Древнейшие лексические слои египетского языка VIII: числительные Текст научной статьи по специальности «Языкознание и литературоведение»

Gabor Takacs

Department of Egyptology, Eotvos Lorand University, Hungary; gabtak@datatrans.hu

Layers of the oldest Egyptian lexicon VIII: Numerals*

This paper belongs to a series of publications whose goal is to survey the most ancient part of Egyptian basic lexicon, classified by semantical domains, in order to stratify the different lexical layers (wherever they are present) in the light of Semitic vs. African Afro-Asiatic dichotomy, which was already suggested by P. Lacau several decades ago. The current paper focuses on the etymologies of Egyptian numerals.

Keywords: Ancient Egyptian, Afro-Asiatic languages, etymology, historical phonology, numerals.

In memoriam A. Zaborski (1942-2014)

Introduction

The first part of my series "Layers of the oldest Egyptian lexicon"1 re-examined the controversies of P. Lacau's (1970) old observation on a binary opposition of certain items of Ancient Egyptian anatomical terminology in the context of many new results issuing from current progress in Afro-Asiatic (Semito-Hamitic) comparative linguistics. The etymological examination of Ancient Egyptian anatomical terminology presented therein has corroborated a surprising distribution: one member of the synonymous pairs is usually a Semitic word, whereas the other one(s) has/ve non-Semitic cognate(s) solely attested in some of the African branches of our language macrofamily. A relatively deeper presence of the extra-Semitic vocabulary in Egyptian has also become apparent. The subsequent papers in this series ("Layers of the oldest Egyptian lexicon II-VII") focused on the rest of the Ancient Egyptian anatomical terminology,2 led by the wish to see to what degree this etymological dichotomy was characteristic there,

* It is here that I have to express my thanks to the Bolyai research fellowship (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, reg. no.: BO / 00360 / 12) facilitating my project on Egyptian linguogenesis, which resulted, inter alia, in a number of papers including this and the preceding parts of my series "Layers of the oldest Egyptian lexicon". I am pleased to express my gratitude to both Prof. W. G. E. Watson (Morpeth, UK) and Prof. G. Hudson (East Lansing, USA) for unselfishly devoting some of their precious time to correct the English of this text.

This paper is a farewell to my dear senior Semito-Hamiticist fellow, my unforgettable Doktor- and Habilitationsvater (ELTE, Hungary, June 1998 and October 2003, resp.), whose tragical premature passing away (autumn 2014) I cannot comprehend, to whom I owe so much. His famous studies on the Omotic and Cushitic numerals (1983 and 1987, resp.) are also considered here.

1 Takacs, G.: Layers of the Oldest Egyptian Lexicon I. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 68/1 (2015), 85-139.

2 Part II deals with the Egyptian anatomical terminology for parts of the head and the neck, which is published in Rocznik Orientalistyczny 69/1 (2016), 59-124. Part III (with an etymological study on the upper torso) is planned to appear in Rocznik Orientalistyczny 69/2 (2016). Part IV (terms for the lower torso), V (parts of the foot), VI (back parts of the body and below), and VII (terms pertaining to the body in general, e.g., skin, flesh, blood etc.) are still being prepared, but not yet ready for publication, although the relevant raw lexical materials have already been accumulated and so certain preliminary impressions are already available.

Journal of Language Relationship • Вопросы языкового родства • 14/2 (2016) • Pp. 119—151 • © The author, 2016

with the outcome that the overwhelming majority of Egyptian body part names was merely South Afro-Asiatic.

Now, as in my previous communications, the Egyptian numerals, as part of the basic vocabulary, are examined from the same standpoint so that we can see these diverse (South vs. North Afro-Asiatic) layers of our numeralia. May this paper express my high esteem and affection for our great Master in comparative Afro-Asiatic (Semito-Hamitic) studies, whose department at the Jagellonian University of Krakow was the only one in the world devoted to Afro-Asiatic linguistics in the recent decades.

Eg. Vwî "eins" (OK-, Wb I 273-276): in spite of the many unsuccesful attempts at its Afro-Asiatic etymology made over the past one and a half of a century,3 only recently has W. Vy-cichl (DELC 518), followed by A. Ju. Militarev (in Starostin et al. 1995, 23), found its phonol-ogically completely satisfactory cognates, which only appear in Semitic, where the latter scholar reconstructed the underlying root as *Vwîy "to sweep together", cf. OT Hbr. VyTy qal (hapax, Is. 28:17) "wegraffen", hence yâîïm (pl.) "Schaufeln" [GB 306-7] = Vyîy "to sweep away (hail)", hence *yâî or *yâîe(h) "shovel to clean the altar" [KB 419] = VyTy "to sweep toeg-ther and carry away" [Klein 1987, 261a] | OSA Vyîy "to snatch away" [Müller quoted in KB], Ar. Vwîy I: waîâ "1. rassembler, ramasser, réunir sur un seul point, 5. s'amasser sur un seul point (se dit, p.ex., du pus dans la plaie), 6. être guéri (se dit d'un os fracturé dont les éclats se réunissent)" [BK II 1570] = "sammeln" [GB] = "to collect, hold" [KB] = "umfassen, enthalten" [Lsl.]. Besides, it is this root that, following F. Rundgren (1961, 121-127) and W. Leslau (1987, 23), also the Semitic term for "Eingeweide" (usually taken from *Vmîy), is derived from an assumed primary stem **miîwîay- "(etwa) Sammlungsort, Gefäß".

Eg. Vsn (hence masc. dual sn.wj, fem. sn.tj) "zwei" (OK-, Wb IV 148) is identical with Sem. *tin- "2" [Djk.] = *Vtny [Vcl.] ||| Brb. *sin "2" [Mlt. 1991, 167],4 i.e., this numeral root is only at-

3 The most widespread etymology was its combination with Ar. Vwhd and its Semitic kindred, cf. Sethe 1916, 21, §1; Ember 1917, 87, #134; 1926, 305, #3.4; Albright 1918, 90; 1927, 200; Behnk 1927, 81, #7; ESS §5.c; Dolgopol'skij 1967, 300, #5; Schenkel 1997, 114. In addition to this Eg.-Sem. comparison, which was rightly declined already by V. Blazek (1999, 30, §4.1), several scholars, e.g., L. Reinisch (1874, xii, fn. 3), F. Behnk (1928, 139, #18), E. Zyhlarz (1931, 134-135; 1950, 407), Ju. Zavadovskij (1967, 43; 1974, 105; 1975, 45), and then E. Lipinski (1997, 284, §35.3.e) suggested further cognates in NBrb. yen (m), yet (f) and SBrb. iyen (m), iyet (f) "1" [Zhl.] derived by E. Zyhlarz from *Vwgy (1931) and later even from an artificial *Vw?y (1950) or most surprisingly by E. Lipinski (l.c.) from a 'wai(-n). V. Blazek (1987 MS, §1.2; 1990, 34; 1999, 30, §4.1), in turn, identified both Sem. *Vw?y and Eg. w? (in 1990, strangely, only Eg. w?) with the Berber numeral for "1", whose Proto-Berber etymon has been recently reconstructed as *yiw-an/-at [Prs.] = *ya-N/T [Zvd.] = *iyyaw-an/at (m/f) [Mlt.]. L. Homburger (1928, 335 along with many other untenable non-AA parallels) and H. Abel (1933-34, 305) connected Eg. w? to Common Nubian *wer "1". Similarly, W. Leslau (1962, 47, #27, cf. Conti 1978, 43, fn. 5) assumed a relationship with ES: Tigre woro "1". Both suggestions suffer from the fact that the correspondence of r to Eg. ? is irregular. M. L. Bender (1975, 179), in turn, affiliated the Eg. numeral with SCu.: WRift *wak- "1" [GT pace Zbr. 1987, 343], in which, however, there is no trace of the *?. In addition, as Ch. Ehret (1980, 312) pointed out, the WRift term is "probably" juxtaposed from two demonstrative roots (*wa + *ka), which is certainly not the case of Eg. w?. V. Blazek (1990, 34; 1993 MS, 3, §1.9) too, beside the Berber parallels (above), could not resist comparing SCu.: Ma'a (Mbugu) we "1" [Green, Wtl.] and WCh.: Karekare waike "each, all" [Krf.], where he singled out an "element" *wV "1".

4 See Hommel 1883, 96, §11; Erman 1892, 118; Sethe 1916, 19, §2; Albright 1918, 91; 1926, 189; 1923, 68; 1927, 200; Ember 1926, 305, n. 7; Farina 1926, 15; Behnk 1928, 140, #44; ESS §11.a.50; Zyhlarz 1931, 135, §2; Vycichl 1955, 310; 1958, 378, 399; 1974, 62, §5; D'jakonov 1965, 46; 1974, 742; 1986, 61; Hodge 1968, 27, #113; 1981, 410; 1990, 646, §9.A; Zavadovskij 1967, 43; 1974, 106, §6.1; 1975, 45-46; Dolgopol'skij 1973, 111; Bender 1975, 194; Belova 1989, 14; Militarev & Stolbova 1990, 56; Militarev 1991, 75; Dombrowski & Dombrowski 1991, 343; Lipinski 1997, 284, §35.4; Blazek 1999, 30-31, §4.2.

tested in the northern branches of the Afro-Asiatic macrofamily of languages. Elsewhere, it is unattested with *-n. The Semitic root has, however, also a heteroclitic variety with *-r, which may be traced back even on the Proto-Afro-Asiatic level, cf. AA *cir- ~ *car- "two" [GT] > Sem. **tir- > *ter- "two" [GT]5 ||| presumably SCu.: WRift *car- (unless < *cad-) "two" [GT]6 ||| PCh. *Vcr "two" [GT].7 The Sem.-SCu.-Ch. etymology was first suggested by V. Blazek (1987 MS, 8-9, #2.2; 1990, 36). Which of these root varieties (AA *Vcn vs. *Vcr "2") is to be considered as the primary one is not to be answered here. It is, however, noteworthy that only Semitic has both of them.

Eg. Vhmt (hence occuring as masc. pl. hmt.w, fem. hmt.t) "drei" (OK-, Wb III 283): the mystery of its origins has sometimes led to sometimes to absurd etymologies.8 In his prestigious LÄ article on Egyptian numerals, A. Loprieno (1986, 1308), however, all too hastingly and carelessly remarked that "eine überzeugende Etymologie liegt nicht vor", which was by far not true even in his day. Surprisingly, he overlooked and did not even quote the most hopeful approach suggested at that time by a number of outstanding comparatist authors like A. Trom-betti (1902, 196, §3), C. Meinhof (1912, 233), and M. L. Bender (1975, 192), who all combined the Egyptian numeral with NOm.: Kafa kämö "3" [Rn. 1888, 56] = kemö [Mnh.] = kemö [Crl. 1951, 461] = keymo [Bnd. 1971, 259], a numeral apparently standing totally isolated within Omotic. Whether the similarly isolated WCh.: Karekare kumu (sic, -m-) "3" [IL apud JI 1994 II 326]9 is, in fact, also cognate, is hard to determine as elsewhere in the West Chadic daughter

5 Attested in Biblical Aram. taren, fem. tarten [GB 931], Mandean tartin ~ atrin [Drower], Neo-Aram. itr(i), fem. tare(i) [Bergsträsser], Neo-Syriac tri ~ tirti ~ tirwe ~ tarwe [Kutscher] (NWSem.: KB 2009) || MSA: Soqotri tro (tiro) ~ (poetical) troho (so, t-) [Lsl. 1938, 445] = to, fem. trih [Jns.], Harsusi terö, fem. teret [Jns. 1977, 133], Jibbali troh, fem. trut [Jns. 1981, 285], Mehri tru (tru), fem. trit [Jahn] = tarö ~ troh, fem. atrayt ~ trelt [Jns. 1987, 418].

6 Based on the equation of Iraqw tsar and Burunge cada (WRift: Ehret 1980, 229, #4).

7 Attested in WCh.: NBauchi *cir ~ *car [GT], cf. Jimbin sir [Skn.], Pa'a ciru [MSkn.] = ciru [IL], Siri bi-care (ch-) [Gowers] = ba-cär [Skn.] = bu-cari [IL] (prefix bV- of numerals), Miya cir (ts-) [Skn.], Mburku car (ts-) [Skn.] (NBch.: Skinner 1977, 33) | Bade serin [IL], Ngizim sirin [Schuh] = sirin [IL] || CCh.: Musgoy sray [Mch.], Daba sraj [Pascal] = siray [Lienhard], Kola saräy [Schubert] || ECh.: Sumray sar [Jng.], Tumak hee [Caprile], probably < *ser [GT] | WDangla seer, seera [Fedry], Migama se:ra [Jng.], Mokilko sire [Jng.] | Mubi-Toram *sir(i) [GT] > Mubi siir [Lks. 1937, 185] = *siir [Bnd.-Drn. 1983, 78, #90] = sir [Jng. 1990 MS, 42], Birgit siiri [Jng. 2004, 358], Minjile *sir [Bnd.-Drn. 1983, 78, #90], Kajakse *siri [Bnd.-Drn. 1983, 78, #90], Masmaje sirri [Alio 2004, 284, #151], Toram see [Alio 2004, 262, #397], Jegu see [Jng. 1961, 117], Kofa sey [Jng. 1977 MS, 16, #402].

