemes will be
accompanied by their Hamito-Semitic cognates. This approach is free from the
risk posed by depending on Akkadian alone and will prove to be successful in the
reconstruction of Sumerian sound system. It also enriches our comparative study
of Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic not only on the phonological level, but also on
the lexical, semantic and grammatical levels. Besides Hamito-Semitic, Indo-
European cognate words will also be frequently cited. Moreover, cognates from
other language families will be utilized whenever the occasion demands.
As is well-known, Sumerian vocabulary consists of roots, mostly monosyllabic
of the types V, CV, VC and CVC (V = vowel; C = consonant), and compound and
complex words; each compound/complex word includes not only a number of
words, but often grammatical elements as well. The following typical Sumerian
words will give an idea of the intricacy of its vocabulary.
a) hur, ur(5) “hole, limb, stem, handle”: hù “ten”+ ra “to impress into clay”,
b) gu(7) “eat, food”, from gu “throat” and ú “food”,
c) ki-lul-la “place of murder or violence”: ki “place” + lul “malicious act” + la
genitive,
d) gaba “breast; chest”, from ga “milk” + ba “to give”,
e) ha “fish”, from ha “many” plus a “water”,
f) gu(7) kur-kur-ra “bread-basket of all the lands”: gu(7) “food”, i.e. gu + ú (n.
(b) above) + -kur- “land”; + -kurkur- “lands” + -ra genitive,
g) ḡiš-gi(4)/-ki- ḡál “answering chorus”: ḡiš = “tool” + -gi(4)/-ki “to answer” +
ḡál “to be”,
h) gul “to destroy, demolish”: gu(4) (n. b above) + ul “ancient”,
i) ḡiš-nu-zu “virgin”: ḡiš “penis” + nu “not” + zu “knowing”.

3.1.1 Technique employed in the current study

Consideration of the above-cited words of Sumerian vocabulary poses a natural
question:
Should we confine the study to comparing Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic roots
alone or their roots, proots and compound words together?

58
 It is upon the choice of the approach wholly depends the success or failure of
any comparative study of Sumerian and any other language family to such an
extent that one can judge from the selected approach whether the study can
accomplish its aim.
The former approach may be thought of as safer and relatively easier to carry
out, while the latter could be laborious and somewhat risky since the formation of
compound and complex words differ from language to language morphologically,
syntactically and semantically, i.e. in their constituent elements, in the order of
their elements and in the meanings given to the combinations.
Judging the two approaches from their linguistic values and practical results,
we can frankly say:
the best and the only way to demonstrate the unity of Sumerian and Hamito-
Semitic, the two oldest language families of the world, and to show how they,
together with worldwide language families, have developed from a common
source and become differentiated in the course of time is to compare Sumerian
words, i.e. proots, roots, compound words and complex words, with their Hamito-
Semitic cognates.
Restricting the comparative study exclusively to roots, i.e. what have been
wrongly thought of as proots, will often be misleading and conceal their shared
grammatical elements and, conversely, restricting it to compound and complex
words without taking in consideration their ultimate constituent elements will
certainly be a surface study; empty of any depth and a waste of time.
The very condensed and straightforward statement just spelled out above and
its inclusion of terms ‘proots’, ‘roots: wrongly thought of as proots’, ‘roots:
concealing grammatical elements’, unambiguously tells a bitter fact for those who
have studied Sumerian and for those who have wasted ink and time in comparing
Sumerian with other language families that what they consider for sure and
indubitably think of as Sumerian roots are in most cases mere compound and
complex words.
To fully appreciate this comparative method as outlined above which the
nature of this study imposes, consider the following sample example of Sumerian
and Hamito-Semitic compound cognates in which I traced the word to its ultimate
free morphemes:

Sumerian dím “to make, fashion, create, build” is a compound of two elements
which are considered as two roots:
dù “to make, build” + im “clay, mud”
HS: Egyp. ydmy caus. “to make like”,
CA dumya-tu “form or figure one creates and fashions, effigy”, with no
verbal form *damā. If it had developed this verb, its CIV stem would have

59
certainly been “*to cause to create and fashion a figure or form”. There is,
however, a CII dammā “cause to make (anything) like dumāya-tu”.
OAram. dmwt’ “statue”,
OffAram. dm’ “to be like, similar; statue; conformity”,
BAram. dmh “to be like, similar”,
BHeb. dāmā “to make like, similar, to resemble; a likeness, image”.
Sumerian and HS words above are from a compound consisting of a least two
obvious elements:
a proot d- “to make, cause” and a stem or compound yam “clay, like
clay”
HS: Egyp. ym “clay, like clay”, perhaps originally “like or similar to mud”,
much later “clay”: see the discussion below.
It is only in Egyptian that d- (d’) remains a free morpheme in only some of its
occurrences: Egyp. d’ “to cause, to set, to allow, give” also “make or cause”, e.g.
d’ rħ “make to know, i.e. inform” (rħ “to know”),
d’ yrί “make to be done, cause to do” (yrί “to do, make, act” = CA ’ariya “to
make, do, work”),
d’ mš’ “cause to walk” (mš’ “to walk” = CA mašā “to walk”).
PHS [d’] often combines with nouns to create verbs as in Egyp. d’ ’ķ-t “to
destroy”: ’ķ-t “destruction”. It is worth-mentioning that PHS [d’ + ’ķ] has become
the root dķ(ķ) “to destroy” in the entire HS language languages, excluding no one
even Egyp., where [d’] is part of the root in some derivarives, and has given rise
to numerous autonomous roots such as dwķ, hdķ, dķy/’, etc. see
DHSR:§2.1.6.5.1ff.
Apart from CA in which [d-] is seen in few words and expresses a causative
meaning in some roots, in all other Hamito-Semitic languages the causative
morpheme has become part of the root in all of its occurrences, together with
other grammatical elements. For a detailed study of [d-] in HS and illustrative
examples from HS languages, see DHSR: §§2.1.6.5.1-2.1.6.5.25.
Egyp. ydmy above, however, is a double causative including caus. y-, from
PHS ’-, and caus. d-. For a detailed study and illustration of PHS caus. ’- (in
Egyp. ’- ~ y-) and for the use of double causative in Egyp. and other HS
languages, see DHSR: §3.3.
The second element of the compound, i.e. ym, is in Egyp. ym “like clay, clay”
(= Sumerian im above) ; ymy “like”, in Arabic dialects yam, yamyam “exactly
similar or the same”. All are very closely related to Egyp. m, mw “be like”; my-tw
“similar in form, likeness”; m’ “likeness”; my-tί “similitude, likeness, copy,
resemblance”.

60
 To revert to Egyp. d’ “to make, cause”, the word also denotes “to give”, hence
the compound yd’, with the same caus. /y-/, “to give, to grant” as well as “to
make, cause”, originally “cause to give, cause to make” = CA ’āda id.
The Sumerian HS cognates show that in both language families a causative
suffix [da’] was combined with a noun, the original part of speech, to form a
compound word functioning as a verb, and that their monosyllabic terms {im &
ym} for ‘mud, clay’, originally “mud” and much later “clay”, is a mere compound
consisting of at least two elements:
i) PHS *Wī “mud” (W = a semiconsonant), preserved intact in compound
words as in Egyp. yίtnn “mud, ground, earth”, an obvious compound of two
elements: the first is *yί and the second is tnn as in Egyp. tnn “ground, earth”, a
term for “earth, soil, land” preserved in many language families: see §3.2.4.1
below.
The discovery of the compound *Wīm explains why the Egyp. ym signifies
“like clay”. This signification, as one may note, is the sum total of the meaning of
*Wī and -m combined together. A spontaneous question arises here: Is *Wī a root
or a proot?

3.1.2 Sumerian sound system

The phonological structure of Early Sumerian, i.e. before 2000 BC, is thought to
include the following phonemes:

Bilabial dental Palatal Velar Glottal Undetermined

Stops: p t k ’
Fricatives: s š ħ h
? z
Nasals: m n
? ḡ(or ng/ŋ)
Flap r
Lateral l
? ř (or dr)
Glides y w

Vowels i, (e), a, and u

Diphthongs: ai (or ay), au (or aw).
Speaking only of laryngeals, comparative evidence will show below that pre-
Sumerian have had two pharyngeals: a voiceless /ђ/ and its voiced counterpart /‛/
and possibly the voiced velar fricatives /γ/.

Comments
On Sumerian & Akkadian mutual influence
61
 Speaking of borrowing, it is true that Sumerian and Akkadian greatly
influenced each other in all linguistic domains, but we should remember that all
Sumerian-Akkadian scholars approached this subject with the predetermined
belief that the two languages are genetically unrelated. Hence, any word found in
one of them resembling a word in the other in sound and meaning was
automatically ascribed to borrowing. In accordance with this indisputable fact and
in the light of this current research, the previous work on the Sumerian and
Akkadian mutual influence must be re-studied carefully in order to separate
cognate words from loan-words.

3.1.3 Methodological procedures

In this chapter we will take Sumerian phonemes one by one, starting with stops
and ending with glides, and compare the Sumerian words in which such
phonemes occur with their Hamito-Semitic cognates. In so doing, we actually
perform two tasks at once: we are indirectly setting up the sound correspondences
between the two language families and illustrating such correspondences with
cognates from both families.
As has already been mentioned, besides Hamito-Semitic cognates, cognates
from Indo-European will also be used as well as cognates from other language
families whenever the occasion demands.
‘Vocabulary words’ (in the title of the chapter) include not only roots and
proots, but also compound and complex words. Much attention will be given to
Sumerian compound and complex words and their Hamito-Semitic matches. In
addition, Sumerian roots will be decomposed into their ultimate component parts
whenever the course of the comparative study requires this decomposition.
Speaking of vocabulary, apart from the fact that Sumerian in its earliest form,
as compared with Hamito-Semitic, appeared to have lost more speech sounds than
it has preserved, the language is very closely related to Hamito-Semitic in roots
and in proots as well as in compound and complex words and represents an early,
though deteriorating, stage of the family as a whole on the vocabulary level only,
i.e. first on the level of proots and second of words and compounds. We are
fortunate that this early linguistic stage has also been preserved in Egyptian and
Semitic, most notably in Classical Arabic,.
The only matter that surprises me in this research and will surely surprise the
reader is the invalidity of a claim already advanced that languages differ in the
formation of compounds on the level of morphology (constituent elements of the
compound), syntax (word order in the compound) and semantics (meaning of the
compound). It will be seen throughout this research that the claim has its severe
limitations. For what concerns Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic compounds, there is
no difference in the order of words in compound and complex words; both follow

62
the same pattern. The reason for this phenomenon will be explained in my
forthcoming book: How to prove the unity of world languages: New methods,
criteria and principles.
Another linguistically astonishing phenomenon found largely in CA is the
discovery that if you know both the meaning of a combination {x + y} and the
meaning of {-y}, you will discover that the meaning of {x} is often semantically
identical with that of Sumerian proot. Moreover, the signification of {x + y} in
CA is the very same signification of Sumerian {x + y} when combined together.
Before illustrating this phenomenon in n. 7 and 8 below, I will prepare the ground
by citing some Sumerian and HS cognates based on gal “big, great, large, etc.” (n.
1-6), using CA as a HS representative.

1) Sumerian gal “big, great, large, mighty” = CA ĝalīl “great, big, momentous,
mighty, dignified”,

2) Sumerian gal “a large cup” = CA gulla-tu “a large vessel”,

3) Sumerian gal “chief” = CA mu-ĝalĝilu [r. ĝl] “mighty chief or master” (mu-
= one who),

4) Sumerian a-gal “overflow of flood waters” a “waters” + -gal “big = CA ma-

’ĝalu [r. ’ĝl] “a large cistern collecting water and serving to water fields and
farms” (ma- = place of),

5) Sumerian ab-gal “sage, wise man, wizard” = CA baĝālu ‘a master who is

great, noble and simultaneously advanced in age’,

6) Sumerian lugal “king, master, owner” (< lu2) “man, person” + gal “big”) =
CA raĝulu “master, lord” later “man”; riĝlu is an archaic term used to “date
important events occurring in a ruler’s lifetime and reign”. Note that, though CA
has ’āl “man, person”, it cannot be combined with ĝal (*(’)lgl) for phonotactic
considerations.

7) We now come to an example illustrating the afore-mentioned combination of

x + y. CA naĝlu “large/great gathering of people”, a compound that does not exist
in Sumerian, though its two constituent elements do:
Sumerian na “human being” (§3.4.2.8 below) and gal above.
Our unquestionable conclusion here must be that CA na- sg. is a term for “man,
human being”; pl. = “people” (§3.4.2.8 below. This CA discovered compound
word is ultimately related to CA (and HS) nāsu pl. “people, human beings”,
nisā’u “women” (no sg. form from the same root), ’anāmu “mankind”, ’insu
“mankind”, etc. The question whether Sumerian na and its HS cognate are a proot

63
or root will be left open to discussion based on evidence. It could be, however,
from a proot bearing very little (or no) resemblance to its surface words.

8) Another example including -gal is the following:

Sumerian šà-gal “food, fodder, sustenance”, a compound of
šà “stomach' + gal “enlarge”
HS: CA θa-ĝal lit. “big-bellied, the greatness of stomach and its spaciousness”.
The CA word seems to consist of two semantic units: one is “stomach, belly”
and another “big, large”. Since -ĝal expresses the latter meaning, θa- must be the
term for the former.
However, if we want to overstate the meaning expressed by θa-ĝal, we simply
prefix to it the proot [‛a-] “large, etc.” (see DHSR: §3.13), hence ‛aθĝalu “the
biggest-bellied”.

3.2 Sumerian Stops

Besides the voiceless stops /p, t, k/, Sumerian had voiced allophones /b, d, g/.
Around 2000 BC the voiced allophones became phonemes. Based on the
examination of Sumerian loanwords in Akkadian and Akkadian loanwords in
Sumerian, Jagersma (2010: 37) finds that
“In the third millennium BCE, the Sumerian stops /b/, /d/, and /g/
were pronounced as plain voiceless stops, like the Akkadian stops /p/,
/t/, and /k/. Early Sumerian loanwords in Akkadian show that
Akkadians heard Sumerian /b/, /d/, and /g/ as their own /p/, /t/, and
/k/: e.g., ekallu “palace”: Sumerian é-gal, laputtû “overseer”:
Sumerian nu-banda(3), pattû “a container”: Sumerian ba-an-du(8), kitû
“linen”: Sumerian gada, tukkannu “bag”: Sumerian du(10)-gan, and
utukku “demon”: Sumerian ú-du(11)-g.
Conversely, early Akkadian loanwords in Sumerian show that
Sumerians likewise heard Akkadian /p/, /t/, and /k/ as their own /b/,
/d/, and /g/: e.g., bur-šu-ma “old person”: Akkadian puršumu, ì-bí-la
“heir”: Akkadian aplu, si-im-da “mark”: Akkadian šimtu, šer(7)-da
‘crime’ : Akkadian šertu), ma-da “country”: Akkadian mâtu), dam-
gara(3) “merchant”: Akkadian tamkaru), and ma-al-ga “counsel”:
Akkadian milku”.
He also asserts (2010: 42) that Sumerian /b/ was used for Old Akkadian /b/ and
/p/; /d/ for Old Akkadian /d/, /t/, and /ţ/ and /g/ for Old Akkadian /g/, /k/, and /ķ/.
Jagersma concludes that around 2000 BC Sumerian voiced stops were split
from their voiceless counterparts and achieved phonemic status. This change is
shown in Akkadian loanwords in Sumerian where such words began from that
time on to reflect the new change, e.g.

64
 Akkadian banduddû “bucket”: Sumerian ba-an-du(8)du(8),
agubbû “holy water”: Sumerian a-gúb-ba,
guzalû “throne-bearer”: Sumerian gu-zalá.
The foregoing account may explain why ‘voice’ is not always distinctive in
Sumerian so that in most words one may have the choice between the voiceless
stop or its voiced counterpart as the following examples show:
a) pab, pap “father; brother; man; leader”,
b) rab, rap “ring, shackle; snare”,
c) bàra, pàra, bàr, pàr “to stretch or spread out; to pass over; to be stretched or
spread out”,
d) šib, šip “exorcism”,
e) hub, hup “depth; defeat”,
f) šabra, šapra “temple administrator; commissioner”,
g) ñešba, ñešpa “boomerang; throw-stick”.
h) húb, húp “acrobat, athlete”.
i) tak(4), tag(4) “to abandon; to disregard, neglect; to divorce; to leave with a
person, entrust”,
j) ta, dá “nature, character” also “from; to; for; by means of”,
k) te, de “cheek, chin”,
l) te, de(4) “cheek, chin”,
m) šit, šid, šed “measure, number”,
m) údug, útug “a weapon”,
o) te, de(4), ti “to approach, meet”,
p) du (12), tu(12) “to have, to own, to marry, to acquire”.
q) gur(4), kur(4), gir(8) “to be or feel big, to be endowed with, to turn, roll over,
to run; to gallop, to grind”,
r) gu(7) , kú “food, sustenance, fodder; angle”,
s) gir, kir “cow or mare”,
t) kala(3, 4, 5), gala(3, 4, 5) “store-pit, cellar”,
u) gur, kùr “reed basket, measure of capacity”,
v) šagan, šakan “a large jar for oil”,
w) kiri, giri “nose; muzzle (of an animal); hyena”,
y) tak (4), tag(4) “to abandon, disregard”,
z) gàr, kàr “knob, pommel; hair lock on the back of the head”.
The absence of ‘voice contrast’ for stops in Sumerian is, in fact, a prominent
phonological feature characterizing other language families such as Australian,
where the difference in phonetic composition between ‘voiced’ and ‘voiceless’
consonants (as in English pit-bit; tie-die; cape-gape) is not phonemic or
functional in the family. Dixon (1980: 137) writes:

65
 “Since voicing is not phonologically significant [in Australian
aboriginal languages] either b, d, g or p, t, k could be used to write
these sounds. It does not matter which series is employed so long as
a choice is made and is consistently maintained”.
In this research, to show that voice is not originally phonemic in Hamito-
Semitic, I will often cite two Hamito-Semitic cognates for a Sumerian word
differing from one another only in that one includes a voiced stop and another
includes its voiceless counterpart.
Halloran (1996-1999) rightly considers that the distinction between ‘voiceless’
and ‘voiced’ stops is not originally phonemic in Sumerian and that each Sumerian
consonant expresses sets of abstract ideas. The following are the meanings
expressed by his Sumerian distinctive phonemes:
/b ~ p/ = cavity, receptacle, container; to take, choose, allocate; choice.
/d ~ t/ = edge; side; to approach; to leave; to interact with; to act, do, perform.
/g ~ k/ = throat; circle; entrance; base; long, narrow; to consume; to kill; to
utter.
/m/ = female; to cause to be; to be; to make go out; to go; transportation; to
speak.
/n/ = discrete individuality; to be high; to be awesome.
/ŋ/ = self; kin; to love, benefit.
/l/ = happiness; abundance; food production; males.
/r/ = to protect, shelter, support; to send forth, emit, secrete.
/s/ = skill; to be near; to enclose, bind; to be full.
/š/ = quantity, portion; grain; moistness; to support, suspend.
/h/ = numerousness; saliva.
/z/ = to cook, roast; meat (animal); teeth; to cut; breathing.
While I admit that the basic lexical meaning of a proot lies in its radical
consonants and that vowels serve only to modify the meaning of the proot without
having any meaning on their own, I believe that it is too early to assign sets of
meanings to any language consonant before ascertaining the primeval existence of
the consonant and its original phonetic composition.
We know that all languages change in the course of time. Accordingly, not
every single consonant found in the phonemic system of Sumerian or any other
language may originally be a phoneme. In addition, one or more phonemes may
merge with a different phoneme in the course of time. For example, Modern
English phonemes /v/, /δ/, /z/, /ŋ/ were in Old English allophones of /f, θ, s, n/
respectively, while such phonemes as /ž/, /ǝ/, /ɨ/, /ʌ/, etc. did not exist in Old
English.
While English has expanded the number of its phonemes, some other languages
may reduce the number of their originally distinctive sounds in the course of time.

66
For example, Semitic /γ/ and /‛/ merged in Hebrew into /‛/; /θ/ and /š/ into /š/; /ḏ/,
/đ/ and /ş/ into /ş/, etc.

3.2.1 Sumerian and HS cognates with /p ~ b/

3.2.1.1 Sumerian bar(6, 7) vb “to shine, be bright; to break (of the day)”; adj.
“white”. Cf. bar “to expose”, which refers here to ‘the sun’.
HS bar ~ par “to shine, rise of the sun, dawn, morning, day”
HS [bar]:
Akk. barāru “to flash, sparkle; (sun’s) rays”; barr- “pure”,
Ug. br “to shine” as adj. “pure”,
Cush.: Bambala barra “day”,
Kambatta barra “day”,
Saho beera “morning”,
Afar beeraa “morning”,
Somali bārii “dawn, morning”,
Oromo barii “dawn, morning”,
Arbore barri “dawn, morning”,
Chad.: Ndam buri “morning”,
Mubi burburu “morning”.
CA barā’ “the first day of a month” and was generally considered as a
day of good luck and blessing,
BHeb. bar “clear, pure”.
IE: W. bore “morning”, Br. beure “morning”, Ir. imbārach “to morrow”. The
Irish = Modern Arabic dialects ’imbāriђ “yesterday” from CA ’al-bāriђa-tu fem.
“yesterday”, from ’al “past” + bāriђ “sun”.

HS [par], esp. with caus. /š-/ in Semitic

Egyp. pr “to shine, splendor”; pr “the rise of the sun”, i.e. morning,
beginning of the daylight,
Amorite š-pr “be shining”,
BHeb. še-per “brightness”
BAram. šǝparǝpārā “the dawn”,
Syr. špr “the dawn”,
CA ’a-s-fara “to shine”, etc. See DHSR: §3.2.17.
The time is not ripe to give the proot on which the complex word bar/par is
based. All what I can say: it is, as it stands, the term for “sun” in some language
families such as Panoan and Australian. As to the proot, it is common to all
languages.

67
3.2.1.2 Sumerian bar “outside; soul, innards”; vb “to open; to uncover, expose; to
see; to remove; to be absent; to release; to select; to divide; to split; to distribute”;
adj. “foreign”
It is needless to say that Sumerian bar, like nearly all of its words, is a
compound of heterogeneous proots. The ultimate origins of some proots will be
identified below.

3.2.1.2.1 Sumerian bar “outside” above

HS: Egyp. br “outside”. It is seen in such compounds as Egyp. š’‛ br
“outside”, perhaps š’‛ “beggar”,
OffAram. br “outside”,
Hatra br “outside”,
CA barra “ouside”,
Eth.: Tigre bär “outside”.
N.B. Some compounds based on bar are Sumerian bar-e(11) -de(3) “straps to attach
leather wrappings to the plow” and bar-dul(5) “a long coat, mantle”: CA burda-tu
fem. “colored or spotted mantle or a cover to cover oneself with”.
Sumerian bar-eg(2)-ga “outside of the levee”: Syr. burgā “tower”, CA burgu
“castle, fortress built ouside the towns and cities for protection” = IE: ON borg
“fortress”, OE beorg “mountain”, etc.: DHSR: §4.9.26.

3.2.1.2.2 Sumerian bar “soul, innards” above

HS: CA bariyya-tu pl. with no sg. form “creature (that have a soul); birru is
cited in LA as signifying “heart” in the expression huwa (= “he”) muţma’inu (=
setting one’s mind at rest) ’al (= “the”) birru (= “heart”); barā, bara’a “to create
(God)”,
BHeb. bārā’ “to create, bring forth (God)”,
OffAram. bryh “creature” (= CA bariyyah).
Sumerian bar “soul” and HS words above are ultimately from the root in Egyp.
b’ “soul” also “heart-soul”; bw (< b’-w) “people”.

3.2.1.2.3 Sumerian bar “to open” above

HS: [bar-] ~ [par-] “to open, uncover”
HS [bar-]:
Sab. brr “ to open up a passway” also “open country”; h-brr caus. “to
come into the open”; brr “open country”,
CA barru “open land, desert” also “open to view, prominent”,
BAram. bārā “the open fields”,
BHeb. bar “the open fields”.

HS [par-]:

68
 CA, CIV caus. ’afarra, CVIII ’iftarra pass. “to open (usually the
mouth)”, farra “to uncover”. Other sister languages have adopted the negative
element /’-/ as an inseparable part of the root, hence
Akk. apāru “to cover”,
BHeb. ’āpar “to cover”, etc. see DHSR: §3.3.13.
For PHS negative /’-/, see DHSR: §3.21.2.
The HS and Sumerian words above are from a compound of ba-/pa- + -r
“opening, entrance, mouth” as in Egyp. r id. For ba-/pa-, see §§3.2.1.2.4 and
3.2.1.2.5 ([par-]) below.

3.2.1.2.4 Sumerian bar “to see” above

HS: [bar] ~ [par] “to see”
HS [bar]:
Akk. barū “to see, examine”
BHeb. bārar “to examine, to prove”, in CA bāra “to examine, test”;
bur-tu “I examined”.
Egyp. br “to see”; br “eye”,
HS [par]:
Egyp. pr “to see”; nt pr “unseen (nt = not”) also “to appear, manifest
oneself”,
Chad.: Gisiga pir, pur “to look, watch”,
Bolewa par- “to look for”,
Tangale pari “to look for”.
CA farra “to open the mouth of an animal and look at his teeth so as to
determine its age”; CIV caus. ’afurru “disclose, make open”. Thus, CA farra
expresses at once two obvious meanings “open” and “see”.

Comments
The addition of [-ĝ] to [far-] gives rise to farraĝa “to show; to watch” and also
“to open (the door)” = Egyp. brg “force open the door”. The same idea can be
expressed in CA by combining [fa’] and [-ĝ-] as in faĝā “to open”; faĝā “to spread
the legs as one urinate”, i.e. to divide. The only meaning that can be assigned to
HS [-g-] is “door” = Sumerian ig ‘door, entrance” (§3.2.3.1.10.4 below). For CA
[fa’], see PHS [par] below in n. 1e.
Egyp., too, can drop the infix /-r-/ and combines the term [-g] “door” with *pa’.
The result will be a compound word pwg’ expressing the same meaning as that of
CA, i.e. “to open the door, to divide”.
Why is that the [-r-] can be dropped? It is simply a separate proot that can be
combined with another proot or stem to create a new word expressing a new
meaning. Accordingly, [r] or any other proot in any trilateral can be dropped or
kept depending on the meaning we want to express. As we have just seen above,

69
the [-ĝ] “door” of farraĝa can be dropped and the resulting compound farra
expresses “to show, to watch” but not “to open (a door)”. Its caus. meaning is due
to doubling its [-r], i.e. stem II (cf. §1.3.2 above).
Let me give another example including CA [-ĝ] and Sumerian [ig] “door”. In
CA proper one uses CX passive ’istuγliķa to express “be incomprehensible, can
not be grasped or understood” and is from CI γalaķa “to close (a door)”: γullu “a
fetter”. It is not the intention here to show that -ķ here (and in some other roots) =
“door”, simply because I don’t need it to prove the point.
CA ratta also expresses the very same meaning as that of ’istuγliķa. Let us add
to it the proot [-ĝ] and then ask ourselves before going back to CA dictionaries to
look up its meaning: What is the possible meaning that can be expressed by
rataĝa? It expresses, as one must expect, “to close the door” and hence “be
incomprehensible, can not be grasped or understood”; ritāĝu “a closed door”. It
can be said that [-g-] passed the test and can be firmly established as a proot
signifying “door”.

3.2.1.2.5 Sumerian bar “to divide, to split; to distribute” also “to select” above
HS [bar] ~ [par]
HS [bar]:
BHeb. bārā “to cut (off/out)”, bārar “to separate” also “to select,
choose”; bārūr “selected, chosen”, [brh] in bārā also expresses “to select, choose
out” and “to cut, cut asunder”,
CA barā “to cut off, cut out, hew, sharpen”, perhaps bāra “to try, test”;
mu-bārā-tu pl. “contest, competition” for choosing the best or the winner,
Berb.: Shilђa bri “to cut”
Chad.: Tangale ber “to cut off”
Sab. bry “to destroy”.
IE: OE brēotan “to break”, brytian “to divide”, ON. brjōto “to break”, Grk
phroudos “decayed”, etc. = HS: Ug. brd, “to cut”, CA barada “to hew, cut, carve;
to file”: DHSR: §4.9.35.
Among other IE and HS derivatives are:
IE: Skt. bhardhaka- “cutting off”, Lat. forfex “scissors” = HS: CA bartaka-tu
“cutting off”: DHSR: §4.9.35.

IE: Lat. forāre “to bore, pierce”, OE borian “to bore”, OHG boran id. = HS: Sab.
brr “to pierce”, Ge’ez barara “to pierce”, BHeb. bārar “to separate”, etc. DHSR:
§4.9.36.

IE: Av. brī- “to cut”, Skt. bʰrī- “to injure”, OCS briti “to shear”; britva “razor”,
etc. = Egyp. bnђ (< brђ) “to cut”, Berb.: Shilђa brī id. CA barraђa “to harm,
torture; evil”, Ug. brђ “harm, evil”. (DHSR: §4.9.34).

70
 HS [par]:
CA farā “to split, cut, cleave, pierce”, farra “to cleave, tear apart, split,
cut”,
Akk. parū “to cut off”, parāru “to break into pieces”,
BHeb. pārar “to break into pieces”: pūr [pwr] “to break into pieces”,
Chad.: Mafa pǝr- “to cut”,
Daba pur “to tear”
Tangale pure “to break into pieces”.
CA and gen. HS par- with various extensions “to divide” and “to open”
(DHSR: §2.1.9.4) and is a compound [pa’] “to split, cleave” only in a way as to
make “an opening between, open to view” as in CA fa’ā id.; fa’wu “an open area
between two mountains”; CVII ’infa’ā “become open to view, uncover,
manifest”; ’infiyā’u “opening to view”, Chad.: Mofu puw- “to split”, Bolewa
poyy- “to break in pieces”, etc.

3.2.1.2.6 Sumerian bar adj. “foreign” above

HS: Egyp. br “foreign” as in the compound t’ br “foreign land (t’ = land)”,
CA barrā-niy “foreign, foreigner”, i.e. belonging (-niy = Egyp. ny id.)
to the outside.
It is most likely, however, that the CA word includes three PHS genitive
markers bar + -rā + -ni + -y. The order of these three genitives in the word seems
to reflect the chronological history of the elements; the 1st stage is -ra, the 2nd -ni
and the 3rd -y. It is for this reason that the most ancient, and perhaps the earliest, [-
r] has been lost as an independent proot in the entire HS languages except Egyp.
A trace of it, however, is found in CA as part of the root, but recognized by old
Arab scholars as an extra letter in many roots. It is no wonder to find that this [-r]
is part of the root in the entire world’s languages and has thus become one of the
essential elements of differentiation among them.
Consider the following example,
Sumerian lú-bar-ra “foreigner”, i.e. person + outside + genitive.
CA ’ālu bar-rā-ni-y “foreigner”, where ’ālu = Sumerian lú (cf. §3.2.3.3
below).
More on the genitive [-r], esp. in IE, see §4.5 below.

3.2.1.3 Sumerian pana, pan, ban “bow”, consisting of

pa “branch” + na “pebble, stone”
HS [ban] ~ [pan]
HS [ban]:

71
 HS: CA bāniy-atu fem “a kind of bow”; bānā-tu adj. “one who bows on or
bends over his bow as he shoots/throws it” as in the pre-Islamic poetry of Imri’ Al
Qais:
…γaira bānātin ‛alā watarih
With a prefix ’-: CA ’u-bna-tu fem. “knot in a stick or cane” = HS (’)bn “stone,
pebble, millstone”:
Egyp. bnw-t “pebbles, a kind of stone”,
Akk. abnu “stone”,
Ug.’abn “stone”,
Chad.: Dera buni “millstone”,
Bolewa buni “millstone”,
Ngamo buni “millstone”,
Kirfe bini “millstone”,
Logone funi “millstone”.
Returning to Sumerian two constituent elements of the compound pan ~ ban, we
find that Sumerian pa “branch” = HS ba’ below and that Sumerian na “pebble,
stone” = HS [na’] id.
HS: Egyp. b’-t “branch” also “bush, thicket”; b’t “palm branch”,
Chad.: Angas bau “tree”,
Tangale ḅau “tree”,
Karekar ḅa “tree”
Cush.: Afar bahoo “wood”.
For HS [na’] “pepple, stone” and its HS cognate [na’], see §3.4.2.2 below.
HS [pan]
Egyp. bnw-t above denotes “pebbles, a kind of stone”, a meaning
expressed by the second element of the Sumerian compound pan, ban, i.e. na. The
very same phenomenon is also seen in CA where its word fananu expresses the
meaning of the first element of the Sumerian compound, i.e. pa, “main branch of
a tree, branch”; fannā’u “a branching tree”, fanwā’u [r. fnw/y] “a tree with
spreading branches”.
Other derivatives of CA [fnw] are: fanā “a tree with red seeds (fruit ?), each
seed wheighs one karat and from such seeds necklaces are made”; ’afāni pl. is “a
white tree”.
In BHeb., too, we find [pnh] expressing “corner-stone”, “branch” and perhaps
“(red) gems”: See OT, pp. 856-857.
For other roots including [pa-], see §§3.2.1.23, 3.2.1.14 & 3.2.1.15 below.

3.2.1.4 Sumerian bi “this (one), that (one)”

HS: Egyp. p’, pί demonstrative masc. sg. ; pn fem. sg.; p’w “those”. Since
the demonstrative is the source of the definite article in most languages (e.g. CA

72
’al “this” also “the”, OE sē, þe “that” also “the”, etc.), it is not surprising to find
Egyp. p’ functions as a definite article, e.g. Egyp. p’ ίl “the stream, the river” (ίl
“river, steam”), p’ R‛ “the sun” (r‛ = “sun”).

3.2.1.4.1 Sumerian bi can also be used as a possessive suffix –its- with things,
animals and collective objects.
HS: Egyp. p’, pί expresses “belonging to, i.e. genitive” and can be used with
personal pronouns to express possession as in p’ί-f “his (her, its)”, p’ί-y “mine”,
paί-sn “their”, p’ί-n “our”: see 4b below and my comments on Sumerian bi below.

3.2.1.5 Sumerian bi, bé “to speak, say”, a compound of two elements:

b = 3rd pers. sing. neuter + e “to speak” also “to howl, cry, hum”
HS [b-‛] ~ [p-‛] is a compound of b or p (meaning ?) + ‛(‛) “cry out, shout,
speak”:
Egyp. b‛b‛ “to converse, to speak in a contradictory manner”: ‛‛ “to cry
out, to shout, to speak loudly”,
CA ba‛ba‛a “to speak fast, to keep on speaking without a stop”,
CA fa‛fa‛a “to yell, shout”; fa‛fa‛u “one endowed with pleasant speech
and sweet tongue or words”.

Another example illustrating HS [b] is {b + -ђ} as in CA bāђa lit. “to disclose

or to reveal through speech, i.e. to speak what is on/in your mind”. It was
analyzed in DHSR: §3.13.24 as a compound of *baW (W = semi-consonant) and
ђaW; both are terms for “sun” and, esp. *baW, the stem for that notion in world’s
languages in their entirety.
In my analysis of HS roots in DHSR the strategy was to give an account of
each root that would be accepted and approved by scholars and, as a result,
avoided any analysis that may violate the strategy.

Comments
There is something interesting in the Sumerian bi above which is the use of 3rd
pers. sg. to form a compound verb. A similar phenomenon is seen in Hamito-
Semitic languages, which also use their 3rd pers. sg. [ya-] to create substances
from verbs (see DHSR: §3.6, n. 1c) and then convert such substances to verbs.
What does this mean? It has only one single meaning; it refers to an inherited
tendency to utilizing the 3rd pers. sg. (disregarding its phonological form) to
perform this morphological function.
When I wrote a chapter in DHSR: §3.13 on a prefix [b-] which is added to
nouns to create compound verbs and nouns, I could not determine the
signification of [b-] in many words. The examples which I selected carefully from
Hamito-Semitic languages showed plainly that we have in every instance a self-
explaining compound including two obvious elements: [b-] + a root, and that the

73
first element [b-] was a prefix, which can be dropped without any bearing on the
signification of the root. A similar condition is noted with the 3rd pers. sg. in such
CA compounds as yalma‛u “mirage” and also “it glitters, flashes” as the context
requires: lama‛a “to glitter, flash”, etc. The very same phenomenon is seen in
compounds with b- as the following examples show:
a) Egyp. bђwd “throne; seat”: ђwd id.
b) Egyp. byķr “excellent, good”: yķr id.,
c) Egyp. b’g “be needy, helpless, wretched”: g’ “in great need, in distress,
suffer want”,
d) Egyp. b’nd “to bind”: nd “to bind”,
e) Ug. b‛r “to burn”, BHeb. bā‛ar “to burn up”, BAram., Mand. b‛r “to burn”,
Chad.: Montol biar “heat”: ‛r “to burn” as in Egyp. s-‛r caus. “to burn”, CA sa‛ara
“to cause to burn” (DHSR: §3.2.56.3). One should note that CA caus. /sa-/, unlike
that of Egyp., has become part of the root, but that its meaning is still caus.
Hence, when we use other causative stems such as CII sa‛‛ara or CIV ’a-s-‛ara,
we are making a double causative construction.

f) CA baγaza “to sting (with a needle or any pointed object)”: γazza id.

g) BHeb. bāzar “to scatter, disperse”, BAram. bdr “to scatter”, OffAram. bdr
“to scatter, disperse”, CA baδara “to scatter, sow seeds”: CA δarā “to scatter,
disperse, winnow”, BHeb. zārā “to disperse, winnow”, Akk. zarū “to scatter, sow
seed, winnow”, Ge’ez, Amh. zrzr “to scatter, disperse” = CA δarδara “to disperse
and scatter” (DHSR: §2.1.12, n. 2).
For the examples above and many more, see DHSR: §3.13.

Like [b-], [p-] also performs the same function and can be easily and
effortlessly separated from the root as the following examples show:
h) CA faĝwa-tu “a vast place between two things; opening (always surrounded
by things, walls, mountains, etc. even ‘an open door’ is surrounded by the wall on
its sides”): ĝauwu “vast valley”.

i) faђasa suppose you are thirsty and, after sometimes of searching for ‘water’,
you see a river, a pond, etc. How are you going to drink without a cup? Fill your
palm of the hand with water and then lit. “(take) the water with your tongue and
mouth”: ђasā, said only of a bird, “to drink”. The only difference is that a bird
does not have a hand.

j) CA fadmu “very red”; mu-faddamu “anything (clothes, etc.) having this

color”; fadmu also “blood”: damu “blood”.

74
 k) CA faђwā “the content of esp. speech, talk, conversation”: ђawā “to
contain”; CVIII substance mu-ђtawā “the content of anything including “speech,
talk, and conversation”. It appears evident that [fa] here is the term for “mouth”
as in CA fū-, Phoen., Ug. p, etc.

3.2.1.6 Sumerian bìr “team of donkeys/animals”, a compound of

ba “inanimate conjugation prefix” + ir10 “to accompany, lead, to
bring; to go; to drive along or away”
To start with Sumerian ba, it does not seem logical to assume that ba, an
inanimate conjugation prefix, is the same as ba in bìr “team”. How can an
inanimate prefix be used in a compound to refer to animate things without any
element in the compound signifying an animate thing (animal, human being)?
One should also note that neither [ba] nor [ir10] have anything to do with animals.
In brief, what we have here is the following two homonymous proots:
1) ba(1) “inanimate conjugation prefix”
2) ba(2) “team, group”
Accordingly, Sumerian bìr includes two elements *ba(2) expressing “team”,
exactly as in HS: cf. CA fai’u (see §3.2.1.6.1 below) and a Sumerian lost noun ir10
expressing “caravan of donkeys”, exactly as in HS: cf. CA ‛airu (see n. 1c in the
Comments below). What may confirm this view and make it unquestionable is the
fact that the HS corresponding verb to Sumerian ir10 also expresses ‘accompany,
lead, bring, go, etc.”: see §§3.3.4.2-3.3.4.5 below.
Before elaborating further on the idea as expressed in the foregoing paragraph,
I find it necessary to shed light first on some facts very closely related to our
comparison of Sumerian and HS cognate words.
In the same chapter devoted for [b-] in DHSR, I discovered a different [b-] in
some HS words and, under the influence of four examples given to illustrate it, I
assigned to it “much (~ many); strong, big, large, great”. Apart from the
signification of Sumerian ba, such assigned meanings to HS [b-] are
unquestionable. Consider the significations of the four already mentioned
examples:
1a) CA barīђu “strong wind”: rīђu “wind”, Ug. rђ, Phoen. rђ, etc. id.
1b) CA ba‛kūku “intense heat with abated wind” is stronger than ‛akku id.
1d) CA zuγdubu “growl, roar” is stronger and louder than zaγdu id. Here, [b]
occurs finally and not initially as we should expect. It could be due to metathesis:
*bazγadu.
1c) CA ba‛īru beast of burden, ass”, Akk. būrū “young bull”, BHeb. be‛īr,
“cattle, beasts”, Aram. be‛īrā id., SA b‛r coll. “cattle” but also “head of cattle”,
etc.: CA ‛īru “ass, donkey”; ‛airu originally expresses “caravan of donkeys”, later
“caravan of camels”, etc. (LA), Ug. ‛r “ass”, Sab. ‛yr as in ‛r-n “caravan”, Aram.
‛ēr “donkey”, Egyp. ‛’ (< *‛r) “ass”, etc.

75
3.2.1.6.1 Sumerian bìr “team of donkeys/animals”
HS. The signification of Sumerian *bW in the compound bìr “team (of
donkeys ~ animals)” is expressed in CA by two derivatives:
a) fai’u “a group of birds”,
b) fi’a-tu fem. “group, sect (of people)”.
As to fai’u, LA cites two very close synonyms: ‛araķu “a line of birds or
horses, a line of camels following one another” and şaffu “a line of birds, etc.”
The members of the term fi’a-tu (n. b) may run from several to hundreds of
thousands and form a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain
distinctions, e.g. The Protestants are a fi’a-tu of the Christian faith.
CA wa-fru lit. “abundance of (domestic) animals that does not decrease in
number, abundance of (domestic) animals and grass that do not decrease in
number” (for its HS cognates, see DHSR: §3.12.15 and for prefixed w-, see
DHSR, chapter §3.12); fira-tu “abundance”.
For Sumerian ir10 “to accompany; to lead; to bring; to go; to go along or away”
and their HS respective cognates, see §§3.3.4.2-3.3.45 below.

Comments
Among many other words including Sumerian ba and CA fai- above is IE-HS
terms for “cattle” as in IE: OLat. pecu “cattle”, OLith. peku, OE feoh “cattle”, etc.
and HS: Akk. buķāru “cattle”, CA baķaru “oxen, cows”, Sab. bķr “cattle”, etc.
The word was analyzed in DHSR: §4.8.78 as a compound of a proot [pa- ~ ba-] +
a proot [ķy] “small cattle” + -r: see DHSR: 3.23.1. The proot [ķy] is seen in HS as
in Egyp. ķy “goat”, CA ķāru [ķyr] coll. “sheep” and in IE as in OIr. cāera id. This
makes the original signification of the term “small cattle” and not “large cattle”.

3.2.1.7 Sumerian ba “share, portion; rations, wages”; vb “to give; to pay; to

divide, apportion, distribute”: cf. interchanges with bar.
Sumerian ba above is most certainly from the same proot as Sumerian ba
“inanimate conjugation prefix” above in §3.2.4.1 above. As to Sumerian bar, its
HS cognate is bar-: CA barra “to give (or deliver) something to someone as an
aid”. The ‘something’ could be a share, portion, ration, and the like; with
prefixed -‛: ta-barra‛a CV of br‛ “to donate, to offer something to someone as an
aid”, etc.
HS: CA ’a-fā’a caus. “to give, bestow upon”; fi’a-tu “group; part”: fa’ā “to
split, cleave, divide”,
Egyp. f’ί “to present; offer” as in f’ί ђđ “to present (an offering of)
silver (ђđ = “silver”)”,
Berb.: Shilђa fi “to give”,
Chad.: Fyer fa “to give”,
Bokkos fa “to give”,

76
 Mafa va “to give”,
Buduma we “to give”,
Logone va “to give”,
Gulfey fā-re “to give”.
There are still some HS roots based on [p’/py’] as in Ge’ez wa-faya “to offer, to
grant”, Sab. w-fy “to pay a debt”, etc.; Egyp. f’-t “interest on money”, etc. see
DHSR: §3.12.15.

IE: Hitt. pai- “to give”. For the traditional analysis of the Hittite word and for its
IE and HS cognates that go along with that analysis, see DHSR: §4.4.48.

3.2.1.8 Sumerian pa(4), pab, pap “father; brother; man; leader”

HS: Sab. ’b,’bh, ‘bw “father, ancestor; agnate”,
CA ’abu “father”, coll. “ancestor”, dual “parent”, pl. “ancestors,
forefathers”,
Akk. abu “father”
BHeb.’āb “father”,
Ug. ’b “father”
Egyp. ’b “father”; ’bwt “forefathers, ancestors, kinsfolk” (= CA
’abawāt),
Cush.: ‛Afar abbā “father”,
Zaisse awā “father”,
Bedawi baba “father”,
Chara bābi “father”: cf. CA bāba “father”; ba’ba’a “to say father”.

1) Any sequence comprising– at least– either two consonants such as in CA

’abu or one syllable as in ’ab id. (i.e. without a nominative ending -u), the syllable
in question is originally a compound word consisting of either two proots or a
proot plus a particle (e.g. demonstrative) or grammatical element. In accordance
with this provable conclusion, Sumerian pa(4) above and its HS cognate are a
compound of two proots:
i) [’a, more correctly ’au] “father/mother, parent, family (members), lineage,
offspring”,

ii) another proot [-b, b-] that serves to define or make the general term [’a]
more specific.

2) The idea presented in the foregoing paragraph explicitly tells that the proot
for “father/mother, etc.” in the entire world languages was simply [’a], referring
to “father” and some other members of a family, and that Proto-world language
had expanded the proot by the addition of one or more elements to make it more
specific, i.e. to make it denote one single member of the family. The element could

77
be a suffix as in Hamito-Semitic ’ab, where [-b] = male; ’ummu, where [-m] =
“female” or a prefix as in Old Chinese ba’ “father”, mm’ “mother”. Similarly, to
narrow down the wider sense of other terms of family relationships and be able to
specify the referent member, Proto-World language followed in a very consistent
way the examples of [’ab] and [’um], suffixing to [’a] its appropriate proots that
can combine with it to express a particular member of the family and bequeathed
such ‘family terms’ to its daughter languages. As we should expect, in the course
of millennia such inherited terms have undergone some minor phonetic and
semantic changes in some languages. It goes without saying that such changes are
incapable of concealing their original kinship. For example, Proto-World
language suffixed proot [-l] to [’a-] to express– let us say tentatively: “man, male,
i.e. a human being; person”. In both Hamito-Semitic ’alu and Sumerian lú
express “man; person” (§3.2.3.3 below). Sumerian has preserved the semantic
content of [’al], but lost the initial [’a-] and retained lu(2). An identical
phonological change is seen in some languages as (Sino-Tibetan) Burmese lu
“man (as a human being)”.
In some other language families, however, we may encounter a semantic shift
from “man, i.e. + adult” to “child, i.e - adult”, e.g.
Muskogean: Choctaw alla “child”,

Aztecan: O’dham ali “a child, youth”,

Mayan: K'iche' al “a child, youth”,

Q'eqchi' al “a child, youth”,
Mam al “a child, youth”.
The Mayan term al “child, youth” above is slightly different from [aal]
“woman’s offspring” on the morphological and semantic levels, e.g.
Q’eqchi’ al “woman’s offspring”,
Chontal al “woman’s offspring”,
Awakateko aal- “woman’s offspring”.
K’iche’ aal “woman’s offspring”,
Tektiteko aal “woman’s offspring”,
Mam aal- “woman’s offspring”.
Available linguistic evidence enables us to say with reasonable certainty that
Mayan [aal] is from Proto-World language *’a + ha + l. This reconstructed proto-
complex word is seen in a good number of language families as, for example

Eskimo-Aleut Sirenil ila “family, relative”,

Siberian Yupik ila “family, relative”,
Alutiiq ila “family, relative”,

78
Hamito-Semitic: CA ’ahl coll. “family; clan”, pl. of the coll. with different HS
pl. endings:’ahlūn, ’āhāl, ’ahlāt, etc.,
Thamudian ’hl “family, tribe, tent”: tent = people who live in it,
Ug.’hl “tent”,
Sab. ’hl “folk, people”.
Proto-World ’ahal is capable of being broken down into three meaningful
proots:
a) [’a- or ’au] “mother/father, etc. above” +
b) [-ha-] “many, numerous” (i.e. pl. marker”) +
c) [-l].

3) We have so far established the significations of two elements of the complex

word: [’a-] and [-ha]; what about the third element, i.e. [-l].
Based first on my long and agonizing experience with the proot [-l] (and its
akin [-r], second on its later development in many language families, third on its
distribution in words in such families and fourth on its combination with other
proots denoting ‘members of family’ in worldwide language families, I find it
important to clarify an important point connected with [l] before deciding on its
meaning.
In my comparative study of HS terms for ‘animals’ (DHSR: §§3.23.-3.23.3), I
discovered three suffixed-proots [-b, -l, -r] and determined beyond doubt the
gender of [-b] as masculine. Due to the weight of evidence, I also hinted that [-l]
is a feminine ending: see DHSR: §§2.1.6.6 & 3.23.6. It is also in §2.1.6.6 of the
same book that I identified the feminine ending [-l] linguistically with the Indo-
European and Hamito-Semitic diminutive affix [-l] (> ‘small/little’).
On the other hand, copious evidence from world’s language families explicitly
tells that [-l] of [’al] and [’ahl], when affixed to a general term for ‘family’ like
[’a] above or [ka] below, originally denotes ‘male child, young male’.
Take the proot [ka-], for example, and combine with [-l], the resulting
combination [kal] originally expresses a ‘mother’s relative’, and traces of this
original meaning have been preserved in some language families. The earliest
attested meaning of [ka-] is in Egyp. k’ “person”.

Proto-Australian ka:la “mother’s younger brother”

Wik Muŋkn ka:l “mother’s younger brother”,
Wik Me’n ka:l “mother’s younger brother”,
Wik Mumin ka:la “mother’s younger brother”,
Kantu ka:la “mother’s younger brother”,
Wik Ngatr ka:l “mother’s younger brother”,
Tayore (ŋan-) ka:la “mother’s younger brother”,
Umpila ka:la. Hale 1976c: 55. Hale 1976a: 23

79
 With [al] alone without ka-
Uradhi ala “mother’s younger brother”,
Linŋitiy ala- “mother’s younger brother”,
Alŋit ala- “mother’s younger brother”,
Awŋtim ǝla “mother’s younger brother”,
Nta’ŋit ala- “mother’s younger brother”,
Ngkot ala “mother’s younger brother”,
Artitinŋitiy ala- “mother’s younger brother”,
Mbiywom ala “mother’s younger brother”,
Yidiny wagaal “wife”,
Djadjawurrung kuli “man”,
Yartwatjali kuli “man”,
Tjapwurrung kuli “tribe, man”,
Bardi gu:la “father”,

Additional cognates from the Daly languages are:

Tyeraity kala “mother”,
Matngala kila “mother”,
Kamor kilaŋ “mother”,
Maramanandji ala “mother”,
Marengar kila “mother”,
Pungupungu kalaŋ “mother”,
Wadiyginy kalaŋ “mother”,
Batyamal kalaŋ “mother”,
Ngangikurrunggurr kala “mother”,
Ngengomeri ala “mother”.

Hamito-Semitic [kal-] “mother’s brothers”

CA kalāla-tu occurred twice in the Koran (4: 12 and 4: 176) with two slightly
different meanings. After discussing various views of the Koranic interpreters, LA
conclusion on the signification of kalāla- was as follows:

a) The first verse «if one [a mother] dies with no living child, mother or father,
then the heirs of a mother will be ‘her brothers’», hence «kalāla-tu includes in
this verse “mother’s brothers”.

b) In the second verse, kalāla-tu refers to both «mother & father’s brothers and
sisters». However, LA hastens to cite a poem indicating that ‘father’ is not kalāla:
’innā ’abā ’al mar’i ’aђmā lahu
wa maulā’al kalālati lā yaγđabu
Akk. kalla-tu “girl of marriageable age, daughter-in-law”,

80
 Sab. kll “tribe”,
Cush.: Somali kolo “clan” (DHSR: §4.3.7a).
Indo-European: Skt. kula- “family” and perhaps Luwian klyiye “woman”.
Kartvelian: Georgian kʰali “woman”.
Penutian: Maidu kyle “woman”.
Also, consider some additional terms with the same [-l]:
CA ħālu “mother’s brother, maternal uncle”; ħālah or ħāla-tu fem. Alor-
Pantor: Teiwa -ħala’ “maternal aunt”,
CA ‛allā-tu pl. “brothers from different mothers” (the opposite of ’a-ħyāfu pl.
“brothers from different fathers”), Akk. alla-tu “family relatives”
CA ‛ā’ila-tu fem. “family”, Akk. awīlu “man, ruler”;
BHeb. gīl “generation, men of an age, youth”, CA ĝīlu “generation, youth of
an age”,
Sab. ķwl, ķyl “member of a leading clan”, etc.

4) Before returning to Sumerian proot [a] and its term for ‘mother’, the
question comes up again: What is the signification of [-l]? The answer is that it is
impossible for [-l] to demote simultaneously ‘female (of animal)’ and ‘male (of
human being)’. By excluding [-l] “female of animal”, we are left with a slightly
different [-l] expressing originally “youth, child” as in Cush.: Somali wīl “son,
child”, Sidamo yil id., Berb. au, u- “son”, fem. ult “daughter”, Egyp. wr, wl
“prince, great man, chief”, etc. DHSR: §2.1.14.1.

5) To revert to our main topic– Sumerian, we find that the language preserved
the proot a (< *’a) which expresses, as we should expect, not only “father”, but
also “offspring”. To express ‘mother’, however, Sumerian suffixed -m to [a],
hence ama “mother”.

6) We have just seen that Sumerian pa(4), etc. above expresses not only “father”
but also “brother”, “man” and “leader”. To express just “father”, it suffixed /-d/ to
[a], hence ad, ada “father” as exactly did nearly all language families, including,
of course, Hamito-Semitic and Indo-European as will be shown below.

7) One may note that Sumerian pa(4) above, as it stands, denotes only ‘males’
“father; brother; man; leader”. The reason is obvious. The only meaning of pa(4) is
nothing save “male” as opposed to [-m-] “female” and is a truncated form of the
compound *’a-pa “father”.

8) Depending on whether the proot [’a] is used alone independently of any

affix, or whether it takes an affix, we can divide world’s languages in which the
affix for ‘father’ is [b] and ‘mother’ is [m] into three types: Sumerian type,
Hamito-Semitic type and Chinese type. Of these three types, the first is rare, the
81
third is confined to very few languages, while the second is prevalent across many
language families, though not as widespread as some other terms such as {’ad ~
’a-t, ’a-n ~ ’u-n} to be discussed below. A few illustrative examples of the
Chinese and Hamito-Semitic types are:
a) Chinese type:
Thai-Kudai: Thai ph “father”, mâea “mother”,
Lao pʰ “father”, m “mother”.
A similar form is seen in CA the verb ba’ba’a “(call or say ‘father’)”; it is a child-
talk.
b) Hamito-Semitic type. Some languages have dropped the initial [’a-] of ’ab
and ’umm; others retained it.
Examples of representative languages preserving the initial ’a- or just a-:
Dene-Yeniseian: Ket ōp “father”, ām “mother”,

Korean: appa “father”, eomma “mother”,

Niger-Congo: Zulu ubaba “father”, umama “mother”,

Dravidian: Tamil appā “father”, ammā “mother”.

Examples of representative languages dropping the initial ’a-:
Algonquian: Ojibwe baabaa “father”, maamaa “mother”, the same as in CA
bābā and māmā.

Bantu: Swahili baba “father”, mama “mother”,

Duala papa “father”, mama “mother”,
Luhya papa “father”, mama “mother”.

9) Besides the terms [’ab] “father” and [’um] “mother”, we also find two other
widely spread terms in language families: [’at/’ad] “father” and [’an ~ ’un]
“mother”. In many cases, a language family may have either both sets or a
mixture of them as will be illustrated below. Again, we find that some languages
have retained the initial [’a-] and some others dropped it. A few illustrative
examples are:

Turkic: Turkish and common Turkish languages ata “father”, ana “mother”,

Siouan: Lakota ate “father”, ina “mother”,

Santee Dakota ate “father”, ina “mother”,
Sisseton Dakota ata “father”, ina “mother”,

Eskimo-Aleut: Alutiiq ata “father”, aana “mother”,

Sirenik ata “father”, nana “mother”,

82
Purepecha: tata “father”, nana “mother”.

Sumerian: see §3.2.2.3 below,

Hamito-Semitic: see §3.2.2.3 below,
Indo-European: see §3.2.2.3 below.
The two sets ’at/’ad – ’an and ’ab – ’um are not used consistently by numerous
languages; so that, all types of mixture are found. Consider the following:

Finno-Ugaric: Hungarian apa “father”, anya “mother”,

Mayan: Q'eqchi' taat “father”, na’ “mother”,

Ainu ona “father”, unu “mother”,

For the Ainu ona “father”, originally “lord, master” (= Sumerian en, etc.), see
§3.4.2.10 below.

