c-AFRASIAN-3_germanic.htm
PROTO-LANGUAGE PHONEMES
in IE and Afrasian
(Egyptian and Arabic)
The Nostratic Hypothesis
by Patrick C. Ryan
(revised 10/30/2005)
I. GERMANIC AND SEMITIC
A. Coincidence or Common Origin?
1. It is well-known that Germanic exhibits phonological patterns of correspondences that
are nearly unique within IE but it is not appreciated that these patterns show intriguing
similarities with Semitic, for which we will use Arabic as a example.
2. IE ph (aspirated /p/) is represented in all the dialects except Old Irish, Armenian, and
Germanic as p. In Old Irish, it is Ø; in Armenian, hw, and in Germanic: f.
a. Since IE ph derives from Nostratic ph, and Afrasian ph (Ehret's p) derives from
Nostratic ph also, it is extremely interesting to see that the Semitic response to Afrasian p(h) is f.
1) The Armenian response of hw is a voiceless labial spirant, a mere variation of a
labio-dental spirant: f;
3. In fact, the development of the entire series of stops and affricates is parallel:
| Proto-Language |
Nostratic
(author's
formulation) |
Indo-European |
Germanic /
Armenian |
Semitic
(Arabic) |
| P[H] |
ph |
p |
f / hw(1) |
f |
| T[H] |
th |
t |
th / th |
th (S) (see below) |
| K[H] |
kh |
k |
h(2) / s(3) |
kh (/x/) |
| P[?] |
p? |
b |
p / p |
b / f(4) |
| T[?] |
t? |
d |
t / t |
t (T) (see below)
|
| K[?] |
k? |
g |
k / c(5) |
k |
| PF[H] |
pfh |
p[h](6) |
f / hw |
f(7) |
| TS[H] |
tsh |
t[h] |
th / th |
dh (Z) (see below) |
| KX[H] |
kxh |
k[h] |
h / s |
gh |
| P[?]F |
p?f |
bh |
b / b |
b |
| T[?]S |
t?s |
dh |
d / d |
d (D) (see below) |
| K[?]X |
k?x |
gh |
g / z (j)(8) |
j(9) (/dzh/) |
a. with the only exception that Afrasian (Arabic) has different reflexes for the same
reflexes in IE for voiceless aspirated stops and affricates; and
b. Afrasian developed special responses to Nostratic stops and affricates in the apical
series accompanied by a velar (w) glide:
1) Nostratic t?wa -> Afrasian T (dotted t; "emphatic", originally retroflex); t? swa ->
Afrasian D (dotted d; "emphatic"; originally retroflex); thwa -> Afrasian S (dotted s; "emphatic",
originally retroflex); tshwa -> Afrasian Z (dotted z; "emphatic"; originally retroflex).
4. Also, the spirants are mostly correspondent:
| Proto-Language |
Nostratic
(author's
formulation) |
Indo-European |
Germanic /
Armenian |
Semitic
(Arabic) |
| F[H] |
w |
w |
w / (g/v) |
w |
| S[H] |
s |
s |
s / h |
s |
| X[H] |
x |
kw |
hw / kh |
S (/sh/)(10) |
| F |
w |
w |
w |
w |
| S |
z |
s |
s (*z)(11) / h |
z |
| X |
G (/gamma/) |
gw |
kw / k |
S (/sh/)(12) |
a. Notice that the Germanic/Armenian consonantal responses to PL F[H]/F have been
leveled; if Germanic z can be reconstructed, then both agree on s and z for PL S[H] and S; only
on the dorsals spirants X[H] and X does Germanic (hw and kw) have substantially different
responses from Semitic (S and S).