8 W. M. Müller 1907, 303, fn. 1; Sethe 1916, 21, §3; Albright 1918, 91; 1927, 199; Farina 1926, 14; ESS §10.a.33: Eg. hmt < *hnt < *snt < *slt < *tlt ~ Sem. *talat- "3". K. Sethe (l.c.) remained neutral with hesitation: "... aber m mit sem. l, t mit t zu identifizieren, fehlt mir vorläufig doch der Mut". M. M. Bravmann (1933, 148-149) assumed Eg. hmt < *hlt < *flt < *tlt allowing even that "there is no problem with m < *l in Egyptian" without further evidence. Even W. Westendorf (1962, 27, fn. 1) mentioned the alleged cognacy of Eg. hmt vs. Sem. *talat- among the instances of the interchange of Eg. m ~ n (sic). A. Ember (1917, 88, fn. 1), in turn, was "inclined to believe" in its cognacy with Sem. *Vhms "5". K. Sethe (1916, 23, fn. 2), following this idea, assumed that there "war bei der Trennung der beiden Sprachzweige noch ein unbestimmter Vielheitsausdruck, den der erste Zweig dann für das eine, der andere für das andere absterbende Zahlwort einsetzte, which A. Loprieno (1986, 1315-1316, n. 18) rightly doubted: "vermag ich weder phonolo-gisch noch semantisch zu verstehen". L. Homburger's (1928, 336) African parallels (outside AA, such as, e.g., Bantu satu, Agni nsä) are evidently out of the question equally for phonetic reasons. Ju.N. Zavadovskij (1967, 43; 1974, 107, §7; 1975, 47, §7.0) put forward his strange idea that Brb. Vkrd "3" "coomeemcmeyem do Hexomopoü cmeneHu" to Eg. hmt (1967 l.c.: "napaAAeAU3M 3dect> eupaxeH u,enonxoü ^opmarnrnü + cornHm + 3y6Hoü'"; 1974 l.c.: both roots are of parallel structure: post-palatal + sonant + dental), which V. Blazek (1999, 63, §3.1) has already correctly rejected as it "does not respect any known phonetic law".

9 Note that J. Lukas (1966, 202) recorded Karekare kuunu (sic, with -n-), which is, contrary to the record made by the IL with the unexpected anomalous -m-, in accordance with the rest of the comparative evidence usually gained from West Chadic.

language groups (Angas-Sura, Ron, Bole-Tangale), there seems to emerge a proto-form *kun-"3" [GT] = *kunu [Stl. 1987, 209, #595].10 But where is the trace of a dental plosive C3 in Kafa and Karekare? Nowhere, in fact. This lack of the third radical makes me doubt this Egypto-Chatic comparison and search further.

The West Chadic biradical root was handled, e.g., by H. Jungraithmayr and D. Ibriszimow (1994 I 168A) as a remnant of their triradical PCh. *Vknd "3" via apocopy. Interestingly and astonishingly, this is precisely the very same sequence of those root consonants that Eg. Vhmt also represents, i.e., velar + nasal + dental! All three radicals of this Proto-Chadic triradical root have been preserved until now, with the necessary Lautverschiebungen, of course, by the following daughter languages: WCh.: Jimbin kandi [Skn.], Diri hyiinzu [IL] = hinzu [Skn.] < *kind- [GT] || CCh.: PMasa *hindi, regular < *Kindi "three" [GT]: Banana yinti(di) [Krf.] = yinti [Zima], Musey hindi [Krf.], Gizey/Wina, Ham, Musey, Lew, Marba hindi [Ajl. et al. 2001, 56], Lame hinzi [Lks. 1937, 139] = hinci?i [Krf.] = hinjiTi [Scn. 1982, 516], Zime-Batna hidi [Jng.] = hindzi?i [Scn.], Peve hinji [Krf.], Zime-Dari hinyi < *hinji < *hindi [Str.] = hinyi [Lks. 1937, 139] = hinji? [Venberg 1975, 41], Zime-Misme hindi [Krf.] (Masa group: Zima 1990, 268; Ch. data: JI 1994 II 326-7). In the light of these data, the reconstruction of PCh. *Vknd "3" [JI] might be modified on two points. First, the correspondence of k- in the majority of the Chadic daughter languages to h- in the Masa group speaks for a PCh. fricative *h- (cf. Stolbova 1996, 68, §I.6, table 6) and not a plosive *k-. Secondly, the glottalized *-d is not really supported by any of the reflexes listed above, where we mostly find either plain -d or its palatalized sequence (-3 > -y), which is not at all a typical phenomenon with a glottalized dental plosive and evidently indicates *-d. All in all, if the cognacy between PCh. *Vhnd ||| Eg. Vhmt "3" is true, it is to be explained by the circumstance that the cluster -C2C3- of PCh. *hind- resulted from a voicing process (influenced by *-n-)n and an assimilation ultimately from **himt- [GT]. To the best of my knowledge, so far nobody (not even V. Blazek in his exhaustive 1999 book on the numerals in Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European) has suggested this Ch.-Eg. comparison.

In a number of Chadic reflexes of this (?) root, the medial nasal radical is not reflected, only a velar Ci (*k-) and a dental C2 (possibly *-d), i.e. *Vkd or sim.12 These Chadic forms may be akin to ECu.: Yaaku hat "3" [Heine quoted by Zbr. 1987, 342], regularly derivable from a hypothetical ECu. **kad- [GT], which is completely isolated within the whole Cushitic family. Does the underlying etymon, in fact, represent the ultimate biconsonantal root? In addition, H. G. Mukarovsky (1987, 35) combined these reflexes with NOm. *Vkd/z "3" [Mkr.] = *Vhj [Zima] = *Kaju > *Kawj- > *KayJ- [Blz. 1990, 39] < *hayd- [GT],13 which only confirms the sup-

10 O. V. Stolbova (l.c.) was unaware of the Tal and Goemay data, which betray a glottalized *k- instead of plain *k-.

11 The same voicing effect of the nasal has been observed in the cluster -nC- throughout the whole Egyptian Sprachgeschichte, cf. the shift of Cpt. (S) nc > nz attested in Eg. ?.t-n.(t)-sb' "school" > (SF) ancybe, (SL) ancyb, (S) an-Zybe, (B) anZyb, etc. (KHW 8); cf. already the OEg. alphabetic writing nzw for nsw "king", which was certainly vocalized as *j/?insiw with a cluster *-ns- as cuneiform evidence from the 13th century BC also indicates (Wb II 3259; Sethe 1911, 16-30; 1912, 98; Farina 1926, 16; ÜKAPT IV 54, ad PT 814c; AÄG 51-52, §116).

12 Cf. WCh.: (?) Bokkos ?atat [Jng.] < *had- (?) [GT] | Warji kaji [Jng. and Skn.] = k^i (-dz-) [IL], Tsagu kada [Skn.], Kariya and Miya kadi [Skn.], Pa'a kadu [Jng. & MSkn.] = kadu [IL], Siri bu-kudde [Gowers] = bu-kudi [IL] = bu-kudi [Skn.], Mburku kidi [Skn.] || CCh.: Mandara kaja [Mch.] = kiije [Meek] = kffje [Eguchi] < *ki[r]de (?) [GT] | Masa hidi [Mch. 1950, 59, so also Krf.] = hidi? [Jng.] = [hidi]12 [Ctc. 1983, 88] = hidi "trois" [Ajl.], Masa-Bongor hidi? "trois" [Jng. 1973 MS] || CCh.: Mandara kadye [Wolff 1974, 16] || ECh.: (???) Mokilko ?ado (perhaps < *had-, cf. kaduwe "zum dritten Mal") [Lks.] (Ch. data: JI 1994 II 326-7).

13 Cf. NWOmeto *hay3- [GT]: Welamo hezza [Moreno] = heza [Bnd. 1971, 252] = esa, eza, heza [Chiomio 1938, 4; Da Trento 1941, 206], Gofa heja (-dz-) [Moreno], Zala hezza [Moreno], Malo heza [Moreno], Kullo hezu [Allan

position of an ancient biliteral root. If this latter scenario is true, we would have to assume a PAA *Vhd [GT], which, however, contradicts the development of PCh. *hind- < **hint- < **himt- [GT] outlined above and possibly also the equation with Eg. Vhmt.

It is very probable that CCh.: PDaba *makad "3" [GT]14 represents merely the same bicon-sonantal root (*Vkd or sim.) extended by an m- prefix instead of being the reflex of a hypothetical AA *VmhT, i.e., the metathetic cognate of Eg. Vhmt "3", however tempting this may seem prima vista.

Eg. Vhmt "3" was identified by C. Meinhof (1907, 123; 1912, 233),15 E. Zyhlarz (1931, 135136, §3), W. Vycichl (1959, 33), H. G. Mukarovsky (1987, 45), and V. Blazek (1987 MS, 14-15, §3.1; 1990, 38; 1993 MS, 5, §3.1; 1999, 32, §3)16 with the Bed. numeral "3", which was apparently constructed on the root Vmhy.17 Although J. D. Wolfel (1954, 5; 1965, 617) voiced only his reservations against this Eg.-Bed. comparison and in A. Zaborski's (1987, 319) view too, "this is phonologically rather improbable", one is tempted to ponder whether Zyhlarz (l.c. supra) was correct, having ingeniously envisaged a PBed. *mahadi (or sim.) on the basis of the supposed shift of Bed. y from an earlier palatalized dental, which is in fact valid for Bed. y = ECu. *z, cf. Bed. hayuk "Stern" [Rn. 1895, 133] || LECu.: Somali hadig [Rn.] = hiddig [Sasse] = hadig [Zhl.] < ECu. *hizk-/*huzk- "star" [Sasse 1979, 35 etc.]. Following this scenario, one might be inclined to surmise in both PBed. *mahadi "3" [Zhl.] and CCh.: PDaba *makad "3" [GT] (above) the same m- prefix extension of the same root. On the other hand, it is equally inspiring to observe — together with H. G. Mukarovsky (1987, 45) — the closeness of Bed. Vmhy to WCh.: SBauchi *VmKy (perhaps *m(w)a[h]ay?) "3" [GT],18 since the latter can by no means be explained from *ma-had (or sim.) the same way as in Bedawye, and — even more interestingly — the common

1976, 330] = heza [Bnd. 1971, 252], Dache heja (-dz-) [Bnd. 1971, 253], Dorze heja (-dz-) [Bnd. 1971, 253] = heiza [Flm.], Male hayco (-yts-) [Da Trento 1941, 206; Bnd. 1971, 255], Oyda hayji (-dz-), oyddi [Bnd. 1971, 254] (NWOmeto: Moreno 1938, 37) | SEOmeto *hay3~ [GT]: Zayse hayc (-ts) [Crl. 1938 III, 194], Zergulla hayc (-ts) [Bnd. 1971, 257], Gidicho hay^ (-dz-) [Bnd. 1971, 256], Koyra hayje (-dz-) [Hayward, also Bnd. 1971, 252], Mezo hayji (-dz-) [Chiomio 1938, 235], Basketo hayzza [Crl. 1938, 108] = hay/d/zi [Bnd. 1971, 254], Doko oyze [CR 1927, 248] = hayza [d'Abbadie apud CR l.c.], Dollo ayz [CR 1927, 250] | Dizoid *kad(d)u [GT]: Dizi kadu [Toselli 1938, 13] = kadu [Allan 1976, 381] = kaddu [Crl. 1951, 309], Sheko kaddu [CR 1925] = kadu [Bnd. 1971, 262] = kadem [Crl. 1951, 309], Nao kaddu [CR 1925] = kadu, kaddo [Bnd. 1971, 262] | Janjero kez [Crl. 1938 III, 57] | Chara keza [Crl. 1938 III, 151] | Gimirra kazu [Toselli 1939, 35], She kaz [CR 1925], Bencho kez [Bnd. 1971, 260] | Kefoid (or Gonga) ^kejj-[GT]: Kafa kaja (-g-) [Rn. 1888], Mocha kajjo (-gg-) [Lsl. 1959] = kejo (-g-) [Bnd. 1971, 260], Shinasha (Bworo) keza [Schuver in Grottanelli 1940, 103] = ke'ja (-'g-) [Grottanelli 1941, 266] = keze [Brauner 1950, 70] = kezza [Bnd. 1971, 259], Anfillo kejjo (-gg-) [Grottanelli 1940, 103] = ke'jo (-'dj-) [Bnd. 1971, 258] (NOm. Data: Zbr. 1983, 384-387). Note that V. Blazek (1990, 39) erroneously explained the NOm. stem from his AA *3aKu "3" via metathesis based on his comparison with Agaw *seqw/ywa "3", PIraqw *dakati "8", WCh.: Hausa takwas "8", CCh. *tVkwazV "8".

14 Attested as Musgoy makat [Mch. 1950, 59] = maakaa (sic) [Str.], Daba makat [Mch. 1966, 133] = maakaa (sic) [Str.] = makad [Lienhard], Hina maakaa (sic) [Str.], Kola makad [Schubert] (CCh.: Str. 1910, 456).

15 In his paper from 1912 he meant this comparison beside the Kafa root Vkm for "3".

16 Zyhlarz equated at the same time the Eg. numeral also with the Guanche term for "3".

17 Recorded as (Bisharin) mehey ~ mahi ~ mahay [Almkvist 1885, 46] = (Hadendoa, Halenga, Bisharin) emha/ay ~ mehay ~ mahay ~ seldom meha/ay [Rn. 1894, 10; 1895, 18, 167] = mehey [Roper 1928] = mhay [Bnd.] = (Arteiga) mhay ~ mihay [Hudson] = (Hala/enga) mahay [Rn.] = (Ammar'ar) mhayy-t (f) vs. mhayy-b (m) [Dlg.] (Bed. data: Dlg. 1973, 319; Zbr. 1987, 328; 1989, 589, #85).