Basque aita “father”, ama “mother”,

Oto-Manguean: Popoluca tat “father”, mam “mother”,

Quechua: Southern Quechue tata “father”, mama “mother”,

Arawak: Arawak aita “father”, ama “mother”,

Kartevelian: Georgian mama “father”, deda “mother”,

Australian: Western Victoria languages mami “father”, babi “mother”.

3.2.1.9 Sumerian: a-bala: “drawing of water”, a compound of

a “water” + bala “turn, duty”
HS: CA wablu, wābilu “copious rain, copious rain with huge drops”,
BHeb. ybl “inundation, deluge”,
Samal ybl “river”,
Chad.: Bochairian ḅol “rain”,
Yng yuble “to dip”, etc. see DHSR: §3.12.50.
A form with initial /’a/ is seen in CA ’ubila, a passive form of an active *’abala
preserved in Hadith, and its meaning is exactly the same as the passive wubila “be
raining copiously” of the active wabala.
Sumerian bala has a large number of meanings. In addition to those given
above, it express, among others, “to transgress, revolt, cross over, go back, pour,
revolve; term of office”. Some of such meanings are expressed by CA [bal]: caus.
’ablā-hu (hu = he) ‛uδran (= apology), where ’ablā means in Arabic ’addā, i.e.
“deliver”; balla “to wander”, etc.

83
 We are, however, more interested in the basic meaning expressed by Sumerian
bala than in its extended meanings. The compound bala includes the two
following elements:
ba “share” + íla “to deliver, carry, bring, support”
The literal meaning of the compound is originally the sum total of the meanings
of its two constituent parts, i.e. the meaning of the verb (whether it is deliver,
carry, bring or support) + a share of something as an aid, esp. with the presence of
‘support’. This is actually what CA balla means “to give (lit. ‘deliver’) (e.g.
assistance; aid; gift) to one’s relatives” as a means of maintaining blood-
relationship; balal-ta-hu “I gave him something as an assistance”.
Assyr. tabālu “to cary away” whose initial [ta-] = CA [ta-] of CVI stem as in ta-
bāka = Assyr. tabāku “to pour out, shed tears”: Assyr. and CA bakā id. (for CVI,
see §1.3.6 above). In Akkadian this [ta-] became part of the root in some of its
occurrences: for [t-], see DHSR: §3.7, and esp. §3.7.6.
Both [bl] and [tbl], with t- being part fo the root, are found in BHeb. and the
meaning of its tbl is “stained, having spots, stains”. This meaning is based on its
bālal “to stain”.
For Sumerian a “water”, see §3.2.3.5 and 3.2.3.6ff below, and for ba “share”
and its HS cognate, see §3.2.1.7 above.

Comments
Most meaning expressed by Sumerian bala and CA bal- are expressed by [’al]
as in ’āla “to come back, go back”, ’āla “to pour (usually a kind of milk)”; ’iyāla-
tu “administration”;’ul-na “we govern, we rule” (-na “we, us”); ’āla “to rule,
govern”; wā-lī “governor”, ’āla “to give”, ’alwu “a gift”, waliy “supporter,
defender” as a vb wāla; walla “to ran away, flee”, wāla “to support”, etc.
With prefixed n-: ’anāla “to give something to someone”; naulu “giving,
granting; gift”; nāwala “to deliver, to hand over”, etc.

3.2.1.10 Sumerian aba, ab “sea, lake”

HS: CA ‛ubābu “superabundance of water” also “where almost all water
congregated” as well as “copious rain”. It is a compound of ‛u “great, abundant,
much, large” + ’ubābu. For more on the decomposition of the word and its
cognates in HS and world’s language families, see §3.2.3.6.2.3 below.

3.2.1.11 Sumerian peš “womb; palm frond; three”; vb “to expand; to be thick,
wide”; adj. “precious, valuable”, a compound of either
moist container + ùš “placental membrane”
pa “leaf, branch” + eš “many, much”; eš5,6,16,21 “three”
HS: OAram. pšš “to enlarge”,
BHeb. pāśā “to spread”,

84
 CA fašā “to spread out, be spacious and spreading” also “expand or
increase largely one’s wealth”; CV ta-faššā “be enlarged, widened”; fawāšī
“anything (animals, peoples) spread and dispersed on earth”.
One may combine stem [faš] and proot [ķa-] “horn” and the combination fašsķu
expresses “farness between the two horns, i.e. afar from each other, spreading”.
Egyp. pš “to spread out (the legs, arms)” = CA fšĝ, fšγ “to spread out
the legs”).
It seems that CA -ĝ and -γ are variants of an earlier proot expressing in nearly
all world’s languages (esp. with an affixed liquid or reduplication) “leg”.
With prefixed n-: CA nafaša “to spread out”, Akk. napāšu “to extend”, etc.
DHSR: §3.11.8. It seems possible that CA na-fīsu “precious, valuable” belongs
here. We also have nā-fisu “the fourth or fifth arrow in gambling”.
With prefixed r-: CA ’ar-fašu adj. “broad, large”, Assyr. ra-pāšu “be broad”;
rapšu “wide-spreading” (DHSR: §3.15.13).

Comments I
It seems to me that -š in the HS words above expresses “many, much, increase,
spreading”, whereas CA pašša = Sumerian pa “moist container” + ùš “placental
membrane”. The CA word signifies “a container of water whose content goes out
as you open it”. The second element of Sumerian may be compared with CA
fišāšu “a thin cover or garment”.

Comments II
The data set forth above established firmly and beyond doubt three proots for
PWL:
1) ķ- “horn” as in Egyp. kr, Semitic ķrn,
2) g- (-γ-) “leg” as in Sumerian ḡir “foot”,
3) -š- “many, etc.” as in Egyp. yš “possession, thing, wealth”, apparently
related to the compound ‛š “much, many, numerous”.
For Sumerian pa “leaf, branch”, see §3.2.1.3 above.

3.2.1.12 Sumerian peš-peš “very wide, spacious; physically handicapped”,

reduplicated “to expand; to be wide”
HS: CA fašūšu, said of a female, “she can’t defer or delay ‘urine’ (= the
technical or medical term in Arabic is raħwa-tu ’al matā‛)” also “having a wide
(lit. spacious) ’iђlīl which can mean either exist of urine or exist of milk from the
breast”.

3.2.1.13 Sumerian buru(14), bur(14) “harvest; hot season, harvest time”, consisting
of
bur(12) “to tear, cut off” + either ú “plant” or a = nominative
suffix with vowel harmony

85
 HS: CA burru “wheat”,
BHeb. bar “grain, corn”,
Sab. brr “grain”,
Akk. burru “cereal”,
Egyp. pr-t “grain, corn, wheat”; prίt “the 2nd season of the Egyptian
year”; prίt “corn-land”.

For Sumerian bur(12), see §3.2.1.2.5 above. The difference between bar and bur will be
explained in §4.1 below.

3.2.1.14 Sumerian pa-sa-lal-a “a bundle of brushwood”, a complex word

including
“branch” + “bundle” + “to lift, carry; to bind” + nominative
HS: CA fasīlu coll. lit. “very young palm-trees broken off from the main
palm-tree (lit. their mother) and taken in order to be planted somewhere”; faslu
also coll. “branches of a vine tree taken away (from the vine tree) and planted”.
For Sumerian pa “branch” and its HS cognate, see §3.2.1.3 above.

3.2.1.15 Sumerian pa-tar “to cut-off branches/twigs”, a compound of

pa “branch” (above) + tar “to cut off”
HS: CA batara “to cut off usually a limb (tail, hand or leg),
BHeb. bātar “to cut in two or in pieces”.
HS [btr] is plainly a compound of [ba ~ pa] “branch”: see §3.2.1.3 above , and [tar
~ ţar “cut”]. Thus the notion of “to cut” is expressed exclusively by tarra ~ ţarra
and has therefore nothing to do with [ba- ~ pa-]. cf. CA faţara also expresses “to
cut off; to break”: see §3.2.1.3 above.

3.2.1.16 Sumerian pah “leg”

HS: CA faħδu “thigh”,
BHeb. pђd “thigh”,
Sab. fħδ “thigh”.

3.2.1.17 Sumerian bala “to pour, as a libation”

HS: Assyr. balālu “to pour out”,
Pun. bll “certain type of offering, libation”,
BHeb. bālal “to pour over, to wet all over”,
CA balla “to wet, to moisten”,
Cush.: Oromo bulula “to flow”,
Chad.: Housa bulbulā “to pour out”.

3.2.1.18 Sumerian bala-bala “speech, hym or song in the form of quoted speech,
either a dialog or monologue” also “pouring out”
HS: BHeb. bālal “to confound (language)”,

86
 CA balbala “to confound (language)”; balabala-tu “confusion of
languages”; balīlu “groaning + loud sound”; billa-tu in a fixed expression
“endowed with the power of speech”; bilbālu “speaking to oneself” (see DHSR:
§4.9.18).

In IE languages the cognate root expresses “stammer” (< “confusion”) and also
“to speak”: Lat. balbūtīre “stammer, twaddle”, Skt. balbalah “stammering”, etc.
see DHSR: §4.9.18: cf. CA balla “to stammer” (OT, 136) and in most modern
dialects ta-ballam “to stammer”.
On the other hand, Lith. biliti, bylot “to speak, say”, Phryg. ballēn “king” as
“speaker” in a popular assembly, etc. = HS: CA billa-tu above, and with the
suffix -tu (forming nouns from verbs) becoming part of the root: balata “to speak
succinctly”, etc. For more IE-HS cognates, see DHSR: §4.9.17.
For Sumerian bala “pouring out”, see §3.2.1.17 above.

3.2.1.19 Sumerian bala “to uproot, transgress”

HS: Assyr. balū “to go to ruin”; uballi “to destroy, bring to an end”,
CA balā “to afflict”; balwā, baliya-tu “calamity, affliction”,
BHeb. bālā “to afflict, decay, fall away; destruction, consumption”,
Cush.: Oromo balesa “to destroy, exterminate, lay waste, ruin, to
damage”.

IE: OE. bealu “calamity”, Goth. balweins “pain, suffering”, OHG. balo “ruin”,
ON. bol “misfortune”, OCS bolêti “be sick”; bolêsnî “suffering”, etc. DHSR:
§4.9.19.

3.2.1.20 Sumerian dab(2, 4, 5) dib(2) n. “fetter”; vb “to hold; to take, seize, catch; to
bind, tie up; to take away”
HS: [đb-] is the root for “finger, palm of the hand” wich means that nearly all
roots beginning with [đb-] express similar meanings as, for example, “to seize,
hold, catch, heap, decorate, fetter, etc., e.g. CA đabba “to seize, hold with the
hand”; ’ađabba “to catch, seize”, đbθ “hold with the palm of the hand”, đbţ “to
take”, etc., Akk. şabātu “to hold, grasp, capture, take, undertake work”; şubbutu
“collected, arrested”; şibitā “fetters”, etc. For more Sumerian-HS related roots,
see §3.2.2.18, esp. §§3.2.2.18.2–3.2.2.18.6 below.
As a matter of fact, Sumerian dub in §3.2.2.18 below is a grammatically variant
form of dab(2, 4, 5) above. See §4.1 below for an explanation.

3.2.1.21 Sumerian pad(3) “to show, reveal, choose, call, find, remember, declare”
It is only in CA that the meanings of [bad] come very close to some of those
expressed by Sumerian pad(3). CA also shares in common with HS languages

87
other meanings expressed by [bad-] such as devise, create; begin; separate;
distance, and so forth.
CA badā also bāda [r. bwd] “to appear, seem” with preposition li “to”: “to
occur to the mind”; CIV ’abdā “to show, reveal”, CIII bādā “to declare openly
(esp. enmity, hostility)”; badda (in auction, sale) “to bet”; badā’u “point of view,
opinion”; bābi-n lit. “manifesting itself”.
The root is found in IE as in Skt. bodʰati “he is awake, he learns”; bodʰ-
“understanding”, Av. boadah- “perception” (= CA budāhi-yatu “quick
perception”), Lith. budēti “be awake”, OE bodian “keep watch”, etc. see DHSR:
§4.9.2. The origin of this root in Sumerian is pa, ba “branch” (§3.2.1.3 above) +
ed(2) “go out”.

3.2.1.22 Sumerian barag, bara(2, 5, 6), par(6), para(10) “seat of honor, king, ruler;
chamber, dwelling, abode; sanctuary, shrine base; box, sack, sackcloth; penitential
robe”; adj. “combed, filtered”; vb “to comb out, filter”.

3.2.1.22.1 Sumerian barag, bara(2, 5, 6), par(6), para(10) “seat of honor, king, ruler;
chamber, dwelling, abode; sanctuary, shrine” above
HS: Egyp. pr “seat of government, house, palace”; pr nsw “king’s house
(nsw = “king”)”; per ħn “libation chamber”; per wr “a sanctuary, holy place”, pr
‛’ “Pharaoh” (BHeb. pr‛h, CA fir‛au-n): Egyp. ‛’ is the proot for “great, etc.”)”.
Note that [pr‛] means “first, master; to begin; be distant, etc.” in both HS and IE:
see DHSR: §3.8.20.

3.2.1.22.2 Sumerian barag, bara(2, 5, 6), par(6), para(10) “box, sack, sackcloth”
abobe
HS: Egyp. pr ‛nħ “mirror case” (‛nħ = “mirror”), also Egyp. (Middle
Kingdom) pr “box”,
Akk. parūtu “a kind of vessel”,
Heb. pārur “pot”,
Berb.: Ahaggar a-farra “enclosure”,
Tawlemmet te-farra “enclosure”. (HSED, n.1949, 2010).

3.2.1.22.3 Sumerian barag, bara(2, 5, 6), par(6), para(10) “penitential robe” also
“comb” above
HS: CA farrūĝu “a type of robe with a slit in the back”; mu-farraĝu “comb”,
SA: Himyaritic furug “putting on a dress”, saif of a womam (see LA),

3.2.1.23 Sumerian pa “leaf; bud” also “branch” as in §3.2.1.3 above.

HS: *pa “leaf, fruit (of a tree) as in Akk. and CA ķţf “to cull (i.e. cut) fruit”,
a compound of two elements:
ķţ “to cut” + f “fruit”

88
Take [ķţ-] and suffix to it any radical such as -m, -š, -p, -n, -l, -‛, -b, etc., you get
in every instance a triliteral expressing a special meaning of “to cut (+ thing)”,
e.g. CA ķţm “cut with the mouth (rare: cut the top of), BHeb. ķţm “cut (the head),
extirpate”; CA ķţš “cut a limb, e.g. tail, hand or leg”, etc. see DHSR: 69f.

3.2.1.24 Sumerian abzu “sea, abyss” > Akk. apšu “(cosmic) underground water,
ends of the earth”, Ug. ’bs “end, extremity”, BHeb. ’bs id.; abs ’ereş (= earth)
“ends of the earth”.
HS. A possible HS cognate may be the root in Egyp. wbs “water flood”.

3.2.2 Sumerian and HS cognates with /t ~ d/

3.2.2.1 Sumerian di-di “to play”
HS: CA dadā “to play”; dādī “fond of playing”; n. dadu, daidī, daidān,
dadanu, daidabūn.

3.2.2.2 Sumerian tu (15) “wind”

HS: Egyp. tw’ “wind, air”.

3.2.2.3 Sumerian ada, ad “father” also “song; shout”; vb “to talk”

HS: Ug. ’d “father”,’d-t fem. “lady”,
Phoen. *’d “father”; d-t “lady”,
Egyp. yt, ’t “father”,
Berb.: To ti “father”,
Ahaggar tey “stepfather”,
Note that Sumerian ada, ad “song; shout” and vb “to talk” belongs to a different
root [ђad]: see §3.2.2.20 below

IE: Grk átta “father”, Lat. atta id., Goth. atta id., OIr. ate “father”, Hittite attas
id., OCS and common Slavic otîcî “father”, etc. see DHSR: §4.5.37.

Comments
As one may note, the Slavic term is distinguished from other IE cognate words
by including a suffix -cî attached to its root -otî ‘father’. The suffix may be the
same as that seen in Ug. ђtk “father”.

3.2.2.4 Sumerian ta, dá “characteristic, nature”,

HS: Egyp. ty, tt, twt, θwt “form, image”; ty’ “essence of god”,
CA tawā’u “a characteristic mark on the neck or thigh”. The same
meaning is also expressed by tu-’-tū-ru and ’u-t-ra-tu fem. Not only -r can be
suffixed to taw-, but also [-s ~ -z], hence tūsu and tūzu express “nature,
characteristic” exactly as does Sumerian ta, dá above.

89
 BHeb. tāw “a mark, sign”; tāwā “to mark, delineate”. Like CA, Heb.,
too, expands the root with -r as in tā’ār “to mark out, delineate; a form, figure”.
(cf. DHSR: §2.1.6.7, n. 6).

Hurrian tiye “name”,

Urartian: ti-ni “name”: (*tiwi-ni): -ni is a common nominal suffix.

3.2.2.5 Sumerian da “arm; side; nearness (to someone)”; vb “to hold; to be near;
to protect”
HS: Egyp. d-t “the hand”,
Akk. idu “arm” also “side” as well as “power”,
CA yadu “hand; power”,
Ug. yd “hand”,
Phoen. yd “hand”.
Like Akk. idu, CA’iyyādu expresses “strengthening the side of; the left and right
sides (of the army). Like Sumerian da “to support, protect”, CA ’aiyada ~ ’ādā
“to support, to strengthen; protect”; ’iyyādu “anything that serves to protect or as
a protection”; ’iyyāda-tu “any well-protected place (garrison, headquarters, and
the like) that one resorts to for protection and hides in it”.

3.2.2.5.1 Sumerian da above also express “be near, nearness”

HS: CA arch. ’idā’ “near” was common in the ancient dialect Ţay’, also bi-
’idā’, i.e. “near”, lit. “in (= bi) near”. The corresponding form in other ancient
dialects was ’izā’. This may raise the question whether PHS yad and Sumerian da
are not from an earlier form *yađ or *yaδ. For a possible solution, see Comments
of §3.2.2.16 below.

3.2.2.6 Sumerian taka, taga, tak, tag, tà “to touch, handle, hold; to weave; to
decorate, adorn; to strike, hit, push; to fish, hunt, catch; to start a fire”
In considering the various meanings expressed by Sumerian word above, we
find that all of them, except “start a fire”, are very closely related and all are
derived from the notion ‘touch’. The signification ‘start a fire’ is hard to grasp
and figure out as being from ‘touch’ unless it originally meant “to start a fight or a
war”, developing into “start a fire”. In such a case it will be closely related to
“strike, push, hit”. However, the problem becomes extremely complicated as we
find that the origin of this compound lies in a combination of two roots:
te “to approach” + aka “to do, place, make”
One may note that neither te nor aka has anything to do with fire, heat, burn, and
the like. In the light of this fact, we put forth two hypotheses:
a) Sumerian tak, etc. above originally meant “to start a war”,

90
 b) Sumerian ta- in tak, etc. “start a fire” is etymologically different from te “to
approach” above. It could have been from a different root as, for illustration, from
the same root in Egyp. t’ “fire; burn”.
Of the above two hypotheses, HS evidence compels me to choose the first: cf.
Egyp. tk “to break the peace, to invade, attack”; tkί “kindle a fire”. It should be
born in mind, however, that the utterance ‘evidence compels me’ above does not
mean ‘convinces me’. It is most likely that t’ “fire, to burn’, a root so widespread
in world’s languages, is originally *t’’, a compound of [t’], a variant form of [d’]
to cause, make, do”, + proot ’ai- “fire”, and that Egyp. tkί is simply a compound
of caus. [t-] + kί “fire, to burn”.

3.2.2.6.1 Sumerian taka, taga, etc. “to touch” above

HS tk- ~ tg- ~ dg-: “to touch, approach”
HS [tk]: Egyp. tkm, tkr “to approach”; tkn “to approach, draw near”,
Cush.: Oromo tuka “to touch”.
HS [tg ~ dg]: Egyp. tgn “to approach, draw near” ~ dgn “to touch, approach,
draw near,”; tgtg “to attack”.

IE: Lat. tangere “to touch”, OE. accaian “to stroke”, Grk tetagón “having
seized”. DHSR: §4.5.3.

3.2.2.6.2 Sumerian taka, taga, etc. “to strike, hit, push” above
HS tk- ~ tg- ~ dg- “to strike, break the peace”
HS [tk]: Egyp. tkk “to attack, invade, thwart”; tk “to enter, invade, to break the
peace”,
HS [tg ~ dg]: Egyp. tgtg “to attack”,
Chad.: Gbr togoi “to strike”,
Nanchere tagi “to strike”,
Kafa tuug “to strike”,
Masa toia “to strike”,
Tangale tuge “to pound”.
IE: Grk. túkos “hammer”, OCS tûknoti “to stab”, Russian tknuti “to hit”, etc.
DHSR: §4.5.4.

3.2.2.6.3 Sumerian taka, taga, etc. “to hunt, to fish” above

HS: CA duĝya-tu fem. “hunter’s hut or shelter in which he hides to hunt”.

3.2.2.6.4 Sumerian taka, taga, etc. “to start a fire” above

HS: Egyp. tkί “to kindle a fire”, Coptic tōk id.
Chad.: Housa tōkā “ashes”.

91
3.2.2.6.5 Sumerian te “to approach” above. Its HS cognate is most likely the root
in Egyp. t’ “boundary”.
For the Sumerian compound word aka “to do, place, make” and its HS
cognate, see §3.2.3.25 below.

Comments
I believe that Sumerian-IE-HS notions of “strike, stab, attack, hunt, fish” (also
such uncited notions as crush, tear off, and pierce) are from a different
compound-root consisting of t-/d- “cause, make” + -’ak “destroy”. Accordingly,
Sumerian aka “to do, make, etc.”, together with its IE-HS cognate words, is from
a completely different root. It can be said that Sumerian has preserved the root
[’ak] in the compound word taka, etc. With the exception of Egyptian, all Hamito-
Semitic and Indo-European languages have also preserved the proot only in
compound roots: See DHSR: §§2.1.6.5 and 2.1.6.5.1.

3.2.2.7 Sumerian tuš “home”; vb “to (cause to) dwell, reside; to be at home; to
settle; to set up, establish; to sit”. The word is a compound of
te “to approach” + uš(8) “foundation place, base”
HS: Egyp. tys “to sit, seat” ~ dys ~ ds “to sit, seat”,
Chad.: Tala tǝsu “to sit”,
Sha tǝs “to put (down)”.
For Sumerian uš(8) and its HS cognate, see §3.2.4.1 below. For Sumerian te
“approach”, see Comments of §3.2.2.6.5 above.

3.2.2.8 Sumerian tur “child; young (of herd animals); second in rank”; vb “to
be/make small, to be insufficient”; adj. “small, little, young”. The word is a
compound of two elements:
tu “to be born” + ùru “to watch, guard, protect”

3.2.2.8.1 Sumerian tur “child, young” above

HS: CA taura-tu fem “young girl”, with no masc. form. Its supposed masc.
form tauru expresses “messenger between tribes”. With the assimilation of medial
semivowel to the following /r/: ’u-trūru “young boy”: see below.

3.2.2.8.2 Sumerian tur “second in rank” above

HS: CA tu’rūru “leader’s or Sultan’s (king’s) aide/assistant”, ’u-trūru “a
policeman’s aide”. It is clear that Sumerian “second in rank” = CA “an
assistant/aide”. Here also belong Egyp. tw’ “retinue, servants” and CA tuwā
“young girls”.
For Sumerian ùru, see §3.5.1.2 below.

92
3.2.2.9 Sumerian tùr, tur(5) “animal stall, birth-hut, byre, sheepfold, pen, stable”,
also used as a frequent metaphor for a temple, sanctuary.
HS: BHeb. ţīrā “an enclosure, a place surrounded by a wall, a wall round
about a place” also “castle, fortress”,
CA ţaura-tu “land around a house, building” also tīrā “fence, wall”,
Egyp ytr-t “small or large building, hall, a cell or shrine”.
The HS cited cognate is tentative, for the origin of /ţ/ is not clear. There is,
however, a possible relation with the Sumerian-Hamito-Semitic root cited and
studied in §4.2.3, n. 3 below.

3.2.2.10 Sumerian tur(5), tu “newborn; weakness; sickness”; vb “to be or become

sick”; adj. “weak; sick”

3.2.2.10.1 Sumerian tu “be born, newborn” above

HS: Egyp. twt “to procreate, beget,” as a verb “to assemble” (~ t’-t, tyty
“assembly”, t’ “people, men, folk”.

3.2.2.10.2 Sumerian tur(5), tu “to be or become sick; weakness; sickness; weak”

above
HS: Egyp. tr “to be weak” above
CA tartara “to languish, get weaker”; tarātiru pl. “calamity, hardship”,
tarā expresses a similar meaning.

3.2.2.11 Sumerian ad4 “lame, cripple”

HS: CA ’āda, ’awida “be/become crooked; twisted, bent”.

3.2.2.12 Sumerian a-dùg “freshwater”

a “water” + dùg “sweet, fresh”
For Sumerian a “water”, see §3.2.3.5 below and for Sumerian dùg “sweet,
fresh, etc.”, see §§3.2.2.12.1-3.2.2.12.2 below.

3.2.2.12.1 Sumerian dùg “gladness, sweetness”; vb “to enjoy; to be/make

enjoyable”.
HS: CA [daĝ] arch. as in this reduplicated form: To live in dāĝ-in daĝ-iy, i.e.
To live in ease, in wealth, in abundance, where all requirements of a good life are
available exactly as the following line of old poetry expresses:
wa ’in ’şābathum na‛mā’u dāĝiya-tun
lam yabţurūhā, wa’in fātatumu şabarū.

3.2.2.12.2 Sumerian dùg above also means “vagina”

HS: CA daĝwu “sexual intercourse”.

93
3.2.2.13 Sumerian has another root dug expressing “to do” as in a-dug- “to
irrigate”, a compound of two elements:
a “water” + dug- “to do”.
The Sumerian word adug is, in fact, a complex word including two proots and a
stem:
a) proot a “water”,
b) proot d- “cause”,
c) stem ag, ak, aka, “to make, do, act; to place; to make into something”.
Sumerian stem ag, ak, aka is in turn an obvious compound comprising two
proots:
a) [’a-], a causative prefix added to a noun [ka] to create a verb,
b) [ka-] see §3.2.3.25 below.

3.2.2.14 Sumerian dumu “child; son; daughter”, a compound consisting of

dú “to bear, give birth” + mú “to sprout, grow”
HS: Egyp. đ’m “youth, young man; descendant, generation” ~ θ’m “male”
also “masculine”,
CA ḏa’mu “brother/brother-in-law”.

3.2.2.15 Sumerian dú “to bear, give birth”

HS: Egyp. đ’m “to beget, to copulate”,
CA đi’đi’, i.e. reduplicated đi’, “offspring, progeny” and with n-
extension: ta-đauwun “abundance of offspring”; đan’u id. also “child”: đana’a
“give birth”.

3.2.2.16 Sumerian dam “spouse (husband or wife)”, consisting of

da “side; nearness; to hold, protect” + àm “to be; who”
HS: Egyp. dmm “to unite with”; dm “to tie together, bind together”; dmy
“union”; dm’-w pl. “body of men, company” ~ interchanges with tm- “to join
together, bind/tie together; mankind”,
CA ḏamma “to unite, join together”; CVII ’inđamma “be united with”,
Ge’ez đmm “to join, bind”, etc. DHRS: §3.12.16.
For Egyp. dm’-w “body of men”, CA ’i-đmāma-tu “a body or group of people
getting together and are from different origins (not from the same tribe)”
The proot [đa-] is also seen in HS with proot suffixes, esp. with -d: OAkk.
şamadu “to bind together, harness”, CA mi-đmada-tu inst. “a yoke”, Aram. şmd
id. also “a pair joined by a yoke”, ESA đmd “to couple, to join”, etc. DHRS:
§3.12.16.
Since HS đm alone in the root đmd expresses to unite, etc. above, it appears
evident that final [-d] has a semantic content that expresses the ‘thing/things’ to
be united. CA has preserved a shade of that ‘thing/things’: đamdu, said of both a

94
man and a woman, “having a girl-friend beside his wife (man), having a boy-
friend besides her husband (woman)”. It also expresses “having two girl-friends
besides one’s wife (man), having two boy-friends besides one’s husband
(woman)”. It seems that final [-d] of [đmd] is a proot for number ‘2’: Egyp. gb-d
“arm + two > two arms” makes the analysis indisputable: see DHSR: ft 166, p.
312. For this [d-], also see in §§3.2.3.7.1 and 3.4.2.4 below.
The reason why I elaborated on such kindred HS roots is because the proot
underlying them and many others (e.g. CA đw-k “a group of people”, etc.) is
[đaw] as in CA đawā, occurred in Hadith preceded by the negative lā “not”, i.e. lā
ta- đawū “don’t (you pl.) marry from relatives”. The same verb đawā also denotes
“to join, in the sense ‘to go to/ resort to + be connected with or joined to’.
All HS words cited in HSED, n. 589 and 595 belong here, e.g.
Chad.: Housa ḍa “child”, Sumray doi id., Cush.: Oromo dā’ima “child, baby”,
etc.;
Chad.: Angas dē “chief”, Mbara ’ḍiya “man”, Musgum dai “people”, etc.: cf.
đāwī denote according to one account “one who comes between a brother and a
sister” (LA).

Comments
The ultimate origin of Sumerian da and HS [yad] “hand”
I have already compared Sumerian [da] with HS [yd] hand, near, to support,
etc. (see §3.2.2.5 above) and, at the same time, raised the justifiable doubt
whether [d] is not from an earlier proot *đ or *δ.
As has already been mentioned, Egyp. has d-t “hand”, unlike Sumerian [da]
and Semitic [yad], does not express “side, near(ness), support, etc.” The Egyp.
root that does express all those meanings besides “hand” is đ’-t “palm of the
hand”, and with r-extension: đr “palm of the hand”; đry-t “hand”; đr “near; by the
side of something; be near the limit or boundry”.
Does Egyp. compound [đr] has a Semitic corresponding cognate?
The Semitic cognate is quite obvious; it is in CA δirā‛u “arm”, Ug. δr‛, Aram. dr‛,
Akk. zurū id., etc. DHSR: §3.6, n. 4b. All Semitic terms are from a self-explaing
compound comprising a stem δr + a proot ‛ “hand”, as in Egyp. ‛ “hand”, etc. see
DHSR: §3.17.30. In addition, CA has also preserved the root [đr] seen in Egyp.
above: ’ađarra caus. of đarra (both obsolete for many centuries) “to draw near, to
come close to the side of”: đarīru “side, edge”.
In Egyp. [đ’] can be brought together with [‛] to form a compound of two
separate proots as đ’ ‛ “to reach out the hand in protection, or with hostility”: đ’ as
a verb expresses “to stretch, to reach out tomard, to extend”.
On the other hand, [d] does not seem to express notions denoted by [đ’] above
when combined with [‛]. It is rather the causative [da- or d’] (which also

95
expresses “to give”) that can be combined with a term for “hand, arm or fist” to
express to support, protect, defend and the like, e.g.
Egyp. d’ ‛ “to give a hand, assit, help”,
CA da‛ama “to support, to back up”, dā‛imu “supporter”,
Phoen. d‛m “supporter”.
The Semitic words are from a compound of da- + ‛m “forearm, fist” as in Egyp.
‛m “forearm, fist”.
The proot [đ-] “hand, part of the hand” is found in HS in very numerous
compounds. One example, however, may be sufficient to illustrate the point. Most
HS roots beginning with [đb-] express in one way or the other the above-
mentioned notions as in CA [đbb] “to grasp with the palm of the hand; đabba ~
đaffa “to milk with the whole palms of the hand, i.e. with the five fingers (less
than 5 are expressed by other roots)”, [đbθ] “to hold or grasp with the palm of the
hand”, đbţ “to hold; one who can work with both hands”, [đby], [đb’] “to hold
tightly on what you have in your hand”, etc. BHeb. [şbt] “handfuls”, [şbţ] “to
grasp, to take with the hand, to lay hold of”, Eth. [đbţ] id., etc. (DHSR: §3.17.38).
There is one important root beginning with đb- and is common to the entire HS
language divisions; it is đb‛ “finger” as in Ug. uşb‛-t fem., CA ’u-şba‛u masc.,
Sab. [şb‛] id., etc. The root was preserved intact in Egyp. [đb‛] “finger” and in
Berb. ađađ “finger” (DHSR: §2.1.10). As will be explained and illustrated below,
when a sound change occurs in a CA word, the language often preserves all
variants after differentiating them in meaning or usage, hence, besides [şb‛], CA
has the oldest form đabba‛a “to raise both hands”; đab‛u “upper arm”.

3.2.2.17 Sumerian dim “bond, tie; rope”; vb “to make fast”, a complex word
consisting of
dam “spouse” + i “to sprout”
HS: Egyp. dmy “to bind, to tie, join together” ~ tm “join together”, tmy “bind
together”,
CA đamma, etc. 3.2..2.16 above

3.2.2.18 Sumerian dub “(clay) tablet; document”; vb “to move in a circle; to store,
heap up; to pour out; to sprinkle off; to strew; to dye (fabrics)”. We start with
verbs.

3.2.2.18.1 Sumerian dub “to move in a circle” above

HS: Egyp. dbn “to revolve, circle, wander round a place” ~ tbn “to revolve,
circle”.
The Egyp. dbn was correctly analyzed in DHSR as a compound of caus. [d-]
and a stem [bn] as in Egyp. bnn-t “ball”, some ball-shaped object, apple of the

96
eye” = Tigrina dǝm-bǝlbǝl “round”, Sab. dbl “ball of dates”, CA dibla-tu “ring”,
etc. see DHSR: §2.1.6.5, n. 3d.
In accordance with the decomposition of [dbl], Sumerian dub is unquestionably
from du-bal “cause to or make revolve, circle”. Fortunately, Sumerian here
provides evidence supporting my earlier analysis of Egyp. dbn: Sumerian bal
expresses “to revolve, turn around”; n. “rotating, spindle”. Accordingly, Sumerian
and HS cognates in §§3.2.2.18.2-3.2.2.18.6 are together derived from a different
compound word.

3.2.2.18.2 Sumerian dub “to heap up, store” above

HS: BHeb. şābar “to heap up”,
BAram. şǝbēr “to heap up”,
CA đabara “to heap up” ~ şabbara id.; şubra-tu “a heap, gathered
things into a heap” and with or without /-r/: şubba-tu fem. “a group of”; şabīb ~
şabīr “much of”, dial. ḏabb “collect, gather together and put in one place” as in
collect your belongings and leave, collect the paper, etc. It seems that final -r is
genitive.
For Sumerian dub in a compound, see §3.4.1.8 below.

3.2.2.18.3 Sumerian dub “to pour out” above

HS: CA đabba “to flow, trickle, pour out”, CIV caus. ’ađabba “to pour out,
leak water”. The more widely used term, esp. in modern Arabic, is the variant
şabba “to pour out”. One can shift the order of consonants of the original and
genuine form but not the variant, hence bađđa id. (but not *başşa).
BHeb. şbb “to flow”.
Egyp. đfđf “to pour out, drop tears”

3.2.2.18.4 Sumerian dub “to strew” above

HS: CA đabba, CIV caus. ’ađabba, arch. “to strew” in the sense that “to
partly cover an area with scattered X”. The symbol X stands for men scattering in
various (all) directions looking for something lost, e.g. a sheep, or for a person
(see LA). It is a word of very rare use even in CA.

3.2.2.18.5 Sumerian dub “to dye (fabrics)” above

HS: OffAram. şb‛ “to dye”,
BHeb. şeba‛ “a dying”,
Egyp. đ’b’gί “to dip, immerse”,
In CA *đabaγa is extremely difficult to pronounce (in fast speech) and was used
to express both: (1) “to dye fabrics” and (2) “to dye hides, i.e. to tan”. It has been
split into two roots: şabaγa “to dye fabrics” and dabaγa “to tan”: comp. đabba-tu
fem. “taned hide of an animal”.

97
3.2.2.18.6 Sumerian dub “(clay) tablet; document” above
HS: CA đibā-ru (arch.) pl. with no sg. form “books, things written on”. In
Egyp. the same dbn above (§3.2.2.18.1) also expresses “clay”. This is, however, a
wrong cognate. The real cognate is Egyp. đb ~ db “to decorate”. This is one of the
very few basic ideas lying beneath the idea “write”, some other ideas are “scratch,
cut” and “line”.
Akk. ţuppum “(clay) tablet” (> Hitt. tuppi id.) is borrowed from Sumerian.

3.2.2.19 Sumerian dulbu “a kind of tree and wood referenced in pre-Sarginic

texts, a versatile wood used by carpenters for firewood”
HS: CA dulbu “maple tree”, described as a tree that grows tall and large,
yielding no fruit, and its leaf is similar to that of vine-tree” (LA). The root for
‘tree’ here is [dl] and -b is a descriptive term. This root appears in many words as
[dl ~ dr].

3.2.2.20 Sumerian ada, ad “song; shout”; vb “to talk”. As a noun, the word is also
cited as a term for “father”. For the real term for “father”, see §3.2.2.3 above.
HS: CA ђadā “to sing (for camels) while driving them” also “shout, yell”,
BHeb. ђādā “to rejoice”,
OffAram. ђdy “to rejoice; joy”
Hatra ђdy “to rejoice; joy”.

3.2.2.21 Sumerian dar “francolin, pheasant”

There are two possible HS cognates as follows:
1) HS: Egyp. đr-t “falcon, hawk, vulture, glede, kite”
CA đarī-ku arch. “male eagle”. Final /-k/ seems to be the same as that
in dī-ku “rooster” [r. dyk], where /-ī-/, i.e. /-y-/, is from the palatal /-ĝ-/ which was
dropped because it is impossible to have a sequence dĝ-k: cf. dag- “hen”. DHSR:
§3.7.5, n. 6.

2) HS: Egyp. dr-t “bird (goose)-god”,

DA drr “swallow or dove” (NWSI I, 262).
The existence of Sumerian dar-lugal “hen, chicken” suggests that the second
choice is correct. It seems that Sumerian dar-lugal = CA dur-rā-gu, described as
“a bird very similar to sand-goose” (LA).

3.2.2.22 Sumerian dul(2) “mound, heap, ruins, tell”

HS: Akk. tilu “mound”,
OAram. tl “heap of ruins, tell”,
OffAram. tl “heap of ruins, tell”,
CA tallu masc. “mound, hill”, while the term for “ruins, heap of ruins” is
’a-ţlālu, sg. ţalalu.

98
 The question whether the Sumerian word is Hamito-Semitic cannot be
answered with certainty. The similarities noted here can’t be used as criterion for
deciding whether a word is loan or native. As a matter of fact, nearly all Sumerian
words and their Hamito-Semitic cognates are identical or nearly identical in sound
and signification.

3.2.2.23 Sumerian duru(5), dur(5) “irrigated, moist”

HS: Sab. drr “(to exercise) irrigation rights”; mdr “controller of irrigation”
(SD, 36),
BHeb. dārar “to flow, to spout”,
CA darra “to rain (sky), por out (clouds), to flow (tears, sweat, milk)”,
Chad.: Tangale ḍer “to pour”
Cush.: Saho darur “rain-cloud”,
Afar darur “rain-cloud”.

3.2.2.24 Sumerian dumdam-ze “to grumble, rumble”

HS: CA damdama “to speak with anger, to yell at”,
Egyp. dm “to have a piercing voice, to cry out in shrill tones”.

3.2.3 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /k ~ g/

3.2.3.1 Sumerian gal “big, great, large, mighty; a large cup; eldest son; chief”
3.2.3.1.1 Sumerian gal “big, great, large, mighty” above
HS: CA ĝalīl “great, big, momentous, mighty, important, dignified, etc.”,
Tigre gällälä “to honor, revere”,
BHeb. Galal person name, originally “weighty, worthy” (OT, 195) = CA
Ĝalal id.,
BAram. gll “weight, magnitude”. In Both Heb. and Aram. the term
gillut- also refers to “idols”.

3.2.3.1.2 Sumerian gal “a large cup” above

HS: CA ĝulla-tu “a large vessel in which collected dates are put” also
“container, receptacle”. All are apparently very large to the extent that they are a
burden for a camel to carry, as the following verse of old poetry tells:
’iδā đarabta muwaķaran fā (’a)bţun lahu,
fawķa ķuşayrāhu wa taђta (’a)l ĝullati (this is a sort of exaggeration)
Akk. gullu “bowl” also “basin”,
Ug. gl “cup, goblet”,
BHeb. gl “bowel”,
Chad.: Banana gala “pot”,
Warji galiya “calabash”,

99
 Kariya gali “calabash”,
Burma kal “calabash”,
Buli gal “calabash”,
Geji gale “calabash”.
IE: Hitt. gallit “basin” also “bowl”, Lat. galea “helmet” (DHSR: §4.4.12).

3.2.3.1.3 Sumerian gal “chief” above

HS: Assyr. gugallu “ruler, director”,
CA mu-ĝalĝilu “mighty chief or master” (mu- = “one who”); ĝalīlu a
descriptive term for “God”; ĝalāla-tu fem. “majesty, sublimity”, ĝalālu “glory,
greatness”,
Aram. gll “master, strong man”.
IE: OIr. gal “bravery”, Lith. galia “might”.

3.2.3.1.4 Sumerian gal “eldest son” above.

For the sake of clarity, it may be better to divide Sumerian gal into two units of
meanings: gal “old, advanced in age” and gal “son”.

Sumerian gal “eldest (son)” above

HS: CA ĝilla-tu fem. denotes “old, advanced in age (master, chief)” and so
does ĝalīlu id. The signification here applies only to a person who is “master,
chief, leader” and not to any person, i.e. “old master, a master advanced in age”.

Sumerian gal “(eldest) son”

HS: CA na-ĝlu has always been a very formal term for “son”. In MSA and
all dialects, its use is restricted to contexts where one wants to show respect or in
talking or referring to a superior person, e.g. naĝlu ’al ra’īs “the president’s son”;
’anĝālu-kum “your sons”, but outside such contexts one may use familiar terms
like ’awlādu-kum or ’abnā’u-kum “your sons”. It may also express only in CA
(though very rarely) “father” and “progeny, offspring, descendants”. The CA
initial [na-] is exactly the same as [na-] in such CA words as:
na-slu “progeny, offspring”: sulāla-tu “descendants, progeny, offspring”,
na-fila-tu “son” = Sumerian ì-bí-la “heir” = Akk. aplu id.
The signification of [na-] here appears to be “descendant”, Pun. nn id. (NWSI II,
734, but see §3.4.2.8 below.

3.2.3.2 Sumerian ab-gal “sage, wise man, wizard” (> Akk. apkallu ‘wise man’), a
compound of
abba “elder” + gal “great” =
HS ba “old (?)” + gal “great” (§3.2.3.1 above)
HS: CA baĝālu “a great man; chief, master” also “one people regard with
great respect”; mu-baĝĝalu “(mu- = “one who”) “(most) venerable and

100
honorable”, etc. All such meanings are associated with an underlying idea “old,
advanced in age”, i.e. ‘a master who is great, noble and simultaneously advanced
in age’, as the following quotation shows:
Layth (quoted in LA) says: raĝul (= man) δū (= of) baĝāla-tu fem. signifies “an
old man (i.e. kahl) (when you look at him, you see that he is) great, noble and
aged”. Accordingly, baĝāla-tu expresses simultaneously “great + noble + aged
man”.
The CA word can be easily and effortlessly divided into [ba-] and [ĝal]. While
the meaning of [ĝal] is obvious “greatness, majesty, honorable master, excellence,
etc.”, the meaning of [ba-] is not that obvious, though there are only two
possibilities.
a) ’abba is a derivative of or closely related to gen. HS ’abu “father” used as a
form of address or respect, hence Harari abba “elder brother”; abbāy “elder sister,
mother”, Amharic abbiyye “big brother”, Cush.: Hadiye abbāyyo “brother”, Galla
abba “father, person”; abba bayu “ancestors”, CA’abā’u “ancestors”. Note that
Sumerian abba above also denotes “father”, hence abba in nam-abba could be
“ancestors or elders” (nam- abstract prefix). When CA ’abu is used to address a
person, it overtly shows both “respect” and that the addressee is “older than the
speaker”.
b) CA ’ibbā-na ~ ’iffā-na “during the past time, long time ago” also “first” in
the context of time, i.e. the earliest or oldest, a compound whose second element
[-na] is the HS term for “time”. The underlying proot is seen in many compounds
as [-f] and in some cases [-b] such as sana-fa “years + past, i.e. past years” and
sala-fu “dynasty/family + past, i.e. ancestors” = “ancestors” = Egyp. p’-t “remote
ages, primeval time” (see DHSR: §3.17.14)

3.2.3.3 Sumerian lugal “king, master, owner”, consisting of two elements:

lu(2) “man” + gal “big” (§3.2.3.1 above)
HS ra “man” + ĝul “big”
or
’al “man” + gul “big”
HS: CA raĝulu (root *lagul does not exist and impossible to pronounce)
“master, lord” later “man”; riĝlu is an archaic term used to “date important events
occurring in a ruler’s lifetime and reign”,
ESA rgl “period in office”,
Aram. s-rgl, with caus. /s-/, “to rule”, etc. DHSR: §3.7.10.
One can say in CA proper the phrase ’alu ĝalīlu “man + great/ honorable”: ’alu
is an arch. term for “man” as in this line of poetry:
’āl-un ‛alā ’āl-in ta-ђammala ’āl-a
The first ’āl = man, person; the second = mirage; the third = wood, Ug. yl
“kinsman”, Thamudian ’l “family, tribe”, etc.
101
 In both Sumerian and CA the word also express ‘person’ and this signification
may be much earlier than “man” in both languages. The CA word also means
“family, one’s relatives”, and this is the only meaning in use nowadays. Among
numerous related words, we may mention ’illu “god, later God” also “blood
relationship, ally, neighbor (supposed to be an ally”), Ug. ul “army”, BHeb.’ēylēy
“chiefs”, Egyp. wr, wl “prince, chief, eldest son”, Cush.: Sidamo yil “son, child”,
Somali wīl id. (DHSR: §2.1.14.1, n. 2).

3.2.3.4 Sumerian a-gal “overflow of flood waters”

a “waters” + -gal “big” (§3.2.3.1 above)
HS ’a “water” + -gal “big”
HS: CA ma-’ĝalu “a large cistern collecting water and serving to water fields
and farms” also “marsh” (ma- “place” + ’aĝal), pl. ma-’āĝilu,
Sab. ’gl “cistern, tank”,
BHeb. ’eglē “reservoirs of the dew”.
For Sumerian a “water” and its cognates in HS and world’s language families, see
§3.2.3.5 and §3.2.3.6ff below.

3.2.3.5 Sumerian a “water”

I have chosen to study the proot for ‘water’ here and not in sections devoted for
semiconsonants not only because of its relation to the compound agal above, but
also because of its great importance as one of the most basic terms in any
language vocabulary. In addition, it is of very frequent occurrences in compound
and complex words not only in Sumerian, but also in all world’s languages.
The proot for ‘water’ includes an initial weak consonant, perhaps /y-/, but it
could also be any of the two other weak radicals /w-/ or /’-/. It is therefore safe to
reconstruct it as Proto-World *Wa-. For a comparative study of world’s
languages, proot *Wa- stands as one of the most important terms for things in the
physical world. For the same purpose, it is more important than most terms for
family relationships and parts of the body. Despite the fact that the term, due to its
weak phonemic nature, is one of the proots which are most susceptible to loss or
drastic modifications, nevertheless the types of change that the term has
undergone since its first use in language are still to a large extent predictable, and
a well-trained analyst can easily identify it in any combination with proots and
with affixes, even if it is modified in one way or the other in such combinations.
Proto-World *Wa- has over time enriched human language with very large
numbers of terms connected with water; words denoting ‘sources of water’ (rain,
source, etc.), ‘places of water’ (lake, sea, marsh, river, etc.) and, in brief, anything
connected with or belonging to ‘water’ such as swim, pour, drink, flood, flow,
float, bathe, wash; sail, boat, water-bird, and so forth.

102
 I have chosen this proot to study with some detail and trace its developments in
world’s language families for the following purposes:
a) To prove with unquestionable evidence my statement in §2.1.3.1 above that
compound and complex words whose various constituent elements were distinct in
Proto-World language fused into roots in subsequent stages. The utterance
‘subsequent stages’ means world’s languages in their entirety disregarding their
typological or genealogical classification,

a) to give a clear idea about the developments of the proot in language families
and show that languages tend to evolve in the course of time in similar ways,

b) to illustrate that not only Sumerian did preserve the monosyllabic proot, but
also many other language families. Accordingly, the matter of datable records
whether they are from the 4th millennium B.C. or from any part of the 1st
millennium A.D. must not be given the prominent emphasis it now enjoys in
comparative linguistics,

b) to present indisputable evidence that our remotest ancestors, after having

invented their language and put it to use, lived together for a period of time
sufficiently long enough to enrich their language with a large number of
compound and complex words based on *Wa-. A sample of such compound and
complex words are given in §§3.2.3.6ff below.

c) to put before one’s eyes a written answer to man’s incessant and perplexed
questions: How did language begin? How was it invented by ‘human mind’?
The samples of examples given below will show that the proot has been
preserved in language families as either a separate proot and/or in combinations
with affixed proots and words. We will start with languages preserving the proot
with minor phonetic and/or semantic changes.
The discussion below will clearly show that what is generally recognized and
referred to as ‘root’, i.e. indivisible on the basis of meaning into further
meaningful units, is a mere compound or complex word, with each component
elements having its own meaning. In my decomposition of roots into their
ultimate constituent elements, some attention will be given to those of Sumerian,
Hamito-Semitic and Indo-European.

3.2.3.6 Proto-World *Wa- “water”

Sumerian a “water”,
Mande: Soninke ya “water”,
San yi “water”,
Mwa yi “water”,
Kono-Vai ye “water”,

103
 Susu yi “water”,
Mande (South west) yi “water”,
Dan yi “water”,
Guro yi “water”,
Vai yi “water”,
Mandinka yiyo “water”.

Tupian: Guarani y “water”,

Avane'e y “water”,
Paraguaigua y “water”, -'u “to drink”,
Tupinamba 'y “water” also “river”,
Nhe'engatu'y “water” also “river”,
Tupynamba 'y “water” also “river”,
Xipaya i “water”.

Hokan: Inezeno/Chumash 'o' “water”,

Kiliwa ya' “water, river, lake, sea”.

Sino-Tibetan: Burmese yei “water”,

Old Chinese wa’ “rain”,
Gan i “rain”, u “lake, fog”.
Dene-Yeniseian: Tlingit áa “lake”.

Thai-Kudai: White Hmong ua “to swim”,

Thai waay “to swim”,
Lao wa:y “to swim”,
Shan waay “to swim”.

Oto-Manguean: Huave iow “water”,

Tlapanec iya “water”,
Otomi 'ye “rain”,
Mazahua yejo “rain”.

Mayan: Achi ya “water”,

K'iche' ja' “water”,
Mam a’ “water”,
Q’anjob’al a'- “water”,
Huasteco ja' “water”,
Jacalteco ja' “water”,
Quiche ja' “water”,
Itza ja' “water”,
Mopan ha' “water”,
Tojolabal ja' “water”,

104
 Yucatec ha' “water”.

Alor-Pantor: Takalelang Abui yˈa ~ yˈe “water”,

Atimelang Abui ya ~ ye “water”,
Makadai Abui ya “water”.

Iroquoian: Tuscarora a:we “water”,

Nottoway auwa “water”,
Laurentian ame “water”,
Cheroke ama “water”.

Hamito-Semitic: Egyp. w’w “watercourse”, where w’- = “course, path, way” and
-w “water”. A similar construct is w’-t mw “watercourse”: w’-t = w’ “course, path,
way” and mw = water = Akk. mū, CA mā’, etc. gen. Semitic id. It is also seen in
some other Egyp. roots such as yw “stream, river” as a vb ywί “to flood”. It also
appears in Egyp. as -y’ in compounds: see §3.2.3.28 below.
Chad.: Mandara yewi “water”,
Zeghwana yiwe id.,
Mafa yayaw “kind of water”,
Glavda iywa “water”,
Cush.: Iraqw ya’e “river”.

Uto-aztecan: Classical Nahuatl a:- “water”,

Mecayapan Nahuatl a:’-ti “water”,
North Puebla Nahuat a-tl “water”,
Pipil a:-t “water”,
Pajapan Nahuatl a:-t “water”.

Tungus: Evenki uyu-, uyu-kta- “to swim (of birds)”,

Negidal oyị-yan- “to swim (of birds)”,
Orok onnō- “to swim (of birds)”,
Gold (Nanay) ońoan-, oyana- “to swim (of birds)”,
Udihe wuyan-, uyan- “to swim (of birds)”, etc.
Proto-Tungus *uy “water”.

3.2.3.6.1 Proto-World compound of {a prefixed proot + *-Wa-}

The most common prefixed proots are [t- ~ d] and [s- ~ š-]. Other equally
common prefixed proots are [n-] and [m-]. These prefixed proots are so popular in
world languages.

3.2.3.6.1.1 Proto-World *n-Wa-

Sumerian na(8), na(8)ḡ “to water, irrigate, drink; drink”, a complex word of three
elements:

105
 ní “body, self, one's own” + a “water” + áḡ “to mete out to”
Apart from áḡ “to measure out, measure (area, length, time, capacity), to mete; to
check” which is a root added to an already existing compound {ní “body; self,
one's own” + a “water”} to modify its meaning and make it express such
significations as “to water”, “to irrigate” and “to check”, the signification
expressed by Sumerian {ní + a} is not evident.
Is it ‘one’s own water’ or a body (mass, collection) of water?
Is it the ‘self’ or the ‘soul’ of water, i.e. a pure, drinkable and unmixed sky-
water”?
Is it ‘self’ asks for/demands/wants ‘water’, hence ‘drink’ and ‘to drink’?
The questions set forth above are based solely on the Sumerian complex word in
an attempt to grasp what is meant by na(8), na(8)ḡ. However, based on what it
seems its HS cognate *naW-, the meaning becomes evident; it is “self sourcing
water” and this kind of water can be measured or checked since its amount may
vary very considerably in copiousness: see §3.2.3.6.2.2 below.

Hamito-Semitic: Egyp. nw “the mass of water which existed in primeval time,

celestial waters”; nw, nwnw “the sky-god”; nw-t “mass of water, stream”; nw
“new flood, inundation”; Nwnr‛ “a god who gave water to the dead”,
CA naw’u “rain, gale, storm”,
Chad.: Mesme nī “water”.
In CA the root is also seen with many extensions (prefixes and suffixes) in a
large number of words. It is sufficient to cite one with caus. /sa-/: sanā “to water”,
said of the sky, “to rain”; n. sunwu-n masc., sināwa-tu or sināya-tu fem.
“watering”; sana-t, said of the sky, “to rain, i.e. send water”; mu-sannā-tu “a dam
to hold water”.

Indo-European: Lat. nō, nāre “to swim”,

Albanian not “swimming, floating”,
Bret. neuī “to float”.
The list of IE cognates for “to swim” is not over. Cognates from other IE
languages have the caus. /s-/ which is generally treated by Indo-Europeanists as a
constituent element of the root. Accordingly, the following cognates have never
been recognized by Indo-Europeanists as such:
OIr. snaim “to swim”,
MIr. snam “to swim”,
Skt. snāmi, snāyami, “to wash”,
Av. snā- “to wash”,
Umbrian snata “washed, clean”.
PIE *snā-. WP II, 692f, Mann 1233. Buck SS: 10.35.

106
 The IE words above are actually from PIE *s-naw- and not fron *snā-. It is the
loss of *-w that causes the compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel.
Other derivatives of PIE *s-naw-, traditionally traced to a root *sneu- “swim,
float”, include:
Skt. snaumi “flow”,
Grk. neō “to swim”,
OIr. snu “river”.
We turn to Germanic term for “to swim” as in ON swimma, OE swimman,
OHG swimman, etc. The term has been connected with ON sund “swimming,
strait”, Welsh chwyfio “stir, wave, brandish”. There is no denying that ON sund is
ultimately from *naw = Egyp. nw-t above. Its initial [s-] is caus. and its final [-d]
could be derivational like that of Egyp. or the same as that in Skt. nadī- “water,
river” (to be discussed below).
Whatever the matter may be, Germanic term for “to swim” is much older in
time than all Indo-European terms above. The difference between Germanic and
other Indo-Europan in this regard is that Germanic prefixed caus. [s-] directly to
the proot *Wa-, whereas other Indo-European languages prefixed the same caus.
to the stem *naw-m-. Compare, for instance, OIr. snaim “to swim” with the
Germanic term. A similar compound of naW + -m/-b is found in Hamito-Semitic
and other language families. For example, Hamito-Semitic: Egyp. nm (< *nwm)
“to swim, to bathe”; nmy “to float, sail”, with b-ext.: nwbί “to swim”, caus. s-nbί
“make to swim”, CA mu-nīb (r. nwb] “copious rain”, Chad.: Gulfey nebia “to
swim”.

