Table Of ContentJANUA LINGUARUM
STUD ΙΑ MEMORIAE
NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA
edenda curat
C. H. VAN SCHOONEVELD
Indiana University
Series Practica, 163
AFROASIATIC
A SURVEY
edited by
CARLETON T.HODGE
@
1971
MOUTON
THE HAGUE · PARIS
© Copyright 1971 in The Netherlands.
Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague.
No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm
or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 78-181828
Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague.
PREFACE
The field of Afroasiatic is one which presents a unique opportunity for the historical
and comparative linguist. As envisaged by Greenberg, it consists of:
(1) a group of languages illustrative of, and amenable to, the procedures of 'clas-
sical' comparative linguistics, most with long histories — Semitic.
(2) a single language, having the longest recorded history of any known, yet dem-
onstrably related to others in the group — Egyptian.
(3) a group of closely related languages with sporadic attestation from earlier
periods — Berber.
(4) two groups of languages, both the membership and the internal relationships
of which are still in dispute — Cushitic and Chadic.
It would appear safe to say that most of the languages attributed to this group by
Greenberg are genetically related. The temporal disparities in attestation, along
with the fact that some of the earliest known linguistic records belong here, offer
a field for the testing of historical and comparative theories which is unparalleled.
Some of the questions one may hope to find answers for in the study of this group
of languages are:
(1) On the basis of comparisons within this group, can a limit be set to the temporal
gap between sets of linguistic data beyond which one cannot establish regular
sound correspondences?
(2) Can a time depth be established for the usefulness of morphologic data in com-
parative linguistics?
(3) What patterns of semantic development and comparison may be established?
(4) To what extent does 'drift' exist in widely separated languages and can any
general principles of drift be set up?
Many more specific questions along these lines come to mind. E.g., is there a dem-
onstrable cyclic pattern to syntax-morphology relationship?
(5) To what extent may techniques of comparison other than sound correspond-
ences be utilized and validated?
(6) Can languages which arose as pidgins or Creoles be identified and treated within
the framework of comparative linguistics?
6 PREFACE
(7) To what extent may there be language mixture before a language is to be clas-
sified as a pidgin or Creole?
Questions such as these arise as the languages of this group and their relationship
to each other are studied. They are of great importance to linguistics generally, as
well as to Afroasiatic as such.
It will be noted that very little is said about the hypotheses which relate Afroasiatic
to Indo-Hittite and other families of languages. The stress here is rather on the very
tentative state of affairs within Afroasiatic. We do not yet know precisely" what
languages belong to the group or the precise relationships of the given groups to
each other. Speculation regarding even broader ties is to be welcomed, but only
if it takes advantage of latest developments and fully recognizes the very tenuous
character of its conclusions.
The present volume is the reissue of six articles from Current Trends in Linguistics,
Vol. 6 and one from Vol. 7. As the Egyptian-Coptic tradition is the sole representa-
tive of that branch, the articles on these two stages of the language are given here.
The other articles are general ones, each treating a group of languages, including
the overall treatment of Afroasiatic as such. One article, Cushitic, has some ad-
ditional material covering more recent work.
The purpose in issuing these articles separately is twofold: (1) to offer a fairly up-
to-date general survey of the field in one volume, as a convenient reference; (2) to
stimulate interest in the study of this very promising field.
I would like to thank the contributors for their willingness to have their material
republished, Mouton and Company for their ready cooperation in so doing, and
the editor-in-chief of Current Trends in Linguistics, Thomas A. Sebeok, for his ad-
vice and encouragement.
CARLETON T. HODGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 5
1. Carleton Τ. Hodge
Afroasiatic: An Overview 9
2. Edward Ullendorf
Comparative Semitics 27
3. J. Vergote
Egyptian 40
4. H. J. Polotsky
Coptic 67
5. F.R. Palmer
Cushitic 80
6. Joseph R. Applegate
The Berber Languages 96
7. Robert R.Terry
Chadic 119
1. AFROASIATIC: AN OVERVIEW
CARLETON Τ. HODGE
Before a Brugmann or a Brockelmann can provide the cholarly world with a com-
pendium which remains standard long after it is outdated, there must be several
generations of scholars gathering and organizing data. This preparatory work largely
remains to be done in the field of Afroasiatic.1 The basic data — reliable descriptions,
including dictionaries — are yet lacking for most languages. The work that has been
done is thus forced to rely on very uneven evidence over broad areas (Tucker 1967:
655). The difficulties of comparison have been increased considerably by the disparity
in dates of attestation, Semitic and Egyptian going back to 2000-3000 B.C. while
Cushitic and Chadic are known only from modern times. Berber has some older
records (Rössler 1958) but nothing comparable to Semitic or Egyptian. This problem
is often raised (e.g. von Soden 1965:163) and has been countered with such examples
as comparisons of Lithuanian and Sanskrit (Rössler 1951:104-5; cf. Hodge 1968b).