18 Attested in Boghom moi ~ moi [Jng.] = mway [Smz.], Zangwal maya [Smz.], Wangday ma-ki [IL] = ma:kai [Smz.], Zaranda maaki [Smz.], Dokshi maayi [Smz.], Dikshi and Bandas maagi [Smz.], Boodli (Zumbul) maaya [Smz.], Zodi (Dwa/ot) maagai, Zakshi maagi [Smz.], Boot, Zaari, Sigidi maaki [Smz.], Zaar mai [IL] = ma:yi [Smz.], Zaar of Kal maayi [Smz.], Zaar of Gambar Leere maai [Smz.], Zaar of Lusa maayi [Smz.], Tala mee [Smz.], Sho (Ju) miyaa [Smz.] (SBauchi data: Shimizu 1978, 39, #76).

biradical root *Vhy that might in principle be singled out by assuming an m- prefix here, also finds a surprising match in the southernmost extremity of Cushitic, namely SCu.: Ma'a kai ~ hai "3" [Ehret], which is similarly attested with a prefix mi- (this, in turn, being from Bantu), cf. Ma'a mi-hai "3" [Mnh. 1906, 314]. As for the Southern Cushitic background of the Ma'a numeral, Ch. Ehret (1980, 249, #C2) suggests a comparison with Dahalo kafia "3". The loss of final consonants is indeed an attested feature of Ma'a Lautgeschichte. The problem is, however, that in the Ma'a Auslaut we have a -y (and not zero as expected) that can hardly be regarded as a trace of a former *-b.19 In any case, Blazek's (1990, 38) AA *hami (?) "3" based on the comparison between Eg. and Bed. "3" (including also the Guanche numeral "3", cf. below) is not well-founded even if Bed. Vmhy and SBauchi *VmKy were related to Eg. hmt via metathesis. But this - as correctly stated by A. Zaborski (l.c. supra) - is at the moment quite improbable.

Another difficult question is how to evaluate CCh.: Mandara *Vhkrd "3" [GT]20, where, in principle, we may account for the regular shift of -r- < PCh. *-n- and for a prefix *h- (of numerals???), which eventually leads to assuming **hV-kind-. The cognacy of the Mandara numeral seems thus phonologically fully possible, although it might just as well be combined with Brb. *krad "3" [Zvd. 1974, 107, §7; 1975, 47, §7.0] as suggested in JI 1994 I 168A, which, however, would lead to a completely distinct AA root. Furthermore, the dental radical is apparently additional, cf. CCh. *ma-/ga-h-kar < *-kan [GT].21

Another surprising coincidence is represented by the isogloss of SOm. *makan "3" [Blz. 1990, 38] = *makan > *makkan (hence *-m by assimilation) [GT]22 ||| WCh.: Dira miyahk^n "3" [Krf.] | SBauchi *makwan "3" [Blz. 1990, 38] = *myah(k)an [GT]23 || CCh. *ma-kanu "3" [Blz. 1990, 38] = Wahkan (?) [GT].24 As far as I know, H. G. Mukarovsky (1987, 36) was probably the first to point to the connection of the Ch. m-(h)-k-n/r/d forms, Bed. Vmhy, and SOm. *Vmkn. V. Blazek (1990, 38) unified all the extended varieties of PCh. *Vkn "3" (prefix *m-, postfix *-d) with SOm. *makan under Common AA *(ma)-kanu-(di) "3". Similarly, M. Lamberti (1993, 70) equated the South Omotic stem with the Chadic m-k-n forms under a South Afro-Asiatic *mVkkVn- "3", which can only be true if we accept a prefix m- in both branches, which is certainly the case with PCh. *Vkn "3", but we do not yet know anything about SOm. *makan in this respect, whereas Bed. Vmhy can hardly be related as the ultimate root cannot be isolated as **Vmh.

19 Cf., e.g., the zero reflex in Ma'a we "1" vs. WRift *wak "1", although the case of Ma'a hai "4" vs. ERift *hak-"4" speaks against (Zaborski 1987, 343, §1 and §2).

20 Attested in Glavda hkarda [Rapp] = hkerda [Wolff], Guduf hekrrda [Smz.] = h'akVat [IL] = hkarde [Wolff] (Mandara group: Wolff 1974, 16).

21 Cf. Lamang Rkana [Wolff] | Dghwede hkre [Frick] = hkare [Wolff] = xakre [IL], Ngweshe khwaro [IL], met. < *hkwar- [GT], Ghvoko hkwaro [Wolff] | Kotoko gahker [Mch.] = gahker [Lukas] = ?akera [Bouny] (CCh.: Wolff 1974, 16; Ch.: JI 1994 II 326-7).

22 Ari maakkan, makkan, mAkkAn [Bnd.] = maken [Bliese 1982], Banna mekem [Bnd. 1971, 264] = m3?kem [Bnd.], Hamer makan [Crl. 1942, 262] = makkan [Flm.] = m'akan [Lydall], Dime mekem [Bnd. 1971, 263] = mikkim [Flm.], Karo makamm [CR 1927, 252], Bako makken [Da Trento 1941, 206] (SOm.: Bnd. 1971, 263-264; 1994, 160, #86; Zbr. 1983, 388).

23 Attested in Geji mekan [Gowers] = mekaq [IL] = meekan/q [Smz.] = meken [Krf.], Guruntum mian [Gowers] = myaq [Smz.], Kir qwe:n [Smz.], Buli min [Gowers] = miyen [IL] = mye:n [Smz.], Tule maqki [Smz.], Jimi mwaikan [Gowers], Pelu de-meekaq [Smz.], Zul myahkan [Smz.], Barang myakan [Smz.] (SBauchi data: Smz. 1978, 39, #76).

24 Cf. Ga'anda mahken [Krf.], Hwona mahen [Krf.] | Bura and Margi maker [Wolff], Margi-Gwara makeno [Wolff], Chibak makr [IL] = maker [Wolff] | Bata mooaaken [Str.] = mwaken [Mch. 1950, 59], Bachama muwa:kun [Skn.], Nzangi mwooken [Mch. 1950, 59] = menfen (sic) [Str.], Gudu makAn [IL] | Sukur ma:khan [IL] | Paduko mekra [Mch. 1950, 59; Wolff] | Matakam makar [Schubert], Mofu maakar ~ mahkar [Brt.], Gisiga-Dogba maakar [Lks.], Muturwa makir [Str. 1910, 456] (CCh. data: Wolff 1974, 16).

Three scholars, E. Zyhlarz (1931, 135-136, §3), followed by O. Rossler (1966, 228; 1971, 284, 299) and V. Blazek (1987 MS, 14-15, §3.1; 1990, 38; 1993 MS, 5, §3.1; 1999, 32, §3) supposed a cognacy of Eg. Vhmt with the Guanche word for "3" recorded as (Gran Canaria?) amelotti (cf. amierat-marava "13") [Niccoloso da Recco], (Tenerife?) amiat [Pseudo-Sosa, Marin y Cubas, Berthelot] = amiet [Cedeno de Chil] (Guanche: Wolfel 1954, 4 and 14-18; 1965, 616 and 626630), in which they (except for Rossler) included also Bed. Vmhy. What the ultimate root of the Guanche forms (known to us only through imperfect late medieval records and fully isolated in the whole Berber language family using a totally different root for "three") is, has been answered in different ways. E. Zyhlarz (l.c.) assumed V?mrt ~ V?mlt (with -t as part of the root), which he regarded as a correspondence of Eg. *Vhm?t (???), but he failed to present any proofs for the hypothetical -3- in the latter root, let alone the enigma as to how the Guanche Anlaut -0 = Eg. -h and where the reflex of the Guanche -r/l- is in the Bedawye root. Later, however, Zyhlarz (1950, 407) offered a completely different analysis of the Guanche word: *ameli-hodn "der andere Zeiger" = "Mittelfinger". J. D. Wolfel (1954, 4; 1965, 616), in turn, singled out the stems *amel(o)-, *amier- in the Gran Canaria records, but how these could be compatible with Tenerife (?) amia/et, he failed to answer definitively: "Deux explications possibles: ou bien le -t appartient au radical, ou bien le -t de amiat est là à la place de -r- de amierat." Wolfel (1954, 6; 1965, 618) was convinced "que le mot canarien pour « trois » n'a rien à faire ni avec l'égyptien, ni avec le mot bedja. ... ce mot reste inexpliqué et complètement isolé." O. Rossler (l.c.) defined the root of the Guanche numeral as V?mt and derived it from an earlier AA *Vîmt, which theoretically might indeed be a possible source for Eg. Vhmt may have originated from (due the incompatibility rule of AA *Tt > Eg. ht, cf. EDE I 326-7). But he failed to answer why the Gran Canaria records have -r- and -l-. V. Blazek (1999 l.c.) has equally failed to explain both the anomaly of the Anlaut in Eg. vs. Guanche25 and the traceless -l-/-r- in Egyptian. So his (Blazek 1990, 38) hypothetic AA *hami (?) "3", which is supposed to underlie the Egyptian, Guanche, and Bedawye parallels, remains ill-founded.

Eg. Vfd (masc. pl. fd.w, fem. fd.t) "vier" (OK, Wb I 582): no Semitic cognates at all, although there were attempts at forcing it together with the numeral "4" in Semitic26 and Berber.27 Instead, its cognates are to be found in Cushito-Omotic and they are especially wide-

25 He solely relied upon an outline of Guanche vs. Berber consonantal correspondences (where Berber *y/h- > Guanche h-, h-, g-, but also 0- is admitted) by A. Ju. Militarev (1991, 167-168, more precisely §7 on p. 168), who, however, did not present any etymological evidence either for the case of Guanche 0-.

26 Several linguists (A. Trombetti 1902, 197, #4; K. Sethe 1916, 21-22; W. F. Albright 1918, 91 [with reservation]; A. Ember 1926, 302, fn. 10; ESS §4.a.13; recently A. B. Dolgopol'skij 1973, 231-232; 1983, 125; O. Rossler, followed by W. Schenkel 1990, 56; F. Kammerzell 1994, 170, 180 etc.) tried to demonstrate a relationship of Eg. fd (and/or LECu. *afar-) to Sem. *?arbaî- "4". The phonological anomalies were explained various unlikely ways through unjustified steps in the suggested hypothetic chain of phonological changes, e.g. Eg. jfd < *rfd < *rbd < *rbî or Eg. jfd < *jfr < *jrfî < *?rbî! The Eg.-Sem. equation was rejected already by numerous authors: W. F. Albright (1927, 201), E. Zyhlarz (1931, 136, #4), W. Vycichl (1934, 70, fn. 1; 1959, 33), W. A. Ward (1985, 239), V. Blazek (1999, 235-241; 1999, 32-38), H. C. Fleming (2000 MS, 6-7). As pointed out already by Zyhlarz (1931 l.c.), the expected correspondence of Sem. *?arbaî- would be Eg. *'fh (or *rfh) on the analogy of Eg. sfh = Sem. *sabî- "7". Besides, Stolbova (1987, 68) linked Sem. *?arbaî- to WCh. *rabu "2", while Blazek (1997, 8; 1999, 235-241; 1999, 31-38) compared it to LECu.: Orm. (Wellega) bar?u "palm of hand" [Gragg 1982] and possibly NOm. *birad- (sic) "finger" [Blz.].

27 No evident cognates in Berber. The common Brb. root for "four" can by no means be related to Bed.-Eg.-Ch. *Vft "four" as proposed by Ju. N. Zavadovskij (1967, 43; 1974, 110; 1975, 50), H. Jungraithmayr (1982, 8; JI 1994 I, 73), cf. e.g. NBrb.: Shilh: Sus qqoz [Dst. 1938, 237] | Nefusa okkoz [Lst. 1931, 285] || EBrb.: Ghadames aqqiz [Lst.] || SBrb.: Ahaggar okkoz [Lst.], Ghat okkoz [Nhl. 1909, 195]. Cp. WCh. *kucA "nine" [Stl. 1987, 208, #590]. Comparing

spread in Chadic, cf. Bed. *fadig "four" [GT],28 supposed to derive from an older **fardig(a) [Blz. 1999, 33]29 ||| NOm. *Pec- [from an older **fet-?] "four" [GT]30 ||| Ch. *fwadV [GT].31 The common AA root here can only be *Vft.

In Lowland East Cushitic and in two Chadic groups, the presumably same common root appears to be *Vfr, cf. LECu. *afr- [Black] = *afar-/*afur- [GT]32 ||| WCh.: Angas-Sura *feir [Stl. 1977, 154] = *fir [Stl. 1987, 160] = *f'e2r [GT]33 || ECh.: PLay (PNancere) *p[o]ri [GT].34

Berber "4" to Eg. fd was rightly rejected already by M. G. Mercier (1933, 309) and recently by V. Blazek (ll.c.). V. Brugnatelli (1982, 76), followed by V. Blazek (1997, 9; 1999, 235-241, #4; 1999, 32-38, #4) compared SBrb.: Ahag-gar ê-fed, pl. ê-fd-en "quantité innombrable (nombre qui dépasse tout ce qu'on peut compter)" [Fcd. 1951-2, 305, cf. Prs. 1974, 407], ETawllemmet a-fad "se multiplier", e-fad, pl. e-fad-ân "1. million, 2. nombre immense" [PAM 1998, 59]. For the semantic shift Blazek quoted Khoe thiyà "four" vs. thiyà "many". Blazek (ll.c.) suggested alternatively NBrb.: Iznasen, Ait Ammart, Iboqqoyen, Ait Tuzin ta-fdèn-t "orteil" [Rns. 1932, 298] | Qabyle ti-fden-t "orteil" [Dlt. 1982, 191] = (dial.) ti-fadn-in "orteils, doigts de pied" [Zvd.] || EBrb.: Ghadames ta-fadan-t "toe" [Lan-fry], which is semantically dubious.

28 Attested as Bed. faddeg [Kremer] = fardik [Krockow] = ferdik [Lucas] = fadig [Rn. 1894, 10; 1895, 76] = fadig [Rn. 1890, 7; Roper 1928, 179] = fadig [Hds.], Bed. of Beni Amer farig [Rn.] (Bed. records: Dlg. 1966, 60; Blz. 1993 MS, 6-7, #4.1; 1999, 235ff.; 1999, 32ff.).