5. What is additionally very interesting is to be able to see that wherever modern IE theorists have posited "laryngeals" (better 'pharyngal-laryngals'), pharyngals and laryngals show up in Semitic languages.
a. All pharyngals/laryngals (except in ¿E) lengthened the earlier pre-Pontic/Nostratic vowel, and fixed the vowel quality for PIE (unless subequently shortened):
| Proto-Language |
Nostratic
(author's
formulation) |
Indo-European / Hittite |
Germanic |
Semitic
(Arabic) |
| ?E/?A/?O |
?E/?A/?O |
*e[:]/*a[:]/*o[:] // Øe (later Øi)/Øa/Øu
|
(Øe[:]/i[:]) / Øa[:] |
? |
| HE/HA/HO |
HE/HA/HO |
*e[:]/*a[:]/*o[:] // he (later hi)/ha/hu |
(Øe[:]/i[:]) / Øa[:] |
h |
| ¿E |
YE |
*ye/o // ie (later ii)/iu |
(ye/i) / ya |
y |
| ¿A/¿O |
¿A/¿O |
*a[:]/*o[:] or *ya[:]/*yo[:] // ha / hu or ia / iu
|
(Øe[:]/Øi[:]) / Øa[:] or (ye[:]/yi[:]) / ya[:] |
¿ |
| HHE/HHA/HHO |
HHE/HHA/HHO |
*e[:]/*a[:]/*o[:] // he (later hi)/ha/hu |
(Øe[:]/Øi[:]) / Øa[:] |
H (dotted h) |
6. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Germanic/Armenian branches remained
together with the Afrasian branch after the other speakers of IE had dispersed; and that they
shared common developments (until circa 15K BPE) with the exception of reflexes to the
inherited Nostratic voiceless aspirated affricates (but cf. Ossetic), and the special responses to
velarized apicals (with only minor discrepancies in the spirants).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bomhard, Allan R. 1984. Toward Proto-Nostratic: A New Approach to the Comparison of
Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company
Forthcoming. Lexical Parallels between Proto-Indo-European and Other
Languages
and John C. Kerns. 1994. The Nostratic Macrofamily A Study in Distant
Linguistic Relationship. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 74. Berlin, New York
City: Mouton de Gruyter
1996. Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis. Studia Nostratica, 1.
Charleston, S. C.: Signum Desktop Publishing
Brugmann, Karl. 1888. A Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages. 5 vol. 2nd
reprint 1972. Varanasi, India: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca and Cavalli-Sforza, Francesco. 1995. The Great Human Diasporas:
The History of Diversity and Evolution. New York etal. Helix Books. Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company
Childe, V. Gordon. 1926. The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins. 2nd reprint 1987.
New York: Dorset Press
Colarusso, John. 1994. Phyletic Links between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Northwest
Caucasian. Mother Tongue 21. January 1994.
Ehret, Christopher. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone,
Consonants, and Vocabulary. University of California Publications in Linguistics: Vol.
126. Berkeley and Los Angeles. University of California Press
Klimov, Georgij A. 1977. Tipologija Jazykov Aktivnogo Stroja. Moscow: Nauka
-------------------------1983. Printsipy Kontensivnoi Tipologij. Moscow: Nauka
Moscati, Sabatino, et alii. 1969. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic
Languages: Phonology and Morphology. Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Volume I. Bern and
Munich: Francke Verlag
ADDITIONAL
BIBLIOGRAPHY
the latest revision of this document can be found at
http://www.oocities.org/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-3_germanic.htm
Patrick C. Ryan * 9115 West 34th Street - Little Rock, AR 72204-4441* (501)227-9947
PROTO-LANGUAGE@msn.com
NOTES
1.
Armenian has a voiceless labial (hw), which is functionally comparable to the voiceless labio-dental (f) of Germanic.
2.
It is presumed that Germanic h represents /x/.
3.
through /ç/.
4.
this *p, though unaspirated, also became f, except when derived from PL P[?]A, when it
became b.
5.
through /ky/.
6.
ph, th, and kh occur in Old Indian but are not recognized as IE phonemes but all IEists.
7.
Instead of expected *v, we find f.
8.
through /gy/.
9.
through /gy/.
10.
through /ç/.
11.
Germanic does have a z but it is reputedly of secondary origin.
12.
presumably, through /zh/.