Klingenheben holds a somewhat overly negative view in this respect, maintaining that
we are unjustified in assigning to the proto-language anything which is not represented
in the older periods (1956:255).
The field as a whole has been treated in two works by major scholars, one near the
beginning of the period under review (Cohen 1947) and the other near the end (Diako-
noff 1965). The most complete listing of Afroasiatic languages, accompanied by
general discussion of the 'phylum', as it is there called, is that of the Voegelins (1964).
This was based on Greenberg's earlier work (1955a, 1963) and also had the advantage
of later consultation with him and others. An earlier and still very useful list is found
in Cohen (1952).
A sober appraisal of the state of Afroasiatic scholarship was made by von Soden
1 'Afroasiatic' includes the languages known as Semitic, Egyptian, Cushitic, Berber and Chadic
(see the respective chapters, Chadic being in Volume 7). This term, introduced by Greenberg (1952),
has largely replaced Hamito-Semitic in American usage and to some extent elsewhere. Hamito-
Semitic, as well as the less common Semito-Hamitic, are still widely used. More recently Erythraic
has been proposed by Tucker and Bryan (1966:2) as a meaningful and non-controversial alternative.
A popular account of the current state of the field is found in Hodge (1968b). A summary of Soviet
work is given by Sharbatov (1967). Afroasiatic is here referred to as a family' with 'branches'
comparable to Indo-Hittite. This is perhaps premature, and the term 'phylum' for Afroasiatic and
'family' for Semitic, Egyptian, etc. is in some respects more appropriate to our present state of know-
ledge (Voegelins 1964; Polotsky 1964:122: 'stock' or 'phylum^.
10 CARLETON Τ. HODGE
(1965). Primarily a review article (of Castellino 1962; see below), he is highly critical
of the type of work being done. His points are generally well taken and the most
important ones cannot reasonably be controverted. His plea for sound methodology
combined with proper knowledge of the sources should be underlined (von Soden
1965:162; a previous statement by Cohen 1951). It also cannot be too strongly
stressed that solid results must await the detailed analysis of the individual branches
and reconstructions of proto-Cushitic, proto-Chadic, etc. (cf. von Soden 1965:164).
Nor is this situation in any way peculiar to Afroasiatic. Dalby's remarks on African
languages could well be said of any comparative linguistics: 'The first task in the
comparative study of African languages is to establish the closest and most coherent
groupings on a scientific basis, i.e. groupings for which regular sound-correspondences
and reconstructed common-forms may be postulated. Only when this is done will it
be possible to examine any remoter levels of relationship, on the basis of these immedi-
ate groupings.' (Dalby 1966:179).
It would follow from this quotation that the study of Afroasiatic is not at this point
possible, considering the fact that the study of the most closely related groups has
been done only in part. As a matter of fact both of history and of methodology the
procedure has been quite different from both von Soden's and Dalby's ideal. All
along the way the larger picture has been kept in mind, that is, comparisons between
the branches have been made despite meagre information on the branches themselves
as linguistic entities. The sequence of scholarly activity actually being followed is more
like this : 1) Original hypothesis of relationship based on available data. 2) Closer
analysis of these data for 'proof' of relationship. 3) Further collection of data to
furnish information on all languages involved. 4) Analysis of new and old data,
setting up sound correspondences first for smaller groups and eventually for the
family as a whole. In the period with which we are concerned three main trends may
be seen. The first is the use of broad techniques for the setting up of hypotheses of
relationship. The second is the effort to establish sound correspondences (on a broad
or narrow scale) among the various branches. The third is the investigation of similar
morphologic and syntactic features. Most of the work done on the second and third
of these has not been basically different from that of the previous fifty years. Only
very recently have definite steps been taken to put sound correspondences on a
firmer basis by working on the internal relationships of the branches, especially Cush-
itic and Chadic.
The hypothesis of relationship was at first supported mainly by morphologic
features — pronouns, noun affixes, verbs affixes. Given approximately two hundred
languages with data on them ranging from short word lists to thousands of biblio-
graphic entries, some new kind of survey technique appeared to be in order. This
Greenberg sought to furnish. Beginning with a general article critical of past work in
the African field, including Afroasiatic (1948), he continued in a series of articles
(reprinted 1955a), one of which was specifically concerned with this group of languages.
Using basic word lists as the primary source of data he revised previous estimates of