29 There are controversial theories on the etymological analysis of Bed. "4". A. Trombetti (1902, 197) explained it from PCu. *afar-dig. E. Zyhlarz (1932-1933, 167): Bed. *fadi-g extended by "ein Numeral zusammenfassendes Suffix *-ga", cf. Bed. -ga "a dual and plural ending" [Roper 1928, 183]. I. M. D'jakonov (1965, 47), did not exclude even an archetype *sadig (sic). Acc. to W. Vycichl (1960, 255, 262; 1978, 75), Eg. fd and Bed. "4" are not at all cognates (Vycichl explained Bed. -d- from an ancient or *g!). V. Blazek (1993 MS, 6-7, #4.1; 1997, 5; 1999, 235241, #; 1999, 32-38, #4) supposed PBed. *fa[rd]ig, derived from a compound *fari-da-g(a), where Bed. -g would be identical with Bed. -ga "a dual and plural ending" [Roper 1928, 183] and the prefix *g- of numerals (presumed already by V. Ja. Porhomovskij in PKotoko *gVdV "four" < *g-fVdV?). Ch. Ehret (1995, #93), in turn, derived Bed. -d-from PAA *-dl- [i.e. *-3~]!

30 Attested in Janjero hec-a [h- < *ph-] "quarter (fraction)" [Flm.] | Mocha peç-o [ç < *t possible] "quarter" [Lsl. 1959, 44] = |3ec-o "quarter, fourth" [Flm.] | Mao (sic) beç-e ~ meç-e [-ts'-] "four" [Flm.], Hozo bec-i [-ts-] "four", Sezo bes-é ~ bès-é "four" (Mao: Sbr.-Wdk. 1994, 13; NOm.: Flm. 2000 MS, 6-7).

31 The underlying root for "4" has been exceptionally well preserved nearly in all Chadic languages. This apparent uniformity cannot be found in the case of other Chadic numerals. For a very detailed presentation and analysis of the reflexes in the Chadic daughter languages see EDE II 600-602. D. Ibriszomow (1988, 68-69) supposed an old quadrinary counting system in Chadic. The PCh. etymon has been set up in various forms: *phwVdV [IS 1966, 21] = *f-d- [NM 1966, 235, #38] = *fwada [Nwm. 1977, 26] = *fwVdV/*VfwVdV [Dlg. 1983, 125] = *-p-d [JS 1981, 113; JI 1994 I, 73] = *(m)-p-d-(w/y) [JS 1981, 113A] = *fid-od- (sic) [Stl. 1996, 29]. O. V. Stolbova (1987, 160, §136) has WCh. *firadu based on Bole pordo [Koelle] = p'ordo (sic) [Stl.], attested elsewhere as poddo [Nwm., Lks.] = podo [Grb.] = poddau ~ poddo [Schuh 1982] = fodo [IS, NM, Haruna] = foddo [Schuh 1984] = fadda [IL]. The PCh. etymon suggested by P. Newman (1977 l.c.) and A. Dolgopolsky (1983, l.c.) seems most convincing.

32 For the LECu. data see Rn. 1886, 845; PB 1963, 469; Black 1974, 104; Heine 1976, 215; Dlg. 1973, 231; Zbr. 1987, 328-340. The etymological connection of LECu. *?afar- "4" to the Chado-Egyptian isogloss is debatable. E. Cerulli (1938 III, 153) traced back LECu. *afr to "common Cushitic" (i.e., Cu.-Om.) *aft. A. B. Dolgopolsky (1973, 231; 1983, 125; 1988, 629, #6), in turn, with special regard to LECu. met. var. *?arf- (above), connected LECu. *?afar-to Sem. *?arbaî- "4", which he explained as a met. of an earlier Dolgopolsky's theory was queried by F. A. Dombrowski & B. W. W. Dombrowski (1991, 341). At the same time, Dolgopolsky (1983, 125) compared Sem.-LECu. "4" also to Bed.-Eg.-Ch. "4", although the LECu.-Sem. comparison excludes an equation of LECu. "4" with the Eg.-Ch. root. For the time being, most probable seems a common origin with LECu. *afar- from PAA *Vfr.

33 For the Angas-Sura data see Grb. 1958, 300, #1; Jng. 1965, 166, 168, 180-181; Stl. 1972, 182; Hfm. 1975 MS, 18, #35; GT 2004, 105. Contrary to O. V. Stolbova (1996, 29), who maintained AS *-r < Ch. *CVdVC (while PCh. *CVd-^ AS *CVt), I see no justification for explaining AS *-r = PLay *-r from common Ch. *-d.

34 Cf. Nancere peri [Hfm.], Lele poring [Hfm.] = poring [WP 1982, 77], Dormo porin [Hfm.], Gabri porin [AF] = pari [Dcr.], Chire porbu [Hfm.], Kabalay pori [Hfm.] (Lay gr.: Hfm. 1972, 204).

These data, according to our present knowledge, can by no means be explained from AA *Vft.35

Eg. Vdj (masc. dj.w, fem. dj.t) "fünf" (OK-, WB V 420) is in fact not a word root at all as it has for a long time been unequivocally regarded as a nisbe of the extinct Eg. word *d or *jd "hand" (Osing: *diy.aw *"die zu einer Hand Gehörigen"), akin to Sem. *yad- "hand".36 A similar semantic shift is attested in SCu.: Dahalo dawàtte "5", act. *daßa-watte, lit. *"one hand", cf. WRift-Dahalo *daba "hand" (SCu.: Ehret 1980, 162, §ii.a.3). But for phonological and etymological reasons, H. G. Mukarovsky (1987, 45) and V. Blazek (1990, 30; 1991, 210) are presumably wrong in assuming a direct cognacy between the Dahalo and Ancient Egyptian numerals for "5".

Eg. *Vsrs37 > Vsjs (occuring as masc. pl. sjs.w, fem. sjs.t) "sechs" (OK-, Wb IV 40) is, according to communis opinio,38 in the light of a few other instances of rhotacism of *d > Eg. r39 (attested

35 The underlying PAA form has been heavily debated. Ju. N. Zavadovskij (1974, 110; 1975, 50): PAA *Vfd (incorrect, since AA plain *-d > Bed. -d ~ -t = Ch. *-d). I. M. D'jakonov (1986, 61; 1988, 67): PAA *fVdC/*-fVrC (where C denotes an unclear weak consonant in final position). V. Blazek (1987 MS, #4.2, 1990, 29; 1993 MS, 6-7, #4.1; 1999, 235-241, #; 1999, 32-38, #4) suggested PAA *fira-du/*fari-du/*faru-di. He explained Eg. & Om. *-d- vs. Bed. & Ch. *-d- from a cluster *-rd-, i.e. PEg. *fida[r]wa.t < *faridwa.t (?) ||| PBed. *faridaga > *fa[rd]ig, still preserved in some old records as fardik [Krockow] = ferdik [Lucas], quoted after Almkvist (1883-1887) ||| POm. *aburd- or sim. ||| PCh. *faridu/*farudi (cf. Stolbova 1987, 160, #136: WCh. *firadu). This reasoning might be valid at least in Bed., cf. Bed. fuda ~ furda "Molo, Ankerplatz" < Ar. furd-at- "anchorage, sea-port" [Rn. 1895, 82]. In Eg. too (Eg. fd < *ßd = *frd would be plausible). The case of Chadic is more problematic, where we would need to collect sufficient and convincing evidence for common Chadic *-d- = Angas-Sura and PLay *-r < AA *-rd-. F. Kammerzell (1994, 22-26; 1994, 180), in turn, proposed a development of Eg. fd = *fitta- < *firta- < *firda- to set up PAA *VPrD, var. *VPrG "four" (though *-G is not justified by the reflexes), based on Eg., Bed., LECu., NOm., Ch. "four" and Sem. *?arbaî- (!).

36 Müller 1909, 191, fn. 2; Sethe 1916, 22, §5; 1927, 60-61; NBÄ 313; Brunner-Traut in LÄ II 582; Loprieno in LÄ V 1213, n. 26 and in VI 1308. Ultimately, the same idea was accepted by L. Homburger (1928, 336-337), albeit in a chaotic form (misquoting the Eg. word as d.t pace Lexa 1922, 176, a rudimentary mistake!) and along with a number of dubious African parallels.

37 The older Eg. root *Vsrs was still preserved by srs ~ sjs "Art Leinen: Sechsgewebe" (MK, Wb IV 40, 8 and 200, 17).

38 For the Eg.-AA etymology see Erman 1892, 117 and 127, fn. 1; Ember 1911, 89; 1912, 90, fn. 4; 1914, 303; Sethe 1916, 19-20; Albright 1918, 90, fn. 2 and 91; 1926, 188-189; Farina 1926, 21; Behnk 1927, 82, #16; ESS §4.i; Zyhlarz 1931, 134, 137; Vycichl 1934, 42, 77; 1953, 42; 1957, 21; 1958, 378; Greenberg 1955, 60; 1963, 62; D'jakonov 1965, 47 (with doubts about Eg. srs); Rössler 1966, 227; Zavadovskij 1974, 108, #9; 1975, 48; Hodge 1975, 15 and 24, #161; Loprieno 1986, 1308 and 1316, n. 25-26; Blazek 1987 MS, 31; 1999, 39-42, §6; Bomhard 1988, 446-447; OS 1988, 79, #64 (excluding Eg. srs); Dombrowski-Dombrowski 1991, 342; Lipihski 1997, 287, §35.11; Schenkel 1997, 114, Abb. 4, n. 4. Apparently ignoring the fact of an occasional development of Eg. r < *d (below), V. Blazek (1990, 3940) surprisingly denied the cognacy of Egyptian and Semitic "6" and, instead, he preferred the phonologically naturally more comfortable equation of Eg. *srs with Sem. *talat- "3", which he even extended to ECu. *sazh-, *sizh-, *sazih - "3" explaining its *-z- with a shift of *-z- < *-ls- < *-lc-, which is attested nowhere.

39 Cf. (1) Eg. rj.t "Farbe zum Schreiben und Zeichnen, Tinte" (MK, Wb II 399, 9-12) equated by Th. O. Lamb-din (1953, 149) and O. Rössler (1966, 227) with NWSem. *Vdy: OT Hbr. (hapax) dayö, Aram. dayüta, Syr. dayöta, dayüta "ink", which is suggested to be an early loan from MEg. But even so, the change r ~ d is highly remarkable. Contrary to Rössler, Lambdin explained OT Hbr. dayo as a graphemic error for *rayö, which contradicts the rest of the Canaanite evidence. (2) Eg. hrd "child" (PT, Wb III 396-398) equated by O. Rössler (1971, 296, 306) with Sem.: Geez hadat "a small amount, little, a little while, few in number ..." [Lsl.], cf. Geez Vhtt "to be small" etc. (Sem.: Lsl. 1987, 269). (3) Eg. srq "öffnen" (PT, Wb IV 201-203) compared by O. Rössler (1966, 227) with Ar. Vsdq "weit öffnen" [Rsl.] = "avoir les coins de la bouche très-larges (se dit d'un homme dont la bouche est très-large quand il l'ouvre)" [BK I 1205]. Ignoring these facts, V. Blazek (1990, 39-40) denied the cognacy of Eg. and Sem. "6" and in-

also in the Kefoid reflexes and a number of Chadic daughter languages quoted below), evidently identical with Sem. *sids- "6" [Sethe] = *sidt- [Djk., Lipinski]40 ||| Brb. *Vsds > *sadis (south) vs. *sddis (north) "6" [Zhl.] = *sids [Djk.] = *sadis ~ *südus with *-d- < *-dd- [Blz. pace Prasse] = *sdis [Lipinski]. Among the derivatives of Common Afro-Asiatic "6", the above listed forms, including Egyptian, undoubtedly represent reflexes of a NAA *Vsds, whereas the related Southern Afro-Asiatic daughter languages display the original biconsonantal *Vsd, which apparently had a rhotacistic variety *Vsr, cf. NOm. (hardly borrowed from Ethio-Sem.): Sheko sir-itt-o "6" [Lmb.] | PKefoid (PGonga) *sir-itt- "6" [GT]41 ||| WCh. *sidu "6" [Stl. 1987, 176, #288]: Hausa *sidda [Grb., Djk.] > sida, Sokoto dial. sidda [Abr. 1962, 809],42 Gwandara sida [Mts. 1972, 108] | Ngizim sedu [Koelle] = zadü [Schuh 1981, 179] = zidü [Krf.], Bade azdü [Krf.] || CCh.: Gidar serre [Str. 1910, 457] = tirre (9-) ~ sire [Mch.] | PMusgu *sar- ~ *sir- [GT]43 || ECh.: Kwang-Modgel sidee [Lks. 1937, 96].44 Especially noteworthy from the standpoint of SAA *Vsr, is the suggestion by V. Blazek (1987 MS, 31) about a possible ancient areal parallel like PDravidian *caru "6" [DED §2051].

Eg. Vsfh (masc. sfh.w, fem. sfh.t) "sieben" (OK, Wb IV 115) is identical with Sem. *sib?-[Conti l.c.] = *sab?- "7" [Dlg. 1986, 79, #16], as has long been commonly accepted.45 The

stead, he preferred to equate Eg. *srs with Sem. *talat- "3", which he even extended to ECu. *sazh-, *sizh-, *sazih-"3" [Sasse 1976, 138] explaining its *-z- with a shift of *-z- < *-ls- < *-lc- (attested nowhere).

40 Most reflexes in the Semitic daughter languages reflect the third radical as *-s, only Old South Arabian has -t (cf. SD 175: Sabaic sidt), which, following Garbini (1972), Loprieno (1986, 1316, n. 25-26) considered as a result of a dissimilation. The Ugaritic evidence, in turn, speaks for Vtdt (DUL 900), which G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartín (l.c.) explained from *Vsdt via assimilation. For the Semitic derivatives with the assimilation of the 2nd and 3rd radicals see Brockelmann 1907, 170-171, §60.a; Moscati et al. 1964, 119, §14.8; Grande 1972, 107. Attractive is V. Blazek's (1990, 30; 1999, 41) approach towards the partially reduplicative root structure of the Sem.-Eg.-Brb. iso-gloss: he supposed in PSem. an older *sid-sid- "3+3" or *sid-tin- "3*2" and so assumed a hypothetical PSem. **sid-(with an earlier *-d-) "3", which he identified with the isogloss of Akk. sizum, later sizu "Drittel-Elle" [AHW 1254] ||| ECu. *sazh-, *sizh-, *sazih- "3" [Sasse 1976, 138]. The problem is, however, that the Afro-Asiatic evidence does not in any way support the reconstruction of Sem. **sids- a la Blazek, whose 2nd redical must certainly have been *-d-.

