One of the frustrating things about Afro-Asiatic is that, despite all the great morpheme comparisons, it is really hard to reconstruct vocabulary, at all.
I keep a list of cognates that I myself find compelling, between the two families I know best, Berber & Semitic.
Within the Islamic context, where adopting Islamic names is common, it is not unthinkable isəm is actually an early loan from Arabic. But indistinguishable from a cognate.
This root is of course one of the few really well-attested cognates in Afro-Asiatic. The Berber conjugation is highly irregular, no other verb behaves like it.
There is no internal evidence for *ay-ăn > -an, but *-ăn is a Proto-Berber plural sufix and *aman is a plural in all berber varieties, so seems sensible.
A bunch of other numerals look conspicuously Semitic too, but so conspicuously that they might be early loans from an unknown Semitic donor.
(sămmus '5', sădis '6', sa(h) '7', tam '8', tẓa '9')
Proto-Berber *i-dămm-ăn or *i-damm-ăn 'blood'
Proto-Semitic *dam- 'blood'
Continuing the tradition of making liquids plural, blood has plural morphology in Berber.
By now you might notice a pattern that Berber likes to put long vowels before biradical nouns that mirror what was likely the stem-internal short vowel.
(*uləβ < PAA *lub, *isəm < PAA *sim, *iləs < *lis?)
Proto-Berber *ta-ɣruṭṭ pl. *ti-ɣərd-en 'shoulder'
Arabic has qurdūdah "highest part of the back", Jibali has ḳɛrd 'neck'. Not very broadly attested, but still tempting to see a connection here.
Attractive, but I believe the Aramaic word is not broadly attested in the rest of Semitic. We probably should not be using isolated words in isolated language with deep comparison like this.
Proto-Berber *əqqăymăʔ pf. *ăqqəymăʔ impf. *əttăɣăymay 'to sit, stand up'
Proto-Semitic ḳ-w-m 'to stand up'
This cognate is tempting, but the Proto-Berber verb formation is quite a bit more complex, so did PSem drop a root consonant to triradicalize it?
This is a favourite among afro-asiaticists, who reconstruct *ta-dhən-t for Proto-Berber (the *β in Tuareg becomes h), but Berber-Internally there's no basis to reconstruct a *h at all. With *β comparison looks less good.
Proto-Berber *t-uraʔ 'lungs' (a plural, perhaps from a singular *t-irəʔ-t?)
Proto-Semitic *riʔ-at- 'lung'
A great cognate, feminine gender, has the little prefixation of the internal vowel for a biradical (which is then ablauted due to the plural pattern).
Proto-Berber *iwraɣ 'to be yellow'; *(a-)wăraɣ 'yellow'; *urəɣ 'gold' (< Pre-PB *a-wŭrŭɣ?)
Proto-Semitic *w-r-ḳ 'to be green/yellow'
A nice cognate, and a go-to-cognate if one ever wants to write about Proto-Berbero-Semitic suffix conjguation (wăraɣ takes the suffix conjugation)
Very limited distribution in Semitic, the Yemeni form might be a loan from Ethio-Semitic. We probably should not make too much of this one.
Proto-Berber *aləy 'to go up' (< Pre-PB *ăHləy?) pf. ulắy impf. *əttálăy
Proto-Semitic *ʕ-l-w 'to be high'
Fairly compelling, though there are no other good examples of the Pre-Proto-Berber *H to Proto-Semitic *ʕ
Proto-Berber *əfərurəy 'to drop fruits, or grain (said of trees)'
Proto-Semitic *p-r-y 'to be fruitful'
A very nice one, thanks to @BGaraiko for pointing this one out to me.
That's a list of all the nice compelling Berber-Semitic comparisons I have. As you'll notice, all the sound correspondences are really basic (as with grammatical material), which makes it all the more striking that we can't find more cognates!
Feel free to ask any questions about any of the specific cognates, or add some observations of your own from other Afro-Asiatic families. I know quite a couple have compelling stuff for these as well!
If you enjoyed this thread, and would like to support me and get exclusive access to my work-in-progress critical edition of the Quran, consider becoming a patron on patreon.com/PhDniX/!
