The Putusk Academy of Humanities

ACTA ARCHAEOLOGICA PULTUSKIENSIA

Vol. I

Proceedings of
the Third Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists.
Egypt 2004: Perspectives of Research.
Warsaw 12-14 May 2004

Edited by Joanna Popielska-Grzybowska,

Olga Biaostocka
& Jadwiga Iwaszczuk

Institute of Anthropology and Archaeology

PUTUSK 2009


Scientific Editors: Joanna Popielska-Grzybowska, Olga Biaostocka & Jadwiga Iwaszczuk
Proof-reading in English by Joe B. Harper & Joanna Popielska-Grzybowska
Proof-reading in German by Peter Kopp
DTP by Jadwiga Iwaszczuk
Graphics by Jadwiga Iwaszczuk
Cover design by Jakub Affelski

All rights reserved

Copyright 2009
by the Putusk Academy of Humanities, 2009

Publisher:
The Putusk Academy of Humanities
ul. Daszyskiego 17, 06-100 Putusk
tel./fax (+48 23) 692 50 82
e-mail: rektorat@ah.edu.pl
Internet: www.ah.edu.pl

ISBN 978-83-7549-111-1

Realised on behalf of the publisher:

Przedsibiorstwo Poligraficzno-Wydawnicze Graf Janusz Janiszewski
04-663 Warszawa
ul. Bkitna 87A
tel. 501 376 898
e-mail:janusz.graf@wp.pl


Massimiliano Franci
Firenze*1

Egypto-Semitic Lexical Comparison - 2

Some Considerations in the Lexicon of Physical Environment,
Spontaneous Vegetation and Wild Animals*2
The results and considerations in this brief essay are the product of a critical analysis
of all the studies by many scholars into the Egypto-Semitic common lexicon, specifically
referring to the Physical Environment, Spontaneous Vegetation and Wild Animals.1
In what may be considered a fairly conservative move the first goal of this analysis is not
only to create a solid base for subsequent comparative research, but to confirm the results
reached in previous studies.
To facilitate comparison and research the lexical family being analysed has been structured
following Fronzarolis Studi sul Lessico Comune Semitico:2

Egypto-Semitic
Common Lexicon

Wild Nature

Physical Spontaneous Wild

Environment Vegetation Animals

*1
Szanowni Pastwo, Panie, Panowie. Dobry wieczr. Przed zapoznaniem Was z wynikami moich bada nad
Wsplnym Sownictwem Egipsko-Semickim, jak na prawdziwego Wocha przystaje, pochodzcego z kraju
poetw, marynarzy i pikarzy, chciabym podzikowa organizatorom a w szczeglnoci Pani Doktr Joannie
Popielskiej za serdeczno i ch goszczenia mnie na tej konferencji, oraz Pani Doktr Agnieszce Krzemiskiej
za gocinno, za ktr mam nadziej odwdziczy si we Florencji. Jest dla mnie zaszczytem mie moliwo
przemawiania w tym miecie i w tym pastwie wanie w chwili, w ktrej wszyscy stalimy si czonkami
Wsplnoty Europejskiej. Wsplnoty obecnie wikszej, szerszej i dziki temu bogatszej, nie tylko z punktu
widzenia ekonomicznego, ale i kulturalnego. Nowa kultura, ktra si rodzi bdzie wzrasta ze stopu naszych
rnoci. Rnoci te nie powinny ju nigdy by rdem strachu, lecz sta si urodzajn gleb dla budowania
przyszoci opierajcej si na wsppracy i wymianie dowiadcze we wszystkich dziedzinach nauki. Jestem
przekonany, e obecna konferencja jest tego niezaprzeczalnym dowodem. Wybaczcie moj nieudolno w
odczytywaniu tych kilku sw w jzyku polskim napisanych dla mnie przez pani doktr Magdalen Verz,
moj przyjacik pochodzenia polskiego, z ktr miaem przyjemno pracowania we Woszech. By moe
znudz Was troch w cigu nastpnych minut, lecz bd mwi o naszym Egipcie i wobec tego jestem pewny,
e bdziecie cierpliwi. Z gry dzikuj.
*2
This brief note, submitted 27 January 2005, Il Giorno della Memoria, is dedicated to all Hebrew victims,
and to all victims of hate, racism, injustice, and discrimination.
1
I would like express my great indebtedness to several colleagues, above all to Professor Paolo Marrassini for the
enthusiastic and unflagging assistance, to Dr. Joanna Popielska-Grzybowska for the enthusiastic appreciation
on this note, to Dr. Maddalena Verzi, and finally I would like to mention and thank all friends of Florentine
Seminar.
2
P. Fronzaroli, La Natura Selvatica, ANLR serie VIII, vol. XXIII, fasc. 7-12 (1968), pp. 267-303.