41 Attested in Kafa sír-itt-o [Crl. 1951, 307] = sirr-it-o [Bnd. 1971, 259] = sirr-it-o [Lmb.], Mocha sir-ítt-o [Lsl. 1959, 52] = sir-ítt-o [Bnd. 1971, 260], Shinasha sir-t-a [Schuver in Grottanelli 1940, 103] = sir-t-a [Grottanelli 1940, 103; 1941, 266] = (Bworo) sir-ítt-e [Brauner 1950, 70; Bnd. 1971, 259] = sirráta [Lmb.], Anfillo sir-t-o [Grottanelli 1940, 103; Bnd. 1971, 258; so also Lmb.] (Kefoid data: PB 1963, 468; Zbr. 1987, 384; Lmb. 1993, 379). Following E. Cerulli (1951, 309, §xxiv.1), M. Lamberti (1993, 379) and V. Blazek (1987 MS, 31; 1999, 40) too explained the Kefoid forms as loans from Ethio-Semitic *Vsds, but among its reflexes he referred to (Leslau 1963, 137) there is not one single with -r- < *-d-, let alone that the Northern Omotic reflexes do not at all reflect the semi-reduplicative root *Vsds. The way W. Leslau (1959, 52) argued for a borrowing ("the Semitic Ethiopic saddest was taken over in a modified form") did not answer any of the phonological questions. It remains thus but to accept the genetically inherited nature of Kefoid "6".

42 Earlier, when the rest of the Chadic data was unknown to the compartaive linguists, the Hausa word was explained as an Arabic loan (e.g., Greenberg 1945, 94 with the understandable note "derivation doubtful"), but the wide range of Chadic cognates (impossible to be regarded as coming from Arabic) has made it evident that the Chadic numeral is genetically inherited from the Common Afro-Asiatic lexical stock.

43 Attested as Musgu saara (sic, s-, probably for sl-) [Roeder] = sáára (s-) [Krause] = taara (sic, t-, probably for tl-) [Overweg] = tará (sic, t-, probably for tl-) [Rohlfs], Mbara sírá (i-) [TSL 1986, 270], Kad'a síre (sl-) [Brt.-Jng. 1993, 133], Munjuk saara [Trn. 1991, 117] = saara [Brt.-Jng. 1993, 133] (Musgu group data: Lukas 1941, 76).

44 Strangely, H. G. Mukarovsky (1987, 38), equated the Chadic numeral (instead of the Sem.-Eg.-Brb. isogloss < AA *Vsds) with the ECu. numeral for "3", which he reconstructed as *Vsdh, although H.-J. Sasse (1976, 138-139, 135) assumed ECu. *sazih-/*sVzh- "3".

45 See Reinisch 1874, XII; Erman 1892, 118; Ember 1911, 91; 1912, 90, fn. 4; 1926, 308, #2; Sethe 1916, 20, §7; ESS §9.b.2; Albright 1918, 91; 1923, 68, fn. 1; 1926, 189; 1927, 199-201; Lang 1923-1924, 552; Farina 1924, 316; 1926, 14;

Amarna cuneiform evidence (sapha) and Coptic, cf., e.g., (S) cas=f, corroborate the vocalization *safh.aw (m) vs. *safh.at (f). The Lautverschiebung of Eg. *-T > -h was explained by K. Sethe (1916, 20, §7), F. Behnk (1927, 82), and A. Loprieno (1986, 1316, n. 27) - correctly - on the basis of the analogy of Eg. wsh vs. Sem. *Vws? "wide", although they did not realize the reason for this.46 In fact, here we have — instead of an the influence of the Anlaut on the following numeral (Eg. hmn, cf. Blazek 1999, 43) — rather a Lautverschiebung generated by the incompatibil-ty of s + T in the same Eg. root (EDE I 326). As for the anomalous Eg. -f-, W. Vycichl (1958, 398) postulated a combinatory change due to the cluster -fh- < *-fy- < *-py- < *-by- (?).47 Whether the Berber numeral for "7" is also related as it was suggested by a number of scholars,48 is, presumably, hardly a question itself, but the disturbingly anomalous loss of *-b- even in the East Berber and Tuareg reflexes has to be explained,49 cf. NBrb.: Tazerwalt ssa (m), ssa-t (f) [Prasse] || EBrb.: Ghadames sa (m), sa-t (f) [Lanfry 1973, 327, #1410] || SBrb.: Ahaggar e-ssa (m), e-ssah-et (f) [Fcd. 1951-2, 1798] = a-ssa (m), a-ssah-at (f) etc. [Prasse 1969, 89, #620], Ghat sah-et (f) [Nhl. 1909, 66, 205]. The underlying PBrb. root is thus debatable.50

The attestation of this root for "7" in Southern Afro-Asiatic is sporadic and not without uncertainty, cf. LECu.: Elmolo s'apa "7" [Heine 1980, 209] = sapa [Lmb.]51 ||| NOm. (borrowed from Ethio-Sem.?): Sheko sabatto "7" [Lmb.] | Kefoid *sab-att- "7" [GT]52 || SOm.: Hamer so?b-a [Flm.], Karo sopb-o [Flm.] (SOm.: Bnd. 1994, 157)53 ||| CCh.: PMafa-Mada *cib- "7" [GT]:54 Mofu cibe (tsch-) [Str. 1922-3, 122], Gwendele ciba [Colombel], Hurzo ciba [Colombel] = aba [Rsg. 1978, 322, #622].

Behnk 1927, 82; Zyhlarz 1931, 137, §7; Lexa 1938, 223; Rossler 1952, 142, #66; 1966, 228; Vycichl 1958, 378; Illic-Svityc 1964, 7, #22; D'jakonov 1965, 47; Zavadovskij 1974, 109, #10; 1975, 49; Hodge 1976, 15, #162; Conti 1978, 28, fn. 2; Loprieno 1986, 1308; 1994, 120; 1995, 32; Blazek 1990, 31; Lipinski 1997, 287, §35.12.

46 W. F. Albright (1918, 91) assumed the chain of phonetic shifts: Eg. sfh < *sfh < *sf? < *sb?. A. Ember (1926, 308, fn. 4-6) was, in turn, inclined to explain the change by "partial assimilation" of ? to f and that of b to s, for which he, however, failed to provide any parallel evidence. A. Loprieno (1994, 120) arbitrarily extracted the Egypto-Semitic parallel from a common *Vspy, but he failed to demonstrate the evidence for its *-p- and *-y-, which is attested nowhere.

47 Where V. Blazek (l.c.) attributed the presence of -s- also some importance with a hint on Eg. hsb (PT 448c"), an occasional variety of standard hsf "abwehren" (OK-, AAG 51, §114).

48 Zyhlarz 1931, 137, §7; Rossler 1952, 142, #66; 1966, 228; D'jakonov 1965, 47; Vycichl 1966, 269; 1974, 63; 1992, 385; Zavadovskij 1967, 43; 1974, 109, #10; 1975, 49; Blazek 1990, 31; Lipinski 1997, 287, §35.12

49 There is a small number of Ghadames and Augila words, where PBrb. *b is not reflected as expected (namely, as b), cf. Kossmann 1999, 79-80, §3.11; also Blazek 1999, 43 (discussing the case of the word for "heart").

50 PBrb. *Vswh > Tuareg *sah [Zhl.] = *assa?u < **asba?u [Rsl. 1952 l.c.] = *sa? (sic, -?) < *sah? < **sab? (?) [Djk.] = *Vs?? [Rsl. 1966 l.c.] = *Vh1sh? [Prasse l.c.] = *sa [Zvd., Lpn.] = *sah [Blz. 1990 l.c.]. In the view of Ju. N. Zavadovskij (1967, 43), the "6ep6epcxan <opMa npedemaeMiemen anoxonupoeaHrnu". M. Kossmann (1999, 76, §3.7, #106), in addition, who did not even list Brb. "7" among the instances of *b, conceived the -h- appearing in Tuareg fem. forms (Ahaggar e-ssah-et, Ghat sah-et) as intrusive in certain fem. numerals whose stem ends in long vowel.

51 B. Heine (1973, 282), however, recorded Elmolo tipa? "sieben", which continues ECu. *tVzb-.

52 Attested as Kafa sabatto (cf. sabo "70") [Crl. 1951, 307] = sabatto [Lmb.], Mocha sabatto (cf. sab/bo "70") [Lsl. 1959, 49], Shinasha sawate [Schuver] = sawata [Grottanelli 1940, 103; 1941, 266] = sawatta [PB] = sawata [Lmb.], Bworo sawate [Brauner 1950, 70; Bnd. 1971, 259], Anfillo sabatto [Grottanelli 1940, 103; Bnd. 1971, 258] (Kefoid data: PB 1963, 468, 478; Zbr. 1983, 384; Lmb. 1993, 385). Generally in Ethio-Semitic and Omotic studies (e.g., Cerulli 1951, 309, §xxiv.1; Leslau 1959, 49; Lamberti 1993, 385), the Kefoid numeral is supposed to have been borrowed from Ethio-Semitic, cf. Amh. sabatt. But what explains the anomalous Anlaut in a loan?

53 L. Bender (l.c.) suspected (with a question-mark) in these Southern Omotic forms borrowing from Arabic.

54 Some of the Mafa-Mada group forms were first compared with Sem. *sab?- by V. Blazek (1990, 31, 38), who, however, included in this equation also his ECh. *cabu "3" (although the evidence suggests rather *sub-, cf. JI 1994 II 327), for which cf. rather LECu.: Elmolo sepe "3" [Heine 1980, 209].

It remains for later research to clarify whether the isogloss of ECu. *tVzb- "7" [Sasse 1976, 139]55 ||| POm. *tabz- "7" [GT]56 is eventually also related with a prefix t- (?) and a secondary voicing of **-s- in the cluster with *-b-, i.e., **tasb(?)- > *tazb- (hence POm. *tabz- via metathesis < **tazb-?). The lack of any trace *-? is, in any case, a not too supportive a circumstance.

Eg. Vhmn (masc. hmn.w, fem. hmn.t) "acht" (OK-, WB III 282) is to be vocalized on the basis of its Amarna cuneiform reflex haman (Albright 1926, 188-189) and the Coptic evidence, e.g., (S) smoun as *haman.[a]w, which almost perfectly coincides with Sem. *tamaniy- "8".57 This comparison has been commonly accepted58 in spite of the disturbingly anomalous Anlaut. After several vain attempts at resolving this mystery,59 the most natural reason is easy to be found, namely the influence of the Auslaut of the preceding numeral (Vsfh), a quite natural factor leading to phonologically irregular numerals,60 i.e., analogy, which V. Blazek (1999, 45, §8) in this case avoided even to mention as an alternative. Whether Brb. *tam "8" [Djk.] = *tam/*hittam "8" [Prasse] belongs to the firmly established triconsonantal Sem.-Eg. *tmn, is heavily debated as both the lack of the C3 and the Anlaut are anomalous.61 Turning against the conventionally accepted equation of the Egyptian, Semitic, and Berber roots mentioned above, step by step, V. Blazek (1991, 210; 1993 MS, 6, §3.5; 1999, 45, §8) excluded every single of the

55 The East Cushitic word was borrowed into PBaz *tizzaba ^ PSNilotic *tisAp ^ NMa'a sapa (Heine & Rottland & Voßen 1979, 85).

56 Attested in NOm.: Basketo tabz-ä [Crl. 1938 III, 108], Doko tabs-ä [CR 1927, 248], Dollo täbez-ä [CR 1927, 250] | Dizoid *tubs- [GT]: Dizi tus-u [Allan 1976, 381] = tus-u [Toselli 1938, 13] < *tuss- < *tubs- [GT], Sheko tubs-u [CR 1925; Bnd. 1971, 262] || SOm.: Hamer tobb-a [Crl. 1942, 262], Karo tsöb-a (sic, ts-) [CR 1927, 252], Ari tabz-a [Bnd. 1971, 263] = tabz-a [Bnd.], Galila (Ari) tabz-a [Flm.], Bako tabz-e [Da Trento 1941, 206], Dime toss-um [Bnd.] = toss-o [Flm.] < *tuss- < *tubs- [GT] (SOm. data: Bnd. 1994, 157).

57 In a surprising manner, A. Loprieno (1986, 1308, n. 28), also here, misinterpreted Ar. t- as a reflex of Sem. *s- (as in the case of Ar. Vsdt < Sem. *sds) and misleadingly presented it as a communis opinio, which is naturally not at all the case (cf., e.g., Moscati et al. 1964, 43, §8.59).

58 Hommel 1883, 96, #11; Erman 1892, 116; Ember 1911, 91; ESS §10.a.32, §11.a.46; Albright 1918, 92; 1926, 188189; 1927, 200-201; Farina 1924, 324; 1926, 20; Behnk 1928, 82, #28; Zyhlarz 1931, 137-138; Bravmann 1933, 147; Lexa 1938, 224; Rössler 1952, 146, #73; 1966, 228; Vycichl 1959, 33; 1966, 269; 1974, 63; 1992, 385; D'jakonov 1965, 47; Zavadovskij 1967, 43; 1974, 109, #11; 1975, 47; Hodge 1976, 15, #163; Loprieno 1986, 1308, cf. fn. 28; Belova 1989, 14; Blazek 1990, 31; Schenkel 1991, 116; Dombrowski-Dombrowski 1991, 347.