You can also always buy me a coffee as a token of appreciation. ko-fi.com/phdnix/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A beautiful classical example of assimilation of parallels in Q67:11 of Saray medina 1a.
The canonical text reads فاعترفوا بذنبهم fa-ʿtarafū bi-ḏambihim "So they acknowledge their sin", and that's what the manuscript currently reads, but clearly not what it always read! 🧵
First there is an unusually large gap between the ḏāl and the nūn, and you can see traces of removed text.
Moreover, the denticle of the nūn appears to have been added later (not quite as obvious, but obvious enough).
What the scribe obviously originally wrote is not بذنبهم ḏambihim in the singular, but rather بذنوبهم bi-ḏunūbihim "their sinS". That's not how any canonical readers recite it, nor have I found evidence for non-canonical readers of this kind. But it is an easy mistake to make.
A fascinating and, likely, extremely early rendering of Sūrat al-ʾIḫlāṣ, both remarkable for its not-quite-canonical wording AND its pre-Islamic spelling practices.
A thread on what information can be gleaned from it 🧵
The basmalah is unremarkable, but the first verse is different from from the canonical reading. Rather than:
qul huwa ḷḷāhu ʾaḥadun قول هو الله احد "He is Allah, the one" the text reads: الله لا احد, which, at first blush might look like it says: God, not one ?
Is this verse espousing an anti-monotheistic version of al-ʾIḫlāṣ? No. In pre-Islamic inscriptions, and occasionally in early Arabic manuscripts the asseverative particle la- before a word with a hamzah is, for some reason written with لا.
The Quran has a written form and recited forms. Its written form remained more or less unchanged. But the recited forms were sometimes at odds with what is written in the text.
A thread on what scribes did to alleviate these conflicts, in early Quranic manuscripts.🧵
Conflicts between the written and the recited should be familiar to those who know the Hebrew Bible, which shows a peculiar interplay between the standard written text (ktiv), and its recitation (qre) which are not infrequently at odds with one another.
Such differences are marked with marginal ktiv-qre notes. Notes that point out that the word written is to be recited differently.
In Josh 13:16 the written באדם "at Adam", has a ktiv-qre note in the margin to point out it should be read מאדם "from Adam".
The so-called yāʾāt maḥḏūfah min al-ḫaṭṭ "the yāʾs removed from the writing". This concerns words that in Classical Arabic would typically end in a yāʾ (i.e. /ī/), but in the Quranic are written without.
Readers have different ways of dealing with this missing yāʾ 🧵
The yāʾ that gets dropped can be of all kinds of categories:
- Verbs: Q89:4 يسر for CAr. yasrī
- Nouns: Q89:9 بالواد for CAr. bi-l-wādī
- The 1sg. object pronoun: Q26:81 يحيين for CAr. yuḥyī-nī
- The 1sg. possessive pronoun: Q109:6 دين for CAr. dīn-ī
When one examines the places where such cases of /-ī/ get dropped, a fairly clear pattern emerges. In the vast majority of the cases it happens: 1. In verse final position 2. Before a pause mid-verse 3. With vocative (like يقوم "o my people")
A strange bit of misinformed apologetics has been making the rounds on Twitter that claims the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaª) (Is. 42:1) mentions ʾAḥmad (traditionally understood to be Muḥammad) of Q61:6. This is false, but figuring out what is happening is interesting. So 🧵
Let's first take a moment to appreciate what the significance of Isaiah 42:1. The Synoptic gospels ( Mathew 3:17, Mark 1:11 & Luke 3:22) cite a Greek adaptation of this verse at the Baptism of Jesus:
"You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"
This is clearly quite close to the Hebrew of the old testament Isaiah 42:1 "Behold My Servant, whom I uphold; Mine elect, in whom My soul delights." and is understood to refer to it.
The fourth gospel, John, lacks this reference (this will become important later).
I'm having a lot of fun with this Japanese pitch accent dictionary thing, but I'm kind of curious: are there any good (preferably English) descriptions that actually try to make morphological sense of what is actually happening?