Austroasiatic: Vietnamese nôi “to float”, nuóc “water”.

Samoyedic: Yurak Samoyed / Nenets ŋuu- “to swim”.

Proto-Takanan *na- “water” (Girard, 1971: 167).

Thai-Kudai: Southern Dong nya “river”.

Oto-Manguean: Triqui na “water” also “sea”,

Popoluca nï “water” also “sea”,
Mixtec nisa “water”,
Mazahua ndeye “water”.

Korean nae “river”.

Niger-Congo: Rwanda -nywa “to drink”,

Shona -nwa “to drink”,
Punu nu “to drink”,
Kituba nwa “to drink”.

107
 Sotho nwa “to drink”,
Lozi -nwa “to drink”,
Tsawana nwa “to drink”,
Luhya -nywa “to drink”,
Rundi ku-nywa “to drink”.

Siouan: Kansa ni “water”,

Osage ni “water”,
Quapaw ni “water”,
Hijakira nina “water”,
Otoe ni “water”,
Omaha niŋ “water”,
Ofa ani “water”,
Biloxi ani “water”.

Japanese nomu “to drink”.

Tambora naino “water”.

Austronesian: Chamorro næŋu “to swim”,

Kavalan naŋuy“to swim”,
Buruese naŋo “to swim”,
Saisiyat laŋoy “to swim”,
Pazeh saa-laŋuy“to swim”,
Puyuma laŋuy “to swim”,
Buginese naŋe “to swim”,
Asilulu nanu “to swim”,
Kedang naŋi “to swim”.

Arawakan: Taino ni “water”,

Nomatsiguenga niya “water”,
Machiguenga nia “water”,
Caquinte niya “water”,
Trinitario une “water”,
Resigaro yooni “water”,
Curripaco woni “water”,
Tariano wuni “water”,
Arawak wini “water”,
Guajiro wūin “water”,
Banivade Quainia weni “water”,
Piapoco wni “water”,
Amuesha on “water”.

108
Witotoan: Minica Witoto yaunui “water”,
Murui Witoto yünui “water”,
Nipode Witoto haunui “water”.

Quechuan: Southern Quechua unu “water”.

Proto-Panoan *na-ši- whith š-ext. “water” (Girard, 1971: 167).

3.2.3.6.1.2 Proto-World *ša’-Wa-. The signification of the word in Sumerian

below suggests that initial *ša’ is caus. It is from this caus. meaning derives the
noun ‘water’ in some language families. Note that it is wrong to think of
causative as an affix serving only to form a verb. Other parts of speech can be
formed as well.
Sumerian šu “to pour”.

Turkic: Turkish su “water”: Old Turkish suw “water”,

Tatar suw “water”,
Azerbaijani su “water”,
Uzbek suu “water”,
Kazekh su “water”,
Kyrkyz suu“water”,
Shakh/Yakut uu “water”.

Hurrian šiwe ~ šiye “water”.

Hamito-Semitic: Egyp. sw, swy, s’w “to drink”. It also belong here Egyp. syw
“lake” and š’ id.,
Berb. su “to drink”,
Chad.: Housa ša “to drink”,
Mandala ša “to drink”,
Cush.: Sidamo so “water”,
Gangero zay “water”,
Gimira uš “water”,
CA šai’u arch. “water”.

Indo-European: Albanian shiu “rain”,

Grk ūie “it rains”,
Goth. saiws “lake”,
OE. sæ: “sea”,
OHG. sēo “sea”,
ON sær “sea”,
Toch. A swase, B swese “rain” (DHSR: §§4.10.38-4.10.39).

109
Dene-Yeniseian: Ket sùj, sʸuy, sʸuːyi “to swim”,
Tlingit séew, sóow “to rain”.
Sino-Tibetan: Gan sui “water” also “to swim”,
Burmese sei “to wash”.

Arawakan: Achagua šia-tai “water”.

Finno-Ugaric: eso “rain”.
Chibchan: Bogota chi “water”,
Buglere chi “water”,
Corobici si “water”,
Cuna tii “water”,
Dorasque ti “water”.

Chumashan and Hokan: Ipai wesii “to drink”,

Kiliwa chee “to drink”,
Cocopa ssi “to drink”.

Hurrian išena “rain”.

3.2.3.6.1.3 Proto-World *da’-Wa- ~ *ta’-Wa- is a compound of two proots:

caus [da’- ~ ta’-] + *Wa- “water”.

Sumerian dé “to pour; to water” ~ tu5,17 “to pour; to wash, bathe”.

Munda: Santali da',

Mundari da',
Ho da',
Korku ḍa',
Sora da'a,
Remo ḍa',
Gorum da'a,
Kharia ḍa'.

Dene-Yeniseian: Navajo tó “water”,

Dena'ina tu “water”,
Hupa tʰa’ “body of water”; tʰo: “water”.

Na-Dene/Athabaskan: Kato too “water”,

Ahtna tuu “water”,
Navajo tu “water”,
Western Apache tu “water”,
Mattole too “water”,

110
 Hupa to “water”,
Sarcee too “water”.

Thai-Kudai: White Hmong dey “water, river”,

Zhuang ta “river”.

Chibchan: Boruca du “water”,

Kuna tii “water”,
Bribri di “water”,
Teribe di “water”,
Maleku ti “water”.

Finno-Ugaric: Hungarian to “lake”.

Sino-Tibetan: Old Chinese to “lake”,

White-Hmond dej “river, water”.

Nivkh tu “lake”.

Ainu to “lake”.
Ainu atuy “sea” is ultimately a derivative of Proto-World *da’-/*ta’-Wa- and
finds its cognates in some language families such as Hamito-Semitic: CA ’atiy
“river” Siouan: Tutelu yeten “lake”, yetan “sea”, and Iroquoian: Salishan ataw
“to swim, bathe”.

Araucanian: Rapa Nui tai “sea”.

Oto-Manguean: Popoluca tu “raining”,

Matlazinca tawi “water”.

Hamito-Semitic: Chad.: Angas dō “to pour”,

Sura ḍō “to pour”,
Kariya ḍō “be wet”,
Cush.: Somali da’- “rain”,
Aungi du-ŋ “to pour”,
Berb.: Ahaggar ǝ-du “to soak”.
Egyp. t’ “drink, fluid of some kind”.
In Arabic dialects (e.g. Lebanese) daiya‛ “to pour a lot of water”: cf. Egyp. y‛ “to
bathe, wash”. It is possible that [-‛] is the same as proot [‛’] in Egyp. ‛’ = be
abundant, large, great, etc. The root does not exist in CA; it has instead ty‛ ~ sy‛
~ θy‛ all express the same meaning “flowing water; to flow on the face of earth”.
It also has hayγu “abundance of water”; ’ahyaγain “water and food” ~ hy‛: hā‛a
“to flow (water) on the face of earth”, etc. = Sab. hy‛ “to flow, run (water)”. The
/h-/ in both Sab. and CA is caus.

111
3.2.3.6.1.3 Proto-World *ma-Wa-
Hamito-Semitic: Egyp. mw “water”,
CA mā’u “water”,
Akk. mū “water”,
Ug. mym “water”,
Sab. mw “water”,
BHeb. mayim “water”,
Syr. mayyā “water”,
OffAram. my “water”,
Ge’ez. māy “water”,
Chad.: Geji maa “water”,
Geruntum maa “water”,
Logone mū “dew”,
Berb.: Izayan aman “water”,
Kabyl aman “water”.

Niger-Congo: Kirundi ama-zi “water”,

Kinyarwanda amazi water,
Yoruba omi “water”,
Luganda amazzi “water”,
Kinyarwanda amâazi “water”,
Vai mi “to drink”,
Kirundi ama-zi “water”,
Tshiluba mâyi “water”,
wahili maji “water”,
Yao meesi “water”,
Luhya amaatsi “water”.
Japanese mizu “water”, Japanese umi “sea”, Japanese ame “rain”.

Korean masi- “to drink”.

Ainu ma “to swim”.

Altaic: Oroqen mu “water”,

Manchu omi “to drink”.

Araucanian: Aymara uma “water”,

Mapudungun maw “rain”.

Muskogean: Choktaw umba “water”.

Sino-Tibetan: Old Chinese ’əm’“to drink”,

Burmese mou “rain”, myi “river”,

112
 Manange mu “rain”,
Tshangla Tshanglo mo “rain”.

Quechuan: Southern mayu “river”.

Jivaroan: Achuar yumi “water”,
Aguaruna yumi “water”.

Tupian: Tupinamba amana “rain”,

Nhe'engatu amana “rain”,
Tupynamba amana “rain”,
Guarani ama “rain” Avane'e ama “rain”,
Paraguaigua Guarani ama “rain”.

Burushaski men' “to drink”.

Siouan: Lakota mni “water”,

Santee Dakota mini, mni “water”,
Tutelo meni “water”.
Penutian: Nisenan mom “water”,
Maidu momin “water”,
Konkow momim “water”,
Nomlaki mem “water”,
Patwin mem “water”,
Wintu mem “water”,
Klamath 'ambo “water”.
So interesting is Klamath 'ambo “water”. It is a common Arabic term for ‘water’
when talking to babies and pronounced mbuw, mbū, ’imbū or ’inbū. The Arabic
variants are not rare in world’s language families: cf. Algonquian: Lenape mpi
“water”, Ojibwe nibi “water”, Abenaki nebi id.

3.2.3.6.2 Proto-World compound of {*Wa- + a suffixed proot}. The most

frequently used suffixed proots in world languages are -t/-d, -s/-š, -b/-p, -k/-g/-ķ, -
r, -m, and –l.

3.2.3.6.2.1 Proto-World *Wa-r-

Sumerian ur(2),(3,(4) “to flood”.
Hamito-Semitic: Egyp. wr “lake”; wrw “pond”; ywr “stream, river”, ί’wr-t id.,
ίwr id.,
Chad.: Housa wuriya “stream”,
Miya wǝr “lake”,
Cush.: (Omotic) Ari wa:rri “to wim”,

113
 CA ’aryu, said of clouds, “pouring forth abundantly”; ’awuwru
“sky, i.e. home of water = rain”. It is so difficult to pronounce and, for this
reason, it is arch. for several centuries.
The addition of proot [ha-] to HS [war] gives rise to CA hawru “lake”, Egyp.
h’r “lake, pond”, Sab. hwr-t “pool”. The signification of [ha-] may be “low-lying
(land)” as in CA haw-tatu, huwwa-tu “low-lying land, chasm” (see DHSR:
3.4.28) or from the proot in CA ha = Sumerian he(2)“abundance; abundant”
(§3.3.3.1 below).

Indo-European: Av. vairi- “lake”; vārō- “rain”,

Lith. yūra “sea”,
Skt. vāri- “water”,
ON. ūr “rain”,
OE wær “ocean”,
Toch. A wār, B. war “water”.
PIE *wer-. IECD 1494f, WP. 1.268, SS: 1.31. The reconstructed IE root should
have been *wvr- (v = a long vowel or a diphthong).

Alor-Pantor: Kui e:r “water”,

Ke ir “water”,
Teiwa yir “water”
Klon ara: “water”,
Abui ya “water”,
Sw iria “water”,
Wersing ir “water”.
Variants with [-l] are found as in
Kamang ili “water”, Nedebang yila id.

Dravidian: Tamil āru “river”,

Malayalam a:ri “river”, eri :lake”.

Basque ur “water”, euri “rain”.

Nivkh eri “river”.

Finno-Ugaric: Livonian yōra “lake”,

Finnish yärvi “lake”,
Estonian yärv “lake”.

3.2.3.6.2.2 Proto-World *Wa-d/-t-

I believe that the reconstructed Proto-World *-d here is from an earlier [đ]. The
evidence is not based solely on the correspondence of Semitic wd-n and Egyp.
wđ-n below, but it takes into consideration the signification of proot [đ] in many

114
traditional roots such as CA ’ađā-tu fem. sg. “pond; rivulet”, a strange pl.
’ađđa(n). The pl. of the pl. ’ađđa(n) is ’iđā’u. This a variant of wađū’u “pure
water”; ma-wđi’u “place of washing with pure water” (ma = “place’), Phoen.,
BHeb., OffAram. m-wş’ “place of outflow”, etc. see DHSR: §3.10.31. Also
consider the following:
a) CA γa = “down” vs fa = up, hence
γāđa “to go down (water) into the bottom of the earth”
vs
fāđa “to flood, rise (water) above the level”,
b) CA γāşa (< γāđa) “to plunge under the water”, BHEB. ‛wş “to sink”, etc.
There are several related HS roots beginning with prefixed proot [n-] as in CA
nawđu, pl. ’anwāđu, said only of ‘water’, is in Arabic ‫“ ﻤﺪﺍﻓﻌﻪ‬its exits or outlets”
or “the sources from which it gushes forth” and with regressive assimilation of /-
w-/: nađđa “to ooze out by drops”, apparently the water oozes out by ‘itself’, i.e.
na = “self”. A fact to which I drew attention long before I became acquainted with
Sumerian and its ni “self” (§3.2.3.6.1.1 above). The na- in all roots cited in
DHSR: §3.11.64 include this very same na-. Moreover, this is the only way I
understand natively such roots regardless of whether HS na- “self” is related to
Sumerian ni- or not. One example taken from DHSR: §3.11.64 may be sufficient
to illustrate the point:
CA đaħħa “to pump water”, a compound of [đ-] “water” and [-ħ] “empty”
CA nađaħa “water gushing forth copiously”, i.e. self + water +empty”. For [ħ]
as signifying “empty in its widest sense (as explained in DHSR)”, there is a
chapter in DHSR proving this fact: §3.16.

Sumerian ída, íd “main canal; watercourse; river” is a compound word including:

a stem éd- “to issue” + a proot -a “water”
Sumerian a-dé-a “the yearly spring flood”, a complex word consisting of three
parts:
a “water” + dé “to pour” + a nominative.
Hamito-Semitic: CA wadā “to flow or gush forth (only water)”, with n-
extension: wadana “moisten, to soak in water”; ma-wdūn “wet”; widānu “watered
place”; wadīnu “moist; rain”,
Sab. wdw/y “to flow”; ydynn “to water a place”, with n-
extension: wdn “be flood irrigated”,
Egyp. wđn “stream, flood”.

Indo-European: OCS and common Slavic voda “water”,

Lith. wandua “water”,
Hitt. watar “water”,
Skt. uden- “water”,

115
 Goth. and common Germanic wato “water”: DHSR: §4.6.46.

Basque edan “to drink”.

Finno-Ugaric: Finnish uida “to swim”,

Karelian uidua “to swim”,
North Sam vuodjat “to swim”,
Votic ujua “to swim”,
Veps ujuda “to swim”.
Finno-Ugaric: Finnish yuoda “to drink”,
Livonian yūodo “to drink”,
Karelian yuoo “to drink”,
Veps yoda “to drink”,
Votic oo “to drink”.

Finno-Ugaric: Hungarian viz “water”,

Finnish vesi, veti- “water”,
Karelian vezi “water”,
Estonian vee-, vesi “water”,
Votic vesi “water”,
Mordvin vedï “water”,
Mari wət, wüt “water”,
North Mansi wit “water”,
Komi va “water”,
Udmurt vu “water”: Proto-Finno-Ugaric *we- “water”.

3.2.3.6.2.3 Proto-World *Wa-b/-p-

Sumerian pa(4),(5),(6)(-r) “irrigation ditch, small canal, dike” (cf. CA fauwār
“fountain”),
Sumerian pú “well, cistern, pool, fountain; depth”,
Sumerian aba ~ ab “sea, lake” also belongs here and has preserved the proot
*Wa- which was later lost in its allo-words pa(4),(5),(6)(-r) and pú above. Proot-split
and Root-split are a very common phenomenon in world languages and have
enriched them with new words.
One may note that Sumerian pú expresses a meaning (depth) that may appear
unrelated to those involved with ‘water’. The depth here is that of water and will
be illustrated as we examine its term nab “sea, lake” below. It is partly expressed
by CA ‛ubābu below, but overtly by nab-.

Hamito-Semitic: CA ‛ubābu “superabundance of water” also “copious rain” as

well as “where almost all water congregated”. It is to be stressed that ‛ubābu
(abundant + water) is often associated with the ‘sea’, hence ‛ubābu ’al (= the)

116
yammu or baђr (ym & baђr are HS words for ‘sea’) “the deepest place in the sea”.
as a verb ‛abba “to gulp water in large or excessive amount, to drink without
sucking or without breathing”; ya‛būbu “stream with abundant water”,
Cush.: Afar a‛ab, a‛ub- “to drink”,
Saho -ō‛ob “to drink”,
Somali ‛abb “to drink”.
Cushitic words with initial vowels above = CA CIV caus. ’a‛abba “to drink to
excess”.
PHS [‛bb] is from *‛Wb becoming ‛bb by regressive assimilation of *-W- to /-
b/. As the meaning of CA derivatives correctly suggests, the initial /‛-/ is
unquestionably from PHS [‛] “abundance, abundant, etc.”: cf. Egyp. ‛’
“abundant”, etc. Accordingly, we can eliminate [‛a] and get CA ’ubābu or ’abābu
“water”, Akk. abūbu “flood”, Eth. ’ababi “flood, wave”: PHS *’awb > ’abb
(DHSR: §3.2.23).
The PHS reconstructed root above is seen in compound words such as {ša +
’ab} as in Ug. š’b “to draw water”, BHeb., BAram. š’b id., Sab. s¹’b id, CA
sa’aba “to drink to excess, be satisfied with drinking”, saibu “watercourse”,
Egyp. mš’b “place for drawing water” (= CA ma-s’abu), etc. (DHSR: §3.2.22).
All are from a complex word consisting of ša- + -’a- “water” + -b.

Indo-European: OIr. abann “river”, ab(a) id.,

Welsh afone “river”,
Lat. amnis (*ab-nis),
Skt. āp- “water”,
Av. āp- “water”,
Lith. upē “river”,
Old Prussian ape “river”,
Toch. B ap “river, water”.

Comments
The interchange of /’a-/ and /’u-/ in CA ’ubābu ~ ’abābu is in-depth an
interchange of *’ai and *’au. The same holds true of the interchange of Lat. [a-] in
amnis above, [ū-] in ū-rīna “urine” and ū-midus “wet”. The misleading idea that
vowels change the root meaning has its origin in the surface study of language.
A question may arise here: Is there any connection between the Indo-European
words above and Skt. pibati “drinks”, Lat. bibere “to drink”, OIr. ibim, etc. id.?
The same question may also be asked about the nature of relation that seems to
hold between the HS words above and CA ba‛bā‛u “rain pouring copiously”,
Egyp. b‛b‛ “to sip”, etc. All are from *‛Wb > (by assimilation) ‛bb > b‛‛ ~ b‛b‛.

Barbacoan: Tsafiki or Colorado api “water”,

Cuaiquer pi “water”,

117
 Muellamues pi “water”,
Coconuco pi “water”.

Wakashan: Haisla w'ap “water”,

Kwakiutl w'ap “water”,
Heiltsuk w'ap “water”.
Ainu apto “rain”.
Tupian: Guarani ypa “lake”,
Avane'e ypa “lake”,
Paraguaigua ypa “lake”,
Tupinamba upaba “lake”,
Nhe'engatu upaba “lake”,
Tupynamba upaba “lake”.

Quechuan: Southern Quechua upyay “to drink”.

Thai-Kudai: Buyang a:p “to swim”,

Zhuang ap “to swim”.

Korean pi “rain”.

Basque ibai “river”.

Austroasiatic: Vietnamese boi “to swim”, biên “sea”,

Mon boiŋ “to swim”,
Mon bi “river, sea”,
Khmer bəŋ “lake”.

3.2.3.6.2.4 Proto-World *Wa-k/-g-(-ķ-)

Indo-European: Lat. aqua “water”,
Goth. ahwa “river”,
OHG aha “river”,
OE aē “river”,
ON ā “river”.

Hamito-Semitic. All variants are found. Very brief illustrations are given to
avoid detailed discussions:
Egyp. yķ-t “a kind of drink”.
Cush.: (Omotic) Ari wočʼ “to drink”,
Chara ˈuš- “to drink”,
Yem úš “to drink”;
Yem ak- “water”,

118
 Chara ˈaːsʼ- “water”.
With caus. /š-/ prefixed to *Waķ:
Ug. šķy “to drink”,
OffAram. šķy “to give to drink”,
CA saķā “to give (water) to (someone/something) to drink” also “to
irrigate”,
BHeb. šāķā “to drink”, ysk, with two caus. prefixes /’a- and š-/ “to pour”
and so is below,
Phoen. ysk “to pour”. Note that /y-/ is the Phoen. regular caus. = BHeb.,
etc. /h-/ = CA, etc. /’-/ = Akk., etc. /š-/ (DHSR: §3.2),
Chad.: Dri sǝka “to pour”,
Jimbin sǝka “to pour”,
Miya sǝka “to pour”.
Egyp. yg “flood”, ygp ~ ygb “rain-flood” ~ ykp ~ ygb “rain-flood”.
It is most likely that final [-b ~ -p] of the Egyp. words above originally denoted
“(water from) sky/god/god’s soul”. if this hypothesis is true, the meaning of the
word when [-b/ -p] suffixed to it should be “rain; to rain”: cf. Mayan: K'iche' ja'
“water”: jab' “to rain”, Q'eqchi' ha’ “water”: hab’ “to rain”. However, the
evidence is still insufficient to build a theory on it.

Mayan: Q'eqchi' uk'ak “to drink”,

Tzotzil uch’ “to drink”, uk’um “river”,
Yucatec uk'ik “to drink”.

Hokan: Ipai 'ekwiy “rain”,

Kiliwa kwiiy “rain”.
Also belong here:
North Pomo ka “water”,
Central Pomo ka “water”,
East Pomo xa “water”,
Maricopa axa “water”,
Havasupai aha “water”,
Kiliwa ha “water”,
Ipai 'ehaa “water”.

Salishan: Cowicha ka “water”,

Klallam qwu “water”,
Straits Salish qwa “water”,
Twana ka “water”,
Coeur D'Alene sikwe' “water”,
Upriver Halkomelem qaː “water”,
Island Halkomelem qaʔ “water”.

119
Panoan: Yawanahua waka “water”,
Chacoboan waka “water”,
Maruba (or Matses) waka “water”,
Mayoruna waka “water”.

Quechuan: Southern Quechua yaku “water”,

Cuzco yaku “water”,
Ecuadorian yacu “water”,
Huanca yaku “water”.

Tucanoan: Orijon oko “water”,

Secova ok “water”.

Muskogean: Choktaw oka “water”.

Niger-Congo: Vai kɔí “sea” ,

Wolof geey “sea”.

Ainu iku “to drink”, wakka “water”.

Altaic: Manchu aga “rain”.

Finno-Ugaric: Finish yoki “river”,
Estonian yõgi “river”,
Voro yog, youg “river”,
Livonian yogi “river”,
Karelian yogi “river”,
Votic yõgi “river”.

Sino-Tibetan: Old Chinese ga “lake”,

Manange kyu “lake”, kyu-ri “to swim”,
Burmese ku “to swim”.

Penutian: Nez Perce kúu- “to drink”,

Utian: Central Miwok kiku “water”, Southern kiky id.

Japanese kawa “river”.

Gulf: Chitimacha ku “water”,

Atakapa kakau “water”,
Natchez kun “water”.

Tunican: Atakapa kakau “water”.

Araucanian: Mapudungun ko “water”, kau “to swim”,
Kunza ack, yacko “water”.
120
3.2.3.6.3 Proto-World complex word of *da-(n)-naw- ~ *ta-(n)-naW-. The first
element may be a term for “land, earth”.

Austronesian: Malay danaw “lake, sheet of enclosed water”,

Ilokano dan’aw “pond, lake”,
Kadazan anaw “paddy field, wet rice field”,
Aklanon danaw “lake, pond”; baeanaw “puddle of water”,
Tongon ano “marsh, swamp”,
Cebuano danaw “pool of water”,
Tagalog danaw “lagoon, pond”,
Bikol danaw “lake, lagoon”,
Iban danaw “lake, natural pond, shallow pool”,
Rejang daneuw “lake”,
Sundanese dano “natural lake, pool, puddle”,
Puyuma danaw “hole filled with water”,
Itawit danum “water”.
Hamito-Semitic: Egyp. dnnw “stream, canal”; dnnw-t “land lying by a canal,
field”.
Cariban: Bakairi tu’na “water”,
Akawaio tuna “water”,
Macushi tuna “water”,
Hixkaryana tona “water”,
Umaua tuuna “water”,
Carijona tuna “water”,
Waiwai tuna “water”,
Maquiritari tona “water”,
Wayana tuna “water”,
Karl'na tuna “water”,
Carib tuna “water”.

Arawakan: Garifuna duna,

Kariai toni.

Kartvelian: Georgian dena “to float”.

3.2.3.6.4 Proto-World complex word of *naW- plus *-d-/-t-

Hamito-Semitic: Egyp. net “stream”,
Berb.: Shilha ndu “be wet”,

121
 CA nadā “dew”: CA nadiy “watery, wet”, ta-naddā “be wet,
moist”. The full form of CA nadiy is actually nadiy-yu, a compound of nadā + -y-
u (u = nom. case), -y- = genitive “connected with, belonging to”.
Consider the following CA word: nadwa-tu, nadā “eat between two times of
drinking, i.e drink and after that eat and then drink again” also “drink and after
that water a field and then drink. Is it a compound of *naW- “drink, eat” plus *-
dw “two”? For [d-] “two” occurring in this position, see §§3.2.2.16 above and
3.2.3.7.1 & 3.4.2.4 below.

Indo-European: Skt. nadī- “water, river”,

Goth. natjan “to wet, moisten”,
OHG naz “wet”; nezzen ‘to wet, to moisten, to sprinkle’,
OS nat “wet”,
Illyrian Νέδα, a river name.

N.B. Indo-Europeanists connect IE root *nad- above with *nad- “to roar, shout”
as in Skt. nad- “to roar, sound”, etc. = HS: Assyr. nadū “to raise a cry”, Sab. ndy
“to proclaim, declare”, CA nādā “to call, shout, cry out” also as noun “farness or
distance within which a sound can be heard”. There is no such connection.

Dravidian: Telugu nadi “river”.

3.2.3.6.5 Proto-World complex word of *Wa + a liquid

A liquid /r/ and /l/ may be used as a prefix or suffix and their original
signification, esp. when they occur after the proot, “extended far, superabundance
of, much/many, long, and the like”. Few examples including suffixed -l and -r are:
Mayan: K'iche' ja' “water” > ja'l “river”.

Dene-Yeniseian: Ket ūl “water”,

Tlingit éil' “water, ocean”.
Hamito-Semitic: Egyp. ίl “river, steam”.
In many language families [Wa + l] is seen in complex words as in Hamito-
Semitic: CA sailu “great flow of water, flood”, Sab. m-syl-t “wadi-bed,
watercourse” (= CA masīlu id., where /m-/ is part of the root), Chad.: Mokilko
seelo “basin” (DHSR: §3.10.27). All are from a compound of caus. sa- (cf. §1.3.4
above) + Wl “water”: CA sāla “to flow, only ‘water’ or ‘liquid’”. The very same
[Wl] is also seen with prefixed n- Akk. na’alu “moisten”, Chad.: Masa ŋul id.,
Sibine nwǝ:le, Migama nyālo “rain”. The root is in CA nawlu “valley overflowing
with water”.

Sumerian ra “inundation”.

Nivkh ra “to drink”.

122
Hamito-Semitic: CA rawā, riwā’u “much water”; rawiya, CVIII ’irtawā “to have
enough water supply, drink to the full”,
BHeb. rawā “drink to the full”,
Sab. rwy “provide a water supply, irrigation system”,
Chad.: Housa ruwā “water, rain”,
Egyp. rίw pl. “effluxes, emanations”.

Sino-Tibetan: Tshangla Tshanglo ri “water” also “river”.

A nasal may be prefixed to the compound Wa- + liquid as in

Dravidian: Telugu neeru “water”,
Tamil nīr “water”.

Indo-European: Grk. nēros “watery, wet”, Doric nāros id.,

Latvian nāra “water-nymph”,
OCS nyrŭ “diver”.

3.2.3.6.6 Proto-World complex word of *na + *Wa- + -b/p-

Sumerian: nab “ocean; musician” (Elamite word for “god”)
ní “fear, respect” + aba, ab “lake, sea”
Elamite nab is from a different origin = Egyp. Nb “god, lord” = CA nabiy
“prophet”; nabwa-tu “loftiness, highness, etc.” = OAram. nb’ “Nebo (deity)” =
Sab. nb’ “vow an offering to a deity”, etc.
For the sake of analysis, Sumerian nab can be broken down into {ní + a} + -b.
The compound {ní + a} is ultimately the same as na(8).
Egyp. nwbb-t “shore, coast, basin”; nwbί “to swim”,
CA mu-nību [nwb] “copious rain” (mu- = one which, i.e. rain which is
copious); ma-nābu “road leading to water: ma- = “place”+ nāb “water”.

The Sumerian nab = CA ‛unbabu, a compound of ‛u- “abundance of” + -nbabu

“water”, i.e. abundance of water; ‛anbabu “name of a valley, so-called because it
gulps the water”. For proot [‛-] “abundance of”, see DHSR: §3.14.

Mayan: Tzotzil nab “sea, lake”.

Algonquian: Ojibwe nibi “water”,

Lenape mpi “water”.

3.2.3.7 Sumerian gabari “to confront”, consisting of

gaba “breast, chest” + ri “to throw out”
HS: gbr “mighty, strong”, consisting of
gab “chest, breast” > ‘front” + -r genitive or “man”

123
 HS also has a combination lost in Sumerian: gbr “throw away”, consisting of
gab “chest, beast” > “prominent, lofty, (in) front” + war
“throw out/away”.
We start with Sumerian gaba “breast”

3.2.3.7.1 Sumerian gaba “breast, chest”

HS: CA ĝab’a “breast, chest”. The word ĝab’a signifies in Arabic:
ķa’imatu ’aθ θada-yain
upright the breasts (dual)
or
chest
The word ķa’ima-tu fem. may denote ‘upright’, hence “upright breasts”, or (less
likely) “the part of the body (i.e. chest) where the two breasts stand”; ĝaba’ā, said
only of woman’s breasts “to rise up”.

Comments
An archaic word for “breast” in CA is naĝdain “the two breast” with no
singular or pl. form and was rarely in common use, Ge’ez əngədaʾā “breast”. The
word (e.g. naĝdain) includes at least four elements:
*na + ĝī- (or gy-) + -d + ain (or yn)
With the exception of *na, the signification of each proot is almost evident:
a) Final -yn or -ain is the PHS dual marker,
b) The root [nĝd] is associated with a notion of “high, elevated, overlooking”.
All such meanings have been imposed by the signification of [-d] “to stretch”
when combined with [gy-] “neck”,
c) The adj. naĝūdu “long-necked” = ĝīdu id. = Sumerian Sumerian gú, gíd “to
stretch the neck”: see §3.2.3.11.1 below.
d) Initial *na may be the discovered na- in DHSR: §3.11, n. 6, expressing such
an intensive meaning as very, much. so (much), and the like. This [na-] =
Sumerian na: see §4.6 below.

3.2.3.7.2 Sumerian gabari “to confront” above

HS gbr “mighty, strong”,
gab- “chest, breast” > (developing to ‘front” (e.g. Cush.:
Oromo guba “summit, top”, gen. HS gab-: see Comments II below) + -r genitive
or man.
It is more likely that /-r/ is genitive and that the original signification of gab-r is
“(one) belonging to the front”, i.e. chief, hero, king, etc.
OAram. gbr “be mighty, strong” also “hero”,
CA ĝabru expresses “king” and also “courageous man even if he is not a
king”; ĝabbāru (Koran 50:45) “one who overrules and subjugates (people)”;
ĝabara “to force, oblige, compel”,

124
 JAram. gbr “hero”,
EHeb. gbr “hero”,
Chad.: Sura gwar “man”,
Bolewa gwor “man”,
Cush.: Bambala gabari “farmer, slave”,
Kambatta gabare “farmer, slave”.

Comments
We expect the Sumerian combination [gab + ri] to express an idea revolving
around “throwing out or away something” since its [-ri] expresses “throw out”,
but this does not happen. In CA it does as in ĝubāru “free of any charge, said of
blood-fine”, i.e. if one is killed there will be no revenge for his blood nor blood-
fine” also, said of a sheep (in Hadith) “left alone”, i.e. with no shepherd to take
care of.
On the other hand, one of the CA terms for “to confront” is ĝābaha with ĝabha-
tu “front, forehead”. In some HS languages both roots [gb] and [gbh] fell together
as [gab-], for example
Chad.: Housa gabā “front of a person”,
Ngizim bo-gaba “breast, chest”,
Dwot gup “breast, chest”,
Sayanchi gǝp “breast, chest”,
Bade bo-gawa “breast, chest”.
For Sumerian -ri “to throw out” and its HS cognate [war], see §3.8.2.3.1.

3.2.3.7.3 Sumerian gaba-zi “to retreat, depart”, a compound of

gaba “breast, chest” + zi “to take out, take away”
Besides the idea of “strength and highness” expressed by HS roots beginning
with [gb-] as gbh, gbr, gbħ, gb‛, gbθ, etc. see DHSR: §2.1.9.2, n. 1, we find such
roots as gbs, gbz expressing an opposite meaning “weakness, cowardice”.
CA ĝibsu adj. “weak, coward” and ĝibzu adj. “weak, feeble”, apparently
variants of one earlier form, and the form was most likely *ĝibθu. The /-s/ is from
/-θ/, while /-z/ develops from either /-s/ or /-δ/: ĝabaδa ~ ĝaδaba “to remove,
change location of”; CVIII “to take out”.
What does the suffixed proot [-θ] add to the the signification of [ĝb-] “breast”
to make the compound ĝbθ express that unexpected meaning?
The suffixed proot simply adds “to remove” as in the reduplicated θa’θa’a “to
remove from a place” also “to plan something, as dwelling in a place, and then
you give up the idea and depart from it”.

3.2.3.8 Sumerian gùb-bu: “left arm”, consisting of

gùb “left-hand” + bu = nominative with vowel harmony

125
 HS: Cush.: Saho gabaa “hand”,
Afar gaba “hand”,
Chad.: Housa gaḅa “limb, joint”,
Egyp. gb, gb’ “arm” > gbd “two arms”, i.e. arm + -d “two”,
CA ĝubba-tu fem. applies to animals, esp. a horse “joint of leg and
thigh, of leg and foot”.
The Egyp compound gbd above is amazing in that it shows plainly that the dual
form is expressed with -d “two” and is seen in Arabic dialects (e.g. Lebanese,
etc.) as in CV ta-ĝabbad “to stretch both hands, as you do in yawning”.
For another example including Egyp. [-d], see §3.4.2.4 below.

Comments
In bearing in mind that the most widely used HS words for ‘left hand’ and
‘right hand’ are based on the terms for ‘north (= śm’l)’ and ‘south (= ymn)’
respectively, Sumerian gùb is also cognate with the following HS variant roots:
HS [kp] “hand”
Akk. kappu “hand”,
OAram. kpp “hand”,
Ug. kp “hand”,
CA kaffu “palm of the hand”, etc., whose original meaning is “side” as in
Akk. kappu id., etc.

HS [gb] also expresses “side” as in Cush. gab-, Chad. gab-, Semitic: BAram.
gab, etc. id. In CA we find ĝb’ “tip”, and with infixed -n-: ĝanbu “side (of a
human being), side (in general)”; ĝanūb “south”.
The notion of ‘left” as expressed in Sumerian gùb is seen in CA ĝanūb “wind
coming from the north, i.e. from the left side, north wind”; mu-ĝannaba-tān, dual,
said of army “left and right”. Here also belongs CA ĝubāgibu [gbb], said of man,
lit. “having two fleshy sides”. For a detailed discussion of [gb] ~ [kp], see DHSR:
§3.3.9.
Note that infixed /-n-/ can also be added to [kp] to express “side” as in CA knf
id., Ug. knp “wing”, Sab. knf “side, border”, etc.

3.2.3.9 Sumerian gù “voice, noise, sound”; vb “to exclaim; to utter a cry”,

consisting of
throat + u (3, 4, 8) “cries, screams”
HS [ga-] ~ [ka] “voice, noise, sound”
HS [ga]:
Ug. g “voice”,
Egyp. g’ “to sing”,
CA ĝa’, ĝu’ĝu’ “yelling at”. Nowadays, ĝa’ĝa’a “gossip”,

126
 Chad.: Tera ga “to speak”,
Housa gaya “to tell”,
Bata goo “to sing”,
Cush.: Oromo go’a “to sing”,
Omotic: Sheko ge “to say”,
Ari gay “to say”,
Gollango gay “to say”.
The proot [g] is also seen in all HS languages in many complex roots: see, for
example, DHSR: §§3.11.55-3.11.58, and so is [k], for example,
HS [ka-]:
Egyp. k’ “to sing, to say, to speak”,
Chad.: Logone ka “to say, call”,
Tumak kā “to say”,
Dangla kāwe “to say”,
Mubi kā “to say”.
For Sumerian u (3, 4, 8) “cries, screams” and its HS cognate, see §3.8.2.2 below.

IE: Skt. jā- “to sing”, Lat. gaius “jay, magpie”, Lith. giedoti “to sing” (cf. DHSR:
§4.4.47).

Comments
A very interesting word based on [g’] “voice, noise, sound” is Sumerian gù-dúb
(gù “to shout (“voice”) + dúb) “to make tremble”. Its HS cognate is the word in
CA ĝudubu, pronounced ĝundubu, with infixed /-n-/ from root [ĝdb] (LA), and
signifies “male locust”. The final [-b] is a HS bound morpheme suffixed to nouns
to mark the masculine gender (see DHSR: §2.23.3). By subtracting [-b] from the
root, we are left with [ĝd], a compound word consisting of ĝ- + -d. What is the
signification of this root, one may wonder?
The term ĝudĝudu denotes “locust”, which is so called because it keeps on
making noises at night. Some said that both gundubu and ĝudĝudu are a term for
an animal resembling the locust and keeps on screaming all the night.
As to the second element [-d] of the CA compound, it is most likely from [d’]
as in ta-da’da’a “to reel, swing from side to side (while waking)”, n. da’da’a-tu.

3.2.3.10 Sumerian igi “face, aspect, eye(s), glance, looks; front”; vb “to see”;
prep. “before, in front of”: ig “door”

3.2.3.10.1 Sumerian igi “face” above

HS: CA waĝhu (in most modern dialects is pronounced wiĝ) “face, aspect,
look, countenance, in front of, side, direction, beginning of (= first)”,
Harsusi wajh “face”,
Mehri wajh “face”,
127
 Beb.: Kabyl ugh “face”. See DHSR: §4.4.21, esp. n. a.
Here also belong:
CA waĝna-tu “cheek”,
Egyp. wgy-t “jawbone”,
Chad.: Lamang goyo “chin, beard”,
Gava guʷya “chin, beard”,
Glavda gʷiya “chin, beard”.

3.2.3.10.2 Sumerian igi “eye(s), glance, looks; front” above, the original meaning
may be “front of the face”
HS: CA ’aĝhā “come to view, be visible, to appear”; adj. ’aĝhā, said of
house, etc. “coverless, i.e. no cover to conceal it from view”, in other words “open
to view”; mu-ĝhā id.

Comments
One may reject the identification of Sumerian igi “eyes, looks; to see” with HS
[wgh] and consider them wrong cognate words.
In taking into account both the interchange of /h/ and /ђ/ in HS languages and
the shift in the order of the three root-consonants as documented in DHSR:
§3.2.51 (for more examples, see such sections as §3.2.50 and §3.15.21), we will
find that [wgh] is not an erroneous cognate. However, it does seem to hurt at all to
consider some linguistically ancient variants of [wgh].
1) Egyp. with caus. d-/t-: tk’ “to see”, dg “to see, look at; look, sight, glance”,
dk’ “to see, to look”, dgg “to see, to look; sight, appearance”.

2) A variant [waķ] is also seen with caus. /d-/ in BHeb. dyķ “watch-tower,
specula”, BAram., Syr. dūķ “to look around”, Mand. duķ “to look at, gaze on”,
CA dķķ (*dwķ) “to make appear, show” (DHSR: §3.10.14, esp. Comments I).

3) The same [waķ] is seen with proot [b-] in all HS language divisions as in
Egyp. b’ķ “to see, notice”, Chad.: Bighom bak “to look for”, Cush.: Somali beeķ-
“to observe”, Oromo beeka “to know”, Ometo biķ “to see”, etc. see DHSR:
§3.13.25.

4) BHeb. šāgaђ, with caus. ša- (*ša-wgāђ “to gaze, look; view” = CA waĝaђa
“to appear, be manifest”, in a fixed expression “to see; seen” (DHSR: §3.10.14,
Comments I).

5) Gafat ağğa “to see”, Amharic ayyä id., Harari ђēğa “to look, look at, watch”,
Argobba hanğa “to see”, etc., Cush.: Oromo ega “to watch, guard” (DHSR:
3.10.14, Comments I).
The data set forth above show three variants of the same root [wg-, wķ-, wk-].
A scientific observation based on the data above suggests that [ђ] or [h] “house,

128
temple, etc.” (see §3.3.2.1 below) is an optional element used when we look at a
house or look out from a house.
Finally, I remind the reader that I am dealing with a Sumerian complex word
including a number of elements, and that my primary task is to check whether the
Sumerian polyseme expresses all the assigned meanings and then to select the
correct HS cognate whose elements match those of Sumerian.
I end this discussion with CA waĝāђ in a fixed expression “be seen”; *waĝaђa
“to close the door”, hence ma-wĝūђu pp. “closed” (closed here = in Arabic
mardūdu: does not mean locked, just in a state that can be seen as closed): see
§3.2.3.10.4 below.
IE: Lat. oculus “eye”, OCS oko, Doric ókkos “eye”, Lith. akis, Toch A ak “eye”,
etc. see DHSR: 4.2.95.

3.2.3.10.3 Sumerian igi “before, in front” above

HS: CA wuĝha-tu “anything in front of”; wāĝiha-tu “front (of anything)”;
wiĝāhu prep. “near, next to”; ĝiha-tu “front” also “aspect, side, direction”;
wāĝaha “to front, to confront, meet face to face”; wuĝāhu ~ wiĝāhu
“approximately, as in wiĝāhu one hundred = approximately or about 100.

3.2.3.10.4 Sumerian ig “door” above

HS: CA cognate is waĝhu, said of a house, “the side of the house where
‘the door’ is”. This side is called “the front side” and its door “front door”. This is
a derivative and not a proot. The proot [-g-] “door” has already been discussed in
detail and established beyond doubt in the Comments of §3.2.1.2.4 above.

3.2.3.11 Sumerian gú, gíd “to stretch the neck” also “river bank; side; edge; front;
land, district”, a combination of
gú “neck, nape” + “to stretch out”.

3.2.3.11.1 Sumerian gú, gíd “to stretch the neck” above

HS: CA ĝīdu “long neck, i.e. stretching neck” also “neck”. It is also said
that the word expresses “a thin long neck” (LA).
The same Sumerian compound is also seen in CA as ĝidda-tu, from *ĝiyda-tu
(/-y-/ assimilating into /-d/), “a dog’s neck-chain”,
Akk. gīdu “muscle, tendon”,
BHeb. gīd “sinew, nerve, tendon”,
Aram. gyādā “nerve, tendon”,
Chad.: Dangla gaadya “neck”,
Kirfe ngiḍo “neck”,
Cush.: (Omotic) Ari ķad'a “neck”.
See Comments in §3.2.3.7.1 above.

129
Hurrian kudu-ni “neck”: -ni is a nominal suffix.

3.2.3.11.2 Sumerian gú “river bank, side, edge” above

HS: CA ĝudda-tu (*ĝuy(a)da-tu) “river bank, shore”, i.e. stretching edge or
side”; ĝudda “edge, side”.
Mand. gada, gidu “river bank”.

3.2.3.11.3 Sumerian gú “front” above

HS: CA ĝāyā- “to meet, confront, face” as in ĝāyā-ni, where -ni = “me”.

3.2.3.11.4 Sumerian gú “land, district” above

HS: Phoen. gw “community”,
Punic gw “community”,
Sab. gw “community group”,
CA ĝau = “district, any large land open to view”; ĝiwā’ “large valley”.
IE: Grk khōra “country; space, place”: DHSR: §4.4.56.

3.2.3.12 Sumerian gun, gún, gú “back of a man’s neck”, a compound consisting

of
gú “neck; nape' + ùḡa(3)/ un “people”
HS: Chad.: Somray gǝgǝne “occiput”,
Kera kene-g “occiput”,
Zime Bata guno “neck, occiput”,
Fali Gili gona “neck, occiput”,
Buduma ŋguni “neck, occiput”,
Lele tu-gna “occiput”,
Ndam da-gǝn “occiput”,
Kwan ku-kin “occiput”,
Cush: Ome gonno “nape” (HSED, n. 982)
It is possible that the 2nd Sumerian element was ùḡa(3): CA ‛anaĝu “man”.

3.2.3.13 Sumerian gú-mar “to pile up”

HS: CA CII ĝammara “to gather together”; ĝumārā “totality, whole, all”,
Akk. gamru “whole, all, complete”,
Ug. t-gmr “totality”.
All are from a stem [gm] “to unite, assemble, copulate; full, numerous, all”. For
this stem, its derivatives and the IE cognate words: see DHSR: §4.4.16.

3.2.3.14 Sumerian ki “earth; place; area; location; ground; grain” also “whenever;
wherever, where, behind”, consisting of
“base” + “to rise, sprout”
HS [k’], [g’]

130
 HS [k’]:
Egyp. k’-t “district, place”; k’ί “oil-seed”; k’-t “a plant”,

HS: [g’]
Egyp. g’ “terrace”, gy-t “a kind of bread”
Harari ge “country”; gē “city”,
Argobba ge “country”,
Wolane ge “country”,
Selti ge “village”.
Sumerian ki “whenever; where, wherever, behind”,
HS: Assyr. kī “when, after, as, since”, Sab. k “when, because”.
IE: Lith. kaĩ “when, as”, etc. see DHSR: §4.3.1.

3.2.3.14.1 Sumerian ki-ri “to scratch the ground”, a combination of

ki “ground' + ri “to touch, to gather”
HS [k-r] ~ [g-r]
HS [k-r]
CA karā “to plow, to dig”; kūra-tu “region, city, village”,
Assyr. karā “to dig”; kirū “garden”,
Egyp. kry “gardner”,
Chad.: Housa karkara “farmland”.

HS [g-r]
CA kauwār ~ gauwār “ploughman, farmer”,
Chad.: Bolewa gur “to dig”,
Housa gūre “to enlarge a hole or well”.

IE: Hitt. kuraš “field”, Av. karš- “to plow”; karšū- “field”, Skt. kṛṣ- “to plow”.
DHSR: §4.3.29.

3.2.3.14.2 Sumerian kír “a large vessel”, a compound of

ki “place” + ir(2) “fluid secretion”
HS: Egyp. k’r “a sanctuary vessel”.

3.2.3.14.3 Sumerian ki-sum-ma “onion-growing land”, consisting of

ki “land” + sum “onions” + -ma genitive.
HS: CA kaysūm ~ yaksūmu ~ ’uksūmu “grass-growing meadow/land to
excess”,
Assyr. kiššēnu “”plant, vetch”.
IE: Skt. kusuma “flower”: DHSR: §4.3.73.

3.2.3.14.4 Sumerian ki-ùr “territory; living grounds”, a combination of

131
 ki “place” + ùr “roofs”
HS: CA kauru “area, region, city, village”.

3.2.3.14.5 Sumerian ki-za “to bow down, submit”, consisting of

ki “ground” + za “to make a repetitive motion”
HS: Egyp. ks “to bow down, to submit, to do homage”.

3.2.3.14.6 Sumerian kir, gir “cow or mare”

HS: CA kawru coll. “herd of cows” and it is from the same root in HS karā
“to plow, dig, region, etc. above”,
Chad.: Musgum gari “bull”.

3.2.3.15 Sumerian kur “mountain; (foreign) land”, a compound of

ki “place” + ùr “roof, mountain”.
HS [gwr], [ķwr], [kwr] “mountain”
HS [gwr]:
CA ĝarru, from ĝwr by progressive assimilation of /-w-/ into /-r-/, “slope of
the mountain, foot of the mountain”; ma-ĝarra-tu lit. “door of the sky, the
domelike of the sky”,
Amharic gara “mountain”,
Cush.: Oromo gara “hill”,
Gurage gara “mountain” (DHSR: §4.4.27).
HS [ķwr]:
CA ķāra-tu “a small mountain (though greater than a hill), a huge round
mountain”. This word is related to Egyp. ķ’’ “high ground, hill, height in the
sense of length”; ķ’-‛ “high long arm (‛ = arm)”. Ibn Shamil defined ķāra- as “a
small thin mountain (perhaps also round) stretching high (lit. long) into the sky
(i.e. vertically, is excessively long)”. Among other extensions are ķimma-tu
(*ķiwma-tu) “top of a mountain”, ķunna-tu (*ķuwna-tu) id., ķulā coll. “top of
mountain”, ķwd “high mountain”, ķwf, etc.
Cush.: Somali ķar “high mountain, summit”,
Oromo ķara “high mountain, summit”.
It seems to me that CA ķāra- is very close to Sumerian gàr “something round
and upraised” and so is kwr below.

HS: [kwr]
Sab. kwr “high-place, hill, colline”,
CA kauru “head-cover wraped round the head”; kūr, kuwair, kaur, kīr are
names of mountains; kāra “to raise the tail while running (horse)”.

132
 The Semitic words are ultimately related to Egyp. k’ “be high”, Cush.: Oromo
kaa “rise, arise”, and all are also related to Egyp. g’w “a mountain pass”, Chad.:
Zime gwo’ “stone”, Lame n-gawe id.

IE: Skt. giri- “mountain”, Av. gairi- id., OCS and common Slavic gora
“mountain”, Lith. gire “forest”, Toch A karās “wood” (DHSR: §4.4.27).

3.2.3.15.1 Sumerian kúr “stranger; enemy; hostility”, from kur “mountains,

foreign land” above
HS: Akk. gērū “enemy”; gerū “be hostile”,
Ug. gr “to attack”,
BHeb. hit-gāre “combat”,
Syr. gerī “to provoke”.

3.2.3.16 Sumerian kungal, gukkal “fat-tailed sheep”, consisting of

kun “tail” + gal “big”
HS: Egyp. knkn “to lash with the tail”, apparently developing from kn “tail”.

3.2.3.17 Sumerian kir(11) “female lamb”

HS: Akk. kerru “lamb”,
Ug. kr “male lamb”,
BHeb. kar “male lamb”,
CA: dial. kurr masc. “young (lit. ‘son’) of a donkey”, etc.

3.2.3.18 Sumerian káb “flaxen measuring string”

HS: CA ķābu “a measure”, e.g. ‛alā (= on) ķābi (= measure) ķaus (= bow)
“the measure of a bowshot”, with n-ext.: ķabbānu “stealyard”, originally a pl.
form,
OffAram. ķb “measure of capacity”,
JAram. ķbyn pl. “measure of capacity”.
All are ultimately from *ķaW- as in Assyr. ķa “a measure”, CA ķiyāsu id.; ķāsa
“to measure”.

3.2.3.19 Sumerian gir(4), kir(13) “oven, kiln”

ki “place” + ara4 “to shine, blaze”
HS: Egyp. ķrr “oven, furnace”,
Akk. ķarāru “to burn”,
CA ķarra “to burn (something)”,
Chad.: Kulere karu “to burn”,
Kirfi kaaru “to burn”,
Mandara kara “fire”,
Karkare karu “to burn”. DHSR: §§3.2.48, n. 2a & 3.8.28.

133
Two caus. forms of [ķr ~ gr] are: CA sa-ķru “fire” and sa-ĝara “to burn”, from
ĝārru “heat, hot”, Akk. giru, girru “fire, deity of fire”; gurāru ~ kurāru “hot
ashes”, etc. (DHSR: §3.2.4).

Burushaski: Yasin gar-ˈum “hot, warm”, Hunza garˈur-um id.

IE: Av. gar- “to burn”, OCS gorêti “to burn”, Armenian ger “hot”, and with m-
ext.: Skt. gharma “heat, warmth”, OPers. garma-, OIr. gorim, etc. see DHSR:
§4.4.35.

3.2.3.20 Sumerian gig “pain”

HS: Egyp. g’ “to suffer want, to be in distress”,
CA ĝi’a-tu fem. “injury”.

IE: Skt. jyā- “to deprive of, oppress”, Av. zyā- “to dprive of, injure”: DHSR:§
4.4.46.
Derivatives of proot [ga’] in IE and HS include:
IE: Skt. jase “I am exhausted”; jasvan- “hungry”; jasuri- “starved”, Hitt. kaštan
“hunger”, Toch. A käs-, B kes- “to extinguish, go out”, Lith. gesti “to go out
(fire), extinguished”
HS: CA ĝūsu “hunger”, ĝāsa “to annihilate”, Egyp. g’s “to fall away, go out of
repair; grief”, Cush.: Somali gayesan “hungry”, Oromo gusu “to wean”.
With ‛-extension: BHeb. gāwa‛ “to breathe out one’s life, expire, die”, CA ĝā‛a
“be hungry”; ĝū‛u “hunger, starvation”, OSA gw‛ “be hungry” (DHSR: §4.4.57).

3.2.3.21 Sumerian gi(4), ge(4) “to return, come back; to reject, dislike; to restore; to
answer”
3.2.3.21.1 Sumerian gi4, ge4: to return, come back” above
HS: CA ĝā’a “to come back, to return”,
SA: Soqotri Somali gw’ “to flee”,
Cush.: Agwa wag “to arrive”,
Oromo gaa “to arrive”,
Bilin ag “to arrive”,
Chad.: Kabalay giyə “to come”,
Budumu gya “to follow”,
Bolewa gay “to run away, to ride”.
IE: Skt. pres. jigāti, Av. aor. jāt “go, leave, depart”, Latvian gāju “went”, etc.
DHSR: §4.4.61.

3.2.3.21.2 Sumerian gi(4), ge(4) “to reject, dislike” above

HS: CA ĝawā, also ĝaiya-tu “sickness, perhaps a diachronic illness in the
stomach or/and the chest”; CVIII ’i-ĝtawā “to hate, dislike”.

134
3.2.3.21.3 Sumerian gi(4), ge(4) “to restore” above
HS: CA ĝa’ā “to repair, to sew in the sense ‘repair, stitch’ to bring back to
a former state”.

3.2.3.21.4 Sumerian gi(4), ge(4) “to answer” above

HS: CA ĝāwā, ĝa’ĝa’a “to call”. The suffixing of proot [-b] to ĝāwā gives
rise to ĝāwa + ba “to answer”; caus. ’aĝāba. This common HS-Sumerian word is
based on [g] sound, noise, to sing, etc. in §3.2.3.9 above.

3.2.3.22 Sumerian gir(10), gi(9), ge(9) “anger, fury”

HS: BHeb. gārā “to be angry, irritated”,
Aram. gārē “to irritate”,
Syr. garē “to irritate”,
CA ĝaiyāru “the heat you feel in your chest or stomach out of anger or
hunger”, perhaps ‘anger’ goes back to ‘chest, while ‘hunger’ to stomach. (Egyp.
ygr “hunger”), also ĝārru “hot”, etc.,
Chad.: Maha girgir “hot”,
Dera gǝrgǝt “hot”,
Housa gūrā “set fire”,
Tera girgir “hot”,
Bura gǝrgǝr “hot”,
Berb.: Kabyl egru “be enraged”.

3.2.3.23 Sumerian kúm “heat; summer; fever”; vb “to heat”; adj. “hot”, a
compound of two elements:
kug, kù “bright, white, pure” + me “to be”
One may ask: How can a combination of kug “bright, white or pure” and me “to
be” give rise to significations as such? Is ‘be + bright’, ‘be + pure’ or ‘be + white’
= fever, hot, summer, heat and “to heat”? The answer could be ‘yes’ if “the light
of the sun” in the summer as opposed to that in the winter is involved.
I view Sumerian kúm as being wholly based on kug and that me adds a
continuous state uninterrupted by clouds, rains, etc. Therefore, it is better to start
with kug. For kúm, see §3.2.3.23.1 below.