61
 Massimiliano Franci

During this analysis new evidence came to light, bringing new insights into phonetic
relations.

1 Some considerations

Soil component

1. Common Semitic (hereinafter referred to as C.S.) *QARQAR- soil.3 It is possible to

suggest a comparison with the Egyptian qAA hill, high ground, and the Egyptian qAyt high
ground, arable land.4
2. C.S. *APAR- ground,5 that it is comparable with the Egyptian pAa.t irrigable land,
considering a metathesis of a.
3. C.S. *ABN- rock,6 we can relate to the Egyptian biA a mineral (not metal), even biAt
gritstone, and quarry.7

Ground Elevation

4. C.S. *TILL- hill.8 We could suggest a comparison with the Egyptian substantive
tA earth.9 The Egyptian lexicon is very varied about this meaning: AA mound of ruins,
iAt hill, mound, iAA mound of rubble, xAst hill-country, foreign land, xa hill, qAA
hill. It is immediately manifest that three terms have in the final position a reduplicate
A. If we read the Semitic root as *t + *ll-, we could suggest a common Afro-Asiatic root
AA *LL with the meaning of mound; a root that is been re-determined in personal way
in Egyptian and in Semitic. However, the Egyptian iAA is comparable with Akkadian r
earth, land.10

Hydrography11

5. C.S. *PALG- watercourse,12 meaning even torrent or ditch. We can propose

acomparison with the Egyptian adjective bAg thick, referring to a liquid, but considering
the determinative mw another interpretation could be slimy water.

3
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 271.
4
Also Egyptian term qAA is compared with a Semitic *qr- mount, hill (see Arabic qr-at-), cf. V. Orel,
O.Stolbova, Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Materials for a Reconstruction, HdO, Leiden 1995
(hereinafter referred to as: HSED), p. 337, no. 1552.
5
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 271.
6
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 271.
7
Also Vycichl that is sure about a comparison with C.S. *ABN- and Egyptian inr, W. Vycichl, Egyptian and
the other Hamito-Semitic Languages, [in:] J. & T. Bynon (eds.), Hamito-Semitica, Paris 1975, p. 203. In the
same lexical field bnwt hard sandstone, corn-rubber, compared by Orel and Stolbova, cf. HSED, p. 3, no.
9. Against their proposal see I. Djakonov, The Earliest Semitic Society. Linguistic Data, JSS 43 (1998), p. 211,
n. 6.
8
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 272.
9
Differently Orel and Stolbova compare the Egyptian term with Chadic and Cushitic, cf. HSED, p. 501, no.
2386, and Semitic term with Chadic and Cushitic, cf. HSED, p. 509, no. 2429.
10
Neo Babylonian, J. Black, A. Geroge, N. Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, Wiesbaden 2000
(hereinafter referred to as: CDA), p. 21.
11
For some consideration on Egyptian Hydrography, see M. Franci, Quelques considrations sur le champ
smantique du dterminatif mw, [in:] A. Amenta (ed.), Acts of First International Conference for Young
Egyptologists, Chianciano Terme (Siena) October 15-18, 2003, Roma 2005, pp. 361-369.
12
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 273.

62
 Egypto-Semitic Lexical Comparison...

6. C.S. *MANBA- spring.13 Hodge suggests a relation of Semitic root C.S. *-NBA-,
inside it, with Egyptian wbn and babat stream.14 The second hypothesis is more likely, given
that in the first Semitic radical a prefixes n-, which allows a reconstruction of a common root
*-ba-, reduplicate in Egyptian, and prefixed in Semitic.

