IE-Semitic connections

Glen Gordon glengordon01 at
Tue Feb 2 07:12:25 UTC 1999

>The contrast between the initial consonants of the words for "6"
>and "7" does indeed suggest a NE Semitic origin.  Akkadian, and
>no other Semitic language, has a contrast between 6 s^is^s^(et)
>and 7 sebe(tt), i.e. shibilant vs. sibilant.

I think you mentioned this before, however now it seems more intriguing.
:) Why would Kartvelian have the opposite however? Is there cause to
reinterpret the reconstruction?

>>I take the word *eg'oh in IE to be a realisation of
>>the North Semitic word *anaku...

>The word is post-Anatolian (which has *amu-), unless
>Hittite uk (besides ammuk) is related, which I doubt.

Why do you doubt "uk"'s kinship? Where else could it be from? I've heard
about this analysis of *eg'oh but it seems awkward to explain it as
*e-g'e-hwe (or *(H1)e-ge-H3e, if you like).

1. The word *e is a demonstrative, not an attested 1rst person on its
own, no?

2. Why don't other pronouns like *tu: undergo the same process?
   Say, **twe-g'e-s? Or **ns-g'e-mes??

3. How and why would the pronoun be conjugated like a verb?

4. Hittite ammuk could just as well be interpreted as akin to *@me, a
variant of *me. (Perhaps those that are bent-up on *H's will like
the reconstruction of *H1me or *?me better, preserved
coincidentally in Greek as such initial laryngeals should be) In
fact, couldn't *@me explain the plural form *ns "us" (< *@ns <
*@me-s) just as we find the accusative plural in *-ns (<*-m-s)?
   How do we know that the prothetic vowel is honestly from **e-?

5. The ending -m is found in other pronouns in Sanskrit: aham,
tvam, vayam, yuyam, etc. and doesn't show that it's specific to the
1rst person. How do we know IE meant *-m as a first person ending     as
opposed to something else?

Glen Gordon
glengordon01 at

Kisses and Hugs

More information about the Indo-european mailing list