3.2.3.23.1 Sumerian kug, kù “bright, white, pure”

HS [’gg] ~ [’kk] ~ [‛ + ’kk]
CA ’aĝūĝu “bright, giving off light” is arch. (but see Comments, n. 4 below)
and occurred in this verse of poetry:
yuđī’u sanāhu rātiķan mu-ta-kašifan
’aγarran ka mişbāђi ’al yahūdi ’aĝūĝu
CA ’aĝĝa-tu “heat” and is associated with ‘summer’ in a fixed expression:
’aĝĝa-tu of the summer has come (LA). The term does not express “summer” but
135
remains so closely associated with it; its variants express that notion (see below);
’aĝīĝu “heat”.
CA ’akka-tu, a variant of ’aĝĝa-tu or vice-versa, “intensive heat” and “the
intensive and widespread heat of the summer”. It also denotes “co-drinker” (e.g.
one whose camels drink with another’s camels at the same time and from the
same place of water) and “excessive throng, crowd”. The same meaning is
expressed by ‛akka-tu “intensive heat (more intensive than that expressed by
’akka-tu) also “widespread (boiling) heat in the summer”. In addition, ‛akka-tu
“intensive fever”; ’i‛takka “to pine away from that constant fever”; ‛ukka lit. “to
boil from the heat”. For proot [‛-] “abundance of, etc.”, see DHSR: §3.14.
Syr.’akkǝta “anger”,
Berb.: Shilђa ug “to shine”,
Cush.: Bilin wāg “light of the fire”,
Chad.: Logone kku “hot”,
Jegu ’ook “fire”,
Miya aku “fire”,
Ngizim aka “fire”,
Migama okko “fire”,
Diri akuwa “fire”,
Cagu ākwe “fire”, etc. (DHSR: §3.12.25).

Comments
1) I prefer not to determine the origin of HS /’a-/. As we should often expect,
/’a-/ interchange with /ha-/ in CA: ’aĝĝa ~ haĝĝa “flame up (e.g. a fire)”, etc.
2) Returning to CA ’aĝūĝu (Poetry) “bright, giving off light” above, we find
that the word is still alive in modern dialects in waĝĝ “giving off light”. The same
proot [w-] is also prefixed to CA haĝĝa above to give rise to CA wahaĝu
“glowing with heat, glare of the sun”. For proot [w-], see DHSR: §3.12.

3.2.3.23.2 Sumerian kúm “heat; summer; fever”; vb “to heat”; adj. “hot” above
HS: Akk. agāmu “be irritated, angry”,
CA ’aĝima “to flame up (a fire)”; ’agama “be irritated, angry”; ta-
’aĝĝama ~ ta-’aggaĝa, said of a fire, “be flamed up”, said of the day, “be/become
very hot”,
BHeb.’ōgem “incandescent”.

3.2.3.24 Sumerian ge “to be”

HS: kW-n ~ gW “to be”
OCan., OAram., Phoen., Heb., ESA kwn, “to be”,

136
 CA kāna etc. id. The word can also appear in CA as ku in pre-Islamic
poetry as in ’a-ku “I am” and ta-ku “you are” which may not be truncated forms of
’a-kūn and ta-kūnu respectively.
HS: gW-
CA ĝā’a “to become”,
Berb. Shilђa ga “to be”, Snus ug id.,
Cush.: Agwa wag “to become”,
Oromo gaa “to become”,
Bilin ag “to become”, etc. DHSR: §4.4.61.
A third variant is seen in CA γanā arch. most strangely expresses “was” with
no present tense or any other known forms.
A fourth variant is [gir-]: see §3.2.3.30 below.

3.2.3.25 Sumerian aka, ak, ag, a(5) “to do, act; to place, make into something”
HS: Egyp. k’-t “work, labor, toil”, with prefixed proot b’-: b’k “to work,
labor, toil”. The Egyp. suffix -t has become part of the root in CA below. For
proot [b’], see DHSR: §3.13.4.
CA ka’du “labor, toil”; kadda (from ka’ada) “to work hard, to toil”,
Ge’ez hakaya “be tired from too much work, be indolent”,
Tigre hakka “be lazy, indolent”, etc. DHSR: §3.4.11.
Sumerian ak, etc. above is undoubtedly a compound of caus. /’a-/ + -k “place”
or ku “to build, found, produce, etc.”

IE: Grk kamnō “work, toil”; Hom. aorist kame “built”, Skt. çam- “to work, toil”
(= Skt. çrama- id.) = HS: Egyp. ķmm-w pl. “worker in wood or metal” (yķd “to
build”, etc.), The earlier form has been preserved in Skt. ci- “arrange, build” and
Egypt. k’-t above ~ gί “mason” (gw-t “workman”) ~ yk “stonemason”, etc.
The root can also be expanded by the addition of suffixed proots such as /-r-/ as
in Av. kərə- “make, do”, Lith. kurti “build”, Skt. kṛ oti “he makes”, etc.

3.2.3.26 Sumerian gan “to bear”

HS: CA ĝanīnu “fetus (still in mother’s womb)”,
Ge’ez ganin “fetus” also “infant”,
Tigre gǝnā “fetus, infant”,
Egyp. kns “the placenta, the after birth”.

IE: Grk genno “to beget”, Doric, Ionic geinomai “be born”, Skt. janami “be
born”, OLat. genere “to beget”, OIr. gein “birth, W. geni “to give birth, be born”,
etc. DHSR: §4.4.20. For more IE and HS derivatives, see DHSR: §§4.4.20a-
4.4.20c.

3.2.3.27 Sumerian gi(4) “to besiege, surround; to lock up; circle”

137
 HS: Egyp. gw(’) “to besiege, blockade, put under restraint, shut in”.

3.2.3.28 Sumerian ku(6), kua “fish”, a compound of

kú “food” + a “water”
HS: Egyp. ķwy’ “a fish”, a compound of [ķw] “food” as in Egyp. ķw “bread”
and [y’] “water” (§3.2.3.6 above),
CA ķūtu “food” = Egyp. ķ’-t id. (see DHSR: §3.9.27) and [y’] “water”
seen in Egyp. as w’ (§3.2.3.6 above).

3.2.3.29 Sumerian kaba “to speak, talk, converse, open the mouth”, generally
used when speaking to social inferiors. It is a compound of
ka “mouth” and ba “give”
HS: Akk. ķabū “to command, to speak, to say”; ķibi-tu “command, word”,
Phoen. ķb “to curse”.

3.2.3.30 Sumerian gur, gir “to be, feel”

HS: Cush.: Somali gir- “to be, exist”,
Oromo gir “to be, exist”,
Rendille gir- “to be, exist”,
Bay gir- “to be, exist”.
In other HS languages, the root expresses “to live” (see DHSR, n. 932). In both
Sumerian and HS the root seems to be related to [g-] “to be” (§3.2.3.24 above).

3.2.3.31 Sumerian gi(6)-an-na “at night”, a complex word consisting of

gi(6) “black” + an “heaven” + na locative
HS: CA ĝanānu arch. “night”; ĝanna “to become dark (night)” also “to
cover over, conceal”; ĝinnu “extensive darkness or blackness of the night” (LA),
BHeb. gānan “to cover over”,
SA: Harsusi genō “be about to set (sun)”,
Mehri genō “be about to set (sun)”,
Mand. gna “to sleep”.

3.2.3.32 Sumerian gú-šè “to the other side”

gú “side, bank” + -šè terminative suffix
HS: CA ma-ĝāza-tu fem. “crossing a road from the side one is at to the other
side”; ĝāza, CVIII ’iĝtāza “to pass through, traverse, cross”. The verb is used
when you finish something as in ĝāza, ĝāwaza, ta-ĝāwaza, ’iĝtāza a difficulty, i.e.
“to get past a difficulty”, and so forth.
Sab. gz, fem. gwzt “to pass through, traverse”; mgzt “crossing place”,
BHeb. gwz “to pass through, pass over”; caus. “to cause to pass through
or over, to bring over”.

138
3.2.3.33 Sumerian gána, gán “tract of land, field parcel”
HS: Akk. ganna-t “garden”,
Ug. gn “garden”,
BHeb. gan “garden”,
CA ĝanna-tu “garden”,
Chad.: Tangale kaŋ “field”,
Housa gōnā “filed”.
Migama gaan “field”.

3.2.3.34 Sumerian kaš(4) “to run, travel, gallop”

HS: Egyp. gsί “to run; to stride”; ges-t “course”,
Sem.: may be either the root in CA ĝāsa “to go through, traverse” or
(less likely) see §3.2.3.33 above.

3.2.3.35 Sumerian kaš(3) “to urinate”

HS: Egyp. kš “to moisten, sprinkle”.

3.2.3.36 Sumerian kar(2), kara(2), guru(6) “to encircle, to besiege”

HS: Egyp. krkr, redupl. of kr, “to circle”,
BHeb. kārar “to go or move in a circle”, etc. see §3.5.1.3. below.

3.2.3.37 Sumerian géme(2), ḡeme(2) “workwoman, female slave, servant, maid’. In

Emesal the term is gi(4)-in id. The following HS-IE cognates are closer to the
Emesal term than to that of Sumerian/Emegir géme(2).
HS: Egyp. knyt “goddess”,
Hatra gnyt “female divine being”,
Palm. gny “divine being”,
Agaw ganā “mother”,
Logone gǝnǝm “woman”, etc. see DHSR: §4.4.20.
IE: Ved. gnā- “wife of god”, Skt. jani- “woman”, Grk gunē id., OCS žena
“woman”, etc. see DHSR: §4.4.20.

3.2.3.38 Sumerian gigir(2) “wheel(s), chariot”: see such closely related words in
§3.2.3.36 above and §3.5.1.3 below.
HS: BHeb. kikār “a circle, circuit”,
Akk. kakra “round”.
IE: Skt. cakra- “circle”, Gk. kyklos; Lith. kaklas, etc. see DHSR: §§4.3.21-4.3.23.

3.2.3.39 Sumerian gu(2), gud, guř “bull”. The root for bull, ox, cow” is [gW ~ kW]
and all suffixes found in languages are mere descriptive proots. For the root for
“cow”, see §3.2.3.14.6 above.
HS: Egyp. g’ “bull”, k’ id., k’-t “cow”,

139
 CA wa-ĝī’a-tu “cow”,
Cush.: Oromo gua “cow”,
Chad.: Tumak guūy “bull”, etc.
IE: Skt. gavis “cow”, Av. gāus id., OE. cū, Toch. A ko id., etc. see DHSR:
§4.4.50.

3.2.3.40 Sumerian gu(2), ku(2) “food, sustenance”; vb “to eat, eat up, swallow; to
feed”
HS: Egyp. ķ’-t “food”; ķ’ķ’ “to eat”,
CA ķūtu “food, victuals”, where /-t/ is part of the root; ķāta “to eat”,
CVIII ’iķtāta “to feed oneself”; ’aķtit imper. “feed!”. The earlier root is preserved
in a dictum bāta (he spent the night) ’al (=the) ķawā’u = “running out of food,
hungry for food”,
SA: Mehri ķawt “food”,
Šħuri ķit “food”,
Chad.: Tangale kwete, kutu “food, bread” (DHSR: §3.9.27).

3.2.3.41 Sumerian gi(17) “young man”

HS: Egyp. k’ “person”; K’ “the father of the fathers of the gods”.
CA has a form ĝā “aged man” occurring in an utterance: lā (= not) ĝā
wa (= and) lā (= not) sā (= woman) “neither a man nor a woman”. I cannot tell for
sure whether ĝā is cognate with the Egyp. word above and with other HS words
cited below,
Akk. ga’-, gaw- “people”,
BHeb. gōy “people, nation”,
Chad.: Angas go “man”, etc. see DHSR: §3.17.6.

3.2.3.42 Sumerian gi(4) “to besiege, surround; to lock up”

HS: Egyp. gw’ “to besiege, blockade; to shut up”.

3.2.4 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with stop /’/

Jagersma (p. 39) infers from the Sumerian script the earlier presence of a glottal
stop and assumes that Sumerian had no words beginning with a vowel.
“Now, in the Old Sumerian period, the Sumerian script generally
lacked sound signs for values with an initial vowel. This suggests
that Sumerian had no words with an initial vowel. Most later
sound signs for VC-values had in the Old Sumerian period a value
CVC with an initial glottal stop. The sound signs an, ab, and íb, for
example, were in the Old Sumerian period used almost exclusively
at the beginning of a word as CVC-signs, expressing respectively

140
 /ˀan/, /ˀab/, and /ˀib/ or /ˀeb/. The Sumerian words written with
these same signs must have had an initial glottal stop too: an /ˀan/
‘heaven’, ab /ˀab/ ‘window’, and íb /ˀib/ ‘hip’. What is true for
such VC-signs, also holds for the vowel signs. They too had
originally values with an initial glottal stop. The sign A, for
instance, is a word sign for ‘water’ (actually /ˀaj/). In the Old
Sumerian period, it was as a sound sign only used for /ˀa/ and it
acquired only later the additional value /a/. Thus, we can infer an
initial glottal stop in words such as an ‘heaven’ and a ‘water’.
Furthermore, some grammatical morphemes can be shown to have
had an initial glottal stop, viz. the nominalizing suffix {ˀa}, the
form {ˀam} of the enclitic copula, and the locative case marker
{ˀa}. In addition, several morphemes can be shown to have had a
final glottal stop. One such morpheme, for instance, is the noun má
‘boat’. In the Old Sumerian texts from Lagash, the comitative case
marker is only written da after a consonant, so that the following
example shows that má ‘boat’ must have a final consonant:
má-da tuš-a
má =da tuš-Ø -ˀa
boat=COM sit -NFIN-NOM
‘who remains with the boat’
Every Sumerian word begins with a vowel is evidence that an initial consonant
has been lost. The lost consonant should not be restricted to the glottal stop, for it
could be /w/, /y/ or any other laryngeal as the comparative evidence from Hamito-
Semitic suggests. It is surprising that Akkadian preserved the same laryngeal
found in Sumerian which is the voiceless velar fricative /ħ/. All other laryngeals
were reduced to /’/. In addition, both /w/ and /y/ were also reduced to /’/ or
disappeared (Moscati, 1969: §8.63). This drastic change in Akkadian sound
system could not have take place without the Sumerian influence.

3.2.4.1 Sumerian uš, ús “foundation”; vb “to support, lift; to stand upon”.

HS: Assyr. uššu “foundation”; ašāšu “to found”,
Sab. ’s¹ “base”,
CA ’ussu “foundation, base”; ’assasa “to found, establish”; ’āsiya-tu
“support, prop” also “firm or well founded structure (as building, etc.)”,
BHeb. ’āšā “to prop”, ’āšyā “a support, column”; ’āšīš “foundation”,
Egyp. ys-t “palace, any large building”; yst “seat, throne, chamber”; s-
yst caus. “to occupy a seat” ~ ’s-t “seat”; s-’st caus. “to sit”.

IE: Skt. ās- “to sit”, Av. āh- id., Hitt. eš-zi “sits”; asas “seat”, Grk hēsmay “to sit”
(DHSR: §4.10.42.

141
 Comments
In dealing with languages such as Egyptian, Sumerian and classical Semitic
languages, except Classical Arabic, it is often the case that a half of the word
meaning is supplied by dictionaries and glosses and the other half which is much
more important and sensible for a scientific study is not given at all. The major
characteristics of both halves are the following:
a) the first half is very general and void of significant details that add further
semantic features to the meaning to make it very special,
b) the second half lies in the analyst mind who should be aware that in all cases
of world’s language stock of words he is dealing with nothing save compound and
complex words (or with the fragmentary remnants of such words), and that the
meaning of any compound or complex word is originally the sum total of the
meanings of its constituent elements combined together. So, he should look at the
general meaning with doubt and fully realize that there are some semantic units of
great importance missing in it. Second, he should examine the meaning only in
terms of the environment and need that led our ancestors to create a word for it.
He must also keep away from any analysis affected by the cultural and life
patterns of modern times. Once these are done, he will enrich the comparative and
historical linguistics with new and magnificent discoveries.
As a sample for illustration, let us start with the term ‘foundation’, and the
question arises: What does the word ‘foundation’ mean in the above-cited
languages? Is it the same as in such phrases and sentences:
AIDS foundation.
The rumor is without foundation.
Love and friendship provide a solid foundation for marriage.
He lays the foundation of a durable economic recovery.
Tom’s foundation provides money for linguistic research? And so forth.
As we realize that ‘foundation’ in question cannot be identified with any of the
‘foundations’ in the just cited examples, we should ask ourselves: ‘foundation’ for
what? And on what?
The answer comes from CA: foundation is the first thing to start with only in
building a structure like house, wall and the like. It is done then by the manual
digging in the ground for the base. So far, we have determined the purpose for a
foundation and its place.
Before the discovery of iron and thus with the absence of a tool as ‘pickax’ for
digging the ground, treading down and pressing with the feet were used for
forming a foundation on the ground.
The time has now come to ask ourselves a very crucial question:
Is it feasible and reasonable to do all the process of building (from digging in
the ground, to making a foundation on the ground, to establishing or building a

142
house, etc. on the ground) and, finally, create a word for all this process without
basing it on a term for ‘ground’ or, at least, incorporating in it something
referring to ‘ground’?
The root underlying all above-cited words for “foundation, found, establish, sit,
support, etc.” is most certainly based on the term for ‘ground’– [’aθ]. Before
elaborating further on this stem, let us take a look at the developments of PHS /s/,
/š/ and /θ/ in Semitic and Egyp., a subject illustrated in §1.2.1.2 above, but the
emphasis here is on a particular development.
PHS *s is /s/ in Sem.; /s (š)/ in Egyp.
PHS *š is /s/ in CA; /s¹/ in ESA; /š/ in all other Sem. languages; /š (s)/ in
Egyp.
PHS /θ/ is in CA, Ug., SA /θ/, Aram. /t/, Akk., Heb., Phoen. /š/, Eth. /s/. In
Egyp. /θ/ interchanges with /t/ and with /đ/ in some words and with /s/.
For what concerns CA, the sound correspondences work well only for
determining whether CA /s/ is from /s/, but not when it is from /š/ (in some cases)
or /θ/ (in most cases) because the two sounds fell together as /š/ in most sister
languages.
There is a unique linguistic feature found in CA and very rare elsewhere. When
sound change takes place in a word, the word may split into two or more words as
in CA madda, maţţa and matta “to stretch”. To keep all such words, a language
must differentiate them in meaning or usage, and this is what CA exactly did.
Some examples,
CA nabaša lit. “to dig with the hand” also “to extract something buried in the
ground by digging < nabaθa “to dig with the hand” also “to extract falling soil
from a well”,
CA našara “to spread, scatter, broadcast”, nasara “to spread” < naθara “to
scatter/disperse with the hand” < naθθa “to spread, broadcast” < naθā id.
CA ’arraša “to disseminate discord between, slander” also “to ignite a fire”,
*’rs does not exist < ’arraθa “to disseminate discord between, slander” also “to
ignite a fire”,
CA sā‛ā “to flow (water), tā‛a id. < θā‛a id.
Comparative evidence does not often help because in most sister languages we
find either
i) PHS /θ/ is always /š/ as in Akk., Heb., etc.
ii) Some sister languages, such as Sabaean, which have frequently preserved
PHS /θ/ underwent the same type of change as CA. The different between Sab.
and CA in this respect is that CA preserved the forms, while Sab. lost the earlier
form with /θ/ in a limited number of cases. An illustrative example may be the
following:

143
 PHS [maθ] “to touch with the hand” was split in CA and its sister languages
into a number of allo-words, later roots. Some of them are:
1) CA maθθa “to touch with the hand”,
2) CA massa “to touch with the hand” = Sab. ms¹s¹ “to touch”, BHeb. māšaš
id., Eth.: Amharic massäsä “to rub”, Harari māsä “to wipe, rub”, etc. DHSR:
§3.17.32.
3) CA mašša “to wipe or clean the hand” also “touch with the hand”: DHSR:
§3.12.34.
4) CA wa-masa “to rub one object (e.g. stone or anything) against another
[with the hand is evident here]; a prostitute, i.e. one who touches” = BHeb. yā-
maš “to touch, feel”.
The time has come to go back to our HS-Sumerian ’uš/uš “foundation, etc.
above”. As has already been mentioned, before the invention of a pickax to
prepare the ground for a foundation, the only available way was treading down
and pressing the ground for the same purpose (and perhaps using a sharp stone or
a piece of wood). Isn’t amazing indeed to find CA ’aθθa expressing both “to tread
down and press with the feet” plus ‘the meaning of waθθara’? (LA).
The term waθara denotes “to make foundation; anything one sits or sleeps on
and find it soft and smooth” = Sab. caus. h-wθr “to lay foundations, groundwork”;
m-wθr “foundation, lower part, lower storey of building”; ’-wθr “low ground”,
Qat. š-wθr caus. “to lay foundation”; m-wθr “foundation”, etc.. Thus all such
significations are denoted by CA ’aθθa.
The triliteral [wθr] is closely related to the root in CA θarā “ground, earth” and
both are from [θa] as in CA ’aθθa above, BHeb. *’āšaš "to press", preserved in
’ašīšā “a pressed cake of dried grapes” (OT, 100): see DHSR: §3.12.43.
It now appears as clear as sunshine that PHS [θa’-] was once upon a time
expressing one single notion- “earth, ground”, that the initial [’a-] in all words
above (CA ’ussu, ’asāsu, vb ’assasa ’aθθa, Sumerian uš, etc.) is originally
causative = Sab., Heb., etc. h- = Qat. and the rest of ancient ESA languages, Akk.,
Egyp., etc. š-, and that final [-r] of CA and ESA wθ-r is genitive, i.e. connected or
belonging to the ground or earth”. Accordingly, the primeval meaning of
‘foundation’ is “earth”, connected or belonging to the earth or ground. The proot
[θ] is also seen in other CA roots such as the caus. dāθa arch. “tread heavily on
the ground in order to make soft and smooth”, etc. For caus. [da-], see §1.3.4.1
above.
PHS [θa’] is seen in Egyp. t’ “ground, earth, land, world, soil” and in Semitic
/θ/ and /ţ/ only in compounds as in CA ђinţa-tu fem., Akk. uţţutu (unţ-tu), etc.
“wheat, grain” = Egyp. ђn t’ “wheat, grain”: Egyp. ђy ~ ђί “wheat, grain” and t’
“earth, land”. As to /-n-/, it is most likely genitive and the original meaning of

144
[ђnţ] is “earth’s wheat” (DHSR: §3.17.29). Another example is CA ’a-ţa’u “I
tread on the ground, set a foot on the ground” (’a = ‘I’).
For PHS [w-], see DHSR: §3.12.
For PHS caus. [’a-] and other causatives, see §§1.3.4 and 1.3.4.1-1.3.4.2 above.
The proot [θ’], as we should expect, is indeed found in all language families. In
some of them, however, it has either narrowed its sense of application to denote a
particular type of earth such as dust, sand, mountain, etc.; inhabit, dwell; sit, etc.,
or adopted affixes as an inseparable part of it. Nearly all such variants found in
world’s languages are also found in Hamito-Semitic languages.
Among families preserving the proot with a minor and expected sound change
are the following:
Ainu toytoy “earth, soil”.

Austroasiatic: Vietnamese đât “earth”,

Khmer dəy “earth”,
Mon teɔ “earth”,
Chewong te’ “earth”,
Khasi du “earth”,
Central Nicobarese tɛ’ “earth”.

Hurrian eše “earth; land; soil; world; place”. {Urartian: ḳiura- ~ ḳira- “earth
(world); earth (soil); land” = Sumerian ki-ùr “territory; living grounds” = HS kwr, etc.
see §3.2.3.14.4}.

Sino-Tibetan: Ancient Chinese tth’ “earth”,

Gan tʰi “earth”.
In some Sino-Tibetan languages the signification of the proot was narrowed to
“to sit”, e.g.
Sino-Tibetan: Manange tu “to sit”, Apatani du, dua “to sit”.
A similar development took place in some other language families. Some
examples are:

Altaic: Orogen tǝ: “to sit”,

Manchu te “to sit”.

Dene-Yeniseian: Navajo sida “to sit” (si = caus.),

Dena'ina zdu (= tu) “to sit”
Hupa -de:tl “to sit”,
Eyak -ta “to sit”.
Indo-European: Skt. sad “to sit”; sadas “seat, abode”,
Hitt. sāstas “bed”,
Opers. hadis “seat”,

145
 Goth. sitan “to sit”,
OE sittan “to sit”,
Lat. sedēre “to sit”,
OIr. saidim “to sit”, etc. (cf. DHSR: §4.6.49).
All include the causative [s-]: see Hamito-Semitic below.

Hamito-Semitic: Egyp. st “seat” is from the caus. s-t “to sit” =

CA sudda-tu “seat, chair, throne” also “bed”. Note that *sutta-
tu or *suţţa-tu does not exist. See DHSR: §4.6.49.
All IE-HS words above are ultimately from a compound of ša- “to cause,
make” + θa’ “to sit”.

Indo-European: Skt. ās “to sit”, Av. āh- id., Hitt. eš-zi “sits”, etc. see DHSR: §
4.10.42 = HS [’aθ] as in Egyp. ys “ground, place”. All include causative /’a-/ and
proot /-s/ “sit” < *θ: see Hamito-Semitic below.

Hamito-Semitic: Egyp. s-yst “to occupy a seat”; yst “seat, throne, place” ~ set id.
= CA ’aθāθu “a kind of furniture of the house”, nowadays “furniture, i.e. beds,
sofas and seats.
Egyp. ’st is double caus., including caus. /’-/ + caus. /s-/ + proot -t < [θ’].
Evidence that /-t/ of Egyp. s-yst is from proot [θ’] comes exclusively from CA.
For example, Egyp. ystb “seat, throne” includes two caus. /y-/ (from /’-/) and /-s-/
+ stem -tb “to sit; seat, throne” = CA θabba “to sit firmly”, Ug. θb-t “dwelling”.
If you prefix [wa-] to [θab] you get the common Semitic term for “to sit”. It is
only in CA that waθaba can mean “to sit” and its opposite meaning “to jump”.
This phenomenon, where the same term expresses a meaning and its opposite, is
very common in CA, average in other Semitic languages and just common in
Egyp. and Sumerian. An attempt to explain this interesting phenomenon is given
in DHSR: §3.2.47. For more examples and illustrations, see PHS negatives in
DHSR: 3.21ff.
It is important to keep in mind that caus. /’-/ is part of the root in most HS
languages (DHSR: §3.2), but that caus. /š/ is a suffix in Cushitic and Chadic but a
prefix in Semitic and Egyptian; in some cases it can occur as a suffix as in Egyp.
tys “to sit”.
For the use of a double causative in Egyp. and other sister languages, see
DHSR: §3.3.
Thai-Kudai: Thai din “earth”, Lao din, San lin id., Southern Dong daɯ id. =
Hamito-Semitic: Egyp. tn “earth, ground”; tnn “a primitive earth-god”; tnn-t
“tenants” = CA tanna “to dwell”, tanaħa id., tana’a “to dwell and reside (in a
place)”; tāni’u, tāniħu, etc. “inhabitant, dweller”, etc. ~ ţan’u “home, white earth”,

146
ţiyy-atu “homeland, home”, wa-ţanu “homeland, native land”, Sab. maw-đn
“residence”, etc.

3.2.4.2 Sumerian ba “portion out”, assumed by Jagersma (2010: §3.2.4) to have

had a final glottal consonant.
HS: CA ba’ā “to cleave, pierce” is of very rare use and the most widely used
is fa’ā “to cleave, split apart”,
Chad.: Bolewa poyy- “to break in pieces”,
Mofu puw- “to split, tear in pieces”.

3.2.4.3 Sumerian a-gig “bitter tears”, consisting of

a “water” + gig “pain”
HS: CA ’uĝĝāgu “bitter or very bitter water” also “bitter and salty water”; vb
’aĝĝa.
For Sumerian gig “pain”, perhaps Egyp. g “to suffer want, to be in distress”.

3.2.4.4 Sumerian agam “swamp”, a compound of

a “water” + gam “to decline, incline”
HS: Akk. agammu “swamp, marsh”,
Assyr. agammu “swamp, marsh”,
Aram. ’agmā “swamp”,
CA ’āĝimu “stagnant water”,
BHeb. ’agam “stagnant water” (DHSR: §3.3.37).

3.2.4.5 Sumerian gam “to decline, incline” above in §3.2.4.4

HS: CA ĝamma “to decline in health” also “to diminish gradually, shrivel”
(water, etc.); ĝamĝama “to kill”. The only used derivative of this verb nowadays
is CX ’istaĝamma “to recuperate” and the noun ’istiĝmāmu; ĝamĝama-tu fem.
“perishing, death”:
Egyp. k’mk’m “to vanish, decay, pass away, disappear”.

3.2.4.6 Sumerian a-kúm “hot water”, a compound of

a “water” + kúm “hot”
{Sumerian kúm in turn is a compound of two proots: kug, kú “bright, etc.” + mì,
me “to be, etc.”}
I have already dealt with Sumerian complex words kúm “hot, etc.” and kug, kú
“bright, etc.” and their Hamito-Semitic cognate: see §§3.2.3.23.1 3.2.3.23.2 above.
The following study will provide additional and needed details. Before we start, it
may be important to remind the reader of the conclusion I reached as I studied HS
[’gm]: Was the earlier meaning of the word “a type of hot or boiling water
sourcing from the earth?” DHSR: §3.3.36.

147
 HS: CA ta-’aĝĝama, said of water, = in Arabic ta-’ĝimu-hu (meaning ?) wa
(= and) ta-kraha-hu (= “you hate it)”. The meaning of ta-’ĝimu-hu is not very
clear. It is either “(you find the water) having ‘a bad taste’ or ‘hot taste’ (LA). It
is possible, however, that the original meaning is “hot water” since a good
number of roots beginning with [ĝam-] have to do with ‘fire, burning, heat”: cf.
CA ĝami’a “to be/become angry”, ĝamru “burning fire, embers”, ĝamasa “to
become/be dry, dry out”, etc. A final word on [’ĝm] is that it applies to “fire”,
“liquid, i.e. water & milk” and “daylight, esp. the part of it when it is hot”.
On the other hand, ’a-ĝĝim imper. “ignite!, flame up! (fire); CV ta-’aĝĝama
“become hot, be flamed up (daylight)” and extends to “become angry”.
Akk. agāmu “to irritate, anger”,
BHeb. ’agmōn “heated kettle”.
With prefixed w-: CA wa-ĝīmu “very hot”; wūĝūmu “be silent out of anger”; this
belong to the group of roots beginning with [ĝm-]. For prefixed w-, see DHSR:
§3.12.
The word [’g-] is found in other HS languages as well as in many language
families with some minor sound changes and with significations restricted to
notions like fire; burn, and the like, e.g.
Hamito-Semitic: Ug. agn “fire”, but in other HS languages the root does not have
-n:
Egyp. wgy (< ’gy) “to be burned, to burn”,
CA ’aĝĝa id.;’aĝĝaĝa “to kindle a fire”, waĝĝa, etc.
Cush.: Somali ōg “kindle a fire”.

IE: OCS and common Slavic ognî “fire”, Skat. agnis-, Lat. ignis id.: DHSR:
§4.4.72.

Australian: Jalanga wacani “fire”,

Kalkatungu ucan “fire”.

Eskimo-Aleut: Sirenik ekn'ex “fire”,

Siberian ekneq “fire”,
Yupik ekneq “fire”.

Fino-Ugaric: Hungarian eg “to burn”.

Niger-Congo: Igbo oku “fire” also “warm”.

Arawakan: Apolista yuk “fire”,

Trinitario yuku “fire”,
Ignaciano uku “fire”.

Bantu: Swahili -waka “to burn”,

148
 Duala okwōk “to burn”,
Kongo wocha “to burn”
Kituba -ōca “to burn”,
Punu kwaka “to burn”.

Tupian: Tupinamba kay “to burn”,

Nhe'engatu kay “to burn”,
Tupynamba kay “to burn”,
Gurani kai “to burn”,
Avane'e kai “to burn”,
Paraguaigua Guarani kai “to burn”.

Sino-Tibetan: Tibetan šo “to burn”,

Tshangla-Tshanglo gok “to burn”.

Dene-Yeniseian: Evak -k, qʰu “to burn”,

Dena'ina qʰǝn “to burn”,
Navajo ko’ “to burn”.

Mayan: Tzotzil k'ok' “fire”,

Kiche q'aq “fire”.
Mayan words for “warm (of weather)” are also ultimately related to those of
“fire”:
Tzotzil k'ok' “warm”,
Kiche qa'q' “warm”.

3.2.4.7 Sumerian gú-è “to cover”, a compound of

gú “neck; edge” + è “to extend”
HS: CA ĝa’ā “to cover, to hide”; ’aĝi’ imperative “cover!”.
3.2.4.8 Sumerian du “to walk, go, come”
HS: Berb.: Izy eddu “to walk, go”,
Kabyl ddu “to walk, to go”
Chad.: Housa dawo “return”,
Logone da, di “to lead”,
Miya ḍye “to come”,
Egyyp. ’dw caus. “make one run, flee, escape”,
Ge’ez dedaya “begin to walk (infant)”, etc. All are from [da-]: see
DHSR: §§3.4.31 and 3.11.88, n. a.

3.2.4.9 Sumerian lú “man, person”

HS: CA ’ālu “man, person”,
Egyp. wr, wl “prince, chief”, etc. see §3.2.3.3 above.

149
3.2.4.10 Sumerian u(3, 4)-da “if”, introduces a conditional sentence construction
HS: CA ’iδā “if”, introduces a conditional sentence construction,
Sab. ’δ “when”,
BHeb. ’āz “then”,
BAram. ’ǝdyan “then” (DRC: 10): cf. CA’iδ, ’iδ-n id.

3.3 Sumerian fricatives

Sumerian had separate signs for three fricative phonemes: a voiceless dental or
alveolar /s/, a voiceless palatal fricative /š/ and a voiceless velar fricative /ħ/
often transcribed as /h/. In addition, Sumerian had a voiceless glottal fricative /h/,
and Proto-Sumerian must have had two laryngeals, the voiceless /ђ/ and the
voiced /‛/. While the voiced /‛/ was lost in Sumerian, some traces of /ђ/ and /h/ are
seen in the language as /ħ/. This is to say that before /ђ/ and /h/ were lost, they
changed to /ħ/ in some words. This is, of course, not a linguistically strange
matter to be wondered at, for it is noticed in languages. For example, before the
loss of PSem. voiced fricative /γ/ in Akk., it became /ħ/ in some of its words, e.g.
Akk. şaħru “small” is from *şaγru as in Ug. şγr, CA, Sab.şγr, Phoen., BHeb.
ş‛r, etc. id.
Akk. buħālu “stallion”, Assyr. buħālu “male beast” is from *buγālu as in CA,
Sab., etc. bγl “a male mule”.
Similarly, PSem. /ђ/ appears as /ħ/ in some Akkadian words, e.g.
Akk. ħkm “instruct, understand; wise” is from [ђkm] as in Phoen., BHeb.,
OAram., CA ђkm.

3.3.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /ħ/

As has already been mentioned, Sumerian, like Akkadian, had a voiceless velar
fricative /ħ/.

3.3.1.1 Sumerian har, (àr, ur(5)) “millstone; ring; link (in a chain)”; adj. “small,
young”; hara “miller”; vb “to pulverize, to destroy”
HS: CA ħurru “the part of mill (hole) where one’s put the grain in it with his
hand”; vb ħarra “to fall down (to the ground)”,
Egyp. ħr “to fall down”; ħr, ħ’r “to destroy”; ħrħr “to root up, destroy”.

3.3.1.1.1 Sumerian har, (àr, ur(5)) “small, young” above

HS: Egyp. ħ’r, ħ’l “youth, child”, ḫ’rd “boy, child, young of an animal”
CA ħarūdu “virgin woman”.

3.3.1.1.2 Sumerian har also expresses “ring, link (in a chain); coil or spiral of
silver or other precious metal that can be worn as a ring or bracelet and was used
as money”, originally, according to Halloran (2006: 110), is circular millstone”.

150
Sumerian har-šu “ring or bracelet of silver, gold, bronze, or precious stone”,
consisting of
har “ring” + šu “hand”
HS: CA ħuraş “coil or spiral of gold or silver that can be worn by woman as
ring, bracelet and earring”,
Akk. ħurāşu “gold”,
Phoen. ђrş “gold”.

3.3.1.2 Sumerian hur “hole; limb, stem, handle”, a compound of two elements:
hù = “ten” + ra “to impress into clay”, where a round hole was
the symbol for “10”
HS: Akk. ħurru “hole”,
CA ħurru “hole” and so is ħurt “hole”. It is said that ħurt is a hole in a
thing made from iron such as a needle, while ħurab is a hole in the skin as in the
ear (LA); ħurtatu “handle of a container or vessel of water”,
Egyp. ħr “grave, tomb”,
Ug. ħr “grave”,
BHeb. ђōr “hole”,
Chad.: Jimbin γira “hole, pit”,
Kariya gri “hole, pit”,
Siri γǝri “hole, pit”,
Burma čir “hole, pit”,
Miya agir “hole, pit”,
Sayanchi gir “hole, pit”,
Buli γir “hole, pit”,
Cush.: Oromo huraa “hole”.

3.3.1.2.1 Sumerian hur “to dig, to scratch, to grind”

HS: Akk. ħarū “to dig”,
Ug. ħr “to dig”,
Ge’ez ħrw “to dig”,
Cush.: Oromo hura “to dig”,
Egyp. s-ħr caus. “to pierce”.

3.3.1.3 Sumerian he, hi “to mix”

HS: Egyp. ḫ’‛ “to mix” also ḫ’ḫ’ “mix together by rubbing”. Both are
doubtful cognate words.

3.3.1.4 Sumerian húb, húp “acrobat, athlete”

HS: Egyp. ħb-w pl. “acrobat, gymnast”.
3.3.1.5 Sumerian hul(3) “evil”; vb “to destroy; to ruin; to harm”; adj. “bad, evil;
hated; hostile, malicious”, a compound of
151
 vermin + abundant, numerous
HS: CA ħallu “evil”; ħalalu “corruption, defect, flaw”; CA ħalla “to pierce
from side to side; to wound”, ħalħala “to undermine the basis of, destroy”,
BHeb. ђālal “to pierce, wound”; piel. “to profane, defile”; ђālāl
“killed, slain (often in a battle)”,
Egyp. ħlly “destruction”.

3.3.1.6 Sumerian dih “sickness, fever, torpidity”; vb “to sting”

HS: CA dāħa “to be or to feel giddy, dizzy, to faint, swoon”,
Perhaps Egyp. tħtħ “be topsy-turvy, confused, disarranged”.

3.3.1.7 Sumerian hub “recess, hole, pit”

HS: CA ħubba-tu fem. “hole, pit in the ground”
Akk. ħuppu “hole”.

3.3.1.8 Sumerian haš “lower abdomen, loins, back, upper thigh, buttocks,
haunches”, consisting of
ha(2) “mixture” + a “water/urine” + še(10) “excrement”
HS: CA ħawšu “flank” or ђawθā’ “liver, liver and what is next to it” ~
ђawtā’ “flank”. All, including [ђwδ]: ђāδu “back”; ђāδān dual “thighs, back of
the upper thighs”, are variants of [ђwθ/ħwθ].

3.3.1.9 Sumerian hal “to separate, split apart, make an opening, pierce”
HS: CA ħalala “to thrust or pierce with a spear”; ħalalu “opening”; ħallala
“make an opening”
Akk. ħālilu “a digging tool” (cf. NWSI I, 375).

3.3.1.10 Sumerian huš “be angry” also “powerful”: see §3.3.1.12 below.
HS:CA ħišāšu “anger”; vb ħašša; adj. ħušāsu “courageous”.

3.3.1.11 Sumerian habrud “animal burrow; pit, hole, crevice, cave”, consisting of
hab “to stink” + buru(3) (-d) “hole”
HS: CA ħabāra-tu “rat’s burrow” also “low-liying land or place, a pit”.
For Sumerian buru(3) above, CA bu’ra-tu fem. id.

3.3.1.12 Sumerian nihuš “terrifying, powerful”, a compound of

ni “fear, awe” + furious, terrible”
HS: CA naħaša “to agitate and hurt or harm” ~ naħasa “to agitate, stir and
disturb”. Both involve “pricking, stabbing with the tip of a thing, as a spear,
needle, and the like”. Another root whose meaning differs slightly is naħaza “to

152
inflict pain (on someone) either by stabbing with a piece of iron or by a biting
word”,
Chad.: Housa naše “to pierce (with spear)”
Mobu nase “to pierce”,
Ngam nesi “to pierce”. (HSED, n. 1838).

3.3.1.13 Did Sumerian have /γ/?

Pre-Sumerian may have had the voiced counterpart of /ħ/, i.e. /γ/. However,
The following examples are not sufficient to prove the point.
1) Sumerian u(2)rá-bu “a bird”
HS: Egyp. ħwryb “bird-goddess” = CA γurābu “crow”, Akk. āribu, BHeb.
‛ōreb id.

2) Sumerian: urin, ùri “eagle; blood”

HS: CA γaranu “eagle”, in some ancient dialects “male crow”. Most roots
beginning with γr- denote birds as in γurr “water bird”, γirγir “turkey (hen)”,
γiryāķ “a bird”, γurnūk “water bird with long neck”, γirsu ~ γarsu “a young
crow”, γirbīl “a small bird”, etc.
CA γariy “a red dye” also “an idol painted with blood, the statue or idol
where animals were slaughtered”.

HS also had [‛r] “eagle” as in OAram. ‛r “bearded vulture”, Egyp. ‛r-t “a

kind of bird”: CA ‛arra “to drop excrement, said only of bird”. The word could be
from an earlier [γr].

IE: Goth ara “eagle”, OHG aro, OE earn id., Grk ornis “eagle”, etc. DHSR:
§4.12.1m.
3) Sumerian erim(2), rim(3) “enemy, wicked; destruction, oath”; adj. “hostile,
evil”
HS: CA γarmā, obsolete for so many centuries, used in swearing as ‘oath’ as
in γarmā (= swearing/ oath) wa (here means = by) ĝaddi-ka (= your grand-
father). In Hadith: ’a‛ūδu bika min ’al ma’θam wa ’al maγram, where ma-γram =
sin, disobedience”; γurmu “loss”.

4) Sumerian ud “sun, light, day” is perhaps cognate with the root in CA γadā
“early, beginning of the day”; γudwa-tu “beginning of, time of sunrise”; γad-un
“tomorrow”.

5) Sumerian a(2)lal “fetters”

HS: CA ’aγlāl “fatters”; sg. γullu; γalla “to fetter the hands or neck”.

153
3.3.2 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /h/
Based in part on Sumerian loanwords in Akkadian, Jagersma posited a
voiceless glottal fricative /h/ and assumes that this phoneme is found in few
Sumerian words. He writes:
“Only a few words can be proven to have contained the consonant /h/.
One of these words is the noun á ‘arm’. The word sign for Sumerian á
‘arm’ is also used as a sound sign for the sequence /ha/. Its value /ha/
must have been derived from the phonemic form of á ‘arm’. Thus the
Sumerian word for ‘arm’ must have been /ha/. Our transliteration of
this word as á reflects a later form, which resulted from a loss of the
initial /h/.
A second word that originally contained the consonant /h/ is the
noun é ‘house’. We can reconstruct for this noun an older form /haj/,
which subsequently became /ˀe/ through loss of the initial /h/ and a
later contraction of /aj/ to /e/. The evidence for such an older form
/haj/ is as follows (Edzard 2003: 19; 2007: 175). First, there is the
compound é-gal ‘palace (lit. “big house”)’, which is reflected in
various loanwords: Ugaritic hkl, Syriac hajkal, Hebrew hekal, and
Arabic hajkal. The forms of these loanwords are best understood by
positing a phonemic form /hajkal/ for Sumerian é-gal”. Second, in
Ebla and Old Akkadian orthography, the sign used as a word sign for
Sumerian é ‘house’ can also be used as a sound sign and then has the
values /ha/ or /ḥa/”.
It is true that Sumerian á ‘arm’ above had an initial laryngeal, but this laryngeal
was not /h/, but rather /‛/, the voiced pharyngeal fricative (see §3.3.4.1 below). As
to é ‘house’, it had an initial glottal /h/ as the following discussion will make it
quite clear.
Sumerian é-gal “house, temple, etc. see below” is in Akk. ekallu “palace”, but
in other sister languages the same word has an initial /h/: [hykl] as in BHeb.
hekal, OAram., OffAram., Palm., Hatra hykl id, CA haikalu “anything
great/large/big/elevated” also “a large and overlooking building” and “temple
only in the sense house of idols”.
It is generally agreed upon that Semitic [hykl] is ultimately a Sumerian
loanword. Suppose it is, the presence of initial /h-/ in Semitic languages other
than Akkadian tells clearly that it cannot be borrowed from Sumerian via Akk.
Whether the Semitic complex word [haykalu] is a Sumerian loanword or native is
not a real issue in this study. The only real issue is whether the free morphemes,
or proots, forming the complex word are shared by Sumerian and Hamito-
Semitic.

154
 Sumerian é-gal consists of [é] “house, household; temple; plot of land” and
[gal] “big, large, great, etc.” These component parts of the Sumerian word are
also Hamito-Semitic as will be shown below.

3.3.2.1 Sumerian [é] “house, household; temple”

HS: [hay]: Egyp. h’, h’ί, h’w “palace, temple, hall, habitation”; h’w also
expresses “household”,
Chad.: Muktele yay “building”,
Gabri iā “house”,
Kabalay ya “house”
Kude ya “door” (HSED, n. 2565).

Sumerian gal “large, big, etc.”

It has already been shown that Sumerian gal = HS: [gal] as in CA ĝal “large,
big, great, etc.” (§3.2.3.1.1 above). Moreover, the adjective [gal] is seen in both
Sumerian and HS in many complex words.
Let us suppose just for the sake of argument that HS hykl “temple” above is
borrowed from Sumerian, the CA word below cannot be a loanword from
Sumerian.
The Sumerian complex word [é-gal] = CA hāĝiriy arch. “builder, mason”, with
no verbal form, as in the pre-Islamic poetry of Labīd:
ka‛aķri ’al hāgiriy, ’iδā banāhu…
It is most likely consisting of hā- “structure”, ĝr ~ ĝl “large, big” and -iy
“belonging to”. What may confirm this analysis and make it indisputable is that
haĝīru also expresses “large or huge basin or container of water”, a compound of
[’a] “water” and ĝar/ĝal “large”. It is thus variant of HS ’agal = Sumerian a-gal
(see §3.2.3.4 above). The initial /h-/ of haĝīru here is from an earlier /’-/. As a
matter of fact, the interchange of /h/ and /’/ is very much common in the
language.
This is, however, not all. As has been mentioned above, among other meanings
of Sumerian [é] is “plot of land”. Based on this particular meaning of [é], one may
expect a Sumerian word *é-gal to express also “a large or spacious (plot of) land”,
but this does not happen: CA hauĝal, haĝlu “far-stretching desert, spacious land”.

Comments on the initial laryngeal of [é]

Egyp. also has ђ-t expressing “temple, great house” corresponding to Semitic
ђay (or ђai) as in CA ђaiyu “quarter of a town” and with suffixed /r/: ђāra-tu
fem., i.e. ђay-ra-tu id. It is also seen in ђīra-tu = name of the pre-Islamic kingdom
in Iraq. To my understanding, ђaiyu is smaller than ђay-ra-tu. Both /h/ and /ђ/
here are variants of one earlier proot.

3.3.2.2 Sumerian ní; ne4 “fear, frightfulness, awe, respect”

155
 HS: Egyp. nahnah “be terrified”,
CA nahnaha, nahā “to prohibit, forbid”,
Cush.: Galla naa “”be afraid”,
Somali naђ “be afraid”.
IE: Hitt. nah-mi “I fear”, OIr. nār “bashful” (DHSR: §4.15.9).

3.3.2.3 Sumerian mah adj. “high, exalted, great, lofty, foremost, sublime”; vb “to
be or make large”. The word consists of two roots:
ama “mother of” + ha “numerous”.
HS: CA ’ammaha-tu as in ’ammaha-tu (meaning ?) ’aš (= the) šabāb (=
coll. youth) whose surface meaning is “arrogance and pride of (the) youth”. It is
indisputably from ’ummu = mother + -ha = of great size, amount, number and the
like (see ha in §3.3.3.1 below).

Discussion
Like any root in HS, CA [’mh] is, in fact, a cover root for a number of
etymologically quite different roots with each expressing a distinctive meaning,
e.g. ’amiha “to forget”; n. ’amahu (Koranic) = Egyp. mhί “to forget”. We will be
concerned with two homophonous roots having in common [’m] “mother”: ’mh I
“mother of an animal” and ’mh II, the compound word under discussion.
[’mh I]. Old Arab scholars and lexicographers agree that the word ’ummha-tu
is a compound of ’ummu “mother of a human being” + -ha “animal, i.e. not
human” and -tu is clearly a feminine suffix. Accordingly, ’ummu “mother
(human-being)” and ’ummaha-tu “mother (non-human)”.

[’mh II]. To my understanding, the meaning of ’ammaha-tu in ’ammaha-tu

’aš šabāb above is precisely equivalent to English ‘height’ only in Height of
summer or in the height of his wealth, and the like. It is now obvious that the
combination of ‘arrogance and pride’ denotes ‘Height of youth’.
As has already been mentioned in my deep discussion of CA proot /ha-/
(DHSR: §3.4, n. 1), the prefix conveys a sense of exaggeration, i.e. great of
amount, of size, of number, and the like. Old Arab scholars hold that suffixed /-h/
also expresses the same meaning. I disagree with them, however, only on the
examples they cite to support their view (DHSR, p.161, ft 89).

3.3.2.4 Sumerian máh is an adjective for cows

HS: CA mahā [r. mhy] “wild cows”; mahā-tu fem. “a wild cow”
Egyp. mhy-t “a group of cow-goddesses”.
I don’t know for sure whether the initial /ma-/ in Sumerian and HS words cited
thus far is the same as /ma-/ below.

156
 Comments
The term mahā is widely used in Arabic as descriptive terms for ‘eyes’ since
such cows’ eyes are ‘white like a pearl or crystal” and distinguished by ‘their
charming beauty’. A combination of ‘charming beauty + whiteness + pearl and
crystal + brilliance’ would suggest one of the most ancient significations of mah-
which is expressed by CA mahā-tu fem. “the sun”. Moreover, the signification of
CA descriptive term above strongly suggests that mah- is a compound of
[ma-] + [-ha’ or -hay]
CA ma = ‘similar, like’ and -ha- ‘sun’. The first element is seen in Egyp. my-w
“be like”; mytw “likeness, similar in form and nature”; mytt “resemblance,
similitude, likeness, copy”. The proot ha- “sun” is discussed at length in DHSR:
Comments III of §3.13.24.
Finally, Egyp. ’h(’) “any cow-goddess” seems to be the individual member of
mhy-t “a group of cow-goddesses” above.

3.3.2.5 Sumerian hé “let it become, let there be”; hé: precative and affirmative
verbal prefix (same as ha)
HS: Akk. ewū “to be, become”,
OAram. hwy “to be, exist”,
Amorite hwy “to be, exist”,
Chad.: Mig. ’ay “to be”,
Cush.: Somali ahay “to be”,
Saho hay “to live”,
Afar hay “to live”,
Berb.: Ahaggar ihā “to be”.
Sumerian hé above is related to hé ~ ha a precative and affirmative verbal
prefix “let; may; indeed” = CA hā may be used as a separate word and expresses
such meanings as “affirmative, swearing, responding to one’s call or demand (ta-
lbiyatu) in the sense ‘ready, yes indeed’. Moreover, I dealt with CA indeclinable
haiyā, hai “let” as in haiyā na-ktubu “let us write (na-ktubu = we write)” and its
supposed HS cognates at length in DHSR: ft 164, p. 305, and no definite
conclusion was reached.

3.3.2.6 Sumerian ugar(2, 3) “field”

HS: Akk. agar “soil”,
ESA hgr “plough land”,
CA hgr name of a town in Arabian Peninsula: cf. Sab. hgr is also a name
of a town.

IE: Lat. ager “field”, Grk agrós id., Goth. and gen Germanic akrs “field”.

157
3.3.2.7 Sumerian haš, haz “to break or cut off (twigs, branches); to thresh grain”,
a compound of
há “numerous” + zé “to cut, pluck”
HS: CA hašša “to break in pieces twigs, dry branches and trees; to pull a
branch (with the hand); make leaves fall by beating branches with a stick”,
Cush.: Iraqw ђaš “to carve wood”.

3.3.2.8 Sumerian hu “bird”

HS: Egyp. hί “bird”, pl. hίw.

3.3.2.9 Sumerian huš “to be angry”; adj. “furious, terrible, awesome; wild (said of
animals)”
HS: CA hāša “to act without restraint, be agitated, furious, to riot”.

3.3.2.10 Sumerian dalhamun(4) “confusion, disorder”

HS: CA dalahu “confusion, perplexity”.

3.3.3 Pre-Sumerian /ђ/

Pre-Sumerian may have had a voiceless pharyngeal fricative /ђ/ as well as its
voiced counterpart /‛/. The voiceless /ђ/ merged with /ħ/ in some Sumerian words
and disappeared in others, while its voiced counterpart was completely lost in all
positions.

3.3.3.1 Sumerian he(2) “abundance; abundant”

HS: Egyp. ђ’w “abundance, superabundance, superfluity, increase”: ђ’ “to
become abundant, to increase”,
CA *-ђ as in the compound word ribђu “gain or profit that comes
exclusively from commerce or trade” (nowadays “gain, profit”). It is plainly a
compound of stem [rb] “increase; be much, many” (as in CA & all sister
languages rbb, rby id.) and [ђ] meaning “profit” = Egyp. ђ “profit”.
The original signification of rib-ђu is “much/abundant (= rb) + profit (= ђ)”.
See DHSR: §3.17.77 for more information and cognate words.

Hamito-Semitic also has [h’] “abundance, superabundance, superfluity,

increase” and is seen in Egyp. h’, h’w id. and in CA ha “much, a lot, exceeding,
etc.” For CA ha, see DHSR: §3.4, n. 1. It seems that /ђ’/ is a variant of /h’/ or
vice-versa.

3.3.3.2 Sumerian é-tùr “cattle pen”, a compound of two elements:

é “house” + tùr “stable”
HS: Egyp. ђtr “stable, stall”,

158
 CA ђatāru “the edge, boundary or border of a thing (e.g. a wall, etc.)
surrounding something (e.g. a piece of land, building, etc. anything).
IE: Hitt. hu-u-i-tar pl. “animal” = HS: Egyp. ђwtyr “a kind of animal”, ђtr
“horse”, ђtr-w “cattle”.

3.3.3.3 Sumerian luh, làh “to wash; to be fresh; clean, to clean; to sweep”. The
word is a compound of
la “freshness, youthful” + he “to mix”
HS: BHeb. lāђaђ obsol. “be moist, fresh”, laђ “moist” and hence “fresh”,
Pun. lђ “be moist”,
Ge’ez lђ- “be moist”,
CA: dial. laђђ “to wash by pouring little water”. In CA laђђa-t ~ laħħa-t,
said of the eyes, “to shed tears”, with ţ-extension: laђaţa “to sprinkle water in
front of one’s home for cleaning or washing”.

IE: Hitt. lahuhi “to pour”, Lat. lavāre “to wash”, Grk luóō “to wash, to bathe”:
see DHER: §4.13.23.

3.3.3.4 Sumerian uru(4), ur(11), -ru “to plow, till, cultivate”.

HS: CA ђarra “to plow, till” is the stem underlying HS ђrθ as in CA ђaraθa
id., Akk. erēšu “to plow”, Ugr. ђrθ, BHeb. ђāraš id.
Also compare CA mi-ђarru inst. “ploughshare” = HS mi-ђrθ “ploughshare” as
in CA mi-ђrāθu id., BHeb., Aram. ma-ђarēšā id., etc.

IE: Hitt. haraš “plough, harrow”, Ir. arthar “to plow”, Lith. arti, OCS orati “to
plow”, etc. see DHSR: §4.12.14.
The earlier stem that is akin to CA ђarra and Sumerian ur is seen in Hitt. harra-
“to pulverize, break”.

3.3.3.5 Sumerian uru(16) “valiant, strong, mighty; clever”

HS: Egyp. ђr’ “master”,
CA ђurru “nobleman”
OAram. ђr “nobleman”,
OffAram. ђr “person of note”.
IE: OIr. aire “nobleman”, Lat. erus “master”, Skt. aryah “master, lord”, etc.
DHSR: §4.12.15.

3.3.3.6 Sumerian ùš “placental membrane, afterbirth”

HS: CA ђuššu “fetus dies in his mother’s womb” is closely related to
ђušaša-tu fem. “soul, breath of life”.