Spontaneous Vegetation

7. C.S. *AMM- grass,15 reconstruct by Fronzaroli from Akkadian ammu grass, plant,
compared by Ember with Egyptian smw plant, grass.16 We can add a comparison of the
Egyptian term with Ugaritic Smn an aromatic herb.17 Certainly, Orel and Stolbova suggest
a comparison of C.S. *AMM- with Egyptian SmAw flower, underlining only a vocalic value
for Egyptian A.18
8. C.S. *DA- new grass,19 comparable with Egyptian dyt papyrus plant, if it is not
a case of a dentalization of Egyptian Dyt papyrus marsh, after a palatalization of the
original *kyt.
On the other hand, we can suggest a comparison of Egyptian dyt with Ugaritic dt forraje
o hierba de primavera.20
9. C.S. *DARDAR- thistle,21 for which we can suggest a relation with the Egyptian ar
reed pen, follows comparison with another school of thought in which a phonetic rapport
with the Egyptian d and Semitic a and vice versa are possible.22
Otherwise, the Egyptian ar is comparable with Ugaritic arar tamarisk, Hebrew arar , Syriac
ar, Arabic arar,23 Akkadian aru(m) branch, frond, of Tamarisk tree.24
Also we can underline a probably relation between the Egyptian term and Geez bar reed
pen,25 considering the first radical b- as a suffix.
10. C.S. *A L- rush,26 for which we can suggest a comparison with the Egyptian zr

tamarisk. The Egyptian term could be compared, even, with C.S. *AL- Tamarisk.27
11. C.S. * a(m)am-(at) sesame (Ugaritic SSmn sesame, Akkadian amaamm, Hebrew
and Aramaic SmSm, Arabic simsim, comparable with the Egyptian SmSmt probably hemp;28
but if the comparison is right we can suggest an Egyptian term meaning sesame.

13
P. Fronzaroli, I Fenomeni Naturali, ANLR se VIII, vol. XX, fa. 3-4 (1965), p. 140.
14
C.T. Hodge, An Egypto-Semitic Comparison, FO 17 (1976), p.13. For a different interpretation of bbt see
D.Meeks, Anne Lexicographique gypte Ancienne, Tome 1 (1977), Paris 1998 (hereinafter referred to as:
ALA 1), p. 115, no. 77.1224, le flot qui baigne (les terres), linondation.
15
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 289, n 5.19.
16
A. Ember, (a) New Semito-Egyptian words, JAOS 37 (1917), p. 21. Subsequently M. Cohen, Essai comparatif
sur le vocabulaire et la phontique du chamito-smitique, Paris 1947 (hereinafter referred to as: Cohen, Essai
comparatif), p. 135, no. 273.
19
Cf. G. del Olmo Lete, J. Sanmartn, Diccionario de la Lengua Ugaritca, vol. 1 Barcelona 1996, and Diccionario
de la Lengua Ugaritca, vol. 2, Barcelona 2000 (hereinafter referred to as: DLU), pp. 444-445.
18
Cf. HSED, p. 490, no. 2325.
19
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 275.
20
DLU, p. 138.
21
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 276.
22
H. Satzinger, Egyptian ayin in variation with d, LingAeg 6 (1999), pp. 141-151.
23
DLU, p. 87.
24
CDA, p. 25.
25
W. Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Geez, Wiesbaden 1987 (hereinafter referred to as: CDG), pp. 101-102.
26
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 276. For Akkadian alu(m) reed, see CDA, p. 28.
27
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 279; cf. I. Jacob, W. Jacob, Flora, [in:] D.N. Freedman
(ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, London 1992, p. 806.
28
Maybe it is the same word compared by Ward with C.S., and it is defined in WB IV, 488 as a plant, see
W.A.Ward, Comparative Studies in Egyptian and Ugaritic, JNES 20 (1961), p. 38.

63
 Massimiliano Franci

On the other hand, Orel and Stolbova reconstruct and compare C.S *sim-sim- sesame
with the Egyptian smw plant, grass, vegetable, a term interpreted by them as cabbage.29
Otherwise we can suggest a relation between the Egyptian term and Ugaritic Smn aromatic
plant, Hebrew, Aramaic, Punic, Palmirean Smn, Eblaitic /amnum/, Akkadian amnu.30

Trees

12. C.S. *BUR- juniper,31 comparable with the Egyptian bAt bush, wisp of corn.32
13. C.S. *IQD- almond-tree,33 for which we can forward a comparison with the Egyptian
qdt.t, with a metathesis, usually explained, with some doubts, as a conifer from Syria, but
given the meaning in Semitic it is possible to change it to almond-tree.