59 So, for instance, K. Sethe (1916, 20, §8) correctly stated that Eg. h vs. Sem. *t are "sonst nicht belegt", but because of m + n, such a shift may undoubtedly have taken place, and, in addition "vergegnwärtigt man sich" assuming that Eg. h > Cpt. S worked "ebenso wie" Sem. *t > Hbr. s, which, however, is an error and does not prove a anything about Eg. h- vs. Sem. *t-. Sethe concluded that "So wird man auf die Vermutung geführt, daß in diesem s nahestehender Laut das Ursprüngliche gewesen sei, und daß das äg. h nur eine unvollkommene Wiedergabe desselben darstelle". W. F. Albright (1918, 92 and fn. 2), in turn, assumed a chain of shifts (Eg. hmn < *smn < *tmn), where, in his view, "s for 8 arises by dissimilation from the dental n", although, pro primo, OK h- has not been known as a phoneme issuing from older *s, and, pro secundo, the expected Egyptian reflex of Sem. *Vtmn is not at all *smn but *smn! Of course, a shift of Eg. h- < *s- is otherwise unkown. Later Albright (1927, 200-201) worked with the Lautverschiebung of Eg. hmn < *fmn < *tmn, which he equally failed to justify.

60 Cf., e.g., Old Church Slavonic dev^tb "9" < IE *newn under the influence of *des^tb "10".

61 The Sem.-Eg.-Brb. comparison was supported by O. Rössler (1952, 146, #73; 1966, 228); W. Vycichl (1959, 33; 1966, 269; 1974, 63; 1992, 385); I. M. D'jakonov (1965, 47); Ju. N. Zavadovskij (1967, 43; 1974, 109, #11; 1975, 47). Rössler (1952, 146, #73) assumed PLibyan *tamnu(m), *tanatu (f), hence *tamn (m), *tamnt and regarded *t- as regular (!) for Sem. *t-. Later, in turn, Rössler (1966, 228) considered the Anlaut of the Berber numeral "mit t für lautgesetzliches s" as being due to assimiliation to "9" (Brb. *Vtzh). The change of m < *mn was explained by D'jakonov (1965, 47) via assimilation < *tamn. Similarly, for Zavadovskij (1967, 43) too, the Berber "tfopMa xaxemcn anoxompoeaHHoü" from the triconsonantal PAA root.

three comparanda. For him, Brb. *t- vs. Sem. *t- was an otherwise unattested match, which is, however, not entirely true.62 Therefore, he proposed a completely new etymology for Berber "8", namely SCu.: PRift *tam- "3" [Ehret],63 where he assumed a pattern of (5 +) 3 = 8 to have worked just as in the case of ECu. *sa/izh- "3" vs. *sa/izzet- "8". This sugestion seems indeed attractive. But Blazek also found (pace Holmer 1966, 35) it evident that Eg. hmn is "deriving quite naturally from" Eg. hmt "3" (!) in the same way, although he did not explain this derivation, e.g., how did the -t of "3" disappear in "8", or, what was the function of -n of the latter numeral. Thirdly, in Sem. *tamaniy- "8", instead of a genetically inherited root *Vtmn, he saw an inner Semitic innovation from the contraction of a hypothetic compound **taniy-ma/**taniy-ma "the second one no", or alternatively from **taniy-/taniy-min-(?asar-) "the second from (ten)". All this fails, however, due to the fact that the same PAA biconsonantal root *Vcm for "8" appears also in NOm.: PKefoid (Gonga) *sim-itt- "8" [GT].64 A borrowing from Ethio-Semitic65 is hardly the case with the Kefoid numeral (isolated within Omotic) for several reasons.66 It is here to be remarked that the Egyptian, Semitic, and Berber numerals "8" were compared by W. Vy-cichl (1959, 33) also with Bed. asemhay ~ asumhay "acht" [Rn. 1895, 31] = asimhei [Roper 1928, 155] in spite of its analysis as a compound commonly accepted since L. Reinisch (1894, 7).67

Eg. Vpsd "nine (9)" (OK, Wb I 558) is a word with a very difficult etymology,68 traditionally identified with Semitic *tis(a)T- "9" [GT] (Semitic data: Moscati et al. 1964,

62 Cf. SBrb.: EWlmd. a-täkämma, pl. i-täkämma-t-än "bras supérieur" [PAM 2003, 785] ||| Sem. *tVkm- "neck and shoulders" [SED]: Ug. tkm "1. Nacken mit Schulter, 2. oberer Teil eines Gebäudes" [WUS] = "shoulder" [DUL 903], Hbr. sakem "der Nacken mit den Schulterblättern, bes. als Körperteil, auf dem man eine Last trägt, der Teil des Körpers (Rücken), auf den man jem. schlägt, 2. Landstrich, eigtl. Rücken des Landes" [GB] = "1. the (nape of the) back or neck of a person, 2. shoulder (as a part of the body on which to carry a heavy load), the shoulder joint (as a part of the carcass of a sacrificial animal)" [KB] (Sem.: GB 826-7; WUS 334, #2866; Faber 1984, 210, #50; Lsl. 1987, 496; Voigt 1994, 107; KB 1492-3; SED I 251, §281) ||| PCu. *sVnkw- "1. затылок, спина, плечо, 2. то место, на

котором носят грузы" [Dlg.] = *sVkm--> *sVmk- "shoulder" [GT]. From AA *Vckm "shoulder" [GT]. Cf. also

Dlg. 1983, 136, #9.2 (Sem.-Bed.-LECu.). Hardly a borrowing from Arabic, where its reflex (if related at all ...) has undergone serious semantical shift, cf. Ar. takam- "1. (tracé du) chemin, (milieu de la) route" [BK I 231b] = takam-, tukm-at- "1. milieu (du chemin), 2. chemin, voie" [Blachère 1210a] = takm- (sic) "shoulder (of road)" (sic) [Faber]. Besides, A. Ju. Militarev (1991, 242) admitted AA *c > Brb. *s, (?) *s, and also *t (no question-mark), although he did not provide the lexical evidence.

63 Which was combined by Ch. Ehret (1980, 290) with Dahalo ?ittatoni "3rd day after tomorrow" to reconstruct SCu. *?itam- "tris, set of three".

64 Attested in Kafa sim-itt-o [Crl. 1951, 307; Bnd. 1971, 259] = simm-it-o [PB] = simm-itt-o [Lmb.: so also in Sheko!], Mocha sim-itt-o [Lsl. 1959, 51; Bnd. 1971, 260], Shinasha sim-it-a [Schuver in Grottanelli 1940, 103] = sim-at-a [Grottanelli 1941, 266] = sim-itt-a [PB] = samm-att-à [Lmb.], Bworo sim-itt-ë [Brauner 1950, 70; Bnd. 1971, 259], Anfillo sim-itt-o [Grottanelli 1940, 103; Bnd. 1971, 258] (Kefoid data: PB 1963, 468; Zbr. 1983, 384; Lmb. 1993, 376).

65 As suggested by E. Cerulli (1951, 309, §xxiv.1) and M. Lamberti (1993, 376).

66 Hardly to be explained from *simin-t- to have the 3rd radical of ES *Vsmn (as suggested by W. Leslau 1959, 51 with a hint on some Gurage dialects, where -n- was not preserved, cf. Chaha sumut, Muher, Selti sammut, the vocalization of which do not fit, however), since, suspiciously, Kefoid 6, 7, 8 all have this suffix -Vtt-. In addition, how could ES *s- have become Kefoid *s- if it was a borrowing?

67 The Bedawye numeral is evidently not an Arabic loan. According to the usually accepted segmentation, the Beja numerals from "6" to "9" are formed on the basis of the pattern of Bed. asa "growing" + "1", "2", "3", "4" (cf. Bed. Vmhy "3").

68 Any inner Egyptian derivation is vain here. Declining its commonly accepted Semitic etymology, V. Blazek (1999, 251) tried to explain Eg. psd "9" on the basis of Eg. psd "sich entfernen von, sich abwenden von (r)" (PT, ÄWb I 479; Wb I 556), i.e., "9" < psd{-md.w} "[one] removed away from {ten}". However, Blazek ignored that the latter is a denominative verb of Eg. psd "back", and so it may literally have denoted *"den Rücken wenden" (Wb).

116),69 which may seem impossible at the first glance as, in fact, only the second radicals correspond. The initial p- in Eg. instead of an expected *t- is unusual, which, after a few vain attempts,70 W. F. Albright,71 followed by others,72 correctly explained by the incompatibility of OEg. *ts.73 But they never discussed the question as to why this sequence turned into Eg. ps-. It is due to another incompatibility law, namely that of OEg. *s£, which had to turn either to *sh (cf. EDE I 326) or *sd (the irregular correspondence of Eg. -d vs. Sem. *-? occurs in a number of convincing examples, among which there are also roots devoid of s).74 In either cases, we get a third radical which is compatible with p- only, the other possible voiceless stop to replace t-being k-, which is incompatible with both -h and -d. The choice between -sh vs. -sd was probably decided under the influence of Eg. md "10".

Whether and how Berber "9" (usually bearing the consonants Vtz or Vtz), reconstructed in various forms,75 and frequently included in the Egypto-Semitic etymology above,76 can be related, is disputed. It is evident, that the medial radicals (Brb. *-z- vs. Sem. *-s-) are not at all in agreement. In addition, V. Blazek (1999, 47) excluded the relationship of the Egypto-Semitic isogloss to Berber "9", which he explained as a contraction of *t(V)-[k]uzah "[5] + 4", cf. Brb. *hakkuz "4" [Prasse].

The Southern Afro-Asiatic evidence of the root for "9" reflected in Semitic and Egyptian is scarce. It occurs in fact only in ECh. *Vtgs ~ *Vgst "9" [GT]77 as suggested by A. Trombetti

69 This Semito-Egyptian equation was accepted by A. Erman (1892, 111); W. M. Müller (1907, 303); A. Ember (1911, 91; 1912, 90, fn. 4; ESS §8.c, 112, §18.a.9, §24.d.4); F. Hommel (1915, 16, #2); K. Sethe (1916, 20); W. F. Albright (1918, 92; 1923, 68; 1926, 189; 1927, 201); E. Zyhlarz (1931, 138, §7); Sh. Yeivin (1932, 137); H. Mercier (1933, 313314); O. Rössler (1966, 228; 1971, 302, 307); Ju. N. Zavadovskij (1967, 43; 1974, 109, 112; 1975, 49); KHW 153; W. Schenkel (1990, 52, 57; 1991, 116; 1997, 114); J. Zeidler (1992, 205); G. Takács (1999, 141; 2000, 343-344, #8.3; EDE II 516-7). The same comparison was declined by C. T. Hodge (1976, 15, #164), V. Blazek (1997, 16; 1999, 250-251, #9; 1999, 46-47, #9), and E. Lipinski (1997, 288, §35.14).

70 E.g., K. Sethe (1916, 20) compared this phenomenon to the regular change of PIE *kwa/o—> Gk. na/o- vs. PIE *kwe—> Gk. xe-, which has, however, not been established in the Egyptian Lautgeschichte as a regular shift.

71 Cf. Albright 1918, 92; 1923, 68; 1926, 189; 1927, 201.

72 O. Rössler (1966, 228; 1971, 302, 307), W. Schenkel (1990, 52, 57).

73 This reasoning seems acceptable, since the sequence of word initial *ts- is not attested in Old and Middle Egyptian (cf. Wb I 328). Similarly, J. H. Greenberg (1950, 176) observed no instance of a dental followed by a sibilant in the Semitic root stock either except for Sem. *Vts? "9". For the frequent incompatibility problems in the Semitic numerals 1-10, cf. Greenberg 1950, 178, §5.

74 (1) Eg. sdm < *smd "to hear" (OK, Wb IV 144) ||| Sem. *Vsm? "to hear" [GT] (Eg.-Sem.: Hommel 1882, 9; 1894, 351, fn. 1; 1915, 16, fn. 3; Müller 1907, 303; Ember 1911, 91; 1912, 90, fn. 4; 1918, 30; 1926, 6; 1926, 309, fn. 8; Yeivin 1932, 137; Vycichl 1934, 63; Vergote 1945, 142, §16.b.23; Cohen 1947, #82; Schenkel 1993, 143 etc.). (2) Eg. nds "klein, gering" (PT-, Wb II 384-385) ||| Sem. *Vn?s "to be small, weak" [GT] (cf. Hommel 1883, 441, fn. 30; 1894, 351, fn. 1; 1915, 16, fn. 3; Erman 1892, 113; Ember 1912, 90, fn. 4; 1926, 6; 1926, 309, fn. 8; 1930, §11.a.43, §24.d.2; Vycichl 1934, 63; Vergote 1945, 147, §24.b.2; Cohen 1947, #80; Rössler 1966, 228). (3) Eg. ndm "süß, angenehm" (OK, Wb II 378-380) ||| Sem. *Vn?m "to be pleasant" [GT] (cf. Hommel 1883, 98; 1894, 351, fn. 1; 1915, 16, fn. 3; Erman 1892, 113; Müller 1907, 303; Ember 1911, 91; 1926, 6; ESS §10.a.25, §11.a.41; §24.d.1; Vycichl 1934, 63; Vergote 1945, 147, §24.b.1; Cohen 1947, #81; Schenkel 1993, 143; Loprieno 1994, 120). (4) Eg. dns "to be heavy" (MK, Wb V 468-469) ||| LECu. *?ils-/*?uls- "heavy" [Sasse 1975, 245; 1976, 127] proposed by O. Rössler (1966, 228).

75 PBrb. *tazah (?) "9" [GT] = *Vts? [Rössler 1966, 228] = *tassa?u [Rössler 1952, 143] = *tza [Zavadovskij 1974, 109; 1975, 49] = *tizah ~ *tüzah [Prasse 1974, 403, 404].

76 See Zyhlarz 1931, 138, §7; Mercier 1933, 313-314; Vycichl 1938, 135; 1966, 269; 1974, 63; 1992, 385; Rössler 1952, 143, #74; 1966, 228; 1971, 302, 307; Zavadovskij 1967, 43; 1974, 109, 112; 1975, 49; Zeidler 1992, 205; Takács 1999, 141; 2000, 343-344, #8.3.