3.3.3.7 Sumerian lá, la(2) “to have a beard” also “to accuse, to denounce”
3.3.3.7.1 Sumerian lá, la(2) “to have a beard” above

159
 HS: CA laђyu, liђya-tu “beard”; CVIII ’i-ltaђā “to have a beard”,
BHeb. ləђī “jaw-bone, cheek”.

3.3.3.7.2 Sumerian lá, la(2) “to accuse, to denounce” above

HS: CA laђā “to execrate, insult, damn”,
OffAram. lђy “to do evil” as in ’lh-n (= gods) ylђw-hm (= do evil) l-hm
(= unto them) = CA’āliha-tu (= gods) yalђū-hum (= do evil, execrate) la-hum (=
unto them). The word order in CA is yalђū-hum ’āliha-tu; l-hm is redundant in
both and a repetition of suffixed pers. pronoun -hum.
OAram. lђy, said of a person, “bad, wicked, reprobate” (NWSI I, 570-
571).
The Sumerian root also expresses “to show, reveal, look after, to force a way
into (in order to see)”: CA lāђa [r. lwђ] “to appear, come into view, be/become
visible”.

3.3.3.8 Sumerian é-kur “prison”, a compound word consisting of

é “house' + kur “netherworld, mountain, etc.”
HS: CA ђuĝra-tu “room, pen”; ђaĝara “to prohibit, to confine, to prevent”:
ђaĝru “placing under an interdict, making a seizure upon one’s possession by a
court order”,
Pun. ђgr “enclosure”,
BHeb. ђāgar “to gird, gird up”.

3.3.3.9 Sumerian ér, ír “lamentation; tears; prayer; complaint”; vb “to weep”

HS: Egyp. hr-t “grief, sorrow, lamentation”,
CA ђarwa-tu “pain”: ђarā “to keep on waning or declining in health
until death” (the verb ђāra [r. ђwr] also expresses a similar meaning),
Sab. ђrw “harm, damage”.
IE: Skt. ārti- “pain, misfortune”, Av. āri- “pain, hurt, injury” (DHSR: § 4.12.19).

3.3.3.10 Sumerian me(3,6,7,9) “battle”

HS: OAram. mђ “to beat, to harm”
BAram. mǝђā “to strike”,
BHeb. māђā “to strike, to smite”; Hiph. “to blot out, to destroy”,
Phoen. mђy “to efface, destroy”,
CA maђā “to obliterate, eradicate, destroy, efface”.

3.3.3.11 Sumerian mer(2), mir(2) “north(wind), storm wind; violent storm”, a

compound of
me3,6,7,9, “battle” + to flow or circle + ur “to surround”

3.3.3.11.1 Sumerian mer(2), mir(2) “north, north wind” above

160
 HS: Egyp. mђ-t “the north”, also “north land”, mђίt “the north wind”; Egyp.
mђn-t “north winds”, mђtί ymntί “north-west” (= CA maђwu yamīn),
CA maђwa-tu fem., arch. “the north”.

3.3.3.11.2 Sumerian mer(2), mir(2) “storm wind, violent storm” above

HS: Akk. meħū “storm”,
Egyp. im’ħ “turbulence”,
Chad.: Mokilko maaye “wind”.

3.3.3.12 Sumerian suh “diadem, crown, crest”

HS: Egyp. sђw “diadem, crown, tiara”.

3.3.3.13 Sumerian háš, haš(4) “lower abdomen; loins; back; thigh”, a compound of
numerous + foundation, base
HS: CA ђašā “liver, stomach, spleen, belly, intestines, etc. down to the
upper buttocks”. But, see §3.3.1.8 above ?

3.3.3.14 Sumerian lah, àh, uh “to dry up; to dry out; to sparkle, shine”; adj., dry.
HS: CA lauђu “thirst”, lauwaђa “make thirsty”; mi-lwāђu “always thirsty”.

3.3.3.14.1 Sumerian lah, àh, uh “to sparkle, shine” above

HS: CA lāђa “to glitter, gleam, sparkle” also “to appear and become clear
and open to view”; liyāђu “white”.

3.3.3.15 Sumerian alim “wild ram; bison; aurochs; powerful”

HS: CA ђulāmu, ђullāmu “young of sheep, young of goat”.

3.3.3.16 Sumerian áma, am “wild cow or ox”

HS: Egyp. ђm-t “cow” also “woman, wife”,
CA ђamā-tu fem. “wife’s mother”.

3.3.3.17 Sumerian hal-hal-la “slanderer”; adj. “dissolved, completely destroyed”

HS: CA mu-ђillu “one who does not keep amity, promise, and has no
conscience (ma- = “one who”); ђalla “to dissolve”; CVII ’inђalla “be dissolved”;
ma-ђlūl “dissolved”; ta-ђallala “be putrefied, decayed”,
Akk. ellu “clean”,
Syr. ђll “to wash”.

3.3.3.18 Sumerian hada “to shine brightly, to dry”; adj. “dry, white” consisting of
he “let it become” + dag “brilliant”
HS: CA ђađaĝa “to kindle a fire, flame up a fire, burn”,
Egyp. ђđ “to shine, illumine”; ђđђđ “to become bright”; ђđ-t “white”.
Note that Egyp. does not have *ђđg.

161
3.3.3.19 Sumerian hili “beauty”
HS: CA ђalā “beauty”; ђilwu “sweet, beautiful”,
OffAram. ђly “be sweet”.

3.3.3.20 Sumerian alal “pipe, conduit, gutter”

HS: Heb. ђālīl “a pipe, as an instrument of music”
Cush.: Oromo ulule “flute”, etc. are doubtful cognates.

3.3.3.21 Sum. anše “ donkey; ass”

HS: CA ђinzābu “donkey, ass”, final -bu = indicates the masc. gender
(DHSR: §3.23.3).

IE: Lat. asinus “donkey, ass”, Arm. ēs, Goth. asilus, OE. assa, Lith. asilas, OCS
osilû, etc. SS: §3.46.

3.3.3.22 Sumerian ú “plant, vegetable, grass, pasture; food, bread”

HS: Egyp. ’ђ “plant, vegetable, pot-herb, pasture, meal, bread”.

3.3.3.23 Sumerian ama(4, 5), ame(2) “woman’s quarters”

HS: Egyp. ђm “the apartments of the woman in the house”.

3.3.4 Pre-Sumerian /‛/

As has been mentioned above, Pre-Sumerian sound system had included a
voiced pharyngeal /‛/, which, like some other laryngeals, disappeared in
Sumerian.

3.3.4.1 Sumerian á “arm”

HS: [‛a] Egyp. ‛ “the forearm, hand”,
CA ma-‛-ī “in/with + hand”, i.e. “I have”, lit. “in my hand”,
consisting of [ma] “in, with”, [‛] “hand”, and [-ī] “me”; ma-‛a-hu “he has”, etc.
The very same CA compound, as it stands, exists in Egyp. In other Semitic
languages it is subject to metathesis, i.e. ‛m- (OAram., BHeb., Sab., etc. ‛m). For
more HS cognates and words including the proot, see DHSR: §3.17.30.

3.3.4.2 Sumerian ir10 “to accompany”.

HS: CA CIII ‛āwara is said of a male or female beast of burden and
expresses an interesting meaning very closely related to ‘accompany’: “to leave
the company of its herd and go to another herd for sex”. We have no way of
knowing – when the sexual intercourse is over– whether it accompanies the other
herd or comes back to her original herd.

3.3.4.3 Sumerian ir10 “to lead (away)”: see Sumerian bir in §3.2.1.6 above

162
 HS: Ug. b‛r expresses “to lead” and this signification, I strongly believe, is
derived from ‛r “ass” which leads or moves in front of the herd or flock: cf. Ug. ‛r
“ass”, CA ‛airu “donkey” also “leader or master of the people” when it refers to a
human being. For identical cases, consider the following examples:
Ug. ybl denotes both “ram” and “to lead” and so does BHeb. ybl id. (Akk. abilu
“ram”, OAram., Phoen. ybl id., etc.),
CA kabšu “young ram” and also “leader, i.e. one who leads” as in kabšu ’al
katība-tu “leader of the brigade” (Akk. kabsu “ram”, Mand. kabiš, BHeb. kebeš
“young ram, etc.).

3.3.4.4 Sumerian ir(10), er “to bring”

HS: Egyp. s-‛rί caus. “to bring, bring up” and with the same caus. /s-/
becoming part of the root: s‛rί-w pl. “bringer, porter, carrier”,
CA ‛arra “to come to, i.e. to bring, to carry”. Imām Ali (the Prophet’s
first cousin and son-in-law) said: mā (= what) ‛arra-ka (‛arra “brought”, -ka =
you masc. sg.) binā (bi = prep. “to”; -nā “us”)? “what brought (carried, bore,
made + come to) you to us?” (LA),
Perhaps Assyr. arū, pret. ūrā “to bring, carry, carry away”.

3.3.4.5 Sumerian ir(10) “to go; to drive along or away”

HS: CA ‛āra “to go, move” also “to go here and there, to go away, to run
away, to run in the direction of the face, to flee”.

3.3.4.6 Sumerian úr “thighs, leg(s); root, trunk of a tree, floor, base”

3.3.4.6.1 Sumerian úr “thighs, leg(s)”
HS: Egyp. w‛r “thigh, foot and leg”,
(CA ma-‛ārī “hands, legs and face”, appears to be a descriptive term).
Chad.: Ankwe warr “leg”,
Musgum werē “leg”.

3.3.4.6.2 Sumerian úr “root, trunk of a tree” also “floor, base” above

HS: Egyp. w‛r “juniper”
Pun. y‛r “wood, forest”,
BHeb. yā‛ār “thicket of trees”
Syr. y‛r “thicket of briers”.
CA ‛urwa-tu, without the initial w-, “thicket of trees whose leaves do
not wither or fall in winter and whose roots do not die out”. The term ‛urā coll.
“masters of people to whom the poor resort for help” is formed after such roots.
For Sumerian úr “floor, base”, CA ‛arā “courtyard, open space next to houses;
wall”.
The root [w‛r] is in CA wa‛ru “rugged area”, but in dialects “rugged thicket of
trees”.

163
3.3.4.7 Sumerian a-ri-a, a-ru-a “district; desert, waste land”, a complex word
consisting of
“where” + remote demonstrative affix + nominative
HS: CA ‛arā’ “open and empty place; naked place; the outside, the open
air”,
BHeb. ‛ārā “naked places without trees”.
IE: Skt. ārāt- “outside, space”, Lat. orie “outside”; oras “air, weather”, Hitt. arha
“out, away”; arhi “outside” (DHSR: §4.12.1f).

3.3.4.8 Sumerian il(2), ila(2) “to lift, to be high; to support, carry, etc.” assumed to
be borrowed from Akk. elū “to ascend, rise, be high; to lift up, carry up, etc.”
IE: Lat. altus “high”, Gaulish alō “high” = CA ‛ālī “high”, etc.
Also belong here Lat. alō “to nourish, support”, OIr. alim “to foster”, Goth.
alan “to grow”: cf. CA ‛āla “to nourish, feed, support”. DHSR: §4.13.37.

3.3.4.9 Sumerian erin “cedar tree, wood”

HS: Sab. ‛rn “wooded-land”,
CA ‛irna-tu fem., ‛irnu “a tree similar to maple tree and its wood is
used by builders”.
The root seems to be based on [‛r] as in CA ‛ar‛ar, BHeb. ‛r‛r “juniper” (OT,
816)

3.3.4.10 Sumerian e(11) “to rise; to descend, to exit; to bring down or up; to fetch”
also “to remove; to import”
HS: Egyp. y‛ί “to rise, to ascend, to go up; reach up, approach” also “to
remove; to transport”.

Comments
We may note that Sumerian e(11) expresses two opposing meanings. Another
example is sal, šal “to be narrow” and also “to be wide”. This linguistic
phenomenon is very widespread in CA and is also found in sister languages, esp.
in Egyp. For a study of this phenomenon and critical review of works written on
it, see DHSR: §3.2.46.

3.3.4.11 Sumerian u(8) “adult female sheep”

HS: CA ‛ūsu coll. “a kind of sheep”,
Egyp. ‛wt pl. “sheep and goat”,
Chad.: Housa awa-ki pl. “goat”,
Gisiga ’aw “she-goat”, etc. see DHSR: §§4.16.32 and 3.23.10,
esp. n. 4-6.

164
IE: Hitt. awas “sheep”, Skt. avis, Lat. ovis, OIr. oi “sheep”, etc. see DHSR:
§4.16.32.

3.3.4.12 Sumerian uga, ugu(2) “raven, crow”

HS: CA ‛aķ‛aķ “a type of crow with two colors white and black and a long
tail”. A closely related word is ‛uķābu “eagle”,
OAram. ‛ķh “magpie”.

3.3.5 Sumerian /s/ and its Hamito-Semitic correspondents

Sumerian /s/ was a voiceless dental or alveolar fricative. Foxvog (2014: 21)
sees that Sumerian /s/ was pronounced as English /s/. Based on loanwords from
Sumerian into Akkadian and vice-versa, Jagersma (p. 46) argues for an earlier /ś/
underlying Sumerian /s/ and traces such Akaddian words as sadú ‘mountain’,
silim “healthy, intact” and simtu “mark” to *śad-, *śilim and *śimtu respectively.
The problem with Jagersma’s claim is that Akkadian or old Akkadian did not
have the phoneme /ś/ in its sound system. The consonant /ś/ is found in Heb. and
some SA dialects and corresponds to Akk. /š/, Ug., CA, Phoen., OAram /š/.
Moreover, among the Akkadian cited words, the only one that may be traced to /ś/
is *śad- as in Sab. s²dw “mountain”. The two others have an initial /š-/: *šalim as
in Sab. s¹lm, BHeb. šlm, CA slm and *šim(a)- ~ *sim(a)- as in Ug. ysm, CA
sima-tu. For an account of /ś/, see §1.2.1.7 above.
In brief, /s/, /z/ and /š/ present a serious challenge to any analyst not only in
Sumerian, but also in Hamito-Semitic and all world’s languages; each having a
number of different origins and they often interchange position with one another.
Some examples of the interchange of Sumerian /s/ and /z/ are:
zu, sú “wisdom, knowledge”
ús, úz “side, edge; distance”,
as, az “cage; fetter”,
sil, zil “to cut into; to divide”,
sukud, zugud “height; depth”,
zugud, sukud “fish, kind of club”,
su(11), zú “tooth, teeth; prong; thorn; blade; ivory; flint”.
Examples of the interchange of Sumerian /š/ and /s/:
ús, uš(8) “foundation, base”,
šur, sur “to rain”,
šár, sár “totality, all”, etc.
3.3.5.1 Sumerian si, su, sa, sa(5) “to fill up, to inundate; to be full; to be sufficient;
to grow weak”
HS: Egyp. s’ “be fulled, filled full”; s’ί, s’-t “satiety; fullness”; caus. s-s’ “to
sate, to fill with food”,

165
 CA sī, siwā’ in a fixed expression “(in) prosperity, wealth, fertility” and,
according to Kisā’i (quoted in LA), “full to the fullest extent of prosperity and
wealth”; siyy-an “much and large”.

IE: Grk asáō “to sate”, Hitt. satas “satiety”, Lat. satis “enough”, satur “sated”,
Lith. sotus “sated”, Toch. B soy “be sated”, etc. DHSR: §4.10.56.
As mentioned in DHSR: §4.10.56, the Grk word above includes caus. /’a-/ and
corresponds to Egyp. ys’ from ’-s’ “to fill full”. For caus. /’a-/, see DHSR: §3.3.
Hitt. šuhhai “to sprinkle, pour”, Toch. B suwam “it rains” = Egyp. sђί “to rise
(of a flood)”, CA saђђa “to flow; to pour”; saђsaђu masc., sāђiya-tu fem. “a kind
of copious rain”. DHSR: §4.10.27.

3.3.5.2 Sumerian si, su, sa, sa(5) “grow weak” above

HS: Egyp. s’ί “weak” as in s’ί ‛ “weak armed” (‛ = “arm”); s’-t “weakness”.

3.3.5.3 Sumerian su “empty”

HS: Egyp. swί “be empty”, also s-šw “empty, free from, vacant”,
Perhaps CA şuwwu “empty”.
With metathesis: Egyp. ws ~ wš “be empty” = IE *was- “empty” as in Lat.
vascuus id., vāstus “waste, desert”, OHG wuosti “waste, empty”, etc. DHSR:
§4.16.22.

3.3.5.4 Sumerian si “to stand upright, to be straight; line”

HS: CA sawā’u “straight”; sauwa “to straighten” (Egyp. sw-n id.); ’istawā “to
mount (the back of an animal), to ascend, go up”;
Chad.: Logone sa “to stand up”,
Sumray so“to stand up”,
Sibine sā “to stand up”,
Tobanga say “to stand up”.

3.3.5.4.1 Sumerian sisi “horse”, redupl. si “to stand upright, to be straight” above
HS: Assyr. sisū “horse”,
OAram. swsh “horse”,
Egyp. ss “horse”,
CA sā’is [r. sws] “one who grooms a horse”; sawasu “a disease that
impairs a horse’s legs or stiffens its neck and causes it to die”.
CA sawiy-yatu “a kind of saddle”, originally for either a horse or a donkey
because camel’s saddle has its own term which is ђawiy-yatu. This word seems to
be derived from the proot [sw] “to stand” rather from [sws] “horse”.

3.3.5.4.2 Sumerian si “line” above

HS: CA sikka-tu fem. “row or line of palm-trees” also “even and straight
road” as a verb “to be straight, to be in order (said of trees, buildings, etc.)” =
166
Sumerian si “to be straight, to be in order”. See Sumerian si-ig, si(-g) in §3.3.5.7
below and Sumerian si in a different compound in §3.3.5.21.
The word sikka- is from *siwka- and the proot [sw-] is seen in some other
kindred triliterals as sauku [r. swk] “a very small piece of wood used to clean the
teeth (toothpick)”, sāfa [r. swf] “a line of bricks (as in building), etc.

3.3.5.5 Sumerian su “to spread”: cf. sud, su “to stretch, extend”

HS: Egyp. sђ “to stretch”,
CA saђsaђ, said of land, “widespread”; saђasђu ~ saђā ~ sāђa “open
space” [roots: sђђ ~ syђ or swђ ~ sђy].
If we substitute /-d/ for /-ђ/ in CA sāђa above, we will get an idea like
widespread power, fame, greatness, and the like as in sāda [syd] “to predominate,
become the master of, prevail”; su’dud “sovereignty, supreme power, glory”, Sab.
s¹wd “chieftain” (= CA saiyid). All are from [sy] as in CA CVII ’in-sāђa [syђ]
“be enlarged”: sāya-tu “road, street”.

3.3.5.6 Sumerian sa(10) “to be equivalent”

HS: CA sāwā “be equal to; be equivalent to”,
Phoen. šyy “be equal”,
OAram šwy “be equal to”,
OffAram. šwh “be equal, be equivalent, to equal, be of the same value”,
Palm. šw’ “be equal, be equivalent, to equal, be of the same value”,
JAram. šw’ “be equal, be equivalent, to equal, be of the same value”,
BHeb. šawah “be equal, be like, to resemble”, EHeb. šwn “estimate,
valuation”.
The root also expresses in HS “self, own, same” as in CA siwā “self”; sawā’u
“same” = IE: Skt. svayam “self”, OLat. sovos “own”, OLith. seve “self”, etc.
DHSR: §4.10.32.

3.3.5.7 Sumerian si-ig, si(-g) “to silence; to strike down, level; to place into the
ground”; adj. “silent; weak”

3.3.5.7.1 Sumerian si-ig, si(-g) “to silence”; adj. “silent” above

HS: CA saĝā “to calm, to tranquil, to become still, quiet, silent” also “to
be tranquil, still + to continue, i.e. to continue to be or keep on being tranquil,
still”, with r-extension: sāĝiru, ma-sĝuru “silent, calm” ~ sakara “to become
calm, quiet”,
Egyp. s-gr caus. “to make silent, to still, silence” ~ s-kr caus. “to put
to silence”: CA karā “be silent”.
It is obvious that CA saĝā and sāĝiru above includes the caus. s- as part of the
root and so do Akk. sgr ~ skr, Ug. sgr, Aram. sgr ~ skr, etc. see DHSR: §3.2.56.4.
We may add here CA skt, skn “be silent, to silence”.

167
3.3.5.7.2 Sumerian si-ig, si(-g) “to strike down” above
HS: Egyp. sgr “to strike, fight”.
Perhaps CA šāĝara “to fight with, clash”.

3.3.5.7.3 Sumerian si-ig, si(-g) “level” above

HS: CA sakku “straight, i.e. no up and down or curves”.

3.3.5.7.4 Sumerian si-ig, si(-g) adj. “weak” above

HS: CA saksaka-tu “weakness, feebleness”, with m-extension: sakama “to
walk with short steps due to physical weakness”
Egyp. s-gn caus. , with n-extension, “to make weak”.

3.3.5.8 Sumerian sig-sig “narrow” reduplicated “small”

HS: CA sukka “narrow”: sakaku “small”. The word sukka extends to
“deaf” and the reason is the extreme narrowness of the opening of the ear, hence
CVIII ’istakka “become deaf”, i.e. can’t hear due to the extreme narrowness of
the ear,
Egyp. sg “deaf”,
Akk. sakku “deaf”; sakāku, like sgr ~ skr above, expresses “to stop up,
close” (= CA sakka id.),
Syr. skk “to stop up”,
Mand. skk “to fix in, stop up, obstruct”: see DHSR: §3.11.91.

3.3.5.9 Sumerian sig(5.9), sag(10) “(to be) mild, sweet, good; of fine quality”
HS: CA saĝaђu arch. “beauty, gracefulness, mild, of fine quality, of fine
nature”, hence saĝiђa-tu fem. or (by dropping /-ђu/) saĝiy-yatu fem. “one’s (good)
nature, nature”. The fem. adj. sāĝiya-tu, associated with ‛ayn “eye”, refers to
“beautiful and serene eyes”.

3.3.5.10 Sumerian sigga, šeg(8, 9) “snow”.

This is the stem that lies beneath the common Hamito-Semitic word for
‘snow’, seen with infixed /-l-/ as in Akk. šalgu “snow”, CA θalĝu, BHeb. šeleg,
Syr. talgā id. All are from [θaggu] with the first /-g-/ dissimilating to /-l-/: for this
phenomenon, see DHSR: §3.17.80.
In Indo-European, too, the same /-g-/ dissimilates to /-n-/, hence Lith. sniegas
“snow”, OCS sněgŭ id., Av. snaēg- “to snow”, etc.
The Proto-stem is seen in CA θaĝĝu “copious outflow of water” and in a
number of compounds such as bur-θuĝā-niy-atu fem. lit. “the whitest, most
delicious and precious grain”, i.e. the white is supposed to be precious and
delicious as compared with other kinds of grain. The CA complex word includes
[bur] “grain, wheat” as in Akk. burru, CA burru, BHeb. bar, etc. id.; θaĝĝu is the

168
term for “white”, -niy- “genitive, i.e. connected with, belonging to (the color of
snow)”, and (a)tu fem. marker, i.e. grain of white (color).
The stem for “snow” has also been preserved in many language families with
some expected phonological or semantic change, e.g.
Dene Yeniseian: Ket tīk “snow”,
Kott tʰīk “snow”.

Siouan: Lakota čaǧa “ice”,

Santee Dakota čaǧa “ice”.

3.3.5.11 Sumerian má-su(-a) “sunken boat”, a compound of

má “boat” + su = “submersed' + -a = nominative
HS: Egyp. m’s-t “shallow of water, sandbank”.

3.3.5.12 Sumerian sa(4)”to name; to call by name”

HS ša-, šu- “name”, i.e. a mark of identity, seen in HS with suffixed proot -
m:
Akk. šumu,
Ug. šm,
Phoen. šm,
OAram. šm,
CA ’i-smu,
Chad.: Maha sum,
Ankwe sum,
Montol sum,
Mburku šin, etc. See DHSR: §3.2.49, esp. n. 2h and also ft. 61,
p. 116.
The second element [-m] could be a preposition or, much more likely, “similar,
same, copy” as in Egyp. Egyp. m, mw “similar, copy; be like; similar”.
The proot [ša] is also seen in Akk. wussū, mussū “to identify, distinguish”, and
in very numerous roots as in CA sima-tu “mark”, wsm (good identity), wşm (evil
identity), rsm, etc. For many more roots based on [ša] in HS, see DHSR:
§3.15.24.

3.3.5.13 Sumerian sig(7), se(12) (-g), sa(7)(-g) “to let live; to create; to live”
HS: CA sakana “to dwell, reside, live”,
Ug. škn “to dwell”,
Phoen. škn “to dwell, reside”,
BHeb. škn “to dwell”,
Akk. šakānu “to establish, set, fix”,
Chad.: Jimbin sinkǝ “to sit”.

169
All are from a compound of caus. /š-/ + kw-n “to be, to establish” (§3.2.3.24
above). The second element is in Sumerian ḡe and in CA, Aram., Phoen., Eth.,
BHeb., etc. kwn “to be” (§3.2.3.24 above).
In our old-fashion historical and comparative linguistics we have all seen that
when a word in a language family is similar to another word in a different
language family, the similarity is attributed to either borrowing or chance. The
question arises here: To which ‘scapegoat’, i.e. borrowing or chance, should we
ascribe Ainu siknu “to live”?
It should be stressed that the notion “to live” is based on [k-] in many
languages and language families and that such languages may or may not use the
caus. /š-/. When used, it may be a suffix (as in some Hamito-Semitic language
divisions such as Chusitic and Chadic and even Semitic) or a prefix (DHSR:
§3.2). An example may be Southern Quechuan kawsay “to live”, where the caus.
is a suffix.

3.3.5.14 Sumerian sar, šar “to write; to begin; to make hurry, run; to insert, enter,
to drive, chase away, etc.”; n. “vegetable(s)”

3.3.5.14.1 Sumerian sar, šar “to write” above

HS: Egyp. srr “to write” also “to engrave”
CA sarru “the line seen on the forehead and palm of the hand”.

3.3.5.14.2 Sumerian sar, šar “to begin” above

HS: CA in Hadith, the Prophet said “fast the month (of Ramadan) and its
sirra-hu”. The word sirra-hu (-hu = its) “(its) beginning”. It is also said to mean
“(its) start, outset” (LA).

3.3.5.14.3 Sumerian sar, šar “to make hurry, run” above

HS: Egyp. s’r “to go”,
CA sāra “to go, to move, walk”.

3.3.5.14.4 Sumerian sar, šar “vegetables” above

HS: perhaps Egyp. s’‛r “vegetable growth”.

3.3.5.15 Sumerian sám, šám, sa(10) “purchase; sale price; merchandise”; vb “to
buy, to sell” < Akk. loanword from šāmu(m) “to buy, purchase”. My purpose is to
comment on this HS root.
CA sāma “to offer for sale” also “to ask for the price of”; sāwama “to bargain”;
sawwama “to value, evaluate”; Sab. s²’m “to buy, purchase”; caus. h-s’m “to
sell”, EHeb. šwm “estimate, valuation”, etc.
The initial consonant of the root is in CA /s/, in Sab. /s²/, i.e. /ś/ and Heb. /š/.
This may suggest an origin of the consonant different from them all. It is most

170
likely that the consonant was originally *θ, hence the word was *θwm or *θ’m,
later a caus. /-n/ was suffixed to it giving rise to θmn as in CA θaman “price”;
θammana “to price, value, evaluate”, etc. Note that θmn is the common HS term
for “8”.

3.3.5.16 Sumerian sa(9) “half”

HS: CA sawā “middle”, sawā’, said of the day light, “noon, i.e. mid-
daylight”, said of the back, of the neck, etc. “middle”, i.e. dividing the back, for
example, into two halves, the point in the middle of them is called sawā’, i.e.
between two halves.
The notion of ‘half’ is evidently derived from ‘equal, equivalent’. See §3.3.5.6
above.

3.3.5.17 Sumerian gi-sa, gi(16)-sa (-a), gi(16) “parched wheat”, i.e. “Arabic frikah,
in which usually durum wheat but sometimes bread wheat is harvested while still
green and then parched or roasted” (Halloran, 2006: 80)
HS: CA ĝašīšu coll. “grain of wheat before milling”; ĝašīša-tu fem. “food
very similar to frikah above, including “wheat (milled or ground in a course
manner) and meat cooked together” (LA).

3.3.5.18 Sumerian su “body; flesh; skin; animal hide”

HS. The exact HS cognate is difficult to determine with certainty. Terms for
‘meat’ and ‘flesh’ in languages are mostly derived from names for animals.
Cush.: Aun ǝšši “meat”,
Ometo ačo “meat, body”,
Yem àš- “meat”,
Chara ˈač- “meat”,
Chad.: Gisiga ’iše “flesh”, etc.
Proto-Austronesian [isi’] “meat, flesh”: see HAS: §5.3.46.
Another possible cognate is the root in Egyp. š’-t “body” also “part of the body
of an animal” (perhaps the animal here is a dog). For a Sumerian term for “meat”,
see the last paragraph of §3.3.6.4 below.
As a matter of fact, there are words in languages that can be most profitably
studied and compared only when all languages are taken into count. One of such
words is “meat/flesh”. Some other words include all pronouns and negatives.

3.3.5.19 Sumerian sun(5), su(16) “humble, with bowed head”

HS: Egyp. snw “homage”; sn t’ “to do homage by bowing with the face to
the ground (t’ = “ground)”.

3.3.5.20 Sumerian sun(2) “a wild cow”

171
 HS: CA sinnu “a wild bull”,
Egyp. snsn “the festival of the two bulls”. The question whether the
Egyp. term is cognate remains open: see below. Apart from this matter, the Egyp.
example shows that the language uses reduplication to express duality. This is a
phenomenon found in Sumerian and CA: see §4.2.2.1 below.
Egyp. šnί-t “cow-goddess”
Another CA term based on [sn] above is sanīķ “a cow”.

3.3.5.21 Sumerian sig(2), sik(2) “hair, fur, wool”, a compound of

si “long, thin things” + ki “place”
HS: Egyp. s’g’ “hair-cloth”,
Cush.: (Omotic) Ari sicʼˈi “hair”.
We also find Cush.: (Omotic) Yem kuš-ū “hair”. This is from the root in CA
kušša-tu fem. “braid of hair, tress” = IE: Lith. kasa “hair”, Hitt. kišš “comb”, etc.
see DHSR: §4.3.32.
For Sumerian si, see §3.3.5.4 above.

3.3.6 Sumerian /š/ and its Hamito-Semitic correspondents

Sumerian /š/ was a voiceless palatal fricative represented in Sumerian writing
system with signs ša, ši, šè, éš, and aš. The same signs were also used to write the
Akkadian /š/. Examples of assumed Sumerian loanwords in Akkadian are:
Sumerian šuku.r > Akkadian šukusu ‘subsistence (field)’,
Sumerian giš-kíg-ti > Akkadian kiškattû ‘craftsman’.

3.3.6.1 Sumerian ša “to dry up”.

HS: Egyp. š’w “dry, parched”, šw(w) “dry”, šwί “be dry, arid, hot”, yšw
caus. “to dry up”,
Chad.: Bolewa saa “to become dry”,
Karekare saa “to become dry”,
Dera see “to become dry”,
Ngamo sa “to become dry”,
Mobu sǝwe “to dry up”.
All are related to [šau] in Egyp. swš-t “dryness” and CA šawasu “drying (said of
water)”, etc.

IE *sau-s “dry” as in Lith. saũsas “dry”, OCS and gen. Slavic suchû id., etc.
DHSR: §4.10.37.

3.3.6.2 Sumerian še “grain, corn, barley” also “a measure of length”

172
 HS: Egyp. sw-t “grain corn, wheat”; sw “a measure of length”. See §3.3.6.9
below.
The same root [sw] is also seen with suffixed -šy- in HS and IE: cf. Egyp. sš-t
“grain”, Skt. sasya- “grain”, Av. hahya- “grain”, Gaul. sasiam “rye” (DHSR:
§4.10.25.

3.3.6.3 Sumerian še(10) “excrement, dung”

HS: Egyp. šy “faeces”, š’w id.,
Chad.: Hwona še “faeces”,
Cush.: Iraqw ča’e “faeces”,
Ometo šiyya “faeces”.

3.3.6.4 Sumerian šà-sur “to have diarrhea, to spawn eggs (said of a fish)”, a
compound of
šà “intestines”' + sur “to expel a liquid”
HS: Egyp. sšr “excrement”.
It may be interesting here to draw attention to a fact that some of the Sumerian
compound words found their cognates in modern Arabic dialects with slight
phonological and semantic changes or no change. The reason why dialectal words
were not included in CA dictionaries was explained and documented in DHSR:
§3.24, esp. in n. (2) of §3.24.3.
Sumerian šà-sur, together with its Egyp. cognate sšr, is seen in Arabic dialects
as ša(š)šūr “urine (usually said of a boy urinating in bed, as when he is sleeping,
or in his pants); verb ša(š)šar. It is only the second element [šar] that can occur as
a free morpheme: šaršar “sprinkle liquid here and there, leak water”, Chad.: Paa
žur “to pour”, Mofu žǝr id. (HSED, n. 2339).
The difference between Sumerian and Arabic represents a linguistic
phenomenon of great interest and magnitude. Semantically speaking, there are
two obvious differences between the Arabic and Sumerian cognate words:
i) the first lies in the ‘source’ (of ‘diarrhea’ and ‘urine’),
ii) the second lies in the ‘exist’ (of ‘diarrhea’ and ‘urine’).
Both differences, however, can be reduced to one, which is the ‘source’ of
‘diarrhea/urine’. It is the difference in the ‘source’ that dictates the two different
exists; the source of the Sumerian diarrhea is šà “the intestines”, whereas the
source of the Arabic “urine” is ma-θāna-tu fem. “urinary bladder” (ma- = place
of), Ug. θyn “to urinate”, Akk. šānu id., etc.: PHS *θy-: see DHSR: §3.10.19. The
original compound is: vb θai-šar, n. θai-šur.

Some additional examples from Sumerian and Arabic dialects:

Sumerian ze-eh-tur “small pig, piglet” is from Akk. ṣeħru “small, young” = CA
ṣaγīru id. The form in modern dialects is ṣaγīr or zγīr id. The diminutive is
expressed by /-ai-/ after the 2nd radical: CA ṣuγaiyiru, in dialectc zγaiyir. There is,

173
however, another diminutive form in dialects; it is ṣγaitūr or zγaitūr. The
difference between the diminutive forms zγaiyir and zγaitūr is that the latter is
associated with affection and love and is smaller than zγaiyir: Sumerian tur
“young”.

Sumerian a-tab, a-da-ab “a type of song” = Arabic dialects (Lebanese, Syrian,

etc.) ‛atāba “a (very well-known) type of song”.

Sumerian uzi “meat”, also Hurrian uʒi id. = Arabic dialects ’ūzī “the whole
lamb is stuffed with rise and cooked (esp. in a party)”. The closest CA term to
dialectal ’ūzī is waza’a “to roast meat and (then) make it dry (perhaps for future
use)”.

3.3.6.5 Sumerian ša(5) “to cut, break (reeds)”

HS: Egyp. sw ~ ws “to saw (wood)”; sww “to cut, cut down trees”,
Chad.: Paa šawo “to scratch”,
Burma šuwe “to cut”,
Buli šo “to cut”,
Warji šaw “to scratch”,
Margi ša “to cut”,
CA na-šara, wa-šara,’a-šara “to saw”,
BHeb. śwr “a saw”, etc. DHSR: §2.1.13, n. 1c.

3.3.6.6 Sumerian šìr, šur “song”; vb “to sing”

HS: Ug. šyr “to sing”; šr “singer”,
BHeb. šyr “to sing; a song” ,
Aram. šyr “to sing”,
Chad.: Kwan sire “to sing”.
The root has been preserved in CA in a fixed dictum: ђasanu lit. (= beautiful,
good) ’aş şūra-ti (= looking) wa (= and) (’a)š šaura-ti lit. (= informing, telling,
relating, narrating, i.e. “(he) is good looking and (also good) teller or narrator”.

3.3.6.7 Sumerian šar(8) “to explain, interpret”

HS: CA šaraђa “to explain”.

3.3.6.8 Sumerian šen šen “combat, strife”

HS: Egyp. šn “to fight, to rage; enmity, strife, dispute”; šnw warriors,
soldiers, fighters”,
CA šanna “to wage a war, an attack or raid”.

3.3.6.9 Sumerian še sa “roasted”, a compound of

še “barley”+ sa “to roast”
HS: Egyp. ss “to roast” also yš “roast”. See §3.3.6.2 above.

174
3.3.6.10 Sumerian šè “portion” and also “as far as, up to, to; as regards, for the
sake of; until”.
HS: Egyp. š’, š‛ “as far as, until, up to”, s’ “to break”, s’w “to cut, break”,
CA šai‛u “about, in the proximity of” also “after”; ši‛a-tu “sect”; ’a-š‛a-
ta “he divided”; šaiya‛a “be scattered”, with the progressive assimilation of /-y-/:
ša‛‛a “be scattered”.

3.3.6.11 Sumerian šu bar “to release, let loose”, a compound of two elements:
šu “hand” + bar “to open, release”
Sumerian šu búru “to open the hand”, a compound of two elements:
šu “hand” + bar “to open”
‘To open the hand’ usually suggests “to give”, “be generous’, hence the
adjective open-handed “giving freely”. This is what the combination of ša and
bar expresses in CA
šabara “to give”; šabaru “gift, giving”.
For Sumerian bar “open” and its HS cognate, see §3.2.1.2.3 above.
For Sumerian šu “hand”: CA šawā “the two hands and legs” with no sg. form.

Comments
We have just noted above two forms of the same Sumerian verb:
bar “to open”
búru “to open”.
This phenomenon, though common in Sumerian, has not been detected by
Sumerian scholars and, hence, unexplained. We can account for the phenomenon
as follows:
Sumerian bar corresponds to CA bar-
Sumerian búru corresponds to CA bur-
For a grammatical explanation of this phenomenon, see §4.1 below.
To revert to CA šawā, the original meaning of the word seems to be ‘limbs of
the body’, i.e. “hand, leg and head” and ther extremities: ‘fingers’ for hand and
legs and ‘skin of the upper head’ for the head. This division of the body contrasts
with the modern one: head, limbs (hand and leg) and ĝiδ‛u “body”, i.e. “trunk”. It
consists of three elements or proots:
ša- + -w-, an ancient pl. marker (see §4.2.1.1 below) + -ā, a dual marker,
the same as -ā- in ’uδun-ā “two ears”, etc. We may note here that the dual marker
is added to the plural form. This is not something that we should wonder at, e.g.
’antum “you pl.” > dual ’antum-ā “you both”.
For some other examples in which Sumerian šu and its HS cognates are found
in compounds, see §§3.3.6.13 and 3.3.6.14 below. In addition, CA -š is seen in

175
some triliterals such as ķaţaša, i.e. ķaţ “to cut” + š “limb, i.e. tail, hand or leg”:
see §3.2.1.23 above.
Hurrian šu-ni “hand”, -ni is a nominal suffix.

3.3.6.12 Sumerian šu-a-la “paralyzed”, a complex word including

šu “hand” + locative a + la “to bind, diminish”
HS: CA šulla “be paralyzed”: šalla “to paralyze” and applies exclusively to
the hand, i.e. hand + disabled; adj. ’a-šallu “one having crippled or disabled
(palm of the) hand and twisted wrist” (LA). It seems that, as in most cases,
locative -a- has been subject to progressive assimilation, becoming /-l-/.

3.3.6.13 Sumerian šu-ḡal(2) “to hold by the hand”, a compound of

šu “hand” + ḡal(2) “to place, to put”
The Sumerian compound is seen in its original form and signification in Arabic
dialects (Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian, etc.) in ša(n)kal “to hold by the hand” (as do
husband and wife, friends walking together). In CA šakala “to tie the leg and
hand (of an animal) with a rope and leave the two others free, to tie the legs (of an
animal) with a rope”; šākila-tu fem. “joint of thigh and leg”.
Among other roots including [š-] “hand” is CA šakaza “to prick with the
finger”, a compound of š- “hand, finger” and kazza “make tight, narrow”, said of
the teeth, “to gnash the teeth”, in modern dialects kazz “to press, compress”, but
šakaz does not exist.
The very same kaz is seen in CA nakaza “to prick with a thing with sharp tip, as
a needle, spear”.
Similar meanings (though not identical) are expressed by na-γaza, (and without
na-) γazza, naħaza, na-ħaša, etc. Of these naħaša seems to be cognate with
Sumerian ni(2)ħuš: §3.3.1.12 above.

3.3.6.14 Sumerian šu-tag “to decorate, touch, cover” includes the following
elements:
šu “hand” + tag “to weave, decorate”
HS: CA sataĝa “to weave with the fingers”, arch. for many centuries. It is
possible that this the original compound lying beneath HS [šty] “to weave” as in
CA sataya, sadaya id., Ug. šty “to weave”, etc.

3.3.6.15 Sumerian še (3, 7) , še(7) “rain, to rain”

šu “to pour” + to mete out
HS: CA šatā “to rain”; šitā’u “rain, winter”,
Akk. šatū “to drink”,
Ug., Aram., BHeb. šty “to drink”,
Egyp. sw “to drink”,
Berb. su “to drink”,
Chad.: Housa šā, etc. “to drink”.
176
Infixed /-t-/ is part of the root in Semitic: see DHSR: §3.8.12. The earlier Semitic
root is seen in CA šai’u “water”, obsolete for several centuries. In general
Cushitic so, zay, etc. “water” (cf. DHSR: §3.8.12).

3.3.6.16 Sumerian kuš, kus “skin, hide, leather”

HS: Egyp. gsw “skin, hide”, ygs id.

3.3.6.17 Sumerian kiši(4) “half”

HS: Egyp. gs “one half”, ygs id.
Perhaps CA ĝaušu “middle, i.e. between two halves” also ĝauzu id.

3.3.6.18 Sumerian kaš(4), kas(4) “speed; runner, courier, messenger; nonresident”;

vd. “to run fast; to gallop; to travel fast”
HS: Egyp gsί “to run”; gs-t “course, stride”,
Cush.: Oromo gusgusa “to trot”,
Somali goš “ply between two places”
Iraqw gus- “to drive away”,
Kaffa gaš- “to drive, trot”,
Chad.: Housa gusa “to move”,
Sura gyes “to move”. HSED, n. 902

3.3.6.19 Sumerian kúš “to be tired; to be out of breath; to worry”

aka “to do, act” + úš “dead”
HS: perhaps Egyp. gs’ “to be troubled”,
Perhaps CA ĝaša’ “a troubled soul due to fear, sorrow or ache; strained
condition” or gs’ “contraction of the muscles of the hand, grow old”, said of
anything “empty of life, desiccated”.

3.3.6.20 Sumerian kaš, kás “alcoholic beverage, beer”

HS: CA (Koranic 37: 45) ka’su “wine” also a term for ‘glass’ only when it
contains alcoholic beverage,
Egyp. k’s “sanctuary pot”.

3.3.6.21 Sumerian aš, aš-a “one”

HS: CA ħasā arch. “single, one, individual”,
Cush.: (Omotic) Yem ìs- “one”,
Chara iss- “one”

3.3.7 Sumerian /z/ and Hamito-Semitic correspondents

The true phonetic nature of Sumerian /z/ is difficult to determine. Foxvog
(2014: 21) considers Sumerian /z/ as being similar to English /z/. However, Early

177
Sumerian loanwords in Old Akkadian show that Sumerian /z/ was pronounced /s/
as in abzu “underground ocean” > Old Akkadian apsū.
Jagersma (§3.3.1) considers /z/ as a voiceless dental or alveolar affricate
pronounced as /ts/.

3.3.7.1 Sumerian zu, sú “wisdom, knowledge”; vb “to know; to understand”

3.3.7.1.1 Sumerian zu, sú “wisdom, knowledge” above
HS: Egyp. s’-t “wisdom, knowledge, learning”, sy’-t id.; s’w “wise man,
one who is educated”; with n-extension: syn “knowledge”,
Berb.: Shilђa san “to know, to understand”,
Cush.: (Omotic) Ari ’es “to know”,
CA *ya’sū “knowledge”: see §3.3.7.1.2 below.
For more HS cognate words, §3.3.7.4 below.

3.3.7.1.2 Sumerian zu, sú “to know” above

HS: Egyp. s’ “to know”; with r-extension: s’r “to act wisely”; s’r-t
“understanding”,
CA (Koranic, 13: 31) yay’asū “they knew”: DHSR: §3.6.8.

3.3.7.2 A Sumerian complex word based on sú, zu is nu-zu “ignorant”, a

compound of
nu “not” + zu “to know”
HS: CA nisy-ān is defined in LA as the opposite of “fixing in the memory”,
a compound of na, ni (in numerous compounds), -ni “not”, Egyp. n, nn, nί, n-t id.,
etc. (DHSR: §2.21.3) and -s’- “to know”; vb nasā ~ nasiya “to forget”,
OAram. nšy “to forget”,
Phoen. nšy “to forget”,
Akk. mašū (< našū) “to forget”, etc.
I mentioned in DHSR: §3.11.30 that CA ’a-swā “to forget” also includes the
negative [’a-] and shares with nasā the same origin. For HS negative ’a-, see
DHSR: §3.21.2.

3.3.7.3 Another Sumerian complex word is nu-zu-a “unknown”, consisting of

nu “not” + zu “to know” + a = nominative
HS: CA cognate is nas’a as in the following poem of Urwa bin Al-Ward
(born in pre-Islam):
saķūnī ’an nas’a θumma takannafūnī….
The meaning of each word is as follows:
saķūnī = they made me drink,
’an = the,
nas’a = no + mind,
θumma = then (or afterward),

178
 takannafūnī = they (themselves) blamed me or stopped me.
The word nas’a is one of many terms for “wine, liquor”, but it is distinguished
from them all in the very special characteristic of ‘wine, liquor’ it refers to and its
effect on the mind. It is the kind of ‘wine’ that “put an end to/cancel/do away
with/nullify the mind”, i.e. no mind (see LA). The word is usually pronounced
nasī’- as in Don’t drink nasī’an.

3.3.7.4 Sumerian azu, úzu, zu(5) “physician, doctor”

HS: Akk. āsū “physician”,
CA ’āsī “physician”; ’āsā “to treat medically”; ’isā’u “medicine”,
Aram. ’sy’ “medicine”,
Egyp. swn-t “the art of the physician; physician, doctor”.
Egyp. /-n/ of swn- is a suffix and is plainly evident that swn is derived from
[sa’ ~ ’as] “knowledge, wisdom”. Moreover, the same suffix /-n/ is seen in Egyp.
as in syn “knowledge” above as well as in other HS languages, e.g.
Chad.: Hausa sanii “to know”,
Dafo-Butura sun- “to know”,
Mokilko sun “to know”,
Berb.: Kabyle issin “to know”,
Twareķ essen “to know”.
It is to this root belong OE., OHG, ON wīs “wise”, Goth. -weis in un-weis
“unlearned”, etc. This Germanic root is usually traced to PIE *weid- “to know” as
in Goth., OE witan id., Skt. vid- id., Grk. oîda id., etc. = PHS [wada‛] “to know”
as in Akk. and gen. HS idū “to know”: see DHSR: §4.6.28.
It is very important here to draw attention to the fact that, due to the loss of
laryngeals, two different roots [ђdy] “to see” and [wd‛] “to know” fell together in
Akk. and in IE into one single form expressing both meanings:
Akk. īdū “to know” also “to see”, but in Ug., for example, the two meanings
are expressed by etymologically different roots: yd‛ “to know” and ђdy “to see”.
Lat. vidēre “to see” but Skt. vid- “to know”, while Grk eidon “to see”; oîda “to
know”: see DHSR: §4.6.28.

Returning to the notion of “physician; knowledge; wise”, the root is also seen
in IE as in Grk. īātros “physician”; īáomai “cure” < Grk. *izu, Skt. iş- “to
animate, set in motion, urge”: see DHSR: §4.10.45.

Comments
A question may be asked:
Is there any linguistic relationship between Egyp. words in §§3.3.7.1.1 and
3.3.7.1.2 above and Egyp. θί “learned man, scribe”, θ-t pl. “sages, learned men”
and bs “instructor, teacher, school-master”?

179
 There is indeed unquestionable relation between bs, i.e. ba’ + sa’, and s-
“knowledge, etc.”. The proot [ba-] is used as a prefix in all Hamito-Semitic
languages, and there is a chapter on this linguistic element in DHSR: §3.13.
The very same [ba-] above can also be prefixed to [θ-] to express a similar
meaning as in byθίw pl. “professional man”, a compound of
by “professional” + θί “learned man” (see DHSR: §§3.13.1 and
3.13.2).
Linguistically speaking, what does this suggest, and how it can be explained?
It seems that there had been originally a root [θ’ ~ ’θ] and later split into [-θ-],
[-s-], [-z-, through /δ/ or voicing of /s/], and perhaps others. The story of this
sound in world’s languages is, as mentioned in DHSR: §4.11, is sad and grievous.
It has been changed to /s, t, š, d, z, etc./ in nearly all of them. Even in HS, it is
only found in CA (in some of its modern dialects it is /s/ or /t/), ESA, Ug., and
Egyp. In these language, too, it interchanges position with other consonants such
as /s, t, š (esp. in CA), δ, d, z)/, and in some roots it had already been replaced by
some other sounds: see the developments of this sound in Semitic and Egyptian in
§1.2.1.2 above.

3.3.7.5 Sumerian izi “fire”

HS: CA ’azīzu “flame of fire, noise of fire heard when a fire flames up”;
’azza “to flame up a fire, to burn”,
BHeb. ’azā “to light, to kindle”,
BAram. ’z’ “to light, to kindle”.
Sumerian /z/ here could be originally a variant of /s/ or /š/. Hamito-Semitic ’az,
’ar, ’wr, ’as/’aš, ’rr, nwr, and many others are all from a proot *’aW- “fire”: see
DHSR: §3.17.1.
IE: Skt. uṣ- “to burn”, Lat. ūrare id., etc. are compared in DHSR: §4.10.44 with
the common HS word [’iš] as in Akk. ’iša-tu “fire”, Ug., OAram. ’š id., CA ’āsu
“traces of burning or of fire”; ’ussu “ashes”, etc. The proot for “fire” is given
above and suffixes such as -r, -š, -z, etc. are evidence that compounds like ’i-z, ’i-
š, etc. are inherited from their common source.

3.3.7.6 Sumerian uzu(5) “evening, sunset”

HS: CA musyu arch. “evening”, nowadays masā’u id.,
Akk. mūšū “night”, etc.
Both CA and Akk. words are from a compound consisting of
ma “time of” + šw “evening”
Egyp. sw “evening”; sw’, swί “night, darkness”, Akk. šiwī-tu “evening”:
DHSR: §3.10.13.

180
 It is difficult to tell whether Egyp. ’š “evening” (wš “darkness, night”) is
cognate with CA ‛išā’ “evening, sunset”, or whether all words given above are
variant forms of one earlier proot.

3.3.7.7 Sumerian ezinu “grain, cereal; the deity Ašnan”

HS: CA zu’ānu, zuwānu, zawān and ’aznā’u (all pl., no sg. form)
“undesirable seed similar to the grain and always mixed with it”. It is usually
sorted out and thrown away.

3.3.7.7.1 Sumerian ezinu “the deity Ašnan” above

HS: CA zūnu (< zuwānu or zu’ānu) “worshiped idol, god”.

3.3.7.8 Sumerian zal, zalag, zalaħ “brightness, light”; adj. “pure, bright, radiant”;
vb “to shine, to illuminate, to cleanse, to purify”
HS: CA *zalla “be pure”, hence zulālu “pure, unmixed, purified”; zalūlu
“smooth, glossy”, zalĝu “soft”, zalħu “smooth, soft”. All roots beginning with zl-,
also express “to slip, glide, slide, ski; slippery, smooth” and so do IE similar roots
as in Ir. sliogaim “to smooth, polish”, OCS slîkûtu “slippery”, Bulgarian klizati
“to slide, glide”, etc. see

3.3.7.9 Sumerian: Emesal ze(2)ed “to hit, beat”; Emegir tud(2) id.
HS: CA δa’aţa ~ δa’ata “to kill someone by strangling him”. The
interchange of /-ţ-/ and /-t-/ suggest and earlier /ḏ/, which cannot occur because of
sequential constraint. As in most cases, we can shift the order of radicals and the
result would be da’aḏa id. The reason for /d-/ instead of /δ-/ is also due to
sequential constraint. A sequence like δa’aḏa in impermissible.
IE: Skt. taḍ- “to strike”: tāḍayati 3rd sg. “strikes”; tāḍa- “a blow”, with no IE
cognates.

3.3.7.10 Sumerian zur “to arrange, tend, to offer, to pray; prayer, sacrifice”
HS: Egyp. sr “to arrange, to order, to decree, to exult”; srwt “praises,
glorifications”.

3.4 Sumerian nasal consonants

Sumerian had two nasals a bilabial /m/ and dental /n/, each represented by a
number of sound signs. These two nasals present no problem and are the same as
Akkadian /m/ and /n/ respectively.
There is still a consonant represented here with the symbol /ḡ/ (spelled gá, gi(6),
ge(26), gu(10) and generally considered by scholars as a nasal velar /ŋ/ similar to
English /-ng/ in king (Foxvog, 2014: 20). The exact phonetic composition of
Sumerian /ḡ/, however, is not certain. Sumerian loanwords in Akkadian show that

181
the Akkadians heard Sumerian initial /ḡ/ as /k/ or /g/ and Sumerian final /ḡ/ as /n/,
e.g.
Akk. abšanu ‘yoke, harness’ < Sumerian áb-sag,
Akk. huršanu ‘mountain’ < Sumerian hur-sag.
For a more detailed discussion of Sumerian /ḡ/, see §3.4.3 below.

3.4.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /m/

3.4.1.1 Sumerian má “boat”
HS: Egyp. m’ “part of a boat”, m’‛ “a boat” also “cordage of a boat” and “to
sail”.

3.4.1.2 Sumerian ma(4) “to leave, depart, go out”

HS: Egyp. ym’‛, with caus. y- (< HS /’-/), “make to travel” from the root
[m’‛]: m’‛m’‛ (with reduplication) “to go, to journey, to go straight to a place”,
ultimately related to Egyp. m “to come” and CA ’amma “to go to”. In addition,
Egyp. m’‛ is apparently related to CA [my‛] in mā‛a “to move along, run, flow”.
Sumerian ma4, together with its HS cognate, will be broken down to its
ultimate parts in §3.4.1.13 below.

3.4.1.3 Sumerian maš, máš “interest (of a loan); profit; produce”

ma(4) “to leave, depart, go out” + šè “portion”
HS: Egyp. ms-t “interest, usury”,
BHeb. mašā “usury, loan, debt, money borrowed”

3.4.1.4 Sumerian umu, um “wise or skillful teacher, nurse; old woman”

On the basis of the signification of Sumerian um, I divide it into um1 “wise or
skillful teacher” and um(2) ”old woman, nurse”. The division is done here for the
sake of comparison regardless of whether the two terms are ultimately related in
one way or the other.
a) Sumerian um1 “wise or skillful teacher”
HS: CA ’umma-tu (Koranic) “a unique + wise + perfect + knowledgeable
teacher”,
Egyp. ’m “to know”.

b) Sumerian um2 ”old woman, nurse”

HS: Akk. amatu “maid, female slave”,
Phoen. ’mt “slave girl, servant”,
OAram. ’mh “slave girl, servant”,
CA ’ama-tu “female slave, maid”
Cush.: Iraqw ama “grandmother”,
Burunge ama “sister”,
Sidamo ama “woman, wife, mother”,

182
 Chad.: Wargla am “woman”,
Ngizim ama “woman”,
Diri am “woman”.

3.4.1.5 Sumerian mí, mu(10), munus “female, woman”

HS: Chad.: Ngamo mīno “woman, wife”,
Kera maanǝ “co-wife”,
Gude munii “woman”,
Musgum minne “woman”,
Cush.: Sidamo meen-to pl. “woman”,
Alaa mεεn “woman”,
Iraqw ameni “wife”,
Burunge ameni “wife” (HSED, n. 1700).
It is possible that CA may fem. without a feminine marker (~ maya-tu, variant
with a fem. marker -tu) “female monkey” belongs here.

3.4.1.6 Sumerian máh is an adjective for cows

HS: CA mahā [r. mhy] “wild cows”; mahā-tu fem. “a wild cow”. The term
mahā, as referring strictly to “a wild cow”, is rarely used for several centuries.
The only derivative that has been in common use throughout the history of the
language is mahā as a descriptive term for the beautiful and charming eyes of that
cow: see below.
Egyp. mhy-t “a group of cow-goddesses”.
This HS root has already been studied in 3.3.2.4 above.

3.4.1.7 Sumerian mu(5) “well-formed, beautiful; plump, fattened”.

HS: Egyp. m’w “gentleness, softness”,
Cush.: Oromo mia “sweet”.
Perhaps CA [mys] is a possible cognate: maisū-nu “(one with) beautiful face and
stature”; maisā-nu “full moon”; mayasīn “luminous stars”.

IE: Skt. mayas- “delight, joy”, OCS mio “love”, Lat. mītis “gentle, soft, mild”,
etc. DHSR: §4.14.34.