Wild Animals

14. C.S. *NAY- lion, attested in all Semitic areas34 and for which we can posit a relationship
with the Egyptian wnS, explained by Faulkner as jackal and by Gardiner as wolf,35 considering
the first semi-vowel in Egyptian as a prefix w- with a prothetic or morphological value to be
explained.36
Egyptian for lion we find mAi, with the female form mAt that indicates lioness, and
the periphrasis mA-HzA lion. These words are probably compareble with Akkadian armu
mountain goat,37 or also well with the Akkadian mru(m) young animal, young bull,38
with Ugaritic mr cra de animal,39 or Ugaritic mn especie (animal).40 For the relations with
Afro-Asiatic we can underline the Central Chadic *myar- wild cat, Rift *mer- lion.41
In a different way Orel and Stolbova suggest a comparison of the Egyptian mAi just with
East Chadic *mui- lion.42 Takcs reports the word tA lion,43 which is comparable with
Ugaritic tnn dragn primordial,44 and/or with Geez tro bull, that is derived probably
from Geez tor a kind of African Gazelle.45
15. C.S. *LABI- lioness, but in Akkadian and Ugaritic it means lion.46 For Egyptian
we just see the specific word for lioness: mAt. Ward underlines the existence of a relation
of C.S. *LABI- with Coptic laboi lioness and with Demotic lby lion, both derived from
Egyptian rby.w two lionesses, posing the question if it could be a Semitic loan-word in

29
In HSED, p. 95, no. 395, those terms are compared with WCh *cim- grass, ECh *syam- hay, Cushitic Rift
*cam- a kind of grass (Iraqw camo), Dahalo aam-ine a blade of grass.
30
DLU, p. 444.
31
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 278.
32
In HSED the Egyptian term is not compared with C.S. but just with Chadic and Cushitic, cf. HSED, pp. 38-39,
no. 155.
33
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 279.
34
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 281.
35
On wolf see Hodge, FO 17 (1976), p.11.
36
On this way HSED, p. 407, no. 1891; Cohen compares the Egyptian word with Berber uen jackal, cf. Cohen,
Essai comparatif, p. 199, no. 514.
37
CDA, p. 24; cf. E. Firmage, Zoology, [in:] D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, London
1992, p. 1153.
38
CDA, p. 219.
39
DLU, p. 288.
40
DLU, p. 282.
41
HSED, p. 382, no. 1760.
42
HSED, p. 391, no. 1810.
43
G. Takcs, Aegypto-Afroasiatica XV, LP 44 (2002), p. 164.
44
DLU, p. 471.
45
CDG, p. 578.
46
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 281.

64
 Egypto-Semitic Lexical Comparison...

Egyptian, or else a contraction of Egyptian rw-Abw.47 Orel and Stolbova on the other hand
reject this relation, considering the C.S. word of Afro-Asiatic origin: Chadic: West Chadic
*lVbV-Vr wild cat and Central Chadic *a-lib-ar- lion, Cushitic: Saho-Afar *lub-ak- lion,
Lowland East Cushitic *lib-a- lion,48 and again Proto-Chadic *a-luba-ri lion.49
As such, we can suggest a comparison of C.S. *LABI- with Egyptian Aby panther,50 from
a root much used in Egyptian, that may refer to a feline characteristic: see Egyptian Abw
elephant and even Geez marbo hyena.51
16. C.S. *IB- wolf, though the meaning is changed in the different Semitic dialects:
in Mesopotamia near the value for jackal, we find vulture; in Arabic jackal; in Geez
Hyena.52 With C.S. *IB- is clearly in relation to the Egyptian zAb jackal, seeing in the
Egyptian A glottal value.53
17. C.S. *DABY- C.S. *DABB- bear,54 probably the original meaning is related with
strength, in Ugaritic we can find it in the word dbb bestia, animal mtico.55 We can
suggest a comparison with Egyptian dib hippopotamus, var. db.
18. C.S. *RIM- gazelle,56 considering a metathesis we can propose a comparison with
the Egyptian imAt female ibex, also female of any wild animal.
In this way, we have the Egyptian mA oryx,57 comparable with Akkadian mru(m) young
animal, young bull,58 and Ugaritic mr cra de animal.59
Or, we can suggest a comparison with Geez maan a kind of Antelope, derived form
Cushitic Beja mano wolf.60
Orel and Stolbova propose a comparison of the Egyptian word with the Central Chadic
*miyaw- antelope and Cushitic Agaw *miHiw- a kind of gazelle.61
19. We can suggest a comparison with the Egyptian word Sq-b rhinoceros with C.S. akk-
thorn,62 and also with Akkadian eg wild, aggressive.63