77 Cf. Lay group *Vtgs [GT]: Dormo tigesu [Hfm.], Gabri tigesu [AF] = teges [Dcr.], Chire tíngesü [Hfm.], Ka-balay tegesu [Hfm.], Lay tegese [Hfm.] | PSomray *Vts or *Vds [GT]: Somray döso [Barth], Ndam disa [Bruel] = tise

(1977, 53) and G. Takacs (1999, 141; 2000, 343-344, #8.3). The phonological correspondence of ECh. *-g- < AA *-T is not yet proven, however. As for the metathesis in East Chadic, it is noteworthy that V. Blazek (1990, 32; 1991, 210) supposes Sem. *tisT- "9" to reverse the order of Sem. *Tast- "1".

Leaving aside the equation with Semitic "9", G. Takacs (EDE II 517-518) discussed all other alternatives (q.v.), and among others he ventured an alternatively a comparison of Eg. psd < *Vps? with NOm. *Vbz (stem vowel *-i-) "1" and "9" [GT],78 which apparently stands isolated in Afro-Asiatic.

Eg. Vmd (masc. md.w, fem. md.t) "zehn" (OK, Wb II 184): in spite of the abundance of various etymologies suggested until very recently a completely satisfactory solution has not been found. In any case, the Amarna cuneiform (14th cent. BC) evidence (mu-tu)79 and Cpt. (SALMB) myt "ten" (CD 187b) suggest *mudaw (m) vs. (f) *mud~t (Edel 1955, 166-176). Leaving aside the evidently untenable etymologies,80 we may only describe all the considerable solutions:

(1) F. Behnk (1928, 139, #33) saw in Eg. md [possibly < *mg] a metathesis of WCh.: Hausa gooma "10" [Brg. 1934, 397; Abr. 1962, 332] = goomaa [JI]. I.e., Eg. *mud.~w < **dum.~w < pre-OEg. **gum."w? It is highly noteworthy that the sequence dm- was not typical in Egyptian. Regarded as "possible" also by V. Blazek (1989, 215-216; 1997, 17; 1999, 251-3, §10; 1999, 4749, §10) and Ju. N. Zavadovskij (1974, 104; 1975, 50-51). The Hausa numeral for "10" is a reflex

[Décorse], Tumak disa [Décorse] = bisa [Bruel], Miltu disa [Hfm.], Sarwa doso [Hfm.] | Mokilko géssat [Lukas 1977, 210] = géssa(t) [Jng. 1990, 101] (ECh. data: Hoffmann 1971, 9).

78 Attested in SEOmeto *bizz-o "1" [GT]: Haruro (Kachama) bizz-o [Crl. 1936, 631, 642] = biz-e [Sbr.], Zayse bizz-o [Crl. 1938 III, 201] = bizz-o [Sbr.], Zergulla biz-o [Sbr.], Koyra (Badditu) bizz-o [Crl. 1929, 60] = bij-o [Bnd.] = bizz-o [Hyw. 1982, 215] = b^-D [Sbr.], Gidicho biz-e [Bnd.] (SEOmeto: Bnd. 1971, 256-257; Zbr. 1983, 387; Sbr. 1994, 18) | Chara biz-a "9" [Crl. 1938 III, 165] = biz-a ~ bij-a "9" [Bnd. 1974, 19; Flm. 2000 MS, 7] | Sezo bes-é "9" [Sbr.-Wdk. 1994, 15].

79 Occurs in a list of Egyptian words (EA 368), cf. Smith & Gadd 1925, 230-8, esp. 236, §15; Lambdin 1958, 186; Edel 1975, 11f.; 1980, 17 & fn. g.

80 (1) A. Trombetti (1902, 198), C. Brockelmann (1908, 487), W. Worrell (1926, 272), and G. A. Barton (1934, 30) erroneously equated LEg. md, Dem. mt, and Cpt. (S etc.) myt with Sem. *mi?-at- "hundred" [Dlg.], which has rightly been declined by W. F. Albright (1918, 92, fn. 6), later also by F. A. Dombrowski and B. W. W. Dombrowski (1991, 342) and by V. Blazek (1999, 251-3, §10; 1999, 47-49, §10). (2) There is a long tradition of comparing Eg. md with the reflexes of PBrb. *meraw "10" [Zhl. 1934-35, 185] = *maraw [Prs. 1974, 403, 405] = *mra (m), *mra-ut (f) [Zvd. 1975, 50-51, §14.0] = *märäw (sic) [Vernus] = *maraw [Mlt., GT], cf., e.g., Gabelentz (1894, 99); Meinhof (1912, 240); Zyhlarz (1931, 137-138, #8; 1932-1933, 104; 1934, 104, 106, 111, fn. 1); Mercier (1933, 314); Wölfel (1954, 58); Lefebvre (1955, 276) and Korostovcev (1963, 14): both misquoting the Brb. root as mzu (sic!); Rössler (1966, 227; 1971, 317); Zavadovskij (1967, 43; 1974, 111-112; 1975, 50-51, §14.0); Loprieno (1986, 1309); Blazek (1989, 215-216; 1990, 41; 1997, 17-18); Dombrowski and Dombrowski (1991, 344); Vernus (2000, 180, 192): Eg. mdw (sic) "a un cognât possible avec le berbère"! Rejected by W. Vycichl (DELC 124) and G. Takacs (1995 MS, 4, #7; 1996, 139, #35; 1996, 442, #2.3) as there is no evidence for Eg. -d ~ Brb. *-r-, while Brb. *-w is part of the root (contrary to Eg. masc. md.w vs. fem. md.t). (3) K. Sethe (1916, 17) and A. Loprieno (1986, 1309): Eg. md "10" < md "deep", but they failed to demonstrate the odd semantic shift with typological parallels. V. Blazek (1997, 17; 1999, 251-3, §10; 1999, 47-49, §10) excluded a direct connection. (4) Ju. N. Zavadovskij (1974, 112; 1975, 44) and A. Loprieno (1986, 1316, n. 32): metathesis of PCu. *Vtmn "10". Absolutely unlikely. Eg. -d * Cu. *t-. Cu. *-n not reflected in Eg. (5) I. M. D'jakonov (1986, 61; 1988, 67): ~ Sem. *ma?d- "many", but Eg. d * Sem. *d. Declined already by V. Blazek (1989, 215-216; 1997, 17) and G. Takacs (1994, 217; 1996, 139-140, #35; 1996, 442, #4; 1999, 136; 1999, 203). (6) A. Loprieno (1986, 1309, 1316, n. 33) suspected the ultimate common origin of Eg. md "10" and md "deep" with Sem. *Vmss "aufsaugen"(!), *Vmdd (!) "lang ziehen, ausdehnen", *Vmtt (!) "lang ziehen, ausdehnen". Impossible. E.g., how should one figure a relationship between "aufsaugen" vs. "10"? Rejected already by V. Blazek (1999, 251-3, §10; 1999, 47-49, §10).

of PCh. *gwam- "10" [Nwm. 1977, 32] = *Vgwm [JS 1981, 263; JI 1994 I, 165].81 C. Hoffmann (1970, 12-14) and H. Jungraithmayr & D. Ibriszimow (1994 I, 165) considered PCh. *VgWm "10" to be an old Niger-Congo loan (cf. Benue-Congo *-kumi "10"), which would exclude its equation with Eg. md. However, a genuine AA etymology of PCh. *VgWm is also possible, cf. AA *Vgm "complete (or sim.)" [GT]. V. Blazek (1987 MS, 41), in turn, combined the PCh.-Eg. parallel with SBrb.: Ahaggar a-gyim (-g- apud Fcd.) "millier" [Fcd. 1951-2, 444], Ghat a-jim (a-djim apud Nehlil) [-3- < *-gy-] "mille" [Nhl. 1909, 179].

(2) V. Blazek (1987 MS, 41; 1990, 41) equated Eg. md with CCh.: Higi gr. *muq- "10" [GT],82 which might only be valid if Eg. *mud."w < **mund."w (nowhere attested) and if the Higi numeral < **mung-. Mentioned also by G. Takacs (1994, 217) in the context of further AA parallels. The etymology of Higi gr. *muq- "10" is uncertain.83

(3) C. T. Hodge (kind p.c. on 4 September 1994) has not excluded a connection with PBrb. *te-mihday, pl. *ti-muhad "100" [Prasse 1974, 406].84 Since PBrb. *d < PAA *c (cf. Mlt. 1991, 242; Takacs 2006, 57-59, 62), the phonological correspondence of Eg. d ~ PBrb. *d is regular, although PBrb. *-h- has no match in Eg. md. The etymology of the Berber numeral is obscure.85

(4) V. Orel & O. Stolbova (1992, 202) identified it with their ECh. Waj- "10" (no reflexes mentioned), which is certainly a false reconstruction. This asterisk-form is solely based on the

81 Attested in WCh.: Gerka (Yiwom) [IL] | Dera (Kanakuru) gum [Pis.] = gûm [Krf., Jng.], Tangale gbomo [Jng.] < *gwom- [GT] | (?) Tsagu wuuma [Skn. 1977, 34: < PCh. *g-m-] | Ngizim (< Hs.?) guma [IL] = gumè [Krf.] = guumà [Schuh], Bade (< Hs.?) guma [IL] = guumà [Krf.] (WCh.: also Pis. 1958, 85) || CCh.: Tera gwàg [Nwm. 1964, 36, #10], Tera-Jara gwom [Nwm.], Hwona gumdidi ~ kûm [Krf.], Boka kum [Krf.], Gabin kùm [Krf.], Ga'anda kum [Krf.] | Bura-Margi *kum- [GT] > Margi kümu [Hfm.] = kumu [Krf.], WMargi kuma ~ kume [Krf.], Chibak kyme [IL] = kuma [Krf.], Bura kuma [Krf.], Wamdiu kumo [Krf.], Hiidi kumà [Krf.], Kiiba kumà [Krf.], Ngwahyi kuma [Krf.] | Faii-Kiria gwùm(ù) [Krf.], Faii-Jiibu gumù [Krf.], Fali-Muceiia gùm [Krf.], Faii-Bwagira po-gumu [Krf.] | PMandara *gWamgV (?) [GT]: Dghwede gwàgga [Frick] = hwagga [IL], Ngweshe ùwaggo [IL], Paduko 3uma [Mch.] | Sukur uwâg [IL] < *gWam (?) [GT] | Musgoy gup [Mch.], Daba gub [Lienhard] | Musgu gum [Roeder] | PMasa *gWub- < **gWum- (?) [GT]: Lame gwubu [Krf.], Lame-Peve gwub [Krf.], Zime-Batna gùp [Jng.] = gùbù [Scn.], Misme-Zime goub [Krf.] || ECh.: Mokiiko kooma(t) [Jng.] (Ch.: Mkr. 1987, 43, 222; Ibr. 1990, 211-212; JI 1994 II 320-321).

82 Attested in Higi mëngë [Str.] = mW^gé [Mri. 1972, 102] = mùgay [Brt.-Jng.], Higi-Nkafa mùgay [Krf.], Higi-Baza münge [Lks. 1937, 113] = mùga [Krf.], Higi-Kamaie mùgE [Krf.] vs. Kapsiki (= Kamaie?) mäng [Str.] = mag [WL] = mag(a) [Brt.-Jng.], Higi-Ghye mùgay [Krf.], Higi-Bana maga [WL] = mag [Brt.-Jng.], Higi-Futu mùgi [Krf.], Faii-Giii mùg [Krf. 1972 MS] (Higi group data: Strümpeii 1922-1923, 123; Wente-Lukas 1973, 7; Kraft 1981 II, 131, 141, 151, 161, 171, 191, #10; Brt.-Jng. 1993, 131).

83 Contrary to V. Biazek (i.c.), D. Ibriszimow (1990, 211-2) exciuded a metathesis of PCh. *gum-/*gWam- "10" (above). Later, Biazek (1999, 251-3, §10; 1999, 47-49, §10) derived Higi gr. *mug- "10" from *mu-mg-, which might be etymoiogicaiiy identicai with Agaw *mang- "many" [GT] || LECu. *mang- "many" [GT] ||| NOm.: Shinasha manga "heavy" [Lmb.] (discussed beiow). If this is correct, a remote kinship between Higi gr. *mug- with Eg. md is not impossibie.

84 Attested, a.o., in NBrb.: Nefusa te-mîti [Mti.] = ta-miti [Lst.] = te-miti [Mrc.] || EBrb.: Sokna sannat t-mîtin "deux cents" [Lst.] || WBrb.: Zenaga ta-made (sic, -d-) "100" [Nci. 1953, 206] || SBrb.: Ahaggar té-médé, pi. ti-mad "centaine" [Fcd. 1951-2, 1165] = ti-midi [Mti.] = ta-midi [Lst.] = ti-midi [Mrc.], ETawiiemmet ti-midi [Bst.] = ETawiiemmet & Ayr te-mede ~ Ayr ti-mida "1. centaine, 2. cent" [PAM 1998, 210; 2003, 524], Kei Ui ti-madi [Wif.], Ghat ci-midi "cent", senat ci-mad "deux cents" [Nhi. 1909, 138; Mrc.] (Brb.: Lst. 1931, 209; Mrc. 1933, 316; Wif. 1954, 74).