3.4.1.8 Sumerian múš-dub “comb”, a compound of

“appearance” + “to heap up”
HS: perhaps CA mušţu, mušuţu “comb”, where CA /đ/ of [đb] to “heap
up” changed to /ţ/, since a sequence muš(u)đu is impermissible.
As to Sumerian múš “appearance”, it may be = CA mušāšu “one’s nature”.
For Sumerian dub “to heap up, store”, see §3.2.2.19 above.

3.4.1.9 Sumerian maš “young male goat, goat, buck, gazelle”

183
 HS: Egyp. ms “bull calf”. Perhaps CA māšiya- coll. “sheep and goats”, Sab.
ms²y, ms²w “take along sacrificial animal”.

3.4.1.10 Sumerian mušen “bird”

HS: CA mušra-tu fem. “small bird”.

3.4.1.11 Sumerian mù, ma(5) “to mill, grind” also “to burn”
HS: Egyp. m’ “to reap, harvest” also “to burn up”; ma’-t “incense”
Hurrian am trans. “to burn”. Its initial /a/ is from caus. /’a-/

3.4.1.12 Sumerian múd “blood”

HS. The cognate could be either
a) Common HS dm “blood” as in Ug. dm, CA damu, OAram. dm, etc.,
where the correspondence here involves metathesis.
b) The root in CA midda-tu fem. “pus from a wound”, Cush.: Oromo
mada “wound, sore”, etc.
c) The root in CA maḏḏu “liquid from certain plants whose color is the
same as blood”. When camels eat such plants, their mouths become stained (as if)
with blood.

3.4.1.13 Sumerian ma(3) “to go”

HS: CA ’amma “to go to (or toward a place), to come to”, used esp. when
one intentionally or purposely ‘goes to/comes to’ a place,
Egyp. m’, my, yn “to come”, with prefixed n-: nmy “to go”; mί “come!”,
Tigre ’ammämä “to go toward a direction”,
Chad.: Gisiga me “to go”,
Masa mai “to come”,
Bolewa maa “to return”,
Mobu maye “to outrun”,
Sbn mwǝ “to enter”,
Cush.: Saho ma “to come”,
Afar ma “to come”.
Among the language families preserving the stem are:
Thai-Kudai: Thai maa “to come”,
Lao ma “to come”,
Shan maa “to come”,
Buyang ma “to come”,
Zhuang mal “to come”.
Altaic: Oreqen ǝmǝ- “to come”.
Austronesian: Tetum mai “to come”,
Favoring mai “to come”,
184
 Bimanese mai “come, come on!, let’s go”,
Rembong mai “come, come on!, let’s go”,
Iloano um “to come”,
Cebuano ume “to come”,
Chamorro maila “to come”,
Ibanag umay “to come”.

Quechue: Southern Quechue hamuy “to come”.

Alor-Pantor: Teiwa ma “to come”,

Nedebang ma “to come”,
Kaera ma “to come”,
Western Panter ma “to come”,
Kui mai “to come”,
Kamang me: “to come”,
Wersing amai “to come”,
Blagar ma “to come”.
All words above are from a compound consisting of at least two major
elements: a proot [y] “to come” and prefix m-, perhaps meaning “toward, to”, and
is seen as a suffix and a prefix: CA ma-š’ama-tu ~ ša’ma-tu “to the left,
northward, i.e. toward the north”: see DHSR: §3.17.27. It is also a preposition in
Egyp.: cf. m “at, on, in, out from, from, etc.”

The proot [y or ’ay ~ ’ai] “to come” also “to go” has been preserved intact in
many language families, e.g.
Hamito-Semitic: Egyp. yί “to come, to go”, y(w) “to come”, ’yw “to come”, etc.,
Cush.: Sidamo ’e “to enter”,
Ometo ai “to come”,
Yem ye “to come”,
Bench wū “to come”,
Chad.: Dera ya “to go”,
Daba ya “to come”,
Diri ’a- “to come”,
Tumak a- “to go”,
Masa iy “to come”.

Austronesian: Ilokano ay “to come”; um-ay id.,

Tiruray ’ay “to go, to come”,
Tboli ee “come on!”.

Hokan: Cocopa yii “to come”,

Ipai weyiw “to come”,
Kiliwa yaa “to come”.
185
Korean o- “to come”
Manchu yi “to come”.

Finno-Ugaric: Hungarian yön “to come”,

North Mansi yi “to come”.

Indo-European: Skt. yā-“to go”,

Av. yā- “to go”,
Lith. joti “to go”,
Hitt. ya- “to go, march”,
Toch. A yā “to go”; it imper. “come!”,
Luwian i-ita “went”, etc. see DHSR: §4.17.10.

3.4.1.14 Sumerian eme “speech, tongue”

HS: Assyr. atmū “speech, word”; amū “to speak”; amā-tu “word;
command”, uštami caus. “to think”,
Chad.: Tangale yim “to think”,
Lame Pewe wum “to teach”: see DHSR: §3.3.8 for the origin
of the word and its developments in HS languages.

3.4.1.15 Sumerian méli, míli, mèl, mél and ḡèle, ḡìli “throat, pharynx; voice”. For
their HS cognate words, see §3.4.3.15 below.

3.4.1.16 Sumerian mel(3) “scorching”

HS: CA mallu “very hot ashes in which one put bread to be well-done”;
malla-tu “the kind of bread done in this way”; malla “to heat ashes”.

3.4.1.17 Sumerian tam(2), tamu(2, 3) “to obtain, to be suitable, fit, to deliver, cary
out”, consists of
ta(2) “from” + u(4) “food” + ma(2) “to leave”
HS: Phoen., Pun. tmm “to complete, accomplish”; tm “perfect”,
BHeb. tāmam “to complete, to perfect”; tāmīm “whole, sound, perfect,
good”, with k-ext.: tāmak “to obtain, acquire”,
CA tammama “to complete, accomplish, cary out”; tāmmu “complete,
perfect, entire”, ’itmāmu “fulfillment, completion, execution”,
Egyp. tmm “to complete, finish; all, complete, the whole”: t’my “what is
fitting, seemly”.

3.3.1.18 Sumerian mer(2), mir(2) “belt, waistband”. This Sumerian root seems to be
historically different from its homophonic in §3.3.3.11 above.
HS: CA mauru “rotation, revolving” as a vb māra “to go + come back + be
hesitant + be upset” also “to turn and be hesitant”
Sab. mwr “to besiege”,

186
 Egyp. mr-t “girdle, band”, mr “to fetter, tie together”,
Chad.: Tangale mari “to twist, turn”,
Cush.: Oromo maar-, marra “to roll, wind, wrap”; marto “apron”,
Iraqw marra “to twist”.

3.3.1.19 Sumerian mana, mina, man, mìn “partner; companion”

HS: Egyp. mntί “compatriot”.
Egyp. mntί is related to mnί “soldier”, mnђ “young man”, etc., Akk. and common
Semitic man (in compounds) “man” as in Sem. ’alman-tu fem. “widow”, i.e. no
(=’al) man (= man): see DHSR: §3.21.2.2.
IE: Skt. manu- “man”, Goth. and common Grm. manna “man”, Phrygian manes
“man”, etc. see DHSR: §4.14.15.

3.3.1.20 Sumerian muš “snake”

HS: Egyp. ms “serpent”,
Cush.: Somali mas “snake”.

3.3.1.21 Sumerian mes, meš “son, prince, young man”

HS: Egyp. ms “son, child”; Ms “chief prince”; msί “to bear, give birth to”.

3.3.1.22 Sumerian mes ~ meš above also denotes “hackberry tree in the elm
family, also known as nettle tree”. Halloran, 2006: 174.
HS: Akk. mēsu “a kind of tree”,
Chad.: Chip mεs “mahogany”,
Mupun mes “locust-bean”,
Logone mesā “tamarind”,
Cush.: Bambala mi’ēsā “cedar” (HSED, n. 1766).
The tree is in CA maisu [r. mys] “nettle tree”.

3.4.2. Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /n/

3.4.2.1 Sumerian en(2, 3) “time”
HS: CA ’ān, ’innā, ’awān, “time” and is seen in many compounds as in ’al
’ān “now”, lit. “this (= ’al) + time (= ’ān)” and ’ayyāna (from ’ay + ’ān) “when”:
’ay “what” and ’ān “time”,
Assyr. anu “when”,
Egyp. nw “time” (cf. DHSR: §3.20.7).
IE: Skt. nūnam “now”, Lat. nunc id., OCS nynê id., OE and common Germanic
nū id. (DHSR: §4.15.14).

187
3.4.2.2 Sumerian na(4), na “pebble, rock, ordinary stone; stone weight; token;
hailstone”.
HS: Egyp. n’ “a kind of stone”, yn “stone”: see §§ 3.2.1.3 [HS par] above
and 3.4.2.13 below.
Burushaski an “stone”.

3.4.2.3 Sumerian na(5) “chest, box”

HS: Egyp. nyw “pot, vessel”,
Chad.: Jegu naayo “mug”,
Akk. enūt, unūt “vase”,
CA ’inā’ “vessel, utensil”,
Phoen. m-n “vessel, precious object” (DHSR: §3.10.22).

3.4.2.4 Sumerian mina, min(5, 6) “two; second”, consisting of

mí “woman” + na “distinct things”, because a woman has two
breasts.
HS: Egyp. mndί-t “the breast, the bosom of a woman”. We have already seen
that Egyp. -d is used as a suffix to express “two”: see §3.2.3.8 above.

3.4.2.5 Sumerian nè, ní “strength, vigor, violence; forces, host”

HS: Egyp. nħt “strength, force, might, violence”,
CA naħwa-tu “bravery, valor”.

3.4.2.6 Sumerian nu “image, likeness”

HS: Egyp. nn “image, likeness”.

3.4.2.7 Sumerian an “sky, heaven; the god An” also “grain ear/date cluster”; prep.
“in front” which is a compound of two elements:
a “water” + -n “high”.
Sumerian *Wa-n *water + high = HS n-W(’) “high + water” (see
§3.2.3.6.1.1)
HS: Egyp. nw, nnw, nwnw “sky-god”; nw-t “the sky-goddess”; nw “mass of
water” (and perhaps n’nw “grains”),
CA nau’u “star” and “any one of the 28 divisions of the moon’s
monthly path”
Chad.: Sura nān “god”,
Angas nen “god”,
Montol nān “god”,
Ankwe nān “god”,
Mupun nān “god”. Cf. Egyp. nwnw “the sky-god”.
3.4.2.7.1 Sumerian an “to be high”; adj. “high” above

188
 HS: CA naw’u “rising, raising” also “water (from a star ?)”; nā’a “raise, to
rise (star)”, with h-extension: nāha “to rise and become higher, be high” (for the
BHeb. cognate, see OT, 656), with p-extension: nāfa “be high, lofty”, BHeb. nwp
“to lift up, elevate”, etc.

3.4.2.7.2 Sumerian an prep. “in front” above

HS: CA nawā “the direction (lit. the face) you want to go to (and is
supposed to be in front of you or in the direction of your face)”.
Although CA nawā didn’t develop into a prep. “in front, toward the front”, yet
the word is found as a preposition in related languages as in Sab. nwyt “in the
vicinity of, around”, Palm. nwyt “next to”, etc.

3.4.2.8 Sumerian na “human being” also used as modal prefix, emphatic in past
tense; prohibitive in present/future tense.
Hamito-Semitic, like other language families, has many words for “human
being; man”, with each having its distinct etymology. For example, [wn] as in
Egyp. wnn “a human being”; wn “an auxiliary verb” is from the notion “to be, to
exist”, [nr] as in Egyp. nr “mankind” is from the notion “strong”, etc.
HS: CA ’anām pl. “human being”, a compound of two elements: ’an
“breath, sigh, soul”. For HS roots beginning with [’an-], see DHSR: §3.11.90. The
first element is also present in IE as in Skt. ani-ti “breathes”, Goth. anan “to
breathe”, etc. DHSR: §3.15.12. The second element [-m] is the HS plural marker.
ESA ’nm “mankind”, in Sab. ’nm “populace in general”,
Egyp. ’nmw “human beings”,
Syr. ’nm’ “army”,
Cush.: Somali nin “man”,
Oromo namaa “man”,
Afar nuum “man”,
(Omotic) Ari ’aŋ “man”.
Another term for ‘human being’ based on stem [’an] is CA ’ns coll., OAram. ’nš
coll., BHeb. ’enōš, etc. see DHSR: §3.11.90, n. e.

Comments
There is a close connection between ‘man, human being’, ‘be, exist’ and later
derivatives ‘breathe; breath’ and it seems that Sumerian na above, en “lord”
(§3.4.2.10 below), nir “lord” (§3.4.2.12), etc. as well as all above-cited HS and IE
words and many others (see DHSR: 3.15.12) are based on a proot bearing little
resemblance to its surface forms– it is [’ay-] or [’aw-]. The diphthong has often
been mophthongized in most derivatives as the following additional related roots
show:

189
 1) HS-IE ’aw-θ- “to be, to live, dwell” as in CA ba-wθa “to be”, Egyp. yw “to be”,
yw-t “act of being”, ywyw-t “abode”, OAram. ’yty “there is” = Goth. wisan “to be”, OE,
OHG wesan id., Skt. vasati “dwells”, Av. vāstu- “house”. DHSR: §4.16.3.

2) HS-IE [’aw-r] “man” as in Egyp. ’wr “human being” = Lat. vir “man”, Skt. vīra- id.
etc. DHSR: 4.16.31

3) HS-IE [’aw-š ~’ay-š] “to be” also “man” CA ’aysa “to be” and is most commonly
occurring in laysa “not to be”, BHeb. yeš “to exist”, Assyr. išu “to be” and with negative
/l-/ laššu “there is not”, OAram lyš id. = Skt. asti- “to be”, Hitt. eš-zi “is”, Goth. ist, OIr.
is, W. ys id., DHSR: §4.10.41.
Here also belong Phoen., Moabite, OAram., Samal ’š “man”, OffAram., EHeb. ’š, ’yš
id. NWSI I, 115ff: CA ba-’su “strength”.

3.4.2.9 Sumerian na is used as modal prefix, emphatic in past tense; prohibitive in

present/future tense (§3.4.2.8 above)
HS: CA ’an ~ ’in, together with four other particles, is called by Arab
grammarians a particle resembling or similar to verbs. It has well-defined
syntactic functions and can modify the meaning of the utterance. One of its major
semantic function is ‘affirmation or emphasis’ and it is too close to the meaning
expressed by English assuredly or verily, e.g. ’al waladu marīđun “the boy (is)
sick” > ’inna ’al walada marīđun.
While Sumerian an is emphatic in past tense, CA -na is emphatic in the present
and future tenses, e.g.
li-naktubu “let us write” > li-naktubanna, sa-naktubu “we will write” > sa-
naktubanna. (Koran 12: 41, 16: 97.
It can occur as a separate word (affirmative) as in the Koran ’inna haδāni la-
sāђirān = These two are certainly two sorcerers (20: 63) or as a suffix as has been
shown above.
In Egyp. yn functions as a mark of emphasis and it also indicates the subject of
a sentence.
It may be interesting to mention that [-na] is a past tense marker: see DHSR:
§3.17.37.

3.4.2.10 Sumerian en “dignitary; lord; high priest; ancestor (statue); diviner”;

HS: Egyp. ‛n “a man of noble qualities”,
CA’a-‛yān pl. “dignitary, chief, lord, master”.
a compound of ‛ “great” + ’n “human being”

3.4.2.10.1 Sumerian en adj. “noble”

HS: Egyp. ‛n adj. “noble” as in ‛n ђ’-t “noble heart” (ђ’-t “heart”).

3.4.2.11 Sumerian nu(11) “light; fire, lamp”

190
 HS: Phoen. nr “light, lamp”,
Ug. nr “lamp”; nyr “to shine”,
CA nāru “fire”; nūru “light”,
BAram. nwr “fire”, etc.
All, including Sumerian nu(11) above, are developments of an earlier proot [’aw
or ’au]. See DHSR: §3.17.1.

3.4.2.12 Sumerian nir “prince, lord”; vb “to overcome, vanquish; to raise high”;
adj., “victorious”, a compound of three elements
to be high + to go out + to flow
HS: Egyp. nr “be master of, be strong, mighty”; nrr “to rule, be master
of”; nry “conqueror, vanquisher”; nrίt adj. victorious”; nr-t “mankind”.
CA ’istanāra CX of nāra “to triumph over, be victorious” as in the
pre-Islamic poetry of A‛sha:
…wa ķābala (’a)l ķauma fa ’istanāra.
IE: OIr. nrt “strength”: OBr. ner “lord”, Oscan, Umbrian ner- “men of rank,
officials”, Skt. nar- “worrior, man”, An. nar- “man”.
There seems to be an ultimate relationship between [nr] and [n‛r]. There is no
doubt at all that {n-r} had originally included a medial semivowel, most likely /w/
or less likely /y/, which was lost later, except in Grk, in CA and in Egyp. nwr’
“victory”.
A consideration of Grk anēr “man”, Phrygian anar “man” and CA nu‛aru
“child”; na‛ara, saif of people, “to gather for war” also “to rise” compels me to
reconstruct PHS-IE *na‛ar. See DHSR: §4.13.15.

3.4.2.13 Sumerian nír “a precious stone with black and white flecks”
HS: Egyp. ynr “stone”; ynrίt “worked stone, stone, pebble”; ynr (ђđ)
“(white) limestone”,
CA nūra-tu “a kind of stone that can be burned and used to make lime
and is also used to shave the hair of the pudenda”; nu’rūr “a small stone that
gives, when broken down, a good smell”.
See §3.4.2.2 above.

3.4.3 Sumerian /ḡ/ and its Hamito-Semitic correspondent

As has already been mentioned in §3.4 above, Sumerian loanwords in
Akkadian show that the same Sumerian /ḡ/ appears in Akkadian in very different
phonemic forms, depending on its position in the Sumerian borrowed words.
Foxvog (2014: 20) writes:
“The Akkadian sound system did not feature this phoneme, and the
Akkadian lexical texts consequently spelled out Sumerian signs or

191
 words containing it only approximately, usually rendering it with a
/g/, sometimes also with an /n/ or /m/, also with /ng/ or /mg/”.
Word-initial Sumerian /ḡ/ is reflected in Akkadian as /g/ or /k/:
Akk. gušuru ‘beam (of wood)’ (Sumerian ḡiš-ùr),
Akk. kiškanû “a tree” (Sumerian ḡiš-kín),
Akk. kiškattû ‘craftsmen’ (Sumerian ḡiš-kíḡ-ti).
Word-final /ḡ/ is reflected as /n/ and sometimes as /m/:
Akk. abšanu ‘yoke, harness’ (Sumerian áb-saḡ),
Akk. h~uršanu ‘mountain’ (Sumerian h~u~ r-saḡ),
Akk. pišannu ‘basket’ (Sumerian pisaḡ),
Akk. uršanu ‘hero’ (Sumerian ur-saḡ).
Sumerian /ḡ/ between vowels is reflected as /ng/ or /mg/: Akk. šangû ‘temple
administrator’ (Sumerian saḡḡa, sanḡa = /saḡa/).
It can be said that the Akkadians perceived Sumerian /ḡ/ as similar to their
nasals and their velar stops depending on its position in the word. Relying on this
Akkadian evidence, scholars tend to believe that the sound in question was a velar
nasal /ŋ/, pronounced the same as English final /-ng/ in king /kɪŋ/. Since the
Akkadian phonological system lacked this sound, the Akkadians used the sounds
which were closest to it in pronunciation, i.e. nasals and velar stops. This
reasonable explanation gives rise to two possibilities, of which the second is more
reliable:
i) The consonant in question was a velar nasal /ŋ/,
ii) The consonant was originally neither a velar nasal nor a dental nasal. The
consonant interchanges position with a number of phonetically different
consonants, esp. /k, g, m/, which may imply that it could have been distinct from
them all, for example
gín, giḡ(4): “small ax(-head) used as money”,
ùḡa, ùḡ, ùku, un(-ḡá) “people; population; crowd”,
áḡa, áḡ, áka, ám “to measure out, mete; to measure (length, area, capacity,
time); to check”,
ḡi(6), ḡe(6), gi(25) mi, mé, ku(10), ku; “night”,
šeg(8, 9), šeḡ(3) “snow”, etc.
The Akkadians’ perception of the sound as [n, ng/k/, m, mg, k/g] is evidence
that the Sumerian consonant was imperfectly learned by the Akkadians, who
acquired Sumerian as a second language. Accordingly, it could have been
phonetically different from all its Sumerian and Akkadian variants. In addition,
not every variant thought of as such is indeed a Sumerian variant– the variant is
of different root: for evidence, see, for example, §§3.4.3.1 and 3.4.3.15 below. Of
the following three points of view regarding the phonetic nature of Sumerian /ḡ/,
the third seems to be the closest to truth:

192
 1) Sumerian /ḡ/ was perhaps a consonant with two different points or/and
manners of articulation. Among sounds having such characteristics are /tš < t + š/
as in church and /dž < d + ž/ as in judge. Egyptian, too, has a similarly articulated
consonant, i.e. with two points and manners of articulation, and includes the
bilabial /m-/ and the voiced laryngeal /-‛/, both can be represented with the
symbol /ḿ < m + ‛/.

2) Examples of consonants with two points of articulation are HS emphatic

such as the voiceless /ţ/ and /ş/ which have in common with voiceless /t/ and /s/
respectively the same primary point of articulation (apicodental) and manner of
articulation, but differ from them in one single phonetic feature; the back of the
tongue is raised toward the velum.

3) A third and most likely possibility is that the Sumerian was a palatal stop
like CA /ĝ/, a rare sound in world languages and does not exist in any other
Semitic language. It has been split in Modern Standard Arabic and dialects into
four consonants; it is /dž/ (e.g. in Iraq) or /ž/ (e.g. in Lebanon), /g/ (e.g. in Egypt),
and /y/ in some Gulf dialects, esp. Kuwait. The fact that Sumerian /ḡ/ corresponds
to HS /g/ seems to support nothing save this view.

3.4.3.1 Sumerian gíg, ḡíg, gi(6), ge(6), ḡi(6), ḡe(6), ku(10), gi(25), mi, mé “night”; vb “to
be dark or black”; adj. “black, dark”: cf. kukku also expresses “darkness, dark”
HS: Egyp. kk, kky “darkness”; caus. s-kk “make dark” ~ ķķ-t “night” also
“darkness”; ķķy id, ħħw “darkness, night”, Copt. kake id.,
Assyr. kukku “darkness”,
Cush.: Agaw ki “to spend the night”,
Bilin ki “to spend the night”,
Quara ki “to spend the night”,
Sidamo gi “to spend the night”
IE: Lat. caecus “blind”, Goth haihs “one-eyed”.

Sumerian mi, mé “night” is not a variant form of gi(6), ge(6), etc. above, but
rather belongs etymologically to a different root. The HS cognate is the root [‛my]
“darkness; blind(ness)” as in CA ‛amā “blindness”; ‛amā’u “dense or black
clouds”, Mand. amm “to grow dim”, NWS ‛mh3 “darkness”: see NWSI II, 867.

3.4.3.2 Sumerian ḡiri(5), ḡir(5) “stranger” also “refugee”; vb “to run, trot; to seek
refuge”.

3.4.3.2.1 Sumerian ḡiri(5), ḡir(5) “stranger, refugee” above

HS: CA ĝāru “stranger, foreigner”,
Ug. gr “foreigner”,
Palm. gr “foreigner”,

193
 Syr. gīyōrā “foreigner”,
Ge’ez gor “foreigner, neighbor”.

3.4.3.2.2 Sumerian ḡiri(5), ḡir(5) vb “to run” also “to seek refuge” above
HS: CA ’istaĝāra, CX of [ĝwr], “to come to someone or a tribe and ask
for protection or help”. The imperative form of this verb is ĝurĝur! and signifies
“run!”. All are from a root [ĝwr].
The widely used verb for “to run, to flow” in the language, however, is ĝarā,
root [ĝry ~ ĝrw], perhaps Egyp. grr “to run away”.
Thamudian gr-t “protection”
Syriac gǝrā “to flow”,
Harsusi gerō “to run”,
Mehri gerō “to flow”,
Chad.: Logone gǝr “to go”,
Dera gur- “to come”,
Tera gǝri “to return”,
Sibin gǝr “to come”.
IE: Lith. greitas “quick, swift”, Latvian greits “lively”.

3.4.3.3 Sumerian ḡánun “storage area”, consisting of

ḡar “storeroom” + nun “noble”
HS: CA ĝarīnu “the area where collected dates and crops are stored” also “area
where grain is threshed, threshing floor”; garana “to grind grain vehemently”,
Akk. ma-grānu “threshing floor”,
Ug. grn “threshing floor”,
Sab. grn “threshing floor”.
IE: OIr. gran “grain”, Welsh grawn, Lat. granum “grain”, OCS zirno, zruno,
Goth and gen. Germanic kaurn “grain”. DHSR: §4.4.36.

3.4.3.4 Sumerian ḡar “to establish, set down, place”

HS: Egyp. gr, grg “to establish, found”; grg “to make habitable, to furnish”;
grgwt pl. “homestead, settlement”,
CA ma-garru “room, corridor”,
Harari gār “room, house”,
Wolane gar “house”,
Selti gār “house”,
Zway gār “house”,
Cush.: Somali guri “house”,
Oromo goro “division in a house made of dhurra stalks”,
Bambala gore “shed”,
Chad.: Housa garii “town”.

194
All are related to Amharic gʷāro, Tigrigna gʷāro “a small land behind the house
used as a store”, Gafat gʷāra, Tigre gǝray, Gurage gʷār id.

IE: Skt. gṛha- “house”, Goth. gards “house”, Ir. gargan, graig “village”. DHSR:
§4.4.32.

3.4.3.5 Sumerian ḡir(5)-ra “courier”, consisting of

ḡir(5) “to run, trot” + -ra nominative
HS: CA ĝariy “messenger (between tribes)”.

3.4.3.6 Sumerian ḡiri(2, 3), ḡir(2, 3) “booty; captive”; vb “to pillage; to capture; to
drive away; to take away; to be taken”
HS: Egyp. gr “to drive away, reject”; grgr “to destroy, demolish”,
Akk. garū “be hostile”; gērū “enemy”,
Ug. gr “to attack”,
BHeb. hit-gāre “to combat, fight” also “wage war against”,
Berb.: Kabyle girra “war”; grurey “be demolished, ruined”.
IE: Grk khráō “to attack, fight”, Lith. griauti “to destroy”, Latvian graut id.
DHSR: §4.4.28.

3.4.3.7 Sumerian ḡi(6)-sá “stay to midnight”, a compound of two proots:

ḡi(6) “night” + sá “to make equal”
HS: Akk. gēšu “to spend the night”,
CA ĝāša “to move at night”; ĝu’šūšu, ĝaušu, said esp. of the night,
“midnight” (~ ĝauzu id.), and with the expected /-s/: ĝawasā-nu “to roam about at
night”; vb ĝāsa. Even the root ĝš’ expresses a similar meaning: ĝaša’a “to
become dark, darken”; ĝuš’a-tu “blowing of wind at dawn”.

3.4.3.8 Sumerian ḡir(2) “scorpion” also “sword, knife, razor, thorn”

3.4.3.8.1 Sumerian ḡir(2) “scorpion” above
HS: CA ĝarāra-tu fem. “yellow scorpion”.

3.4.3.8.2 Sumerian ḡir(2) “sword, knife, razor, thorn” above

HS: CA ’aĝarra caus. “to pierce with a spear”,
BHeb. mə-gērā “a saw”; gārar “to cut with a saw”.

3.4.3.9 Sumerian ḡír-dù “to cut off (?)”, a compound of

ḡír see §3.4.3.8 above + dù “to erect”
HS: Aram. gərad “to scratch, scrape”,
Pun. m-grd “scratcher, scraper”,
Syr. grd “to raze, shave”
CA ĝarada “to peel, to pare, trim”,

195
 Amharic gurade “a kind of sword”,
Harari gurāde “a kind of sword”,
Tigre gǝrade “a kind of sword”.
CA ĝarrada, said of the sword, “to draw from its sheath” is based on ĝarra
(§3.4.3.8 above). A question arises: what is meant by “to draw a sword from its
sheath” as expressed by CA ĝarrada? Is it just to draw it or pull it out or to pull it
out and raised? Drawing a sword from its sheath (in a battle, in conflict with
someone, etc.) also implies ‘raising it’.

3.4.3.10 Sumerian ḡír-zal “scalpel”, consisting of

ḡír “knife” + zal “to shine”
HS: CA ĝuruzu “sword with sharp blades”: ĝaraza “to cut off”. Note that
*ĝrzl does not exist in the language.
For Sumerian zal, see §3.3.7.8 above.

3.4.3.11 Sumerian níḡ-ra: “to throw something; to beat (up)”, a compound

consisting of
níḡ “thing” + ra “to strike”
HS: CA naĝara “to beat up, to keep on beating” in a fixed expression “to
punish”.
For Sumerian níḡ “thing”: perhaps Egyp. nky, nķ-t pl. “thing”.

3.4.3.12 Sumerian hur-saḡ “mountain” > Akk. ħuršanu ‘mountain’. It is also seen
in some other Semitic languages as in BHeb. ђoreš “forest”, Ug. ħrš “mountain”,
etc.
Sumerian hur-saḡ may be compared with CA ђaraĝa-tu coll. fem., ђirāĝu pl.
“area of intertwined trees”.

3.4.3.13 Sumerian ḡiš, ḡeš “tree; wood; stick, wooden implement” is a compound
of at least two elemts *Wg or *gW + -*š.
A close HS cognate is the root in Egyp. yg “a kind of wood”, CA ’aĝa-ma-tu
fem. pl. “thicket of tree, jungle”, OffAram., JAram. ’gmh “reed”, BHeb. ’gm
“cane, reed”, etc. Also belong here variants like Cush.: (Omotic) Ari aʰːķ'e “tree”
= CA ’āķā id.
Other HS related words are Egyp. gg “bark of tree”, gšy “reed”, g’š “reed”, CA
ĝā’iz “wooden pillar”, waiĝu “the long wooden yoke joining the two bulls in
plowing”, ĝaš’u “wooden stick, staff, cane”, etc.

The decomposition of Sumerian ḡiš is based first on HS and second on world’s

language families. The root reconstructed above, i.e. *Wg or *gW, is widespread
in world languages. Some examples are:

196
 Niger-Congo: Yoruba igi “tree”, Rawanda igiti “tree”, Rundi igi-ti id., Yao
gwe id.

Austronesian: Ilokano kayo “tree, stick”, Malay kayu, Pangasinan kiew “tree”,
Itawit kayu id.

Old Japanes ki “tree” (Whitman 1985, 138-39, 226).

Oto-Manguean: Zapotec (Isthumus) yaga “tree, stick”, Zapotec (Xhon) ya'g

id. (in a compound) ya'g “forest”, Totonac kiwi “tree, stick”, Popoluc cujy “tree”.

Turkish ağaç “tree”, Azeri ağac, Turkman ağac, Uyghur ağaç, Uzbek
yaghach “tree”, Kyrgyz yogoch “wood”.

Mayan: K'iche' če' “tree”, Q'eqchi' če’ “tree”; (in a compound) k’iče’ “forest”,
Yucatec če' id.

Dene-Yeniseian: Ket ōks “tree”, Kott atči, atče id., Dena'ina chik'a “wood”,
Navajo gish “stick of wood”.
Tupian: Gurani ka'gua “forest”, Tupynamba kaá “forest”, Nhe'engatu kaá id.

Indo-European: OE āc “oaktree”, ON eik id., Grk aigiloa “a kind of tree”

(DHSR: 4.4.71).

Austro-Asiatic: Vietnamese cây “tree”; gây “stick”, Mon. chu’ “tree”, Khmer
cʰəə “stick”.
Uto-Aztecan: Classical Nahuatl kwaw(i)- “tree”, North Puebla Nahuatl kowi-
id., Mecayapan Nahuatl kwawi-’ id., Jalupa Nahuatl koi-t, Pipil kwawi-t, Pochutec
kwagu-t id., Yaqui juya “tree, forest”.

Comments
I don’t know whether the following Sumerian and Akk. words are cognate or
due to borrowing: Sumerian ḡiš-ùr-ra “log, beam, rafter (e.g., of a roof)” {wood +
roof + genitive) and Akk. gušūru “log, beam”. Is there an ultimate relation
between all such words and HS [gδ] “tree, trunk” as in CA ĝaδru, ĝiδ‛u “trunk”,
BHeb., Aram. gz‛ “trunk”?
Another question may be raised: Is there a relation between CA šaĝaru coll.
“tree, wood” and the Sumerian word above? Note that the same type of
metathesis persists in other words as the following example shows:
Sumerian ḡiš-ab-ba-k “a type of thorn tree; a wood used to make boats and
sickle hafts”, consisting of
“wood” + “sea” + -k genitive).
CA šaĝabu “a wooden pillar”; šiĝābu, mi-šĝab “pieces of wood whose tips are
brought together and used as a hanger for clothes and water-carrier”.

197
3.4.3.14 Sumerian ḡá “box, basket”
HS: Egyp. gw “basket, sack”; gw’-t “box”,
CA ĝi’wa-tu “a vessel”, with n-extension: ĝu’na-tu “a round basket”

3.4.3.15 Sumerian ḡèle, ḡìli, méli, míli, mèl, mél “throat, pharynx; voice” (me =
“to say, tell' + ?, ge ? + ?). Halloran (2006: 174) compared the Sumerian words
with the Semitic root “which manifests in Akkadian as qâlu “be silent”, but which
means “voice” in Hebrew, Syriac, and Ge'ez”.
The Sumerian words are definitely from two different roots. Whenever we
encounter a term expressing two or more meanings as does Sumerian míli or ḡìli
above, we have first to decide upon the earlier as opposed to the later meaning of
the word. In other words, is ‘voice’ derived from ‘throat’ or vice-versa? Second,
we have to study carefully our choice of cognates to make sure whether the two
notions are indeed closely related.
Let us say that the earlier meaning is ‘voice’, the Sumerian are based on mu(7)
“to say, tell” and gù “voice, noise, sound” respectively. If this is the case, then
PHS [ķwl] seems to me an erroneous cognate since it does not express “pharynx”:
Akk. qâlu “cry”, BHeb. ķōl “voice” also “cry, esp. of beasts”, CA ķāla “to say,
tell, speak”; ķaulu “saying, dictum”, Phoen. ķwl, Ug. ķl “voice”, etc.
The correct HS cognates with Sumerian ḡìli, míli are both based on “voice” and
as follows:
Sumerian ḡìli is based on Sumerian gù “voice, noise, sound”
HS [gwl] < gW “voice” (see §3.2.3.9 above) as in Ug. gwl “to speak”, in CA
gwl > gll, with /-w-/ assimilating completely to /-l/: ĝalĝālu “loud voice”;
ĝalĝala-tu fem. “voice or noise of thunder”; ĝalgala, said of a horse, “to neigh in
a soft manner”. Many other HS roots based on [gW-] are also found such as CA
ĝ’r, etc. see the reference cited in §3.2.3.9 above.

As to Sumerian méli ~ míli ~mèl, it corresponds to the HS root in CA CIV caus.

’amlā or ’amlala which expresses simultaneously two meanings “speak, say +
write”, i.e. “to say something for another to write, to speak and someone writes
what is spoken”, OAram., OffAram. mll, JAram. ml “to speak”, OAram.,
OffAram., JAram mlyn pl. “word”, BHeb. mlh “word, speech”, etc. (DHSR:
§3.3.9).
Turning now to the notion “throat, pharynx” as expressed by Sumerian méli
and ḡèle, we find that both words are- like those expressing “voice”- of two
different historical origins and that they correspond to two different Hamito-
Semitic roots as follows:

1) Sumerian méli, míli, mèl “throat, pharynx”

198
 HS: Ug. mh-mrt “throat, gullet”,
CA marī’ “esophagus”.

2) Sumerian ḡèle, ḡìli “throat, pharynx”

HS: CA ĝriy-yatu fem. “throat, pharynx”, ĝarāĝiru pl. “throat”,
Ug. grgr “throat”,
Syr. gaggartā “throat”,
Amharic gororo “throat”,
Tigrina garǝre “throat”, etc.
IE: Av. garo- “throat”, Toch. B kor “throat”, Lith. gerklē “throat”, Lat. gurges
“gullet”, Skt. grīva- “neck” (= CA ḡirānu (also girī‛a-tu fem.), Akk. girru “neck”,
Chad.: Tera gura id., etc. see DHSR: §4.4.31.

3.4.3.16 Sumerian si-ḡar “door lock; (wooden) clamp; neck-stock for captives”,
includes the following elements:
si “long, narrow object” + ḡar “storehouse”
HS: CA sāĝūru “(wooden) neck-chain for dogs and a wanted person”,
Assyr. šigaru “bolt of a door”.
For Sumerian ḡar and its HS cognate, see §3.4.3.4 above.
For Sumerian si “long, narrow object”: CA siy-ya-tu fem. “tip of a bow”: see
Sumerian si “to stand upright, to be straight” and its HS cognate in §3.3.5.4 above.

3.4.3.17 Sumerian aḡi(6) “flood”

HS: yg “flood”.

3.4.3.18 Sumerian naḡa(3, 4) “to crush, to break”

HS: Egyp. ng “to crush, to cut off, to strike””,
Chad.: Daba nga “to break”,
Logone ggē “to break”,
Buduma gai “to break”,
Mbara ligi “to break” (HSED, n 1899 & n. 1866).

3.5 Sumerian /r/

Sumerian /r/ was perhaps a flap pronounced like Akkadian /r/ and represented
by sound signs as ra, re, rí, ru(12), ar, and er, which were also used to write Akk.
/r/.

3.5.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /r/

3.5.1.1 Sumerian šar(4), sar(2) “totality, all; world; horizon; ball, counter, token;
the number 3600 = 602”; vb “to be many; to multiply or mix (with -da-); to make

199
abundant; to slaughter; to request, implore (reduplication class). adj., numerous;
innumerable. It is a compound of “many, much + àr “ring, coil”.
HS: CA sā’iru “all, totality; entire, whole”. Old Arab scholars argue that
people wrongly use sā’iru to express “all, etc.” as in sā’iru ’an nās “all of the
people”. The real meaning of the term is “the rest, remainder” as in this example:
Ali is stupid wa (= and) sā’iru ’an nās intelligent, i.e. Ali is stupid and the rest of
the people (in their entirety) are intelligent.
Sab. s¹’r-t expresses both “all, whole; any” and “rest, remainder, other
than”,
BHeb. šǝ’ār “remainder, the rest as opposed to something preceding”,
BAram. šǝ’ār “the rest as opposed to something preceding”,
OffAram. š’r “the rest, remainder”.
For the Sumerian notion of “much, many”, see Comments II of §3.2.1.11 above.
3.5.1.2 Sumerian uru(2), iri, rí; iri(11) “city, town, village, district”
HS: Ugr. ‛r “city”,
Phoen. ‛r “town, village”,
Sab. ‛rr “hill-town, citadel”,
CA ‛arā “courtyard, open space, area” also “wall”,
Egyp. ‛rrίt “hall, chamber; gate, door”.
IE: Grk óros “mountain, height, top”, Doric ōro id.: Lat. urvus “boundary”, etc. are very
closely related to Sumerian and HS words above: cf. Ug. γr “mountain”, CA ‛urura-tu
“top, summit”, Sab. ‛rr “mountain”, etc. see DHSR: §4.12.1, esp. §§4.12.1a-4.12.1c.

3.5.1.3 Sumerian: gúr “sphere; circle, ring; loop; hoop”, consisting of

gú “circle” + ur “to surround”
HS [kr] ~ [gl] ~ [ķr]
HS [kr]:
Egyp. k’rk’r “anything round, roll, cylinder”; krkr “to circle, mark out
with a circle with a stick”,
CA karkara “to revolve, rotate”; kirkira-tu “small circle jutting out on
the chest of an animal”, kura-tu fem. “sphere, globule, ball”; kurawī “circular,
round”,
BHeb. kārar “to go or move in a circle”,
BAram. krk “to surround, wrap around”.
IE: Grk krikos, kirkos “circle, ring”, Lat. circulus id.; circa “about”, circum
“around”, OCS kargû (*krakû) “circle”, OW cyrchinn id., W. côr id., etc.
HS [gl]:
OAram. glgl “wheel” also “skull (from its round shape)”,
Akk. gulgullu “skull”; galālu “to roll”; gulla-tum “ball”,
BHeb. gll “wheel; to roll”,

200
 CA gulgulu “bell, so called from its round shape” and so does ĝilla-tu ~
ĝalla-tu “dung of sheep and goats”, etc. see DHSR: §3.14.18.
Chad.: Housa gulūlu “ball”,
Logone ŋ-golō “round”.
IE: Skt. gola- “sphere, ball”, Lat. globus “sphere”. DHSR: §4.4.8.

HS [ķr]
Egyp. ķr-t “a circle”; ķrwt-št’wt “the hidden circles”, etc. See §§3.2.3.36
and 3.2.3.38 above.

3.5.1.4 Sumerian ùru “watch fire; light; glowing, luminous object”; vb “to watch,
guard; to protect”.
HS: Egyp. yr “to see; eye”,
Chad.: Sumray yēro “to see”,
Sibine yara “to see”,
Cush.: Ometo εrε “to see”,
Iraqw ara “to see”.
The Semitic cognate is [ra’] as in CA ra’ā “to see”, Sab. r’y, r’ “to see”, Ge’ez r’y
id., BHeb. rā’ā “to see, look at, behold, regard, to look after, take care of”. The
proot [ra’] ~ [’ar] ~ [’al] ~ [la’] is seen in numerous traditional roots and there
seems to be a very ancient connection between “eye; see” and “fire”. The same
CA verb ra’ā above also expresses an archaic signification “to burn, blaze”; rāyā
also arch. “to protect”, warā also “to burn, blaze”, ’irra-tu “fire” and warwara “to
look fixedly at”.

IE: Grk oráō “to see, look”, originally “watch, guard”: Hom. oūros “watcher,
guard”, OE waru “”guarding, care”, Lat. werērī “revere, feel awe of”, etc.
HS: Egyp. [wr] with different extensions: wrš “to observe astronomically, to
keep a watch, watcher”, wrħ “to guard, protect”. DHSR: §4.16.12.

Among many other derived roots are:

a) IE: Toch. A wār-, B war- “to sense, feel”
HS: CA ’uri’- arch., always preceded by a negative such as mā “not”, “feel
of” (cf. DHSR: §4.16.10b).

b) IE: Hitt. weriyami “to call, invite”, Grk eirō “to speak, say, tell”,
HS: CA ’a-wra’ā caus. “to inform”,
Sab. h-wry caus. “to announce”,
Chad.: Housa yārē “speech, word”.

N.B. “to see” > “to know” as in Cush.: Bilin ar’- “to know”, Ometo ’er- id., etc.
DHSR: §3.7.31 and §4.16.11.

201
3.5.1.5 Sumerian ur(2,3,4) “to surround; to flood”
HS: Egyp. wrίt “a flood, mass of water”; wr “lake”,
Chad.: Housa wuriya “stream”,
Miya wər “lake”.
Cush.: Somali war “pool”, see §3.2.3.6.2.1 above.
IE: Skt. vār- “water”, Av. vārō “rain”; vairis “lake”, OE wær “ocean”, Toch B
war “water”, Lith. yurēs “lake” (DHSR: §4.16.13).

3.5.1.6 Sumerian ùr “roof; entrance; mountain pass; beam, rafter”

HS: Egyp. wrm “pavilion, roof”,
Chad.: Tangale wurme “cover, thatch”,
CA wārā “to cover; to hide”; warā’ “a curtain”,
Ge’ez war’a “to cove; to hide”.
It is from the notion of “roof” as ‘a cover’ and/or the notion of ‘water’ that the
following IE-HS terms for “sky” developed:
HS: Egyp. wrίt “sky”,
CA ’a-wurū-n “sky”,
IE: Grk ourános “sky”.

3.5.1.7 Sumerian ur(5) “liver; spleen; heart, soul; bulk, main body” also
“foundation”
HS: CA ri’a-tu “lung”,
BHeb. rē’ā “lung”,
Mehri ђe-ryī “lung”,
Hss reyī “lung”,
Chad.: Siri ruya “intestine”,
Jimbin rawi “intestine”,
Mbu rawwi “intestine”,
Cagu roh-on “intestine”.
Azhari asserts that «CA ri’a-tu (“lung” above) is from warā, with wa- being
elipsized», and that the earlier form is still seen, according to him, in such an
example as «warai-tu (-tu = I) ’al (= the) raĝula (= man) I hit/punch on/ the man’s
lung»; pp. ma-wriy.

3.5.1.7.1 Sumerian ur(5) “foundation”

HS: BHeb. yārā “to lay a foundation, to found”,
Syr. wry “to lay a foundation” (OT: 424).
All are from [wr]: see §3.8.2.3 below.

3.5.1.8 Sumerian ur “dog; carnivorous beast; young man, warrior; enemy”; vb “to
tremble”

202
3.5.1.8.1 Sumerian ur “dog; carnivorous beast” above
HS: Egyp. whr “house dog” or wђr, wђl “dog”,
CA hirru “cat”, originally “dog” and not “cat”. With the exception of
the word hirru, all other derived words having to do with “dog”: harra “to bark
(when its cold)”; harra “to flee (only a dog)”; harrāru “barking to excess and
showing the teeth”, etc.

3.5.1.8.2 Sumerian ur “warrior” above

HS: Egyp. wr “chief, great man”,
CA ’a-wrā-hum in the fixed expression: ’a-wrā-hum zandan “the
strongest, most powerful of all”, the meaning/grammatical function of each
morpheme is as follows:
’a- = comparative prefix (= English -er in great-er),
-wrā- = “strong, powerful”,
-hum = “them”, i.e. lit. of them above,
zandan “forearm”.
Sab. wrw “to attack”,
Tigre wärra “to assail from all sides”,
Chad.: Ankwe war “strength”,
Galambu war “to surpass”,
Gera wur- “to surpass”,
Cush.: Oromo warā-na “war, spear”
Somali wora-n “war, spear”,
Iraqw ur “big, large”.
IE: Lith. vara “force, violence”, Latv. varēt “be able”, Welsh gwawr “hero”
DHSR: §4.16.15

3.5.1.8.3 Sumerian ur “enemy, young man” above

HS: BHeb. ‛ār “enemy”,
BAram. ‛ār “enemy”,
CA ‛arīru [*‛wr] “stranger, foreigner”; ‛arru “young man”,
Egyp. ‛rw “child”.

3.5.1.9 Sumerian uru(2,5,18) “thunderstorm, devastating flood”

HS: Egyp. wr “flood, mass of water”.

3.5.1.10 Sumerian ra “inundation”

HS: CA rawā, riwā’u “much water”; rawiya, CVIII ’irtawā “to have enough
water supply, drink to the full”,
BHeb. rawā “drink to the full”,
Sab. rwy “provide a water supply, irrigation system”,

203
 Chad.: Housa ruwā “water, rain”,
Egyp. rίw pl. “effluxes, emanations”.

3.5.1.11 Sumerian ra-ra “to flatten; to make wide”,

HS: CA raђraђa “make wide, enlarge”; raђraђā-n “name of a wide valley”;
raђђa’ “flat-footed”; ’araђђu adj. “wide”; raђraђ, said of a vessel, etc., “flattened
and wide”, with b-extension: raђuba, BHeb. rāђab, Eth. rђb “be or become wide,
large, spacious”.

3.5.1.12 Sumerian dar(4), dara(4) “blood”

HS: CA rad‛u, pl. rudu‛u “blood”. With n-extension: rdn “very red, red
tissue of wool and silk”.

IE: Skt. rudʰira- “blood”, OE rēad “red”, ON roδra “sacrificial blood”.

This is one of the rare roots where the correspondences between HS-IE and
Sumerian roots involving metathesis.

3.5.1.13 Sumerian ra-gi(4) “to thunder”

HS: CA raĝĝa “to shake violently”; raĝĝa-tu “noise of thunder, tremendous
shaking; tumult”. Most roots beginning with [rag-] express similar meanings as in
rĝs, rgz “noise of thunder; to thunder”, rĝf “to shake, tremble”, rĝd “to tremble,
quake”; Mand. rgp, JAram. rgp “to shake”; Syr., JAram, Mand. rĝz “to enrage, be
angry”, Phoen., Pun., OffAram. rgz “to disturb, trouble; become furious”, BHeb.
rgz “be moved with anger; to tremble, to quake”; rg‛ “to tremble”; rgš “tumult”,
OffAram. rgš “be furious”, Mand., Syr. rgš “make a disturbance, shake, agitate”,
etc.

3.5.1.14 Sumerian rab(3), rap “fetter, shackle, ring, clamp”

HS: CA ribāba-tu “thread”, ribāţu “rope, cord, string”; rabaţa “to tie with a
rope, as an animal”,
BHeb. rābīd “collar”.
IE: OE rāp “rope”, ON. reip “shoe-lace”, Goth. -raip (in compounds) id. (DHSR:
§4.9.41).

3.5.1.15 Sumerian šur, sur “to rain, to flow”

šu “to pour” + to flow”
HS: CA sariy “river, stream”,
Chad.: Siri sǝrǝ “river, spring”,
Sab. m-s¹r-t “watercourse”,
Egyp. s(’)rm “torrent, water flood”, etc. (DHSR: §4.10.20).

204
IE: Skt. srō-tas “river, stream”; sravami “to flow”, Grk. rhéō id., Av. rud- id., etc.
DHSR: §4.10.20.

3.5.1.16 Sumerian šer, ser(4) “testicle(s)”

HS: CA šaraĝu “having one testicle”; adj. ’a-šraĝu.

3.6 Sumerian /l/

Sumerian /l/ was a dental or alveolar lateral pronounced like Akkadian /l/ and
represented by such sound signs as la, le, lí and lam, which were also used to
write Akkadian /l/.
Sumerian níg-gul > Akk. akkullu “hammer”,
Sumerian é-gal “palace” > Akk. ekallu

3.6.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /l/

3.6.1.1 Sumerian ul expresses “joy, pleasure, satisfaction; flower; bud; ornament”;
vb “to glitter, shine; star”; adj. “remote, distant (in time); ancient, enduring”.
It is important to stress that Sumerian ul is a compound of a number of
different linguistic elements. We will begin with the Sumerian adjective and then
move backward to the verb and noun.

3.6.1.1.1 Sumerian ul “ancient, enduring; remote, distant (in time)” above

HS: CA ’auwalu (from ’au’alu: cf. DHSR: §3.17.15) “former, before in
time”, pl. ’auwalūn “of remote ages” as in ’abā’unā ’al-’auwalūn “our
forefathers”,
Ug. ’wl “before in time, former”,
OffAram. mi-in-nu ul-la-’ “from everlasting”,
Assyr. ullū “distance in time”; gādu ulla “forever”; ultu ullā “from of
old”: cf. a form [’ll] occurs in CA as variant. See DHSR: §§2.1.14.1 and 3.17.15.
Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic words above are from a compound including
[’au] (or ’aw) whose meaning could be “one” plus [-l-] “past, before in time”.

3.6.1.1.2 Sumerian ul “to glitter, shine” also “star” above

HS: Assyr. ellu “bright, pure”
CA ’allu “soft and glittering”; ’alla “to glitter and become clear”.
Besides ’allu, CA also has la’la’a and ta-la’la’a “to glitter, shine”, said of star,
moon, lightening, but not of the sun. The sort of ‘glittering, shining’ here is
actually ‘twinkling’, where the light is “(soft, esp. in ’alla) and wavering, esp. in
la’la’a”. This suggests that the original source of ‘the light’ was ‘a star’, since its
light is wavering, i.e. mu-đţaribu (in Arabic). Note that there are many words for
“light, shine” in the language and each expresses a very special meaning.

205
3.6.1.1.3 Sumerian ul “flower, bud” above
HS. It is difficult to decide upon the proper cognate. It may be the root in
Egyp. ђ’ll ~ ђ’rr ~ ђwll ~ ђwrr “flower, bloom”, CA ђuwalā’, said of earth,
beginning to become green and that when flowers and plants begin to open” as in
this line of old poetry:
bi ’aγanin ka ’al ђawalā’i zāna ĝanābahu
nawru ’ad dakāki, sawķuhu tataħađđabu.
The identification of Sumerian ul with the HS words above implies that
Sumerian ul is of a different origin.

3.6.1.1.4 Sumerian ul “ornament” above

HS. The cognate may be either:
i) Egyp. lly “bracelet” and CA lu’lu’a-tu fem. “a pearl”.

ii) Another alternative cognate is HS [ђul] as in CA ђulā “jewels, bracelets”:

ђallā “to ornament”, BHeb. ђly “a necklace, trinket”.
The second choice suggests that Sumerian ul “ornament” is of a different root.

3.6.1.2 Sumerian húl, úl “joy”; vb “to be happy; to rejoice over”; adj. “joyous” is
a compound consisting of
hé “let there be” + ul “joy, pleasure”
HS: CA hallala “to praise”; ta-hallala “to rejoice, to beam with brightness; be
cheerful”; ta-hallulu “rejoicing, exultation”,
BHeb. hll “to praise, celebrate”,
Eth.: Harari and gen. Eth. languages ǝlǝll “shout of joy”,
The root [hll] also expresses “to shine, be bright (CA and BHeb. etc.); crescent
moon (CA)”, moon (Ug. Eth., etc.) = BHeb. hālal “be foolish”, orig. lunatic
(DHSR: §3.7, n. 4).
For Sumerian hé “let there be”, see §3.3.2.5 above.

3.6.1.2.1 Sumerian la-la “joy, abundance, charms”, reduplication of la

“happiness, abundance, bliss”
HS: Egyp. t-l’l’ “to rejoice”,
CA ta-la’la’a “to rejoice”, tala’lu’u “complete joy”. Note that CA
la’lā’u expresses in an old saying “complete joy”. For prefixed /t-/ and its
grammatical function, see DHSR: §3.7, n. 4.

IE: Lat. laetitia “joy”, Grk apo-laúō “have the enjoyment, benefit of”, Welsh
llawen “joyful”, etc. DHSR: §4.13.2.

3.6.1.2.2 The Sumerian root ul and its HS cognate are seen in some shared
compounds. An illustrative example may be the following compound:

206
 Sumerian sil “pleasure, joy, bliss”, a compound of two elements:
si “to stand up like a horn” and si “to fill” + ul “joy, pleasure”
HS: CA salla “to be tranquil and serene in mind”; ta-salla “to amuse or
entertain (oneself) as a means of getting rid of cares and troubles of any kind”;
sulwa-tu “living a luxuriant and comfortable life”,
BHeb. sālā “to rest” ~ šǝlā “to be at rest, to be secure”,
BAram. sly “to rest”.
For Sumerian si “stand up as a thorn” and its HS cognate, see §3.3.5.4 above.
For Sumerian si “to fill” and its HS cognate, see §3.3.5.1 above.

3.6.1.3 Sumerian still has a homophonous root ul assumed to be of different origin

signifying “to be quick; to hurry, hasten”. This is from the same root in CA ’alla
“to twinkle; shine, glitter” (§3.6.1.1.2 above) which also expresses “to hasten, to
be quick”. Consider the following line of old poetry:
’a’ullu ’al-mašyī ’all-an ’all-an
I speed (caus.) (lit.) the walking quickly quickly (redupl.= very or so
quickly”)
LA comments on this line of poetry as either involving ellipsis or being transitive.
In the case of ellipsis, LA tells, it should have been ’a’ullu fī (= in) ’al mašyī
(mašyī = “walking”), i.e. mašyī should have been preceded by the preposition fī
“in”. There is no ellipsis and its first /’a-/ (in ’a-’ullu) is caus., and the verb is thus
transitive. For HS caus. /’-/, see DHSR: §3.3.