Birds

20. C.S. *NAR- eagle,64 that is comparable with the Egyptian As bald-headed
vulture.65

47
Ward, JNES 20 (1961), pp. 35-36.
48
HSED, p. 355, no. 1636.
49
O.V. Stolbova, Studies in Chadic Comparative Phonology, Moscow 1996, p. 89.
50
Cohen compares the Egyptian term just with Agaw yib panther, cf. Cohen, Essai comparatif, p. 77, no.7.
According with my propose see G. Takcs, Afro-Asiatic (Semito-Hamitic) Substratum in the Proto-Indo-
European Cultural Lexicon?, LP 40 (1998), pp. 149-150.
51
CDG, p. 357.
52
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), pp. 281-282.
53
On this way Cohen, Essai comparatif, p. 159, no. 347; see also G. Takcs, Recent Problems of Egyptian
Historical Phonology at the Present Stage of Comparative-Historical Afroasiatic Linguistics, [in:] J. Lecarme,
J. Lowenstamm, U. Shlonsky (eds.), Research in Afroasiatic Grammar, Amsterdam 2000, pp. 349-350.
54
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 282; cf. DLU, p. 127.
55
Cf. DLU, p. 127.

56
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), p. 282.
57
In HSED there are not comparison with Semi tic but just with Chadico and Cushitic, cf. HSED, p. 383,
no. 1765.
58
CDA, p. 219.
59
DLU, p. 288.
60
CDG, p. 324.
61
HSED, p. 383, no. 1765.
62
CDG, p. 529.
63
CDA, p. 365.
64
Fronzaroli, ANLR se VIII, vol. XXIII, fa. 7-12 (1968), pp. 284-285.
65
Hodge proposes C.S. *nsr hawk, and he compares it with Egyptian nrt, cf. Hodge, FO 17 (1976), p. 11. For
adifferent interpretation see Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Volume One A Phonological Introduction,

65
 Massimiliano Franci

21. Egyptian bik hawk, we can suggest a relation with Akkadian bukum a bird.66
22. Egyptian bnw heron, that is comparable with Geez ibn ibis, heron, if it is not
derived from the Greek bin.67 Otherwise we can suggest comparison with Akkadian bnum
a bird.68 In Egyptian we also find the word nty heron, Coptic pelqwb, with prefixed
article, the Heron, that is attested as a loan-word in Arabic balsm heron.69
23. Egyptian gmt Black Ibis, for which we can suggest a comparison with Geez gumgum
pelican.70
24. Egyptian dgyt a bird, homophonic of bat,71 that is comparable with the Geez dgdg
cock, Arabic da a domestic bird.72

2 Phonetic Problems
A part of the new correspondences proposed draws light on a series of problems referred
to in the phonetic relations between Egyptian and Semitic and also Afro-Asiatic, which
deserves some consideration.

1. The alveo-palatal fricative voiceless

It has traditionally been considered an axiom that the correspondence Egyptian S =

Semitic , is proof of a loan.73 So in the comparison it is normal to find the relation Egyptian
s= Semitic , as in the example quoted for C.S. *AMM- grass, Egyptian smw plant, grass,
C.S. *NAR- eagle, Egyptian As bald-headed vulture, or C.S. *IB- wolf, Egyptian zAb.
Now, if in the majority of cases the phonetic relation seems to be thus (if so there will be
another problem about the origin of both in Egyptian and Semitic) is it possible that every
time that the alveo-palatal is found in both languages it could be a Semitic loan to the
Egyptian?
Of much importance is the case of C.S. akk- thorn, the Egyptian word Sq-b
rhinoceros.
Given that in Semitic and in Egyptian the original meaning changed the hypothesis of
a loan would not appear to be the only one acceptable.