3.6.1.4 Sumerian limmu(2,4,5), lím “four”

HS: CA lumma-tu “from three to ten”. It is likely that the term originally
denotes “from two to ten” and not “from three to ten” as the following quotation
from LA demonstrates “any person who finds in his course of travel someone to
talk to and help him is lumma-tu”. This suggests that lumma-tu could be
understood as “two”.
Cush.: Oromo lima “two”,
Somali liba “two”,
Chad.: Mubi lamma “to gather”,
Bidiya lum “to gather”,
Migama lumma “to gather”.
The compound term [lim-] as denoting ‘a numeral’ is most notably prevalent in
Austronesian language families, but traces of the mental mechanism responsible
for its creation is not foreign to language families. For example, in Austronesian
language family the term lima expresses neither “four” as in Sumerian nor “two”
as in HS, but rather “five”:
Seediq lima,
Amis lima,

207
 Puyuma lima,
Isneg lima,
Sasaki lima,
Sundanese lima,
Ilokano lima,
Cebuano lima,
Malay lima,
Kankanæy lima,
Malagasy dima,
Old Javanese lima,
Maori lima,
Tahitian rima.
The term [lim-/lum-] above is a compound of two elements [la-] and [ma-]. The
combination la + ma expresses “to gather together (originally with the hand)” as
in CA lamma, lamlama. This may explain the difference noted between Chadic
and Cushitic languages above.
The signification of [-m] is obvious; it is ‘hand’ and is seen in such HS roots as
m-n, m-nђ, my-ђ, m-ђ “to give”, originally “to hand, give with the hand” (see
DHSR: §3.17.72). All are based on a proot [mW]. The signification of [l-],
however, is difficult to identify with certainty. It is the same [l-] in CA lamasa
“touch with the hand”: massa “touch with the hand” (DHSR: §3.17.32).
The HS proot [mW] corresponds to Proto-Austronesian *ima “hand” also
“five”. Some Austronesian languages use [ima] for “hand” and lima for “five”,
some others use [ima] or [lim] to express both “hand” & “five” as the following
examples show:
Sasaki lima “five” above; ma “hand”,
Kankanæy lima “five” above; ima “hand, arm”,
Itawit lima “five” above; ima “hand”,
Isneg lima “five” above; ima “hand, arm”,
Tahitian rima “five” above and also the term for “hand”,
Ibanag lima “five” above and also the term for “hand”,
Motu ima “had, arm; five”. For Austronesian data, see HAS: §452, pp. 105-
106.
The very close connection between “hand, esp. fingers” and “numbers, esp. 2, 4
and 5” is also noted in some languages and language families. Some examples
are:
Australian: Ngaanyatjarra mara “five”, Warlpiri mara “five” and also “hand”,
while Noogar mara, maara “hand”, Wong-gie mu-ru “hand”.

Arawak kʰabo “hand”, while aba-da-kʰabo “five”, lit. one- (= aba) my- (= da)
hand (= kʰabo).
208
 Tupian: Gurani po “hand” and also “five”,
Avane'e po “hand” and also “five”,
Paraguaigua Guarani po “hand” and also “five”.
It can be said that Sumerian preserved the proot [-mW] “hand” in limmu(2,4,5),
lím “five”. At this juncture, one may naturally ask:
Why is it that [lim] signifies ‘4’ in Sumerian, ‘2’ in HS and ‘5’ in Austronesion?
a) Starting with Sumerian lim ~ limmu “4”, in my discussion of the apparent
difference between Sino-Tibetan pwat “8” as in Old Chinese pwat id. and
Hamito-Semitic pawt- ~ pawd- “4” as in Egyp. pdw (< pwd) “4”, Coptic ptou id.,
Chadic pd id., I identified them with CA fawtu which hints to number “4” without
expressing it.
The term fawtu signifies “the opening between the fingers as we stretch the
hand and count them”. If we count these openings, we will find four in each hand.
Thus Hamito-Semitic counts the openings in one hand, whereas Sino-Tibetan
counts them in both hands. For Sino-Tibetan and HS numbers, see DHSR, p. 529
and for CA fawtu and its cognate words in HS languages, see DHSR: §3.11.29, n.
5b.
Moreover, Old Chinese pɒk “100” is related to pwat “8’ and both are related to
Tibetan brygyad “8” and brygya “100”. Their HS cognate is the root in CA
fawĝu. The apparent phonological difference between the Chinese pwat, pɒk and
Tibetan brygyad and brygya is similar to the striking differences existing on the
surface among CA fawtu, fawĝu, barāĝi-mu, rawāĝibu, etc. see DHSR: pp. 529-
531 for a detailed discussion. The discussion also explains why the Sumerian term
stands for “4”.

b) HS lima “two” counts both hands independently of their fingers, thus “to
gather” with both hands. This may suggest that [li-] was once a very special term
for “1” and also “more than one” in Semitic. For example, Semitic term kul “each,
every; all” seems to include this special number as we compare it with Cush. -k
“every; all” and Ber. -ak id.: DHSR: §3.1.1.

c) Austronesian lima “5” counts the fingers of one hand.

It is of importance to note that formation of ‘numbers’ differs markedly in world’s
languages, and that the only numerals that can be compared are those based on
parts of the body.

3.6.1.5 Sumerian compound má-lá “cargo boat”, a compound of

má = “boat” + lá = “to extend, load”
HS: Egyp. mly “ships, fleet”. It is possible, however, that Egyp. -ly is used
here to express ‘abundance’.

3.6.1.6 Sumerian dal “a large, wide-mouthed jar for oil”

209
 HS: CA dalwu “bucket, pail”,
BHeb. dǝlī “bucket”

3.6.1.7 Sumerian galdi “mighty judge”, an adjective for the god Enlil. It is a
compound of
gal “large' + di “to decide, judge”.
HS: Pun. gld “master, leader” as in gld-gyml “camel leader”
CA ĝaladu “might, patience and firmness”.

3.6.1.8 Sumerian lú-di-da “opposing party (in a legal case)”, consisting of

lú “man” + di “law suit” + da “with”
HS: CA ludda (Koranic, 19: 97) “contentious, opposing, opponent
(people)”; vb ladada. It is used nowadays only as an adjective as either in the
positive form: ladūdu, comparative: ’aladdu, or superlative: ’al-’a-laddu.

3.6.1.9 Sumerian li “juniper/cedar tree”

HS: Cush.: Somali ul “stick”,
Oromo ulle “stick”
Chad.: Tangale ala “stick”,
Bokkos yala “stick”,
BHeb. ’ēlā “a strong tree, esp. terebinth or oak-tree”,
CA ’alā’ coll. “a kind of tree that remains green all year round”, etc. see
DHSR: §4.13.41.
With n-extension: Akk. allān “oak”, JAram.’yln “tree”, Chad.: Mbara luŋ,
Musgum luŋ “tree”.
IE: Grk ūlē “woods, timber”. DHSR: §4.13.41.

3.6.1.10 Sumerian pala(2, 3) “vestments, clothing; robe”

HS: Egyp. plί “strip of linen cloth, bandlet”,
CA falūtu “garment”,
Ug. pld “a kind of garment”.

3.6.1.11 Sumerian gala, ga(14) “vagina, vulva, female genitalia”

“throat-like chamber” + lá “to penetrate, pierce”
HS: Eth. gal “have sex with a woman”,
BHeb. š-gl, caus. /š-/ “to lie with a woman” = CA ha-ĝala, with caus.
/ha-/: DHSR: §2.1.13, n. 4.

3.6.1.12 Sumerian la-e “weak, cripple, bound”

HS: BHeb. lā’ā “be exhausted, weary, to faint”,
CA la’yu “strained condition, hardship, confinement; be slow, lazy”,
BAram. l‛h “be exhausted, weary”.

210
3.7 Sumerian /ř/ (or /dř/)
Sumerian had a phoneme /ř/, also spelled /dř/, represented with the sign DU.
The pronunciation of this sound is still unclear since we do not know whether it
represents one phoneme /ř/ or a cluster of two phoneme /d/ and /ř/ (Edzard, 2006:
18). Jagersma (§3.3.2) assumes that the consonant was pronounced /tš/, and that
the Akkadians perceived it as /s/, i.e. /ts/. This assumption implies that the
akkadians perceived both Sumerian phonemes /ř/ and /z/ as /s/. Some examples
are:
šukusu “subsistence (field)” < Sumerian šuku-r,
usabu (or perhaps usapu) “a bird” < Sumerian u(4)-rá-bu,
nikkassu “acount” < Sumerian níg-ka(9)-r).
In the course of the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium, /ř/ disappeared as an
independent phoneme from the Sumerian sound system; it was either reduced to
zero or merged with /d/ or /r/. Examples of some Sumerian words including /ř/
are:
bar(4) “spread out, open; separated”,
bu-r “tear out”,
du(6)-r “hill”,
du(7)-r “be perfect”,
enku-r “inspector of fisheries”,
gu(4)-r “bull”,
keše(2)-r “bind”,
ku(5)-r “cut”,
níg-rá-n “rod (a unit of length)”,
re(6) “bring”,
sù-r “be far”,
sukud = /sukur/ “high’,
šu-ku(6)-r “fisherman”,
u(4)-rá-bu “a bird”,
udu = /ura/ “ram, sheep”,
uku(2)-r “poor (person)”.

3.7.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /ř/

Sumerian seemingly had a distinctive phoneme /ř/ whose exact phonetic nature
is still undetermined by scholars. This phoneme appears to be different from both
/r/ and /d/ for one reason: it later became /r/ in Southern Sumerian and /d/ in
Northern Sumerian.
The HS consonant phoneme that corresponds to Sumerian /ř/ is perplexing and
quite difficult to determine. In some words it is /r/, some others /d/ or /r/ and still
others /đ/. For example,

211
 Sumerian u(4)-rá-bu “a bird” may correspond to HS [γurāb] as in CA γurābu
“crow” or, more likely, to HS [γudāp] as in CA γuddāfu “crow”.

Sumerian ara(4), ar, rà “to shine, to blaze” which may correspond much more
likely to the root [ђađ] as in Egyp. ђđ “to shine, illumine, become light”, CA
ђađa’a “flame up a fire” than to the root ’ar as in Akk. urr-, ūr- “to shine”, BHeb.
’ōr id., CA ’rr, ’wr “to kindle”, Ugr. ’ar “light, fire”, etc.

Returning to Sumerian u(4)-rá-bu “a bird” above, its possible HS cognate would

be the root in CA arch. γađafu pl. “a kind of bird”, fem. sg. γađafa-tu. For other
possible cognates, see Comments of §3.3.1.13 above.

Another Sumerian word including /ř/ is ku(5)-r “cut” which may correspond to
the root in CA ķađđa “to break, pierce”, ķadda “to cut”, or kar- “to cut” as in Akk.
karū id., Egyp. s-kr id., etc. DHSR: §4.3.25.

3.8 Sumerian glides

The semivowels /y/ and /w/ were not directly represented in the Sumerian
writing system, though there is indirect orthographic evidence of their earlier
existence. Jagersma (2010: §3.8) recognizes a palatal glide /y/ in Sumerian and
infers its earlier presence from the ergative case of some Sumerian nouns: “The
ergative case of the noun a ‘water’ is normally written a-e but occurs twice as a-
è. Either spelling stands for the form /-aje/”. He also asserts that some Sumerian
nouns had earlier forms with /y/; the noun é “house” has an older form /hay/ and
è ‘go out’ is from earlier /ye/”.
Comparison of Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates reveals the previous
presence of two glides in Sumerian: /y/ and /w/, which were later
monophthongized like those of Akkadian.
Attention should be paid to the fact that the two HS glides often interchange
position with each other and with the glottal stop /’/ and that it is sometimes
difficult to reconstruct the original sound. Furthermore, they are quite often
subject to progressive assimilation: C1WC2 > C1C2C2, thus giving rise to doubled
roots, i.e. roots whose second and third radicals are identical.

3.8.1 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /y/

3.8.1.1 Sumerian è ‘go out’
HS: Cush.: Somali yaa’ “to run away”,
Oromo yaa’a “to flow”,
Ometo ya- “to come”,
Hozo yei “to run away”,
Chad.: Tumak ye “to go”

212
 Gabri yǝ “to go”,
Dera ya “to go”,
Kirfi yow “to go”,
Boghom yuway “to come”,
Berb.: Izayan iya “to come”,
Kabyle ǝyya “come!” (HSED, n. 2566).

3.8.1.2 Sumerian imi, im, em “clay, loam, mud”

HS: Egyp. ym, ymm “clay”, ‛my, ‛m‛ id., Copt. omi id.: see §3.1.1 above.

3.8.1.3 Sumerian áb “cow” also “middle”.

HS. A possible HS cognate may be the root in Egyp. yb “calf” also “middle”
as in the following examples:
ђrί yb “the middle of anything”: ђrί = a preposition “on, at, in, etc.” (as in
ђrί gs “in the side of”: gs “side of”),
yb-t “middle room of a house”.
Another example is ķ’b, a compound of [ķ’] “form, state, condition, etc.” (see
DHSR: §3.17.83) and [yb]: ķ’b “the middle of anything, intestines, the interior of
the body”. For cognates from other HS language divisions, see DHSR: §3.12.40,
n. e.

3.8.1.4 Sumerian di “judgment, verdict; sentence, lawsuit, case; decision,”; vb “to

judge, decide; to conduct oneself”
HS: Egyp. caus. ydn (< *’dn) “to rule for someone else, to serve as deputy
or substitute for a person in power”,
CA daiyana (also caus. by doubling the 2nd radical /-y-/) “make or
appoint someone a ruler or governor” also, only in court or before God in the Day
of Judgment, “to say the truth”; CIV ’adāna caus. “to condemn”; daiyānu “a
judge”, later a secondary meaning ‘God’ has developed as the ultimate or final
‘judge’ (LA); dīnu “punishment, custom, habit, tradition, religion”,
Assyr. dīnu “judgment”; daianu “judge”; dānu “to judge”,
OffAram., JAram. dyn “judge”; dynh, dn “justice, lawsuit, judicial
action; claim”.

3.8.2. Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates with /w/

3.8.2.1 Sumerian ús, úz “side, edge; distance”; in geometry: “length; height;
vertical; perpendicular”; vb “to follow; to drive; to come near to, reach; to let
reach; to transport, bring; to join; to be next to, border; to lean against”
HS: CA wazā, CIV caus. ’awzā “to lean against”; ’āza “to come near to, be
next to” and also “to join to, be united with” (= BHeb. yzy-’l = Jeziel is from

213
‘assembly of God’); ta-’āzā, said of people “to draw near one another”, mu-wāzā-
tu “to meet or to front (e.g. an enemy) and “to be parallel to, be equal”; mu-tawāzī
“parallel lines, parallelogram”; mustawzī adj. of CX “standing erect + elevated”;
’istawzā “to stand erect, rise”; ’āzā “to attack someone from the side he thinks it
is fortified”. Finally, ’awaza lit. “calculation of the movement of the moon to
count what includes of months and years”.
Egyp. ’wsw “balance”,
SA: Mehri he-wzū “put to the side”,
Jib ōzi “put to the side”.
The stem waz- is also seen in HS with n-ext.: Ug. m-wzn-m pl. = CA mi-zānu-n
inst. “balance”; wazana “to weigh”, BHeb. ’izzēn “to weigh”, etc. DHSR:
§4.16.21.

IE: Grk ísos “equal”, Skt. vişu- “on both sides”.

3.8.2.2 Sumerian u(3, 4, 8) “an expression of protest, cries, screams, the grunting,
panting of battle; fight, dispute”; vb “to bend over”.
When we take into consideration all meanings expressed by Sumerian u(3, 4, 8),
esp. the verb meaning and not just “cries, scream”, we will find that the HS exact
cognate is [‛aw] as the following cognates show:
HS [‛aw]: CA ‛auwa-tu “voice, sound” also “tumult, noise”; ‛awā “to bend
over, incline”; ta-‛āwū ~ ta-γāwū “they (= -ū) gathered to kill or fight someone”;
’ista‛wā “to call on people to riot”,
BHeb. ‛āwā “to bend, curve”; Niph. “to be bent, bowed down,
depressed, with calamities”,
Mand. awa “to howl, cry”,
Harari aw “loud voice”; aw baya “shout, scream”.
It may belong here Egyp. ‛’w ~ ‛ “to speak with violence, blaspheme, curse”, ‛‛
“speak loudly, cry out, shout”.

3.8.2.3 Sumerian ri “to throw, throw away, expel, cast; to inundate, to pour; to
blow (said of a storm); to beget; to moor a boat; to place, put into; to place upon
or against; to be located; to remove, sweep away; to plan something”

3.8.2.3.1 Sumerian ri “throw, throw away, cast, expel” above

HS: Akk. t-īry-, t-wry- “to throw”
Ug. yry “to throw”,
BHeb. yry “to throw”,
CA warra “to throw”; warwara “to throw everywhere”,
Ge’ez warrawa, warawa “to throw”,
Chad.: Kabalay weri “to throw”,
Dangla ore “to throw”.

214
IE *wer- as in Goth. and gen. Germanic wairpan “to throw”, OCS wrûga, wrêšti
“to throw”, Lith. wirbēti “to move, twist, tremble” (= CA waraba “to twist,
circumvent, get around”): DHSR: §4.16.14.

3.8.2.3.2 Sumerian ri “to inundate, pour” above

HS: Egyp. wr “flood”.

3.8.2.3.3 Sumerian ri “to beget” above

HS: Egyp. yr “to beget”, ywr “to conceive, be pregnant”; ywrw “human
beings”. All, with caus. /’- > y-, from wr as in s-wr caus. “to be pregnant: CA
warā “human beings”. Egyp. also has w’r “to conceive”. All may be from the root
in CA ’arra “to have a sexual intercourse with a woman”; mi-’arru “one who
does this exceedingly”. But see below.
The form mi-’arru is considered as a wrong pronunciation of mi-y-’ār (LA).
This implies that ’rr is from ’ayru “penis” and that its first /-r-/ is due to
regressive assimilation, a linguistic change quite common in the language. The
question here arises:
Is [’yr] above related to Ug. hry “to become pregnant”, OAram. hry “to
conceive, become pregnant”, BHeb. hārā “to become pregnant, to conceive”,
etc.? I don’t think so.

3.8.2.3.4 Sumerian ri “to blow, said of a storm” above

HS: Egyp. wr “storm, a violent wind, gale”
CA ’ara-t expresses lit. “the wind pouring the water little by little
(where -t refers to the wind)”; ’aryu “the wind driving the clouds”. Both are
closely related to ’iyru ~’ayru ~’āwūru “south-wind”. Other variants are with /h-/
hīyru and hayru, etc.

3.8.2.3.5 Sumerian ri “to moor a boat” above

HS: Egyp. wr-t “a large boat”.

3.8.2.3.6 Sumerian ri “to plan something” above

HS: CA warađa “to plan something (in advance), have the intent/plan to do
something (later or in the near future)”.

3.8.2.3.7 Sumerian ri “to place” above

HS: Egyp. wr “place”.

3.8.2.3.8 Sumerian ri “to remove” above

HS: Egyp. yr “to remove, to transport”.

3.8.2.3.4 Sumerian adda4, ád “to send; to drive away; dispatch”

215
 HS: OAkk. wş’ “to go out”,
Assyr. aşū “to send forth, go or come forth, drive out”,
Ug. yş’ “to go out”,
Egyp. wđ’ “to go, go forth, advance”; wđ’-t “journey”; s-wđ’ caus. “to
go, go forward”.

3.8.2.5 Sumerian ù “and”, considered by Edzard (2003: 27) as a loanword from

Akkadian. He finds that it could not replace Sumerian -bi-da. Hence, Sumerian ù
is used to connect phrases and -bi or bi-da parts of speech. In CA baida is a
conjuction “but, though”, used to connect clauses as in He is old baida he is
young in spirit.
Edzar also states that “Borrowing “and” is well known in agglutinating
languages: ve (Arabic wa) in Turkish, ja (Old Germanic jah) in Finnish, eta in
Basque” ibid. Edzar’s view represents a hasty generalization and- due to the
absence of terms such as ‘some’ before agglutinating, it may leave the impression
that all (or almost all) agglutinative languages have borrowed their terms for
“and” form foreign languages. The conjunction wa is found in some agglutinative
and non-agglutinative languages such as Korean wa and Ainu wa. Moreover, one
of the most widely used term for “and” in world’s languages is na/ne and is found
in many agglutinative and non-agglutinative languages. Should we say that its
presence in the former is due to borrowing?
HS: Akk. u “and”,
Phoen. w,
Sab. w,
CA wa, etc. DHSR: §4.16.1.
IE: Ved. u “and”, Goth. -u id., Skt. u “also”, etc. DHSR: §4.16.1.

3.8.2.6 Sumerian alulu “woe”

HS: OAram. yllh “lamentation”,
OffAram. yll “to lament”,
BHeb. yll “to wail, lament, yell” ~ ’ll “to wail”,
CA walawalah “wailing, mournful outcry,
Chad.: Angas wāl “cry, sob”,
Chip wil “cry, sob”,
Sokoro olu “funeral song”.
If we want to make the signification of CA wll (~ wlwl) “louder, longer, and
stronger”, we prefix to it the proot ‛a- “great, large, abundant”, etc. see DHSR:
§3.14 and esp. §3.14.4.
For the proot underlying Hamito-Semitic walwala and Sumerian alulu, see
§3.8.2.7 below.

216
3.8.2.7 Sumerian ua, ua ua “woe”
HS: Egyp. yw “to cry out”; ywyw “outcry, wail”,
Akk. ūya, wā(ya) “woe, alas”,
Ug. y “woe, alas”,
Hatra wy “woe, alas”,
BHeb. ’ōy “woe, alas”,
CA way “woe, alas” ~ wāha “an expression of pain”, caus. CA ’auwaha
“an expression of grief, of sorrow, of pain, complaint”; ’auwāhu “praying,
imploring”, BHeb.’hh “expressing grief, sorrow”.

3.8.2.8 Sumerian ḡi(6)-di “to pass the night”

ḡi(6) “night” + ù-di “to go”
HS: CA ĝuwādu “drowsiness”; mu-ĝauwadu adj. “one who exhausts
himself to stay awake”.

3.9 Sumerian vowel system

The writing system of Sumerian shows four vowels: a high front /i/, a high
back /u/, a low back unrounded /a/ and a low front /e/. As Sumerian loanwords in
Akkadian show, the first three Sumerian vowels /i, u, a/ were perceived by the
Akkadians as identical with their vowels /i/, /u/ and /a/ respectively, e.g.
Sumerian ab-gal “wise man” > Akk. apkallu id.
Sumerian Sumerian su-si-ig “fellmonger” > Akk. šušikku id.
As to Sumerian /e/, it is a different matter and its exact phonetic nature is
difficult to determine. The Akkadians perceived it as /i/, e.g. Sumerian éš-gàr
“task” > Akk. iškaru id. The failure of Akkadian scribes to keep the two Sumerian
vowels /i/ and /e/ apart is attributed by Jagersma (2010: §3.9.2) to the Akkadian
vowel system which does not distinguish between /i/ and /e/. As a matter of fact,
Akkadian had a vowel /e/ developing from /i/ and /a/ and did thus distinguish
between /i/ and /e/.
Another fact is that Sumerian vowel system is very similar to that of Akkadian
in having an extra vowel /e/ added to the triangular system /i, a, u/. The Akkadian
vowel /e/ developed from an original /i, a/. A similar development occurred in
Sumerian. The unconditional interchange of Sumerian /e/ and specially /i/ in
many words bears evidence of the origin of its /e/; it is a mere allophone of /i/ in
most cases and of /a/ in few cases. The following are a few of many examples that
can be cited:

eḡir ~ iḡer “back, end”,

erin ~ eren “cedar tree”,
gí ~ gé “reed mat”,

217
 gi(4) ~ ge(4) “to return, come back”,
ginna, gina, genna, gena “constant, regular”,
ḡiš ~ ḡeš “tree, wood”,
hi ~ he “to mix”,
idim, edim “spring, underground water”,
iḡar ~ iḡar “brick wall”,
imi, im ~ em “clay, mud”,
im(3) ~ em(3) “goods, property”
immin(2) ~ emmen(2) “thirst”,
ír ~ ér “tears”,
kiš ~ keš “totality”,
mili (2) ~ mele (2) = ḡili ~ ḡele “throat, pharynx”,
mir(2) ~ mer(2) “storm wind, violent storm”,
niš ~ neš “twenty”,
píš ~ péš “a type of edible mouse”,
šid ~ šed “measure, number”,
šìr ~ šèr “decision”,
šír ~ šér “to shine brightly”, etc.
The data just set forth above shows clearly that the difference in phonetic
composition between /i/ and /e/ is incapable of differentiating one meaning from
another. In accordance with this fact, they should be considered as variant
allophones of one single phoneme.
Another fact should be born in mind is that vowels do not originally distinguish
one root from another in any language. Nor can they change the basic lexical
meaning of the word. They can only modify the root meaning to create
derivatives, i.e. particular shades of that meaning, or to express some
grammatical categories exactly as consonantal affixes do. For this latter function
of vowels in Sumerian, see §4.1 below.
The question why vowels have acquired the force of distinguishing one root
from another in most languages is not a difficult matter to wonder at, nor is it one
of the miracles to stand before speechless; it finds its explicit explanation in the
loss of consonants and syllables from those roots in the course of time.

218
CHAPTER FOUR

SUMERIAN AND HAMITO-SEMITIC

GRAMMARS

4.1 Introduction
It may be beneficial to start our introduction to this Chapter with an example
connecting very closely our discussion of Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic vowels,
i.e. the last section of Chapter III, with our present discussion of Sumerian and
Hamito-Semitic grammars.
We all agree that Sumerian bar, for example, expresses “to open, to release,
expose” (§3.2.1.2.3 above), but I disagree with all Sumerian scholars on the very
same root bar in the following complex word:
še-bur(2)-ra “grain released for transport, storage, and further distribution”,
consisting of
še “barley” + bur(2) “to open, release” (Halloran, 2006: 250)
Should we assign bar and bur(2) to two different roots or consider them as two
variants of the same root?
The first choice is linguistically unjustifiable without cogent explanation, while
the second is justifiable on the basis that ‘released’ or ‘opened’ is grammatically
different from ‘release’ or ‘open’, and that this difference manifests itself in two
forms of the word: bar and bur. These grammatical and phonological differences

219
between ‘bar’ and ‘bur’ are associated with a slight semantic difference between
them identical with that between CA sadda “to close” and sudda “closed”. As one
may easily note here, the semantic difference between the two indicative forms is
correlated with a difference in their grammatical categories: one is active and the
other is passive.

Another example with the same bur(2) is ki-bur(2) “place of relaxation, solution,
answer”, consisting of
ki “place” + bur(2) “exposed” (Halloran, 2006: 138)
Here we also find that the very same bur expresses “exposed” and is a form of
bar “to expose”. The question arises again: How to explain this phenomenon in
strictly scientific terms?
As I glanced at Sumerian bur(2), I realized instantaneously that it is similar to
PHS passive stem preserved intact in CA but in some slightly modified forms in
other sister languages as BHeb. and Aramaic. The stem is CuCi(C-). Of the two
vowels /-u-/ and /-i-/, the first is the most fundamental as indicator of the passive.
For example, the passive of many doubled roots is indicated by /-u-/ and does not
require /-i-/ as in CA madda “to stretch” > mudda “be stretched”. Accordingly,
the Sumerian bur(2) in the first example is the passive form of bar, while the
Sumerian bur(2) in the second example may be either the passive or the past
participle form of bar “to open, release, expose”. In the past participle of HS, the
vowel /-ū-/ is also the most fundamental as indicator of the past participle, e.g.
CA ma-mdūdu pp. of mudda “be stretched”.
A strange, surprising and yet unexplainable phenomenon in CA is that vowel /-
u-/ of the passive perfective shifts to the prefixed pronoun in the passive
imperfective in all classes of verbs regardless of their types (sound, weak, etc.)
and the number of their radical consonants (bilateral, trilateral, etc.), e.g.
Perfect imperfect
buniya “was built” yu-bnā “is built”
sudda “was closed” yu-saddu “is closed”
kutiba “was written” yu-ktabu “is written”
This is, however, not all. In Classes of verbs with prefixes, the passive marker
/-u-/ is not within the stem as the perfect forms above show, but occurs in the
prefix (perfective: in the 1st syllable; imperfective: in the 2ndsyllable) as the
following typical example from Class X of [‛ml] shows:
Active: perfect ’ista-‛mala “he used” Imperfect yasta-‛milu “he uses”
Passive: perfect ’istu-‛mila “was used” Imperfect yusta-‛malu “is used”
It is possible that the passive marker [-u-] developed from an independent proot
expressing “to be”, i.e. [’ai]. For PHS [’ai] which appears in HS languages with
different extensions, see DHSR: §§3.21.2.1, 3.21.5.1 & 3.1.6.5.25.

220
 What follows is a sketch of Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic comparative
grammars, aiming at bringing to light some striking and, like everything else,
hitherto unknown similarities in some indispensable compartments of grammar.
Before we start, the fact must be made obvious to the reader that the language
which has preserved intact nearly all the archaic features, forms and fashion of its
parent speech is also expected to preserve most archaic features of Sumerian or
any hypothetical stage one may postulate before Sumerian.
The ideas presented in the foregoing paragraph about the incomparable position
of CA in its family are not actually my words, but are indirect quotations from
eminent Semitists and Hamito-Semitists in DHSR: §3.17.25, n. 3a

4.2 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic: Plural markers

4.2.1 The noun
Sumerian has two major methods of indicating plurality of nouns: one is the
plural marker [e-ne or -ne] and is restricted to nouns of human gender and the
other is reduplication, i.e. the noun is copied and the resulting word expresses
plurality, a property the Sumerian nouns share in common with the adjectives and
the verbs. Reduplication, with all of its types, is very widespread among world’s
languages and, like that of Sumerian, is used to indicate plurality and other
functions.
Comparison of the Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic plural markers and other
inflectional markers such as the genitive necessitates a distinction between
productive and unproductive affix. The Sumerian plural marker Sumerian e-ne is
productive in Hamito-Semitic, whereas reduplication is productive in some HS
language divisions and less productive in some other language divisions.

4.2.1.1 Sumerian [e-ne ~ -ne] = HS w-n-

Sumerian has a plural marker [-ne] for nouns of human gender which may be e-
ne after nouns ending in a consonant or -ne after nouns ending in a vowel, for
example
šeš “brother”: šeš -e-ne “brothers”,
lugal “king”: lugal -e-ne "kings",
dumu “son”: dumu ne “sons”.
The corresponding PHS plural marker is *w + -n-, e.g.
Akk. nom. sg. šarru “king”: nom. pl. šarrānū,
accus.–gen. pl. šarrānī.
CA nom. sg. mu’minu “believer”: nom. pl. mu’minūna,
accus.–gen. pl. mu’minīna.
Evidence tells that HS plural endings: nom. -ūn-, accus.–gen. -īn- and Sumerian e-
(of e-ne) are compound of two elements:
221
 a) A general pl. marker [-w] independent of the notion of case, is pronounced in
HS as /-ū/ in the nominative case and /-ī/ in the accus.–gen case), and in Sumerian
e-. The underlying form of /-ī/ is /-y/

b) The second element [-n-] is a sort of determiner, perhaps the same as in CA

kitābu-n nom. sg. “a book”: nom. pl. kutubu-n “books”. In Akk. the same /-n/
appears in the dual forms, but elsewhere CA /-n/ = Akk. /-m/.
Part of the evidence on which the claim of an earlier pl. marker [-w] is based is
the following:

i) CA nom. sg. binu “son”: nom. pl. banūn; acc.–gen. banīn =

Laђyānite nom. sg. bn “son”: nom. pl. bnw; acc.–gen. bny.

ii) The ending /-w-/ also appears as a plural verbal ending and pronounced /-ū-/
in the 3rd pers. pl. of the present indicative in all Semitic languages. In Egyp., too,
the ending of 3rd pl. masc. of old perfective is /-w/, i.e. the one written in Semitic
as /-w/ and pronounced /-ū/.

iii) The ending /-w-/ is a common Egyp. plural marker, e.g.

mn “daily offering”: mnw “daily offerings”,
ħn “word, speech”: ħnw “words, utterances”.
It is also found in other HS language divisions, pronounced as /-ū/: see DHSR, ft.
258, p. 478.

4.2.1.2 Syntactic features of Sumerian and HS nouns

Jagersma (2010: 110) finds that “If two or more nouns are coordinated, each of
them can be marked as plural by {ene}”:
ugula-ne ab.ba-ne
ugula-ene ab.ba-ene r(a)
foreman-pl. elder-pl. dat.
‘for the foremen and elders’.
Compare CA: li l mudarris-īn wa l muwađaf-īn
For the teacher - pl. & the employee-pl.
“for the teachers and employees”
Jagersma (ibid.) also finds that “Even with human nouns, explicit indication of the
plural is relatively infrequent in Sumerian as compared with languages such as
English or Akkadian. The plural marker {ene} is absent from human nouns if their
plural meaning is already made clear by other means. Thus, a noun quantified by
a numeral never has a plural marker”:
2 sipa udu siki-ka
2 sipa udu siki -ak -ak
2 shepherd sheep wool-gen.-gen.

222
 ‘two shepherd(s) of wool sheep’,
a-nun-na eriduki ninnu-bé
a.nun.na eridu-ak ninnu-be
Anunna Eridu-gen. fifty -this
‘the fifty Anunna-god(s) of Eridu’.
A trace of this is seen in CA where any noun quantified by a number starting from
11 is always followed by a singular noun, e.g. 11 kitāb “11 book”, 1.000.000
raĝul “million man”. Modifiers of such nouns, as adjectives, are also singular:
’alfu (thousand) bin-t-in “sg. girl” (-t- fem.; -in “determiner) ĝamīlah (sg.
beautiful).

4.2.2 Reduplication of nouns in Sumerian & Hamito-Semitic

Sumerian also used reduplication of the noun of both genders– human and non-
human– to indicate a kind of plurality. We will be concerned here with two types
of reduplication found in Sumerian and indicate plurality of the noun: full
reduplication and partial reduplication. The former refers to the repetition of the
entire noun, e.g.
Sumerian: kar “land”: kar-kar “all foreign lands”,
agar “field”: agar agar “fields”,
dumu “son”: dumu dumu “all the sons”.
Hamito-Semitic: CA sawā’u or siwya-tu “same”: pl. sawāsiya-tu or sawāsiwa-tu.
Old Arab scholars derived sawā’u/siwya-tu from saw sg. > pl. sawsawa-tu (LA).
Koranic dakan dakan “multiple of pounding or destruction” (89: 21); şaffan
şaffan “multiple rows” (89: 22).
Sab.: ’lh “god”: ’l’l-t “gods”. The same form is found in Phoen.
’llt (see NWSI I, p. 60),
Cush.: Somali der “tall”: pl. derder,
Chad.: Hausa iri “kind, sort”: pl. iri-iri.
It is also possible that Akk. abbū “fathers” is a full reduplication of the sg. abu.
On the other hand, partial reduplication involves a reduplication of only part of
the word. This type of reduplication is not very common in Sumerian but quite
common in some Hamito-Semitic language divisions as Chadic and Cushitic.
Some examples are:
Sumerian kuli “friend” kulili “mutual friends” (Edzard, 2003: §5.3.3).
Hamito-Semitic: Cush.: Saho gaba “hand”; pl. gabob; lafa “bone”, pl. lafof,
Kafa bako “hand”, pl. bakiko,
Somali tog “ditch”: togag “ditches”,
Chad.: Housa yasa “finger”, pl. yasosi,
CA ‛arama-tu fem. “a heap”: ‛aramramu “very numerous”.

223
4.2.2.1 Reduplication and duality
1) A Sumerian reduplicated noun can be used with reference to only two
entities (Jagersma (2010: 116), e.g.
Sumerian: íb íb gu(10)
hip hip my
‘(each of) my hips’.
HS: Egyp. p-t p-t “the two halves of the sky”,
Wrwr “twice great god”: Wr “a great god”,
snsn “the festival of the two bulls”: see §3.3.5.20 above.
CA ĝubāgibu [gbb], said of man, lit. “having two fleshy sides” (LA).
2) Sumerian uses a suffix [hi-a] to express a duality of two heterogeneous
entities through mention of only one of them as in mer-hi-a “diverse south-winds
= north and south” (see Edzar: §3.3.5). This method is common in CA as in
middān “water and salt”, malawān “night and daylight”, ķamarān “sun and
moon”, etc.

4.2.3 Other methods for indicating plurality

There is atypical feature characterizing the two Sumerian gender classes (§4.3
below); it is only human nouns that have singular and plural forms. Isn’t this
something strange? We often describe a linguistic phenomenon encountered in a
language as ‘atypical, strange or illogical’ simply because it is contrary to what
we expect and therefore we can understand it. There should be a reason for this
phenomenon, and knowledge of this reason may shed light on the pre-historical
development of language in the subject under study.
Jagersma (2010) sees that
“Sumerian differs from a language such as English, where
basically every noun has a special plural form. Sumerian é, for
instance, stands for both English ‘house’ and ‘houses’. However,
this ambiguity between singular and plural meaning is restricted to
non-human nouns. The plurality of a human noun is generally
indicated with the plural marker {ene}”.

In addition to reduplication and the ending [-ūn] illustrated above, Hamito-

Semitic still has some other methods for indicating the plurality of nouns. Of
these methods, the most ancient by far is one involving an internal modification of
vowels, and the resulting plural nouns are called ‘broken plurals’ or ‘ablauted
plurals’. This type of plurals is most common in CA, ESA and Eth. and some
visible traces of it are found in other Semitic languages (Moscati, 1969: §12.34);
it is also not rare in Egyp. and Berber (DHSR: Comments of §3.3.40). Some traces

224
of it are also found in Indo-European, esp. in Hittite (DHSR: §4.19.3). The
discussion of the following two examples from CA is intended to demonstrate that
visible traces of ‘broken plurals’ are also found in Sumerian,
a) CA ĝabalu “mountain” > ĝibālu “mountains”,
b) CA haykalu “temple” > hayākilu “temples” (= Sumerian é-gal
“temple” (§3.3.2 above).

Discussion:
We can see that in example (a) the plural marker /-ā/ is attached to the stem
gab- which expresses in HS the notion “high”. HS triliteral roots beginning with
gb- are cited in DHSR: §2.1.9.2.
The second example, i.e. in n. (b), shows another type of expressing plurality.
The vowel /-ā-/ is attached to the first syllable hay-ā- of sg. haykalu and thus does
not replace or modify any vowel; it is thus a proot added to hay- to express more
than two.
On the other hand, the first example may show on the surface that /-ā-/ replaces
the vowel of the singular form ĝabalu. This is definitely wrong and /-ā-/ attaches
to the stem boundary gab-. A natural question arises here:
Why do we have two different positions of the plural marker /-ā-/ in these two
words?
The answer is that [hay] is a proot, whereas [gab] is a stem, i.e. a compound.
To revert to Sumerian é “house/houses” (§3.3.2.1 above), the proto-Sumerian
singular and plural forms were most likely identical with CA hay – hayā
respectively.

2) One example may not be sufficient to prove a matter of such importance. So,
let us consider another example un-cited in the data above.
Sumerian ti “arrow, arrows”,
Hamito-Semitic: Akk. uşşu “arrow”, Ug. ђḏ “arrow”, Egyp. ђđ “spear”, CA
ђuḏwa-tu fem. or ђaḏwa-tu “small arrow” and seems to be from wood, Sab. ђḏy-n
“bowman”.

IE: Skt. işu- “arrow”, Av. išu- id., Grk īos “arrow”: DHSR: §4.7.54.3.

Discussion:
CA ђuḏwa-tu is from the root ђḏy and its /-w/ is thus from /-y/ which became /-
w/ for ease of pronunciation. The final /-’/ of ђiḏā’u is also from /-y/ and the
interchange of these three weak sounds are quite common in HS and each
interchanges introduces a new meaning or expresses a grammatical function. For
a discussion of this interchange, see DHSR: §2.1.7.

225
 The plural form of ђuḏwa-tu is ђiḏā’u. The vowel /i/ of the initial syllable of
the pl. ђiḏā’u is seen in the Indo-European and Sumerian words, whereas the
vowel /-u-/ of the first syllable of the sg. ђuḏwa occurs in the Akk. word. Apart
from this phenomenon which may not be coincidental, a more fundamental
question arises:
Is CA ђuḏwa-tu derived from the collective plural ђiḏā’u or, conversely, ђiḏā’u
is simply the plural of ђuḏwa-tu?
The answer to the question above is so crucial since it reveals how our remotest
ancestors named whatever they saw in their surroundings of various kinds of
animals, trees, stones and other things. The answer should take into account three
types of names:
a) A very general name, e.g. animals in general, trees in general, etc.

b) A name for each group within a larger group distinguished from others by
particular attributes or identifying traits, e.g. big cattle vs small cattle, oak-trees vs
willow trees, etc.

c) A name for every member of each group and thus seeing the member as a
distinct entity.
An answer to the question above lies outside the scope and aim of the present
research and, as a matter of fact, it requires a separate research. (e.g. HS has (a)
and (b) above).
On the other hand, in dealing with Sumerian sg./pl. non-human nouns, we
should also be careful and take into consideration that, besides ‘broken plurals’,
there is still a very ancient method where the plural form is indistinguishable from
the singular (e.g. English sheep). Traces of this method are seen in some HS
languages and in IE, esp. Vedic Sanskrit (DHSR: §.19.3.1c).

3) Returning to HS [ђḏy] and Sumerian ti, we find that their Proto-language

coined a compound word based on the root under study which appears in both
families as follows:
Sumerian tir “forest, grove, thicket”, a compound word consisting of ti above
+ ur(3) “beams, rafters”,
Hamito-Semitic: CA ђaḏiru coll. “fresh wood” with no singular form; ђaḏāru
“a wall made (not of stone but rather) from trees heaped atop of one another and
used as enclosure or pen to protect domestic animals”. A derivative of CVIII mu-
ђtaḏir occurs in the Koran (54: 31): fa-kānū (= they were) ka (= like) hašīmi (=
dry) ’al mu-ђtaḏir (= the trees): LA.
To sum up, the significations of proots [ђW-, perhaps ђw], [-ḏy-] (Sumerian ti
above) and [’r] (Sumerian ur(3)) are as follows:

226
 a) ђw as in CA ђawā, CVIII ’iђtawā “to contain within, include inside of it” as
in The bottle ta-ђwī beer/liquid and The baggage ta-ђwī his clothes, Sab. ђwy “to
encircle, invest”,

b) ḏy “tree; arrow”: CA ḏiyā-nu coll. “mountainous trees”,

c) ’r: CA ’arru “branch of a kind of tree”, Chad.: Jegu ’orra “stick” (HSED
114) and in Sumerian ùr “beams, rafters”.
A combination of the three proots cited above gives rise to another complex
words very closely related to CA ђaḏiru above.

Hamito-Semitic: CA ђaḏiru-tu, ђiḏāru-tu fem. “pen”;

BHeb. ђāşēr “an enclosure” also “village; a private dwelling”
and of a temple, which had two courts “inner court and outer court”,
Sab. ђḏr “enclosed land”,
Phoen. ђşr “enclosure-wall, enclosed court, courtyard”,
Pun. ђşr “court of a temple”,
Palm. ђţr’ “enclosure-wall, courtyard”,
Egyp. (perhaps) ђtr “stable, stall”.
It may be of great benefit to compare HS words above with Sumerian tùr, tur(5)
“birth-hut; byre; sheepfold” in §3.2.2.9.

4.2.4 Reduplication of Adjectives

Reduplication of the Sumerian adjective may signify either intensification of
the adjectival idea or plurality. Thus diĝir-gal-gal might indicate “the very great
god” or “the great gods”. However, most adjectives reduplicate to indicate
intensification, e.g.
kal “precious” > kal-kal “very precious”
šen “clean” > šen-šen “very clean, immaculate”
diḡir-gal-gal "all the great gods”
a-gal-gal “all the great waters”
Hamito-Semitic: BHeb. ķaw ķāw “most mighty”: ķaw “strong, might” = CA
ķawiy “strong”, dial. ķawī ķawī “very strong, the strongest”,
Chad.: Housa maza “fast”: maza maza “very fast”.

4.2.5 Reduplication of verbs

Foxvog (2014: 26) sees that “since adjectives are basically verbal roots, the
plural reduplication of roots commonly seen in verbal forms is naturally to be
expected also in adjectives”. An example of reduplicated adjective and verb cited
by Foxvog (op.cit: 27) is
dim gal-gal ki-a mi-ni-si-si

227
 “Many (~ very) big mooring poles he sank into the earth”
Verb shows plural reduplication, but the of adjective is ambiguous.
Hamito-Semitic. CA: According to Farāhīdi (Al ‛ayn VII, 81-82) şarra, for
example, “to creak”, but if the action is repeated again and again, then one should
say şarşara [full reduplication]. Similarly, ya‛ađđu “bites”, while ya‛đuđđu “bites
repeatedly, i.e. a lot” (LA). The account that follows is taken from DHSR:
§2.1.14.2, n. 1.
Ibin Jinni (Khaşā‟iş II, 153ff) distinguishes two types of reduplication: full and
partial reduplication. It is the former that will concern us here.
1) Full reduplication, a process whereby the entire word is repeated or copied
to express ‘repeated actions’ as in za‛za‛a-tu and ķalķala-tu, etc. This type of
reduplication expresses many repeated actions that continue for some time. For
example, za‛za‛a, cited by Ibin Jinni, expresses “to shake (e.g. a tree) in order to
uproot it”, said of the wind, “to shake the branches of tree”. The action here is not
limited to ‘one shake’ that takes place at a definite point of time. In fact, it may
take some time to uproot a tree by keeping on shaking it. The other example also
expresses the same sort of ‘repeated’, ‘frequentative’, or ‘multiple’ action:
ķalķala “to move swiftly to and fro, shake and move repeatedly”, BHeb. ķilķal “to
move swiftly to and fro” (OT, 928). Some other examples of full reduplication are
Egyp. hphp “to run” (hp “to walk, to move”: cf. EHD I, 446)… ftft “crush”
(simplex unknown: cf. EG, §274) = CA fatfata “tear or break into pieces”
(simplex fatta id., but fatfata expresses multiple actions), Housa ciye ciye
“constant eating” (ciye “eat”), tambaye tambaye “repeated questioning” (tambaya
“ask”)...
The deep semantic notion that lies beneath reduplication is “plenty
(much/many) + meaning of the root. Thus, a reduplicated verb is a “plural verb”,
designating a multiple or number of repeated actions. This may rightly suggest
that all reduplicative verbs and adjectives are originally formed on the analogy of
reduplicative nouns, and that the origin of reduplication has to be sought in the
type of “plural nouns” formed by reduplication and not in the verb as a part of
speech. CA has preserved many reduplicated nouns such as kaθkaθu coll.
“stones” and dindinu “roots of trees”. There are also similar reduplicate plural
nouns in Egyp. such as tsίtsί “judges”. For a study of reduplication in HS, see
DHSR: §2.1.14.2.

4.3 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic gender systems

Sumerian nouns can be divided into two classes on the basis of gender:
a) human nouns, referring to people, kinship terms, occupations and deities,
b) non-human nouns, referring to animals, places, plants and all kinds of things.

228
It is evident that the gender of a noun is determined by its meaning, and that the
noun itself is not marked for gender. The distinction between human and non-
human nouns depends mainly on the pronominal elements used to refer to them
(human is referred to by /n/ and non-human by /b/) as well as on the interrogative
pronouns: human: a-ba and non-human: a-na. Jagersma (2010: §6.2) sees,
however, that
“Yet, this gender difference between /n/ and /b/ must be a relatively
recent development. This is proven by the fact that the interrogative
pronouns a-na ‘what?’ and a-ba ‘who?’ show a reversed pattern, with
/b/ in the human form and /n/ in the non-human form”.
Traces of this old classification of gender into human versus non-human are
found in CA where some particles, esp. the interrogatives man which refers to
human and mā to non-human, are used with nouns of human gender
(masculine/feminine), i.e. endowed with reason, and some others with non-human
nouns, i.e. not endowed with reason (see DHSR: §4.19.3.4.5). The CA
interrogative man is a compound of two obvious elements:

a) [ma-] usually expresses in CA compounds “what” as in CA matā “when,

i.e. what + time, etc. Egyp. m(’) “what, who”, Phoen. m “what”; ’m “who”, etc.
see DHSR: §3.10 for cognates and more compounds,

b) [-n] (meaning ?) perhaps = ‘human’; it is the only element that signals a

difference in meaning between [mn] “who” and [m] “what”.
After a deep discussion of CA gender and especially its syntactic and semantic
properties as compared with the Indo-European gender, the conclusion was:
“From all what have been said in this section, we may conclude that IE-HS
‘gender’ was originally independent of morphology in the sense that all
morphological endings distinguishing gender are later developments, and that
nouns were originally classified as human (masc./fem.) and non-human (things
and animals) on a purely semantic basis rather than grammatical one. The
essence of this system has been preserved only in Hitt. and CA” (p. 760).
Jagersma (2010: 102) arrives at a similar conclusion in his study of Sumerian
gender:
“[Sumerian] Nouns are assigned to a gender class on a strictly
semantic basis. The gender of a noun is only determined by its
meaning, its formal properties are completely irrelevant. The basic
semantic distinction between the two genders is human/non-human”.

4.3.1 Sumerian interrogatives

The universal Sumerian surface interrogatives are a-na ‘what?’ and a-ba
“who?”. They are, like their Hamito-Semitic cognates below, based on one single
229
form and each is a compound of a number of elements. All pronouns and
negatives will be broken down into their ultimate elements in my next research.
The reason for this postponement is given in §4.6 below.

4.3.1.1 Sumerian a-na “what?”

HS: Egyp. yn-na is an interrogative
CA ’annā “how” also “wherever, when”;’aina “where”,
Ug. ’an “where”, etc. gen. Semitic (DRS: Fasc. I, 24)
Omotic: Chara ˈoː-ne “who”,
Yem ò “who”,
Bench ó-n “who”.

4.3.1.2 Sumerian a-ba “who?”

HS: Egyp. ’np’ is an interrogative
Omotic: Yem āːnbà “what”.
The interrogatives cited above are found in many world’s language families
with similar form and meaning, e.g.
Austronesian ann “what”: Tagalog ano,
Ilocano ania,
Pampangan nanu,
Malagasy inona, etc.
Austronesian apa “what”: Malay apa,
Old Javanese apa,
Iban apa,
Sasak apa, etc.

Ainu: nen “who”,

nep “what”.

Hurrian a-bi “who” also “what”.

Purepecha: ne- “who”,

ambe “what”.

4.4 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic causatives

Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic cognates in Chapter Three above show clearly
that both families share in common three causative proots [da’-], [sa’- ~ ša’-] and
[’a-], used as prefixes to create new words. Such three proots are also found in
other world’s language families. For the HS causatives, see §§1.3.4; 1.3.4.1-
1.3.4.2 above. For some examples of the causatives in HS and Sumerian, see
§§3.1.1; 3.2.2.18.1; 3.2.2.13; 3.2.3.25; 3.2.3.6.1.2; 3.2.3.6.1.3.

230
4.5 Sumerian Cases
Most cases found in world’s languages are originally separate words used as
prepositions. Moreover, a comparative study of grammatical cases involving two
or more language families may be more promising when personal pronouns and
demonstrative are taking into account.
Sumerian is assumed to have the following cases: genitive, dative, teriminative,
adverbiative, locative, comitative, equative, ablative, ergative, absolutive and
directive. The first eight of the cases will be dealt with below.

4.5.1 Sumerian genitive -ak/-ag

Sumerian, like any other language, had a number of morphemes expressing
genitival relationships, but Sumerian scholars recognize only [-k/-g].
Accordingly, my following study of Sumerian morphemes expressing genitival
relationships will be restricted to [-k/-g]. e.g.,
Sumerian ní diḡir ak
fear god genitive “the fear of god”

dumu lugal ak
child king genitive “prince”

ga áb kù ga
milk cow pure genitive “milk from pure cows”
The most prevalent Hamito-Semitic morpheme expressing genitival
relationship, esp. in the sense “belonging to” is [-y], called yā’ an-nisbah (in
Arabic), and is used as a suffix, written either -iy or (when -y is dropped) -ī. This
same genitive ending also expresses related senses as “connected with, one who,
etc.”: see DHSR: §3.6 for more meanings and functions of [-y] and illustrative
examples from HS languages.
There are two weighty reasons compelling me to bring to light the PHS
genitive /-y/.
1) The story of this genitive in CA is somewhat similar to the story of -en in
English children. People in the Middle English period most likely felt that the
plural ending -ru, the pl. ending of a small class of OE nouns such as cild “child”
> cildru; lamb “lamb” > lambru, was not strong enough to indicate plurality. So,
they added to it -en and the word is thus a double plural. If we assume that
analogy was responsible, the resulting form in this case would be then *childen
and not children.
Similarly, in the course of time the Arabs felt that such genitive endings as -k, -
r, -n, etc. were no longer strong enough to express genitival relationships and, in
consequence, added to some of them the most commonly used HS genitive
marker– [-y]. Old Arab scholars, however, recognized that -k, -r, etc. are extra
letters attached to words, but without determining their functions.
231
 2) There is a sort of interchange between the CA genitive marker /-y/ and /ĝ/,
where some old Arabic dialects used /-ĝ/ instead of /-y/, and this use has
continued to the present in many modern dialects. The notable difference between
old and modern dialects is that modern dialects often add the genitive /-y/ to /-g/
making the word a double genitive. The interchange of palatals /-y/ and /-ĝ/ was
discussed in DHSR: §3.6.13 and attributed to their similarity in the point of
articulation.

HS [-k-]: CA Hind “India”: hindikī, hindikiy “Hindi, from or belonging to

India”, pl. hanādiku, hanādika-tu. In Modern Arabic and all dialects the only form
in use is Hindī, i.e. Hindi.
The forms hindikī, hindikiy occurred in old poetry and the final /-k/ was
referred to as an ‘extra letter’ by some old Arab scholars. Some others, however,
consider the relation between hindī and hindikī as that holding between sabţu and
sibţaru {sbţ: sbţ-r}(see LA). This means that final -r and -k are both genitive
ending markers. For the HS genitive marker /r/, see DHSR: §2.1.6.7, esp. n. 1-3.
Another example from CA is zawan(n)-ak [r. zwn] “one who considers himself
of significance”. It also signifies “short and plump”, i.e. belonging to zawnu
“short(ness)”. The ending /-k/ was also recognized as an extra letter suffixed to
zwn (LA).
The third example from HS has been chosen to be identical with the following
example from Sumerian:
énsi-k “city ruler (Old Sumerian); city governor (post-Sargonic)”
en “lord” + si “plowland” + -k genitive
HS: Akk. nasīku “chieftain”, OffAram. nsyky “prince”, CA nāsiku “a hermit”;
ma-nāsiku “rites, rituals”, BHeb. nsk, esp. in poetry. “one anointed, i.e. a prince
consecrated by anointing”, etc.
One may naturally think that one of the two families borrowed the word from
another, and the candidate of borrowing in this case would be Hamito-Semitic.
But, can such a claim be proved? Consider the following facts:

a) A combination of Sumerian en and si gives rise, let us say in theory, to a

compound ensi “lord + land/earth, and the like” = Egyp. nsw “king”,

b) Another theoretical combination of Sumerian si and -k results in a compound

sik “belonging to the plowland”. The thing that belongs to the plowland is HS
sikka-tu as in Akk. sikka-tu “ploughshare”, CA sikka-tu “the pointed piece of iron
on a plow used for breaking up the soil and making furrows”, Egyp. sk’ “to
plow”.
It seems that HS [sik] is based on [siy] which signifies in CA “the (pointed) tip
of a bow” as in siy-ya-tu fem. Based on the similarity between ‘tip of a bow’ and

232
‘horn’, Sumerian also has si “horn”. For many more meanings of Sumerian si, see
§§3.3.5.4; 3.3.5.7 and 3.3.5.8 above.
To revert to Sumerian énsik and Akk. nasīku, etc. above, a very close form, if
not indeed the same form (disregarding metathesis), is seen in Sumerian itself
nísaḡ “governor” and HS: Akk.-Assyr. šangu “priest” and in general Eth. nəges
“king”; ngs “to reign”, Cush.: Somali ugaas “tribal chief”, Ometo angussaa “first-
born son”, Chad.: Gisiga mangaš “bridegroom” (HSED, n. 1831).

Indo-European seems to have some endings expressing genitival relationships

such as [-k] and [-r]. The following example of IE and HS cognate roots, together
with the discussion that follows, aims to demonstrate the truth of this claim.

HS: CA nūtiy “sailor” (< nautiy), a derivative of nāta “move to and fro, swing
from side to side” (< HS naw- “ship” below) with final /-iy/ = ‘connected with,
belonging to + the meaning of the word’ (e.g. maktabiy “librarian”: maktaba-tu
fem. “library”, faħħāriy “potter”: faħħāru masc. “earthenware, baked clay”).
IE: Grk. nautēs “sailor”, Lat. nauta id., OIr. nōaire id. Skt. nāvika- id. PIE
*nautis “sailor”. All IE and HS words are based on the term for ‘ship, boat’ as the
following cognates show:

HS: Egyp. n’-t, from *nw’-t, “sailing ship”, ynw-t “boat”, Ug. anyt “ship”: CA
nawa’a, nā’a “to move to and fro, be moved by the wind”.