2. The velar series

The relation of the velar phonemes and the uvular between Semitic and Egyptian has
traditionally been considered very regular, as in the examples here quoted: C.S. *QARQAR-
soil, Egyptian qAA hill, high ground, and Egyptian qAyt high ground, arable land; C.S.
*IQD- almond-tree, Egyptian qdt.t almond-tree; Egyptian bik hawk, Akkadian bukum
a bird; C.S. *PALG- watercourse, torrent, ditch, Egyptian bAg thick; Egyptian gmt

Kln 1999, p. 52. Otherwise see Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian, b-, p-, f-, Vol. II, HdO, Leiden 2001,
pp.149-150.
66
CDA, p. 48.
67
CDG, p. 4.
68
CDA, p. 48.
69
W.B. Bishai, Coptic Lexical Influence on Egyptian Arabic, JNES 23 (1964), p. 40.
70
CDG, p. 194.
71
Cf. H. Tourneaux, Quelques observation sur le Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary, SPJAS 6 (1997),
pp.63-73.
72
CDG, p. 126.
73
cf. G. Conti, Rapporti tra Egiziano e Semitico nel lessico egiziano dellagricoltura, QuSem 6, Firenze 1978
(hereinafter referred to as: Conti, Rapporti), p. 54.

66
 Egypto-Semitic Lexical Comparison...

Black Ibis, Geez gumgum pelican; Egyptian dgyt a bird, Geez dgdg cock and Arabic
da a domestic bird.74
We find some cases in which this regularity does not appear and this should push us
toward the hypothesis of loans; but that does not seem to be the case.
Let us examine the examples: C.S. *GURW- young of animal, Egyptian xA be young,
little; C.S. akk- thorn, Egyptian word Sq-b rhinoceros.

3. The dental series

The dental have also traditionally had regular correspondence between themselves:
The inconsistencies that have been seen as a consequence of the Egyptian phenomenon
of deafness is of the sonorous occlusive, which moved the relation from mute/sonorous to
aspirate mute/mute.
We can underline the correspondence between Semitic interdental voiceless with Egyptian
dental voiceless: C.S. *DA- new grass, Egyptian dyt papyrus plant; C.S. *BUR-
juniper, Egyptian bAt bush, wisp of corn.
In two examples both the Semitic interdental, voiced and voiceless, have a regular
correspondence with Egyptian voiced sibilant: C.S. *AL- Tamarisk, Egyptian izr
tamarisk; C.S. *IB- wolf, Egyptian zAb.

4. The biconsonantal roots

We can represent some of the comparisons referred to as common biconsonantal

roots:75
Common Afro-Asiatic (by now AA) *qar- hill;
AA *ll- mound;
AA *r- reed;
AA *sm- an aromatic plant;
AA */gr- be young, little;
AA *n(v)- an animal;
AA *lab- female of feline;
AA *dbb- animal strength;
AA *gmt- black bird.

These examples show the importance of the biconsonantal bases from which Egyptian and
Semitic distinguished different meanings, using the different possibilities of the root; but
also, in the Afro-Aiatic area, of the existence of a large number of biconsonantal roots.76
This presence has been already seen in the past in the Fundamental Lexicon in a few
examples from the lexicon of body parts.77
When accepted the consistence of the biconsonantal root, reconstructed phonetically,
presuming the meaning, we must analyse the character of this third consonant, which is not
always a mere radical integration.

74
CDG, p. 126.
75
About biconsonantal roots see G. Conti, Sul bilitterismo in semitico e in egiziano. Il tema n1212, QuSem 9,
Firenze 1980 (hereinafter referred to as: Conti, Sul bilitterismo), pp. 1-11.
76
Cf. Conti, Rapporti, pp. 158-159.
77
Cf. Conti, Sul bilitterismo, pp. 12-13, 15; M. Franci, Egypto-Semitic Lexical Comparison: New Correspondences
and Phonological Problems in The Lexicon of Anatomy and Physiological Functions, [in:] A. Mengozzi (ed.),
Afroasiatica Bergamasca, contributi dellXI Incontro di Linguistica Afro-Asiatica (camito-semitica),
Bergamo 5-7 Giugno 2003, Bergamo 2005, pp. 57-66.

67
 Massimiliano Franci

Abbreviations
AA: Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic),
Akk.: Akkadian,
Amh.: Amharic,
Ar.: Arabic,
Arm.: Aramaic,
CC: Central Chadic,
Copt.: Coptic,
C.S.: Common Semitic,
ECu.: Eastern Cushitic,
Eg.: Egyptian,
Gz.: Geez,
Heb.: Hebrew,
Sem.: Semitic,
Syr.: Syriac,
Ug.: Ugaritic,
West Chadic.: West-Chadic,
0/2: qattala form.

Eventually abbreviations in brackets after Egyptian lexemes refers to R.O. Faulkner,

A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford 1981

68