IE: Skt. nāu- “ship”; nava-m gen. pl. “boat”, Old Persian nāv- id., Toch. new-
id., Grk. naūs id., Lat. gen. pl. nāvium id., OIr. nau “ship”, Polish nawa id. PIE
*nāu- “boat, ship”. WP II, 315, Mann IECD, 828; Buck §§10.81-10.82,

Discussion
Buck (CG: §484) considers Greek -tēs (-τηs) of nautēs above as a suffix
forming agent nouns and replacing -tēr (-τηρ). It also used to denote ‘the person
occupied with’. This is no more than a surface description of the Greek suffix that
does not acquaint us with anything new.
Greek -tēs is in fact a compound of {-t + *-eyo} “belonging to, connected
with”. For PIE *-eyo and HS [-y], see DHSR: §4.19.2.7 and Comments I. This
means that both CA and Greek words for “sailor” includes the infix /-t-/ and that
in both it has become an inseparable part of the word: compare with the Egyp.
word. There is, however, a suffix -tί (-ty) in HS as in Egyp. yptί “inspector”: yp,
caus. s-yp “to inspect”. This suffix is ultimately the same as as CA -tiy of nūtiy,
Grk –tē of nau-tē-(s) above.
The root upon which OIr. and Skt. words for “sailor” are based indicates
clearly that the words include two endings used to modify the root meaning and
create new words; these are -ire and -k respectively. We can also note that
233
although the three endings, namely -tē(s) of Greek, -ire of OIr. and -k of Skt., are
phonologically quite different, yet they have the very same function. How can this
phenomenon be explained scientifically?
The sole scientific explanation of the phenomenon is that OIr. -r and Skt. -k are
morphemes expressing genitival relationships “belonging to, connected with;
agentive”. Some additional examples from Skt. which make the explanation
indisputable are:
Skt. adʰyāpaka- “teacher”: adʰyāpāya “to teach”,
çikṣaka- also “teacher”: çikṣ- “to learn”, caus. “to teach”,
cikitsaka- “physician”: cikitsa- “to cure, heal”.

4.5.2 Sumerian dative -r(a) “to, for”; usually -r after a vowel and -ra after a
consonant, e.g.
lugal ḡu ra
lord my to “to my lord”;
nanše r(a)
Nanshe for “for Nashe”
HS: Egyp. r “to, for”.

4.5.3 Sumerian terminative -š(e) “toward, to”; -š after a vowel and -še after a
consonant, e.g.
lagas šè
Lagash to
“to Lagash”
é-muhaldim šè
kitchen to
“to the kitchen”
HS: Sab. s¹, s¹wn “toward”,
CA siwā “toward, to” is a new preposition that was discovered in the
language and in other sister languages such as Akk. ša- and Aram. š-: see DHSR:
§3.2.58, esp. n. a and n. b,
Berb.: Shilђa s- “to, roward”.

4.5.4 Sumerian adverbiative -eš (rarely -iš)

HS: Akk. adverbial (or adverbative) suffix -iš as in karmiš “like a ruin”:
karmu “ruin”, limniš “evilly, terribly”: limnu “evil”.

4.5.5 Sumerian locative case -a, ni

The locative -a is used to express a location where something or someone is
located. The locative can have the same uses as the local prefix [ni] “in”
(Jagersma, 2010: §7.7.2).

234
 The HS locative case is preserved intact in Akk. -u and traces of it are found in
sister languages: see Moscati, 1969: §§12.65 & 12.66.
As to the Sumerian local prefix ni ‘in’, it is a form common to many language
families. The difference between Sumerian and some other languages with respect
to this preposition is a matter whether is used as a prefix or suffix.
HS: Akk. in “in”, Egyp. ’n “in”, Ge’ez ’enta, Tigre ’et id. DHSR: §4.15.17.
IE: Grk én “in”, OLat. in-, Oscan, Umbrian -en, Goth., OE, OHG in, OIr. en,
etc. id. DHSR: §4.15.17.
Examples from some other language families are:
Basque -n, -an “in, at”.
Korean -n, an, ean “in, at”.
Thai-Kudai: Thai nay “in”, Lao nai id.
Oto-Manguean: Otomian languages nu “in”, Mixtec languages ini “in”, nuu
“at”.
Sumerian locative -a is present, for example, in šu-a-la “paralyzed”: see §3.3.6.13
above. Its CA cognate is šulla “be paralyzed”; adj. ma-šlūlu “paralyzed”,
apparently from *šu’ul- or *šu’al-, where the glottal stop /’-/ was subject to
regressive assimilation in CA, becoming *-l-.

4.5.6 Sumerian comitative da

Sumerian comitative da has the same basic meaning as the verbal prefix {da},
i.e. “(together) with” (Jagersma, 2010: 200). Edzard (2003: §5.4.2.6) sees that
“the general function [of da] is to express company, doing something or being
with someone or something… This practice may, have been identical with the
noun da “side”; but this cannot be proved”.
ama da nu sá
mother com. neg. be equal
“incomparable to mother”.
HS [’t or ’d] “with” as in Assyr. itti “with”; itāti “side”, BHeb. ’t “with”,
Phoen. ’t(y), Pun. itt, ett “with, beside; near”. The original meaning of the term
seems to be “side > beside” and is a variant of yad “hand” whose original
meaning is also “side” as in Assyr. idi, idā “at the side of”, etc. see §3.2.2.5 above.

4.5.7 Sumerian equative gim, kim

The Sumerian equative case marker gim, kim, gin7, gen7 expresses a
comparison “like, as, similar to, just as” also “instead of”. It also used as a
preposition (Jagersma, 2010: §7.12), e.g.
a-ba ses gu(10) gé
who brother my equative “Who is like my brother”.

235
 HS [kama or ka] expresses a comparison “like, as, similar to, just as” as in CA
kamā, ka “as, like, just as, similar to”, Akk. kīma “as, like” also “in place of” (=
Sumerian kim, gim, etc. “instead of” above); kīmē “just as”, BHeb. kamō “as,
like”, etc.

4.5.7 Sumerian ablative case prefix -ra-

The Sumerian ablative -ra- expresses “from” and is, as Halloran (2006: 217)
states, “similar to ta- but without instrumental meaning”.
HS: Egyp. r “from”.
Cush.: Oromo expresses “from” in a number of ways, one of which is the
use of the preposition -(i)rraa as in gabaa “market”: gabaa irraa ~ gabaarraa “from
market”.

4.6 Sumerian and Hamito-Semitic negatives

My study of negatives, demonstratives, interrogatives, and personal pronouns
of the languages of the world made me arrive at a conclusion that it is indeed a
waste of time and ink to compare Sumerian and HS negatives and pronouns, for
such essential parts of any language vocabulary have undergone similar
developments in all world’s languages and manifested similar complexities in
their morphological structure. Accordingly, the only fruitful study of such
elements must begin with the establishment of the proot underlying each element
or a class of elements and proceeds to explain any deviant form that ‘might’ be
found in one or more language families. As a matter of fact, no deviant elements
are found and all elements have been built on proots by predictable and self-
explained compounds. The publication of the current work will be immediately
followed by another ready for printing and entitled ‘How to show the unity of
world languages: new methods, principles and criteria’, which will include, in
addition to the above mentioned negatives and pronouns in all languages, all basic
and indispensable vocabulary elements along with their proots.
For the time being I will choose the negatives in both Sumerian and Hamito-
Semitic and cite their surface forms without mentioning the proot from which
they have evolved. Apart from the fact that their negatives are identical in form,
my advice is that don’t take this comparison seriously since it is surface and void
of any depth.
Sumerian has a very small number of negatives as compared with Hamito-
Semitic. Such negatives in both families are:

4.6.1 Sumerian nu
HS: Egyp. n “no not”; n’ id., nί, ny id. A suffix -t can be added to Egyp. n- to
create a new variant nt “not”; n-t “without, not”, etc.

236
 IE: Skt., Av. na “not”, Grk nē- “not”, Lith. ne, Lat. ne-, Goth. ni, etc. see
DHSR: §4.15.5.

IE: Ved. an “not”, OIr. an- id., Lat. in id. DHSR: §4.15.19.
HS: Egyp. ’n “not”, Ge’ez ’en- “not”, Moabite ’n “no, not”, Ug. ’in “no, not”
BHeb.’ēyn “no, not”, Eth. ’en “no, not”, Cush.: Oromo in- “not”, etc. DHSR:
§4.15.19. CA ’in “no, not”, ’ini(h) id. The negative ’ini(h) can also occur as a
suffix -ni(h), i.e. a post negative particle, exactly as Egyp. -yn id.
Japanese -nai “not”, Korean an, ani, anida “not”, etc.

4.6.2 Sumerian nan

HS: Egyp. nn “no, not”.

4.6.3 Sumerian bara

HS: Egyp. bw “no, not” bw yr “do not” (yr “do”), Chad. ba “not”, Cush. ba
“not have”, etc. see DHSR: §3.21.5.
Unlike negatives [ma-], [na-], [ša-], etc., [ba-] seems to be unpopular in world’s
languages. Among language families having this negative are:
Mayan: K'iche' b'i “not”.
Burushaski be “not”.
Dene-Yeniseian: Ket bən “not”.
Santali ba “not”.
The origin of Sumerian -ra of bara is difficult to determine, it may be an auxiliary
verb corresponding to HS [’r] “do”.

4.6.4 Sumerian la-, li-

Sumerian variants la- and li- are used before the conjugation prefixes ba- and
bi2-
HS: Akk., CA lā, OAram. l’ “not”.

4.7 Sumerian non-negative preformative [na]

Beside the negative [na], Sumerian had a homonymous [na] whose meaning or
function is still undetermined. Jagersma (1910: §26.3) refers to it as ‘non-negative
preformative na’ and describes it as follows:
“The non-negative preformative {na} is attested a few dozen times
in our corpus, but its use is restricted to narrative texts: it only occurs
in some royal inscriptions and literary texts. Its function remains
obscure. The conventional view is that it expresses an emphatic
assertion (e.g., Falkenstein 1959: 49), but that does not fit the
bilingual evidence: the Akkadian scribes never render a verbal form
with {na} as an emphatic assertion, even though non-negative {na}

237
 occurs quite often in bilingual texts. In fact, they do not seem to
translate non-negative {na} at all”.
The corresponding HS non-negative [na’-] that fits exactly the description of
Sumerian non-negative [na] and is historically identical with it is one discovered
in DHSR: §3.11, n. 6 in some Egyp. and CA compound roots. It also occurs in
Egyp. as a free morpheme. The Egyptian dictionaries identifies [n’] as a prefix
without determining its meaning or function. Based only on CA compounds
including this proot, the signification of [na’] appears to be ‘intensification’, i.e.
“much, very, so, etc”, and it is probably for this reason the Akkadian scribes did
not felt the need to translate it. As a matter of fact, if we depend on the Egyptian
data alone, we will find that there is no obvious meaning of its [n’] to translate.
Consider the following Egyptian examples:
Egyp. n’bnw “to be bad, to be evil, to be wicked”: bnw “evil one, wicked
one”; bny “badness, evil, wickedness”,
Egyp. n’‛š “many”: ‛š “many”,
Egyp. n’wr “great”: wr “great”,
Egyp. n’‛n “beautiful”: ‛n “beautiful”.
One may note that Egyp. proot [n-] does not seem to add any grammatical or
semantic feature to the word to which it is prefixed. It is only in CA that the
difference between forms with and without [n-] is evident as the following
examples show:
a) na’’āĝu signifies lit. “much + shouting/making sound/uttering a loud cry”:
’aĝĝa “make a sound, to sound, to shout”; n. ’aĝĝu. The verb ’aĝĝa is from [g-]
“sound” (§3.2.3.9 above) and includes the caus. /’a-/ as part of the root. For
examples of caus. /’a/ as an inseparable part of the root in all HS languages,
including CA, see DHSR: §3.2.

b) na’aĝa “to pass very fast”; nā’iĝ-ā-tu fem. pl. “winds that are very fast”:
’aĝĝa “to hurry, hasten, be fast”; n. ’aĝĝu.
This [n-] is probably the one in the HS term for ‘nimrod” as in Egyp. n’m’rt,
BHeb. nmrd, CA namrūd. The word is based on [mrd] which may express either
“to rebel, revolt; rebellion” as in OAram., OffAram. mrd “to revolt, rebel”, CA ta-
marrada “to rebel”, BHeb. mārad id.; mered “rebellion” or “giant man, tyrant
man”. Note that [mrd] is based on the HS common term [mr-] for “man, master”.

4.8 Other grammatical elements

1) Sumerian na is used as modal prefix and emphatic in past tense = HS [’in].
See §3.4.2.9 above.

238
 2) Sumerian bi a demonstrative and possessive = HS p’. See §§3.2.1.4 &
3.2.1.4.1 above.

4.9 Sumerian and Semitic religions

The Sumerians left an ever-lasting effect on the three Semitic religions:
Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The echoes of their literature, mythology, view
of the creation of the world, temples and rituals (prayers, sacrifices, libations,
hymns, etc.) are seen in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition today.
The Sumerian religion was polytheistic with numerous gods. There were the
high gods, some had at their disposal a number of aides (deities), and personal
gods (representatives or priests). The latter attended the prayers, hymns and
sacrifices and relayed them to the high gods.
The following Sumerian beliefs are the cornerstones of the Judeo-Christian and
Islamic religions:

1) The Sumerians believe that humans are formed by gods out of the clay of the
ground just to serve and worship them. The very same Sumerian belief and the
reason why gods created human beings hold true of Semitic religions, but with
one notable dufference: we refer to the Sumerian belief as a myth and to that of
Semitic religions as divine and sacred.

“You are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19).

“And of His signs that He created you from dust, then lo!
you are human beings scattering (in the world)” (Koran 30:
20).

“I created the Jinn and humans to whorship (me)” (Koran

51: 56).
As dedicated servants, the Sumerians and the followers of the Semitic religions
rely on their gods for every aspect of their lives.

2) The Sumerians believe that Man does not know beforehand his destiny, the
unseen things or the future; only gods know. This is indeed one of the pillars on
which Semitic religions are based.

“He knows whatsoever in the heavens and the earth and

knows whatsoever you conceal or whatsoever you declare”
(Koran 57: 4).

“And with him is the key knowledge of the unseen- no one

knows it but he alone” (Koran 6: 59).

239
 3) It is basic to the Sumerian religion that gods are immortal, man was mortal
and this is a purely god’s decision. The very same concept is also basic to the
Semitic religions:

“He gives life and causes to die, and unto him you will
return” (Koran 10: 56).

4) Death is not, however, the ultimate end of life. The dead continued in the
form of a spirit. The stories of resurrection from the dead, as in the case of
Dumuzi (Akkadian Tammuz) and the return from the underworld are also found
in both Sumerian and in Akkadian literatures. Each of the three Semitic religions,
however, is still waiting for the return of its savior.

5) Both the Sumerians and all followers of the Semitic religions rob their
dictionaries of all exquisite and superb words as well as of all terms for ethical
virtues and high moral qualities and attribute them to their gods/God. In addition,
both spend much of their time to ensuring their devotion to their gods/God with
prayer, worship and sacrifice.

6) Among many other striking and unusual similarities, I will briefly cite one:
the Great Flood that once befell the earth and lasted for some days.

Sumerians: the supreme god Enlil decided to destroy mankind because he was
disturbed by the noise man created. Enki (god of freshwater), knowing that a
destructive flood was going to happen, instructed Ziusudra to build a large boat
for his family and for representatives of the animals. Those who were on the boat
survived.

Semites: similarly Noah learned from his God about the flood and was
instructed to build an arc. When the flood began, only those who were on the arc,
i.e. Noah, his family, and representatives of all the animals of the earth, survived
and everything else in the world perished. This same flood was also mentioned in
the Koran as in verse 29: 15
“And we deliverd him (referring to Noah) and the
inanimates of the arc, and we made it a sign unto the
peoples of the world”.
There is something interesting about the flood since it is found in many cultures
far apart from one another, e.g. Mayan, Greek (Deucation), aboriginal tribes of
Australian, the Hindu texts, etc. If we assume that all such cultures speak about
the very same flood, the story may rightly suggest that its essence is correct, and a
huge flood occurred in a given area in the remotest past when the homogeneous

240
human tribes were still living together in the same area and speaking the same
language. They witnessed the flood and suffered from the destruction it left
behind. The story of the flood became fixed in their memory and it had been
transmitted orally from generation to generation until it was committed to writing.
The notion of ship/arc may be a later substitute for an elevated land to which they
resorted during the flood.
Kramer (1963) sheds light on many parallels between Semitic religious beliefs
and Sumerian myths. Some of them are:
“Enki’s eating of the eight [sacred] plants and the curse uttered
against him for this misdeed recall the eating of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge by Adam and Eve and the curses pronounced against each
of them for this sinful action” (p. 148).
He also sees that “there is some reason to believe that the very same idea of a
paradise, a garden of the gods, originated with the Sumerian”. The Sumerian
paradise-land was in Dilmun to the east of Sumer which was called by the
Babylonians the home of the living or immortals. “There is good indication that
the Biblical paradise may have been originally identical with Dilmun” (p.149).
For example, the watering of Dilmun with fresh water sourced from the earth is
reminiscent, according to Kramer, of the Biblical passage:
But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole
face of the earth (Genesis 2: 6).
It is amzing that the Koranic paradise is always described as “garden(s)
beneath which rivers flow” (Koran 5:119; 10: 9; 16: 31; 22: 14; 20: 76, etc.).
Why is it ‘beneath’ and not the usual Arabic preposition ‘in’ or ‘through’? The
use of ‘beneath’ in this context makes the sentence meaning difficult to figure out.
It is now apparent that ‘rivers’ here are used metaphorically for ‘sources of
water’.

The prevalent Semitic belief that Eve (and hence all women) was fashioned
from Adam’s rib is also traced by Kramer to the Sumerians. His account explains
why the ‘rib’ has been chosen and not any other organ of the body.

As has been mentioned above, the Sumerians were polytheistic, whereas the
three Semitic religions revolve around one God in one way or the other.
Consideration of this major difference leads to the following conditional
argument:
If we reduce the Sumerian set of gods to ‘one god’ and assign to him all the
functions and spheres of power, knowledge and wisdom that Sumerian gods
collectively possess, then we will arrive at the Semitic God, the creator of the sky
and earth, of all creatures and things, the almighty, the all-knowing, and so forth.

241
Semitic God also has at his disposal numbers of aides (angels) carrying out
whatever he ordains.

242
 REFERENCES

Abraham, R. C. 1959. 1962. Somali English Dictionary. London.

Albright, William. 1927. Notes on Egypto-Semitic Etymology III. JAOS, Vol. 47, pp.
201-236.

Adelaar, K. Alexander. 2006. Borneo as a Cross-Roads for Comparative Linguistics. In

Peter Bellwood, James Fox and Darrell Tryon (eds), The Austronesians: Historical and
Comparative Perspectives, ANU Press, pp. 81-103.
and Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds.). 2005. The Austronesian Languages of Asia
and Madagascar. London: Curzon Press.

Ali, Mir Ahmad. 1988. The Holy Koran, with Translation and Commentary. New York.

Anderson, James M. 1973. Structural Aspects of Language Change. London: Longman.

Anttila, Raimo. 1972. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. New

York: Macmillan.

Antoinette Schapper, Juliette Huber & Aone van Engelenhoven. 2014. The relatedness of
Timor-Kisar and Alor-Pantar languages: A preliminary demonstration. In Marian
Klamer (ed). The Alor Pantar Languages: History and Typology, pp. 99-154. Berlin:
Language science Press.

Applegate, Joseph R. 1958. An Outline of the Structure of Shilђa. American Council of

Learned Societies, New York.
1975. Semantic Correlates of Berber Syntactic Patterns. In James and Theodora
Bynon (eds), Hamito-Semitica, pp. 291-293. The Hague.

Atkinson, Martin, David Kilby and Iggy Roca. Foundations of General Linguistics.
London.

Arlotto, Anthony. 1972. Introduction to Historical Linguistics. New York: Houghton

Mifflin Company.

243
Austin, Peter K. and Musgrave, Simon. 2008. Voice and Grammatical Relations in
Austronesian Languages. CSLI Publications, USA.

Barnes, Janet. 1990. Classifiers in Tuyuca. In Doris L. Payne (ed.). Amazonian

Linguistics: Study in Lowland South American languages, pp. 273-292. Austin:
University of Texas Press.

Basset A. and Picard A. 1948. Éléments de Grammaire Berbère. Paris.

Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction.

Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Beeston, A. F. L. et al. 1982. Sabaean Dictionary. Beirut.

1962. A Descriptive Grammar of Epigraphic South Arabian. London: Luzac & Co.
Ltd.

Bellwood, Peter. 1995. Austronesian Prehistory in Southeast Asia: Homeland, Expansion

and Transformation. In Peter Bellwood, James Fox and Darrell Tryon (eds), The
Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, ANU Press, pp. 103-118.
and James Fox and Darrell Tryon. 1995. The Austronesian in History: Common
Origins and Diverse Transformations. In Peter Bellwood, James Fox and Darrell Tryon
(eds), The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, ANU Press, pp. 1-
16.

Bender, M. Lionel. A survey of Omotic grammemes. In Philip Baldi (ed.). 1990.

Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology: Part II, pp. 661-695. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter & Co.

Blake, Barry J. 1990. The significance of pronouns in the history of Australian

languages. In Philip Baldi (ed.). 1990. Linguistic change and reconstruction
methodology: Part II, pp. 435-450. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Blust, Robert and Stephen Trussel. 2010. Austronesian Comparative Dictionary.

Revision 5/20/2014. Web edition: www.trussel2.com/ACD.
1990. Patterns of sound change in the Austronesian languages. In Philip Baldi
(ed.). 1990. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology: Part I, pp. 231-267.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
1978. Eastern Malayo-Polenesian: A Subgrouping Argument. Pacific Linguistics,
Series C, N. 61, pp. 181-234.
Bobula, Ida. 1951. Sumerian affiliations. Washington, D. C.

Bomhard, Allan R. 2014. A Comprehensive Introduction to Nostratic Comparative

Linguistics with Special Reference to Indo-European. Volumes I, II, III. USA:
Charleston.
1996. Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis. Charleston, SC: Signum
Publishing.

244
 1990. A survey of the comparative phonology of the so-called ‘Nostratic’
languages. In Philip Baldi (ed.).
1990. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology: Part I, pp. 331-358.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
1981. Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic: New evidence for the Connection.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1969. The Indo-European Phonological System: New Thoughts
about its Reconstruction and Development. Orbis XXVIII/1, pp. 66-110.

Branden, Alb. Van Den. 1950. Les Inscriptions Thamoudéenes. Louvain-Heverlé.

Brugmann, Karl. 1904. Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der Indogermanischen

Sprachen. Reprinted 1970, Berlin.

Buck, Karl D. 1949. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European

Languages. The University of Chicago Press.
1933. Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. The University of Chicago
Press. 8th impression, 1962.

Budge, E. A. Wallis. 1978. Egyptian Language. 16th impression. Britain: Routledge &
Kegan Paul Limited.
1978. Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, 2 Volumes. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc.

Burquest, Donald A. and Laidig Wyn D. (eds). 1992. Phonological Studies in

Four Languages of Maluku. Dallas, USA.

Burrow, Thomas. 1973. The Sanskrit Language. London: Faber & Faber.

Campbell, Lyle and W. P. 2008. Language Classification: History and Method.

Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, Lyle. 1999. Historical linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: MIT Press.
1990. Mayan languages and linguistic change. In Philip Baldi (ed.). 1990.
Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology: Part I, pp. 115-129. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter & Co.

Capell, A. 1962. A new approach to Australian Linguistics, 2nd Impression. the

University of Sydney Press, Australia. First published 1956.

Carnochan, Jack. 1975. Bachama and Chadic. In James and Theodora Bynon (eds),
Hamito-Semitica, pp. 459-485. The Hague.

Castellino, G. R. 1975. Gender in Cushitic. In James and Theodora Bynon (eds), Hamito-
Semitica, pp. 333-359. The Hague.

Chafe, Wallace L.1976. The Caddoan, Iroquoian, and Siouan languages. The Hague:
Mouton.

245
Childs, G. Tucker. 2003. An Introduction to African Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Cohen, David. 1993/95. Dictionnaire des Racines Sémitiques ou Attestées dans les
Langues Semitiques. Fascicules 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Belgium: Peeters.
1970. Étude de Linguistique Sémitique et Arabe. Paris: The Hague:.
1970. Dictionnaire des Racines Sémitique ou attestées dans les Langues
Sémitiques. Fascicules 1, 2. Mouton and Co. The Netherlands.
1969. Essai Comparatif sur le vocabulaire et la phonétique du chamito-sémitique.
Paris.

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd ed. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
I987. The World’s Major Languages. London: Groom Helm.

Cooke, G. A. 1903. A textbook of North-Semitic inscriptions. Oxford.

Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.

Dahl, Otto Christian. 1977. Proto-Austronesian. 2nd Revised Edition, Curzon Press.

Daryabadi, A. M. 2004. The Koran: Translation and Commentary of the Holy Koran. Dar
Ibin Katheer, Beirut.

Delamarre, X. 1984. Le Vocabulaire Indo-Européenne. Paris.

Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Payne, Doris L. 1990. Noun classification systems in

Amazonian languages. In Doris L. Payne (ed.). Amazonian Linguistics: Study in Lowland
South American languages, pp. 244-271. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Derek Haugen, Jason. 2004. Issues in Comparative Uto-Aztecan Morphosyntax. PhD

dissertation, the University of Arizon.

D’hauterive, Grandsaignes R. 1949. Dictionnaire de Racines des Languages Euro-

péennes. Paris.

Diakonoff, I. M. 1988. Afrasian Languages. Moscow.

and Neroznak, V. P. 1985. Phrygian. New York.
1965. Semito-Hamitic Languages. Moscow.
Diamond, A. S. 1965. The History and Origin of Language. New York: The Citadel
Press.

Dietrich, Wolf. 1990. Chiriguano and Guarayo word formation. In Doris L. Payne (ed.).
Amazonian Linguistics: Study in Lowland South American languages, pp. 293-320.
Austin: University of Texas Press.

Diringer, D. 1948. The Alphabet: A key to the History of Mankind. London.

246
Dixon, R. M. W. (1990). Linguistic change and reconstruction in the Australian
languages: Summary report. In Philip Baldi (ed.). 1990. Linguistic change and
reconstruction methodology: Part II, pp. 393-401. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge University Press.
1977. A grammar of Yidiŋ. Cambridge University Press.

Douglas, Wilfrid, H.1976. The aboriginal languages of the South-West of Australia, 2nd
edition. Australian aboriginal studies: Research and regional studies n. 9. Camberra.

Drower, E. S. and Macuch R. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: the Clarendon Press.

Dyen, Isidore. 1990. Homomeric lexical classification. In Philip Baldi (ed.). 1990.
Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology: Part I, pp. 211-230. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter & Co.

Dyen, Isidore. 1978. The Position of the Languages of Eastern Indonesia.

Pacific Linguistics, Series C, N. 61, pp. 235-254.
1971. The Austronesian languages and Proto-Austronesian. Linguistics in
Oceania, pp. 5-54.
1965. Lexicostatistics in Comparative Linguistics. Lingua 14, pp. 285-305.

Ebeling, J. and Cunningham, G. (2007). Analysing literary Sumerian: corpus-based

approaches. London: Equinox.

Edzard, Dietz Otto. 2003. Sumerian Grammar. Atlanta: Society of Biblical literature.

Ehret, Christopher. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): vowels,

tone, consonants, and vocabulary. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
2001. A comparative historical reconstruction of Proto-Nilo-Saharan. Cologne:
Rüdiger Köppe.

Ellis, Jeffrey. 1966. Towards a general Comparative Linguistics. The Hague.

Fahey, Bede. 2004. Mayan: A Sino-Tibetan language? A Comparative study. Sino-

Platonic Papers (SPP), Number 130 (February, 2004).
www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp130_mayan_language.pdf

Ferrell, Raleigh. 1978. Paiwan Phonology and Proto-Austronesian Dialects. Pacific

Linguistics, Series C, N. 61, pp. 19-32.

Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). 1980. Historical Morphology. The Hague.

Foley, W. 1991. The Yimas Language of New Guinea. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

247
Foot, E. C. 1913. A Galla-English, English-Galla Dictionary. Cambridge.

Foreest, R. A. D. 1948. The Chinese Language. London: Faber and Faber Ltd.

Fortson, Benjamine W. 2004. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction.

Blackwell Publishing.

Fox, Anthony. 1995. Linguistic Reconstruction: An Introduction to Theory and Method.

Oxford University Press.

Foxvog, Daniel A. 2014. Introduction to Sumerian grammar. California: Guerneville.

Franchetto, Bruna. 1990. Ergativity of the Nominality in Kuikuro and other Carib
languages. In Doris L. Payne (ed.). Amazonian Linguistics: Study in Lowland South
American languages, pp. 407-427. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.). Linguistics: An Introduction to Linguistic Theory. Blackwell

Publishers.

Fronzaroli, P. 1975. On the Common Semitic Lexicon and its Ecological and Cultural
Background. In James and Theodora Bynon (eds), Hamito-Semitica, pp. 43-53. The
Hague.

Gardiner, Alan. 1973. Egyptian Grammar. London: Oxford University Press.

Holton, Gary. 2014. Kinship in the Alor-Pantar languages. In Marian Klamer (ed.).
The Alor Pantar Languages: History and Typology, pp. 200-245. Berlin: Language
science Press.

Gelb, I. J. 1969. Sequential Reconstruction of Proto-Akkadian. University of Chicago

Press.
1961. The Early History of the West Semitic Peoples. Journal of Cuneiform
studies, 15, 27-47.
1952. Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 2nd edition, 1961.

Gesenius, William. 1850. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Crocker
and Brewster, Boston. Transl. by Edward Robinson.

Geytenbeek, Brian and Helen. 1971. Gidal grammar and dictionary. Australian
Aboriginal studies, n. 43, Linguistic series n. 17, Camberra A.C.T.

Giacumakis, George. 1970. The Akkadian of Alalaħ. The Hague.

Girard, Victor. 1971. Proto-Takanan Phonology. University of California Press.

Goddard, Ives. 1990. Algonquian Linguistic change and reconstruction. In Philip Baldi
(ed.). 1990. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology: Part I, pp. 99-114.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

248
Gordon, Cyrus H., 1965, Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Translation, Cuneiform
Selections, Glossary Indeces. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Grace, George W. 1959. The Position of the Polynesian Languages within the
Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) Family. Baltimore.

Gray, Louis Herbert. 1971. Introduction to Semitic Comparative Linguistics. Columbia

University Press.

Greenberg, J. H. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press.

1963. The Languages of Africa. 2nd edition. Indiana University Press.
1950. The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word 6, 162-181.

Gray, Louis H. 1939. Foundations of Language. New York.

Gurney, Oliver R. 1954. The Hittites. 2nd edition, Baltimore: Penguin books.

Hajdu, Peter. 1975. Finno-Ugrian languages and peoples. London: Andre Deutsch.

Halloran, John Alan. 2006. Sumerian Lexicon: A dictionary guide to the ancient
Sumerian lexicon. Los Angeles: Logogram Publishing.

Harris, Joy K., Wurm, S. A., and Laycock, D. C. 1969. Papers in Australian linguistics.
Pacific linguistics, Series A - Occasional papers, n. 17. Camberra.

Harris, Zellig. 1936. A Grammar of the Phoenician Language. New Haven, Connecticut.

Hasselbach, Rebecca 2005. Sargonic Akkadian. A historical and comparative study of the
syllabic texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Heath, Jeffrey. 1990. Verbal Inflection and macro-subgroupings: The search for
conjugation markers in Non-Pama-Nyungan. In Philip Baldi (ed.). 1990. Linguistic
change and reconstruction methodology: Part II, pp. 403-417. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
& Co.

Hetzron, Robert. 1990. Dialectal variation in Proto-Afroasiatic. In Philip Baldi (ed.).

1990. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology: Part II, pp. 577-597. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Hock, Hans Henrich. 1986. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin.

and Joseph Brian D. 1996. Language History, Language Change, and Language
Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Mouton de
Gruyter, The hague.

Hodge, Carleton T. 1990. The role of Egyptian within Afroasiatic. In Philip Baldi (ed.).
1990. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology: Part II, pp. 639-659. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter & Co.
1975. Egyptian and Its Survival. In James and Theodora Bynon (eds), Hamito-
Semitica, pp. 171-189. The Hague.

249
Hoftijzer, J. and Jongeling K. 1995. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions.
Volumes I & II. Leiden, The Netherlands.

Hoffner, Harry A. An English-Ugaritic Index. In Gordon, Cyrus H. 1965. Ugaritic

Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Translation, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary Indices.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Holmer, Nils M. 1963. On the history and structure of the Australian languages.
Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.

Holton, Gray. Kinship in the Alor-Pantar languages. In Marian Klamer (ed.). 2014. The
Alor Pantar Languages, pp. 199-245. Berlin: Language science Press.
and Robinson, Laura C. The internal history of the Alor-Pantar language family. In
Marian Klamer (ed.). 2014. The Alor Pantar Languages, pp. 55-98. Berlin: Language
science Press.
and Robinson Laura C. The linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages.
In Marian Klamer (ed.). 2014. The Alor Pantar Languages, pp. 155-198. Berlin:
Language science Press.

Hudson-Williams, T. 1963. A short Grammar of Old Persian. The University of Wales

Press.

Huyghe, P. G. 1901. Dictionnaire Kabyle-Français. Paris.

Hymes, Dell. 1964. Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row.

Jean, Charles F. and Hoftijzer, J. 1965. Dictionnaire Sémitic de L’Ouest, Leiden.

Jagersma, Abraham-Hendrik. 2010. A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian. PhD

dissertation, Leiden University.

Jasanoff, Jay. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford University Press.

Jensen, Chery. 1990. Cross-referencing changes in some Tupi-Guarani Languages. In

Doris L. Payne (ed.). Amazonian Linguistics: Study in Lowland South American
languages, pp. 117-158. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Johannesson, Alexander. 1949. Origin of Language. Reykjavik.

Johnson, Steve. 1990. Social parameters of linguistic change in an unstratified

Aboriginal society. In Philip Baldi (ed.). 1990. Linguistic change and reconstruction
methodology: Part II, pp. 419-433. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Jones, Charles (ed.). 1993. Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives. London
and New York: Longman.

Kähler, Hans. 1978. Austronesian Comparative Linguistics and Reconstruction of Earlier

forms of the Language. Pacific Linguistics, Series C, N. 61, pp. 3.-18.

250
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1931. Tibetan and Chinese. T'oung Pao, Second Series, Vol. 28, No.
1/2 (1931), pp. 25-70. Published by: Leiden: Brill.
1949. The Chinese Language: an Essay on its Nature and History. New York: The
Ronald Press Company.

Katamba, Francis. 1993. Morphology. London: Macmillan.

Katzner, Kenneth. 1975. The Languages of the Word. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.

Kazar, L. 1974. Uralic-Japanese linguistic relations: a preliminary investigation.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Kaufman, Terrence. 1990. Language History in South America: What we know and how
to know more. In Doris L. Payne (ed.). Amazonian Linguistics: Study in Lowland South
American languages, pp. 13-78. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Keiler, Allan R. (ed.) 1972. A reader in Historical and Comparative Linguistics. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Kenyon, Kathleen. 1966. Amorites and Canaanites. London.

King, W. 1898. First steps in Assyrian. London.

Kirk, J. W. C. 1905. A Grammar of the Somali Language. London.

Klamer, Marian (ed.). 2014. The Alor Pantar Languages. Berlin: Language science Press.
2014. The Alor-Pantar languages: Linguistic context, history and typology. In
Marian Klamer (ed.). The Alor Pantar Languages: History and Typology, pp. 5-54.
Berlin: Language science Press.
Antoinette Schapper, and Greville Corbett. 2014. Plural number words in the
Alor-Pantar languages. In Marian Klamer (ed.). The Alor Pantar Languages: History
and Typology, pp. 375-412. Berlin: Language science Press.

Kramer, Samuel Noah. 1963. The Sumerians: Their history, culture and character.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 1969.2001. Comparative Dravidian linguistics: current

perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langdon, Stephen 1911. A Sumerian grammar and chrestomathy with a vocabulary of
the principal roots in Sumerian and a list of the most important syllabic and vowel
transcriptions. Paris: Paul Geuthner.

Lass, Roger. 1980. On Explaining Language Change. Cambridge University Press.

Leer, Jeff. 1990. Tlingit: A portmanteau language family? In Philip Baldi (ed.). 1990.
Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology: Part I, pp. 71-98. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter & Co.

Lehmann, Winfred. P. 1963. Historical Linguistics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Press.

251
Leslau, Wolf. 1963. Etymological Dictionary of Hariri. Berkery and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.

Lieber, R.. 1992. Reconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory.

Chicago University Press.
1981. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
Lieber, Rochelle.

Lieberman, Philip. 1975. On the Origins of Language: An Introduction to evolution of

Human Speech. New York: Macmillan.

Lockwood, W. B. 1969. Indo-European Philology: Historical and Comparative. London:

Hutchinson.
1972. A Panorama of Indo-European Languages. London: Hutchinson.

Lynch, John. 1998. Pacific languages: an introduction. Honolulu: University of Hawaii

Press.
Makki, El Rabih. 1914. Decomposition of Hamito-Semitic Roots into their Ultimate
Primeval Components: Including a Deep Comparative Studies of Hamitio-Semitic and
Indo-European and of Hamitio-Semitic and Sino-Tibetan on all Levels of Structure.
Muenchen: LINCOM GmbH.
2015. Hamito-Semitic and Austronesian Language Families: Obvious Genetic
Relatedness. Part I: Austronesian roots with an initial Vowel. Muenchen: LINCOM
GmbH.

Mallowan, M. E. L. 1965. Early Mesopotamia and Iran. London: Thames and Hudson.

Mann, Stuart E. 1984-1987. An Indo-European Comparative Dictionary. Hamburg:

Helmut Buske.

Martin, Samuel E. 1990. Morphological clues to the relationships of Japanese and

Korean. In Philip Baldi (ed.). 1990. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology:
Part II, pp. 483-509. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Martinet, André. 1975, Évolution des langue et Reconstruction. Paris.

Marton, George A. 1934. Semitic and Hamitic Origins: Social and Religious.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Martin, S. E. 1966. Lexical Evidence Relating Korean to Japanese. Language 42, 2, pp.
185-251.

Matteson, Estsher, Alva wheeler, Frances, L. Jackson, Nathan E. Waltz and Diana R.
Christian. 1972. Comparative Studies in Amerindian Languages. The Hague: Mouton.

Masica, Colin P, 1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge University Press.

Matthews, P. H. 1974. Morphology: An Introduction to the Theory of Word-Formation.

Cambridge University Press.

252
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1972. A Sanskrit Grammar. Transl. by Gordon B. Ford. The
University of Alabama Press.

Meillet, Antoine.1924. Introduction a L’Étude Comparative des Langues Indo-

Européenne. Paris: Librarie Hachette. Reprinted by Alabama Press, 1964.

Miller, Roy Andrew. 1980. Origins of the Japanese Language. Seattle: University of
Washington Press.
1971. Japanese and Other Altaic Languages. University of Chicago Press.
Mithun, Marianne 1999. The languages of native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Moorhouse, A. C. 1946. Writing and the Alphabet. London.

Moscati, Sabatino (ed.). 1969. An Introduction to the comparative Grammar of the

Semitic Languages. Wiesbaden.

Müller, Walter W. 1975. Beiträge zur Hamito-Semitischen Wortvergleichung. In James

and Theodora Bynon (eds), Hamito-Semitica, pp. 63-73. The Hague.

Murtonen, A. 1967. Early Semitic. Leiden.

Nikolaev, Sergei L. 2015. Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan.

Part I: Proof of the Algonquian-Wakashan relationship. Journal of Language
Relationship. 13/1 (2015), pp. 23-61.
2015. Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part II: Proof of
the Algonquian-Wakashan relationship. Journal of Language Relationship. 13/4 (2015),
pp. 289-328.

O’Leary, De Lacy. 1969. Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Language. Amsterdam:

Philo Press.

Orel, Vladimir and Stolbova, Olega. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary:

Material for Reconstruction. Leiden.

Oswald, J. L. Szemerenyi. 1990. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics, 4th ed.

Oxford University press.

Parsons, F. W. 1975. Housa and Cushitic. In James and Theodora Bynon (eds), Hamito-
Semitica, pp. 421-455. The Hague.

Patrie, James. 1982. The genetic relationship of the Ainu language. Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press.
Payne, David L. 1990. Accent in Aguaruna. In Doris L. Payne (ed.). Amazonian
Linguistics: Study in Lowland South American languages, pp. 161-184. Austin:
University of Texas Press.

253
Payne, Doris L. 1990. Morphological characteristics of Lowland South American
languages. In Doris L. Payne (ed.). Amazonian Linguistics: Study in Lowland South
American languages, pp. 213-241. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1990. Transitivity and ergativity in Panare. In Doris L. Payne (ed.). Amazonian
Linguistics: Study in Lowland South American languages, pp. 429-453. Austin:
University of Texas Press.

Payne, Judith. 1990. Asheninca stress pattern. In Doris L. Payne (ed.). Amazonian
Linguistics: Study in Lowland South American languages, pp.185-209. Austin: University
of Texas Press.

Pederson, Holger and Henry Louis. 1961. A Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar. 1st
edition 1937. Germany.

Pederson, Holger. 1959. The Discovery of Language: Linguistic Science in the 19th
century. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2012. Languages of the World: An Introduction. Cambridge University

Press.
Pet, Willem J. A. 2011. A Grammar Sketch and Lexicon of Arawak (Lokono Dian). SIL
International.
Web edition: www-01.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/928474543236/e-Books_30_Pet_Arawak...
Prass, Karl-G. 1975. The Reconstruction of Proto-Berber Short Vowel. In James and
Theodora Bynon (eds), Hamito-Semitica, pp. 215-228. The Hague.

Rabin, Chaim. 1975. Lexicostatistics and the Internal Division of Semitic. In James and
Theodora Bynon (eds), Hamito-Semitica, pp. 83-99. The Hague.

Robbeets, Martine Irma. 2005. Is Japanes Related to Korean, Tungus, Mongolic and
Turkic? Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Rodrigues, Aryon D. 1990. You and I = Neither you nor I: The perosnal system of
Tupinamba. In Doris L. Payne (ed.). Amazonian Linguistics: Study in Lowland South
American languages, pp. 393-405. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Rosenthal, Franz. (ed.). 1976. An Aramaic Handbook. Wiesbanden.

1963. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Wiesbaden.

Ruhlen, Merritt. 1994. On the Origin of Language: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy.

Stanford University Press.

Ryder, Stuart A. 1974. The D-Stem in Western Semitic. Mouton, Paris.

Samuels, M. L. 1972. Linguistics Evolution. Cambridge University Press.

Schapper. Antoinette. Elevation in the spatial deictic systems of Alor-Pantar languages.

In Marian Klamer (ed.). 2014. The Alor Pantar Languages: History and Typology,
pp.247-284. Berlin: Language science Press.

254
 and Klamer, Marian. Numeral systems in the Alor-Pantar languages. In Marian
Klamer (ed.). 2014. The Alor Pantar Languages: History and Typology, pp. 285-336.
Berlin: Language science Press.
and Huber, Juliette and lenhoven, Aone van Engenhoven. The relatedness of
Timor-Kisar and Alor-Pantar languages: A preliminary Demonstration. In Marian
Klamer (ed.). 2014. The Alor Pantar Languages: History and Typology, pp. 99-154.
Berlin: Language science Press.

Schweitzer, Marjorie M. 1953. A provisional analysis of Seri, a native language of

Sonora, Mexico. M.A. Thesis. The University of Arizona.

Seki, Lucy. 1990. Kamaiura (Tupi-Guarani) as an active stative language. In Doris L.

Payne (ed.). Amazonian Linguistics: Study in Lowland South American languages, pp.
367-391. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Senner, Wayne (ed.). 1989. The origin of writing. University of Nebraska Press.

Shehadeh, Lamia A. R. 1968. The Sibilants in the West Semitic Languages. Unpublished
Ph. D. dissertation, Harvard University, Massachusetts.

Sihler, Andrew. 2000. Language History: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Silver, Shirver and Wick R. Miller. 1997. American Indian Languages: Cultural and
Social Contexts. The University of Arizona Press.

Skeat, Walter W. 1912. The Science of Etymology. Oxford.

Smith, W. Robenson and De Goeje, M. J. (eds). 1962. A Grammar of the Arabic

Language. Vol. I. Cambridge at the University Press.

Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Starostin, Sergei A., Anna Dybo, and Oleg Mudrak. 2003. Etymological dictionary of
the Altaic languages. Leiden: Brill.

Stassen, L. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Steever, Sanford B. (ed.1998. The Dravidian Languages. London and New York:
Routledge.

Stehle, Dorothy. 1940. Sibilants and Emphatics in South Arabian. JAOS, Vol. 60, pp.
507-543.

Ŝtekauer, Pavol; Valera, Salvador, and Körtvélyessy, Lívia. 2012. Word-Formation in the
World‟s Languages: A Typological Survey. Cambridge University Press.

Stopa, Roman. 1972. Structure of Buchman and its traces in Indo-European. Poland.

255
Sturtevant, Edgar H. and Hahn, E. Adelaide. 1951. A Comparative Grammar of the
Hittite Language. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. 1972. Comparative Linguistics, in Current Trends in

Linguistics ix, pp. 119-195.
1990. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford University Press.

Thacker, T. W. 1954. The relationship of the Semitic and Egyptian Verbal System.
London.

Thomsen, Marie-Louise 2001. The Sumerian language: an introduction to its history and
grammatical structure (Mesopotamia 10). 3rd edition. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

Tryon, D. T. 1974. Daly family languages. Australia. Pacific Linguistics, Series C, n. 32.
Camberra.

1995. Proto-Austronesian and the major Austronesian Subgroups. In Peter

Bellwood, James Fox and Darrell Tryon (eds), The Austronesians: Historical and
Comparative Perspectives, ANU Press, pp. 19-41.

Tucker, A. N. 1956. The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa. International

African Institute, Oxford University Press.
1959. A Practical Housa Grammar. Oxford University Press.

Unger, J. Marshall. 1990. Japanese and what other Altaic languages? In Philip Baldi
(ed.). 1990. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology: Part II, pp. 547-561.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Ullendorff, E. 1955. The Semitic language of Ethiopia: a Comparative Phonology.

London.

Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2004. A history of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000-323 BC.
Malden: Blackwell.

Vergote, J. 1975. La Position Intermédiaire de L’ancien Égyptien enter L’Hébreu et

L’Arabe. In James and Theodora Bynon (eds), Hamito-Semitica, pp. 193-199. The
Hague.

Vovin, Alexander. 1993. A reconstruction of Proto-Ainu. Leiden: Brill.

Vycichl, Werner. 1975. Egyptian and the other Hamito-Semitic Languages. In James and
Theodora Bynon (eds), Hamito-Semitica, pp. 201-210. The Hague.

Walde, Alois and Pokorny, Julius. 1973. Vergleighendes Wörterbuch der

Indogermanischen Sprachen. Berlin und Leipzig 1930. Reprinted 1973.

Welmers, W. 1973. African Language Structures. University of California Press.

Watkins, Calvert (ed.). 1985. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European

Roots. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

256
Weir, E. M. Helen. 1990. Incorporation in Nadeb. In Doris L. Payne (ed.). Amazonian
Linguistics: Study in Lowland South American languages, pp 321-363. Austin: University
of Texas Press.

Wise, Mary Ruth. 1990. Valence-changing affixes in Maipuran Arawakan languages. In

Doris L. Payne (ed.). Amazonian Linguistics: Study in Lowland South American
languages, pp. 89-116. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Whitman, John. 1990. A rule of medial *-r- loss in pre-Old Japanese. In Philip Baldi
(ed.). 1990. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology: Part II, pp. 511-545.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Wright, Joseph. 1962. Historical Germanic Grammar. Vol. I. 1st edition 1907, Oxford
University Press.
1962. Grammar of the Gothic Language. Oxford University Press.

Wright, W. 1966. Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic languages. The
Netherlands. First published 1890, Cambridge.
(ed.).1962. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Vol. I. Cambridge University
Press.

Zaborski, Andrzej. 1975. Material for a comparative Dictionary of Cushitic Languages:

Somali-Galla Comparison. In James and Theodora Bynon (eds), Hamito-Semitica, pp.
321-330. The Hague.

Zorc, David R. 1990. The Austronesian monosyllabic root, radical or phonestheme. In

Philip Baldi (ed.). 1990. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology: Part I, pp.
175-194. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
1995. A Glossary of Austronesian Reconstructions. In Tryon, Darrell T., ed.
Comparative Austronesian dictionary: An Introduction to Austronesian Studies. Part 1:
Fascicle 2: 1106-1197. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Web edition: language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/austronesian/language.php/id
1978. Proto-Philippines Word Accent: Innovation or Proto-Hesperonesian
Retention? Pacific Linguistics, Series C, N. 61, pp. 67-119.
1977. The Bisayan Dialects of the Philippines: Subgrouping and Reconstruction.
Pacific Linguistics, Series c-No. 44, pp. 302-311.

Arabic Reference
Al Anbāri, Muhammad Bin Ķasim. Kitābu Al Ađdād. Muhammad Ibrāhim (ed.). Al
Maktaba Al ‛Aşriyyah (1991), Beirut.
Gharīb Al Lughah. Dār Al Fardaws (1989), Beirut.

Al Zajāji, Abdul Rahman. Amāli Al Zajāji, 2 Volumes. Abdul Salām Harūn (ed.). Dār Al
Jīl, Beirut (1987).

257
Bin Aķīl, Bahā’ Ad dīn. Sharh Bin Aķīl ‛ala Alfiyat Ibin Mālik, 2 Volumes. Al Maktabah
Al ‛Aşriyah (1964), Beirut.

Bin Faris, Ahmad. Maķāyis Al Lughah, 6 Volumes. Abdul Salām Hārūn (ed.). Dār Al
Islāmiyah (1990), Beirut.
Al Şāhibi. Umar F. Tabbā‛ (ed.). Maktabat Al Ma‛ārif (1993), Beirut.

Bin Durayd, Muhammad Bin Al Hasan. Kitāb Jamharah Al Lughah, 3 Volumes. Ramzi
B‛albaki (ed.). Dār Al ‛ilm Lilmalāyin (1987), Beirut.

Bin Jinni, Uthmān. Al Khaşā‟iş, 3 Volumes. M. A. Najjār (ed.). Dār Al Kitāb Al Arabi,
Beirut.

Bin Hishām, Abdu Allah J. Sharђ Shuδūr Al Thahab. Muhammad Abdu Allah (ed.). Al
Maktabah Al ‛Aşriyah, Beirut.

Bin Mandūr, Jamāl Al Dīn M. Lisān Al Arab, 4 Volumes. Yusif Khayāt (ed.). Dār Lisān
Al Arab, Beirut.

Bukhāri, Muhammad Bin Ismā‛īl. Şahih Al Buhāri, 4 Volumes. Dar Al Ma‛rifah, Beirut.

Bustāni, Kamil. 1985. Al Nuşūş Al finiķiyyah fi ķarah Tibyah. Lebanese University Press,
Beirut.

Farāhidi, Khalīl bin Ahmad. Kitābu Al ‛Ayn, 8 Volumes. M. Maħzūmi and A. Samarrā‛i
(eds). Manshurāt Al A‛lami (1990), Beirut.

Haffner, August. (1971). Thalathat Kutub fi Al Ađdād. Dār Al Kutub Al ‛ilmiyyah,

Beirut.

Jawhari, Ismā‛īl Bin Hammād. Al Şiђāђ, 6 Volumes. Ahmad Attār (ed.). Dār Al ‛ilm
Lilmalāyin (1984), Beirut.

Karl, Brugmann. 1977. Fiķh Al Lughāt Al Sāmiyah. Transl. by Ramadan Abdul Tawwāb.
Riyādh University Press, Saudi Arabia.

Nawawi, Yahya Bin Sharaf. Tahthīb Al Asmā‟ wa Al Lughāt, 2 Volumes. Muştafa Ata
(ed.). Dār Al kutub Al ‛ilmiyyah (2007), Beirut.

Nisabūri, Ahmad Bin Muhammad. Majma‛ Al Amthāl, 2 Volume. Muhammad M. Abdul

Hamīd (ed.). Dār Al Ķalam, Beirut.

Nöldke, T. Al Lughāt Al Sāmiyah. Transl. by Ramadan Abed Tauwāb. Cairo.

Sibawaiyh, Umar. Al Kitāb, 2 Volumes. Al Maţba‛h Al Amiriyah. Dār Al Nahđah Al

Arabiyyah (1316 H.), Egypt.

Sajistani, Sahl Bin Muhammad. Kitābu Al Ađdād. Muhammad A. Ahmad (ed.). Maktabat
Al Nahđah (1991), Egypt.

258
Sālim, Abdul Azīz. 1971. Tārikh Al Arab Ķabl Al Islām. Dār An Nahđah Al Arabiyyah.
Beirut.

Siyyuti, Jalāl Ad Dīn. Al Muzhir Fi ‛Ulūm Al Lughah wa Anwā‛ihā, 2 Volumes. M.

Mawla, A. Bijāwi and M. Ibrahīm (eds). Dār Al Fikr, Beirut.
Al Ittiķān fi ‛ulūm Al Koran, 2 Volumes. Muhammad Ibrahīm (ed.). Manshurat Al
Sharīf Al Radi, bidār Azizi (1373 H).

Thahabi, M. Husein. Al Tafsīr wa Al Mufassirūn, 3 Volumes. Ahmad Zu‛bi (ed.).

Sharikat Al Arķam, Beirut.

Tha‛ālibi, Abdul Malak Bin Ismā‛īl. Kitābu Fiqh Al Lughah wa Sirru Al Arabiyah. Fā’iz
Muhammad and Imil Ya‛kūb (eds). Dār Al Kitāb Al Arabi (1993), Beirut.

Tawīl, R. 1972. Al Tađād fi Daw’ Al Lughāt Al Sāmiyah. Beirut Arab University Press.
Al Ibdāl fi Daw’ Al Lughāt Al Sāmiyah. Beirut Arab University Press, Beirut.

Thātha, Hasan. 1971. Al Sāmiyūn wa Lughātuhum. Maktabat Al dirāsāt Al Lughawiyah.

Zarkashi, Badr Ad Dīn. Al Burhān Fi ‛Ulum Al Kuran, 4 Volumes. Muhammad Ibrāhīm

(ed.). Dār Al Jīl (1988), Beirut.

Internet references
Algonquian and Iroquoian Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Algonquian_and_Iroquoian...
Altaic Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Altaic_Swadesh_lists

Araucanian Swadesh lists

panglossa.wikia.com/wiki/Araucanian_Swadesh_lists
Austro-Asiatic Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Austro-Asiatic_Swadesh_lists
Baltic-Finnic Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Finnic_Swadesh_lists
Bantu Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Bantu_Swadesh_lists
Basque Swadesh list
panglossa.wikia.com/wiki/Basque_Swadesh_list
Burushaski Swadesh list
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Burushaski_Swadesh_list
Chumashan and Hokan Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Chumashan_and_Hokan

259
Dene-Yeniseian Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Dené-Yeniseian_Swadesh_lists
Dravidian Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Dravidian_Swadesh_lists
Eskimo-Aleut basic vocabulary- Viktionary
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Eskimo-Aleut_basic_vocabulary

Gan Swadesh list

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Gan_Swadesh_list

Hokan languages: Swadesh lists

panglossa.wikia.com/wiki/Swadesh_lists_for_Hokan_languages

Hurrian (Hurro-Urartian family): Annotated Swadesh wordlists

starling.rinet.ru/new100/hur.pdf

Japanese Swadesh list

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Japanese_Swadesh_list

Kartvelian languages: Swadesh lists

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix: Kartvelian languages_Swadesh_lists_for...
Aug 24, 2014
Khoekhoe group (Central Khoisan family): Annotated Swadesh wordlists
starling.rinet.ru/new100/kkh.pdf
Korean Swadesh list
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Korean_Swadesh_list
Mayan Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Mayan_Swadesh_lists
Muskogean Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Muskogean_Swadesh_lists
Niger-Congo languages: Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Niger-Congo_Swadesh_lists

Old Chinese Swadesh list

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Old_Chinese_Swadesh_list

Omotic sub-family: South Omotic group: Annotated Swadesh wordlists, compiled and
annotated by G. Starostin (2011).
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-
bin/response.cgi?root=new100&morpho=0&basename=new100\omo\som&limi

Oto-Manguean languages: Swadesh lists

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Oto-Manguean_Swadesh_lists

Paleosiberian Swadesh lists

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Paleosiberian_Swadesh_lists

260
Penutian Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Penutian_Swadesh_lists
Purepecha Swadesh list
panglossa.wikia.com/wiki/Purepecha_Swadesh_list

Quechuan Swadesh list

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Swadesh_list

Sino-Tibetan Swadesh lists

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Sino-Tibetan_Swadesh_lists

Siouan and Pawnee Swadesh_lists

https://en.wiktionary.org/.../Appendix:Siouan_and_Pawnee_Swadesh_lists
Thai-Kadai Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Thai-Kadai_Swadesh_lists
Tibeto-Burman languages: Swadesh lists
panglossa.wikia.com/wiki/Swadesh_lists_for_Tibeto-Burman_languages

Tupi-Guarani languages: Swadesh lists

panglossa.wikia.com/wiki/Swadesh_lists_for_Tupi-Guarani_languages
Turkic Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Turkic_Swadesh_lists
Uto-Aztecan Swadesh lists
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Uto-Aztecan_Swadesh_lists

261