85 (1) A. Kiingenheben (apud Wöifei 1954, 75) and M. G. Mercier (1933, 316) erroneousiy expiained it as a iate borrowing from Ar. mi?-at- (!), which has rightiy been exciuded by Wöifei (i.c.). Surprisingiy, this erroneous equation of the Berber numerai with Sem. *mi?-at- "1.000" has been recentiy adopted by E. Lipinski (1997, 291, §35.20). (2) F. Nicoias (1953, 206) combined it with WBrb.: Zenaga Vmd "finir, être fini". (3) GT: cf. ECh.: Mokiiko mèeda (f) "cent, centaine(s)" [Jng. 1990, 138], aithough Mokiiko -d- vs. Brb. *-d- seem irreguiar.

isolated ECh.: Somray moj "zehn" [Nct. apud Lks. 1937, 80; Hfm. 1971, 9] = mwaj "10" [Jng. 1993 MS, 46; JI 1994 II, 321]. In theory, there could be a small chance that the Somrai form derives from an earlier *Vm(w)g,86 but this is surely not the case here due to the firm evidence for that Somray moj [Nct.] reflects *Vmwd.87 The Afro-Asiatic background of the ECh. numeral is disputed. V. Blazek (1997, 18; 1999, 251-3, §10; 1999, 47-49, §10): < *mVdV ~ Eg. md and even PBrb. *te-mihday "100" [Prasse 1974, 406]. In principle, Somray -j < ECh. *-d < AA *c/*c/*c is plausible,88 but we have insufficient evidence for *-d- in the East Chadic numeral against *-d-. Consequently, the available records provide hardly anything for equating Eg. and ECh. "10". G. Takacs (1999, 136; 1999, 202-203, #3.2) connected ECh. *Vm(w)d with Sem. *ma?d- "many" [Djk.] ||| PBrb. impf. *ya-mduh, pf. *yu-mdah [Prasse 1975, 227] = *a-mdu < *Vmd[h] "to complete" [GT] ||| SOm.: Ari müda "all" [Bnd. 1994, 1158, #1]. If this comparison proves to be valid, the East Chadic numeral can have nothing in common with Eg. md.

(5) G. Takacs (1994, 217-218; 1995 MS, 5-6, #7; 1996, 140, #35; 1996, 443, #7; 1999, 40, 50-51, 143) affiliated Eg. md "10" with ECu. *mig-/*mug- "fullness", *-mg- (prefix verb) "to fill" [Sasse 1979, 25] = *-meg- "to be full" [HL 1988, 127; Lmb. 1993, 353] = *-mig- "to be full" [Ehret 1997 MS, 196, #1771] = *mVg- "many, full" [GT].89 This Egypto-East Cushitic equation was as-

86 Cf. perhaps ECh.: Somray îâjè [Jng.] vs. Ndam yégê "to cut, chop" [Jng.] (ECh.: JI 1994 II, 99).

87 Attested by its earlier record and its closest cognates listed by J. Lukas (1937, 74, 87) and C. Hoffmann (1971, 9): Somrai moid "10" [Adolf Friedrich] = moet [Gaudefroy-Demombynes], Dormo moid [Adolf Friedrich] | Gabri moid [Adolf Friedrich] = mwojè [Caprile 1972 MS], Chire moodo "10" [Barth apud Lukas].

88 Cf. ECh. *gad-"cheek" [GT]: Kabalai kwaji [Cpr.] | Somray gà3é "cheek" [Jng.] | WDangla gàdùmo [Fédry] | Birgit gàdâyo [Jng.] (ECh.: JI 1994 II, 69) ||| SBrb.: Ahaggar ä-gy/gaz (-g- apud Fcd.) "joue" [Fcd. 1951-2, 491] ||| PCu. *gAc(c)- "лицо, лоб" [Dlg.] > Bed. gedi "das Gesicht, Antlitz, Auge" vs. gWad ~ gwâda ~ gWaj ~ gaj "Auge, Gesicht" [Rn. 1895, 89-90] = (also) gWad, pl. gWada "face, eye" [Dlg.] || NAgaw *gäc "face" [Apl.] = *gäc (?) [GT]: Bilin gäs, Hamir gas, Qwara-Dembea gas, Qemant gäs (NAgaw: Apl. 2006, 63) || ECu.* gad- "jaw" [Apl., KM] || SCu.: WRift *gice "forehead" [KM 2004, 117] < AA *Vgç/ç "cheek" [GT] (cf. Cohen 1947, #197; Dolgopol'skij 1973, 297; HSED #866 vs. #914).

89 Attested in Saho mag "anfüllen, voll machen" [Rn. 1890, 258-9] = mag "remplir" [Chn.] = -meg- (prefixed) "to fill" vs. mig-e "fullness" [Sasse] = -emmeg- "to be full" [HL] = emege (imp. amage) "to fill", mig-e "fullness" [Vergari 2003, 78, 135], Saho-Assaorta mag-, pass. m-mag "essere molto, in molti, essere pieno" [CR 1913, 70] = meg- "to be numerous, full (быть многочисленным, полным)" [IS], Afar mag "anfüllen, voll machen" [Rn. 1886, 880] = -eng- [< *-emg-] "to fill" [Sasse] = -emmeg- "to be full" [HL] = enge "to fill" [PH 1985, 163], Afar-Tadjurah mog-o "many (много)" [IS] | Oromo mog-a "fullness", mij-u [-3- < *-g-] "full" [Sasse], Oromo-Waata maga-ta "many" [Strm. 1987, 362], Oromo-Bararetta imieke "full" [Flm.], Konso imako-ta "full" [Flm.] = immak- "to be full" [HL], Gidole innako-ta "full" [Flm.] = innak- "to be full" [HL], Gato imako-da "full" [Flm.] | OSomali *ammüg- "füllen" [Lmb. 1986, 437] > Somali mug "Fülle, Vollheit" [Rn. 1902, 288] = mug- "fullness" [Abr. 1964, 182], PBaiso & Jiddu (sic) *?u/img- "full" [Ehret & Nuuh Ali 1984, 229], Baiso mig-i "full" [Flm.] = mig-i "to be full" [HL] = ?amoga "many" [Sbr. 1994, 17] | Yaaku -mok [< *-mog], pl. -moje? "many, much" [Heine 1975, 130] (ECu.: Dlg. 1973, 256-257; Sasse 1979, 25; HL 1988, 127). In H.-J. Sasse's (1979, 25) view, the Konso & Gidole parallels (with -n-/-k-) "are obviously cognate, but display problematic correspondences", for which cf. NAgaw: Kemant imkuy "être abondant (le blé)" [CR 1912, 164] ||| WCh.: Tangale mukmuk "somewhat full" [Jng. 1991, 121] || ECh.: EDangla mak "(idéophone d'accomplissement)" [Dbr.-Mnt. 1973, 192]. Do these parallels display traces of an AA root var. *Vmk "full" [GT]? The relatedness of further possible parallels is still to be cleared, cf. LECu.: Rendille mig, pl. amige, mimigé "strong, hard" [Heine 1976, 216, 220] = mig (f) "Kraft, Macht" [Schlee 1978, 140, #774] = mig-e "strength" [Oomen 1981, 72] = mig "strength, stiffness, tightness, heaviness, hardness, difficulty" [PG 1999, 224] ||| NOm. *magg- "1. full (?), 2. (hence) heavy" [GT]: Haruro magg-ays "essere contento" (lit. "to be full"?) [CR 1937, 653] | Kefoid *magg- "to be heavy" [GT]: Kaffa mag- [Crl. 1951, 470] = magg- [Dlg.], Mocha màggi-yé "to be heavy", magg-o "heavy" [Lsl. 1959, 40], Sheko maggo "heavy" [Lmb.] (NOm.: LS 1997, 459 with semantically false comparanda) is semantically problematic. For the ECu.-NOm. comparison see Dlg. 1967, 9, #7; 1973, 256-257; IS 1976, 41-42; Lmb. 1993, 111 (Cu.-Om. *-mVg- "to be full, heavy").

sessed by V. Blazek (1999, 251-3, §10; 1999, 47-49, §10) as the "most convincing" one of all the etymologies offered so far for Eg. md. The reflexes of ECu. *mig-/*mug- [Sasse] and NOm. *magg- "full" [GT] have often90 been compared with the Cushito-Omotic root containing an additional *-n-, cf. *Vmng "much" [GT],91 on whose etymology there is no agreement in Cushitic studies.92 The ultimate source of Eg. md and ECu.-NOm. *mVg- "1. many, 2. full, 3. heavy, 4. strong (?)" [GT] may be AA *Vmg "1. big, 2. long, high" [GT].93 The semantic shift of Eg. md "10" as a "full, big" number is supported by a number of typological parallels.94 The

90 Cf. Reinisch 1886, 880; 1890, 259; Conti Rossini 1913, 71; Lesiau 1945, 163; 1979 III, 408-9; IiiiC-SvityC 1976, 41-42; Appieyard 1977, 26/68; Haberiand-Lamberti 1988, 127; Lamberti 1993, 353; Lamberti-Sottiie 1997, 459 (with semanticaiiy faise comparanda).

91 Cf. NAgaw: Qemant manga "fouie, quantité, muititude" [CR 1912, 230] = manga "muititude, crowd" [Lsi.] (Appieyard, p.c. on 20 Aprii 2007: "without any doubt a loan from"Amharic mänga "herd, fiock, crowd", which, in turn, is "obviously a loan from ECush.") || SAgaw *menci [-ci < *-ki] "many" [GT]: Awngi ménc "many" [Htz./Bnd. 1971, 238, §50] = myengci (so!) [Fim./Bnd.] = ménci [Bnd. 1973 MS, 7, #51] = ménc "many" [Api. 1991, 8], Kunfai menci "many" [Birru & Adai 1971, 102, #50] = minci "many" [Bnd. 1970, 3, #50] || LECu. *mang- "numerous" [GT] > Saho mang "viei, zahireich werden, sich mehren" [Rn. 1890, 259, 269-270], Afar mang "angefüiit, voii werden/sein" [Rn. 1886, 880, 882] ||| NOm.: Shinasha-Bworo mang-a "heavy (schwer, gewichtig)" [Lmb. 1993, 111; 1993, 353].

92 The Saho-Afar stem *mang- has been expiained by L. Reinisch (1886, 880 1890, 259) from a pass. *m-ang "angefüiit werden", cf. Saho-Afar caus. s-ang < Vmag. C. Conti Rossini (1913, 71) extended this aiso to NAgaw (Kemant) assuming a common PCu. *mag > *m-mag > *mamg > Kemant & Saho-Afar mang-. G. Banti (p.c., 19 Aprii 2007), in turn, sees in the LECu. forms a prefix ma- ("the form is like mabia 'seeing'" in Saho-Afar). D. Appieyard (p.c., 20 Aprii 2007) shares the same view: "mamga is certainly the more 'archaic' in so far as it is more transparently the nominal prefix ma- + the verbal root -mg-, i.e. PEC *mig-/mug- etc. 'be full'... it seems to me quite reasonable to build a new 'root' on the basis of a nominal derivation *ma-m[V]g-; partial reduplication of the C1VC1VC2- type seems less likely to me". The Cu. stem was probabiy borrowed into Eth.-Sem.: Gafat mängä, Amh. mänga, Gurage-Soddo mänga "herd, fiock" (ES: Lesiau 1945, 163; 1979 III, 408-9; Appieyard 1977, 26/68 with iess iikeiy aiternative Semitic etymoiogies). For reasons outiined here, the comparison of Cu.-Om. *mang- with CCh.: PHigi *mug- "10" [GT] (above) seems at the moment rather uniikeiy.

93 Attested in Sem.: Akk. magagu (aiso maqaqu) "(weg)spreizen" [AHW 574] ||| NOm.: Ometo *meg- "coi" [GT]: Woiayta & Dawro (Kuiio) meg-uwa, Gofa & Gamu & Dorze meg-o | Shinasha meg-o (NOm.: Aim. 1993 MS, 8, #202b) ||| CCh. *Vmg... "iong (of stick)" [JS 1981, 169Bi]: Musgu masc. mogwa, fem. muguii, pi. mogwaakai "iang, hoch" [Krause apud Müiier 1886, 401] = mogoa [Rohifs] = mogo "iang" [Overweg] = ana-mogo "it is big" [Rohifs] = mogo "groß" [Roeder] = mugwi "hoch" [Décorse] = mogo "groß" [Lks.], Musgu-Pus mogo (m), mogwi (f), pi. mogokai "hoch" [MB 1972 MS, 4] = mogo (masc.), muguwiy (fem.) "iong" [Trn. 1991, 106], Musgu-Girvidik mogo (m), mogwi (f), pi. mogway "hoch" [MB 1972 MS, 4] = mogo(m) "iang" [MB 1972-73, 70] (Musgu: Lukas 1937, 141; 1941, 68) || ECh.: Tumak magan "nombreux", cf. mag "être capabie, pouvoir, beaucoup" [Cpr. 1975, 81]. For the AA etymoiogy see IS 1976, 41-42; HSED #1704. Cf. aiso SSem. *Vmgn (root ext. *-n?) "very (much)" [GT]: Jibbaii mékan "much, many, a iot of" [Jns. 1981, 170], Mehri maken [-k- < *-g-] "beaucoup, très" [Lsi.] = méken [Jahn] = mekan "much, many, a iot of" [Jns. 1987, 264] || Amh. magan "très iarge" [Lsi.] = mägän "1. very iarge, unusuaiiy or strangeiy iarge (size), portentous, 3. type of iong shieid used by a fuiiy-grown man" [Kane 1990, 343] (Sem.: Lsi. 1931-34, 35).

94 Cf. (1) PCh. *gWam- "10" [Nwm. 1977, 32] ~ WCh.: Angas-Sura *gam "to fiii" [GT] (Angas-Sura data: Hfm. 1975 MS, 24, #215; Sti. 1972, 181; 1977, 154, #65; 1987, 217, #676; GT 2004, 121) | Boie-Tangaie *(g)gamu "to fiii, be fuii" [Schuh 1984, 216] = *(n)-gWam [GT] | NBauchi *g-m- "to gather, join, meet" [Skn. 1977, 23] (WCh. data: Sti. 1987, 217-8; JI 1994 II, 156) ||| Sem. *Vgmm "vöiiig sein/machen" [GB] > Hbr. gam "zusamt, steigernd" [GB 143] | Ar. gamma I "1. être riche, 2. être abondant, se rempiir de nouveau d'eau, 3. être combie" etc., gamm- "1. abondant, exubérant, 2. compiet, 4. (mesure) combie" [BK I 321-2] (for further Sem. cognates see Hodge 1971, 42; Zbr. 1971, #58; MacDonaid 1963-65, 75; WUS #664; Vycichi 1987, 114) ||| Eg. ngmgm (prefix n-) "sich versammein" (XVIII., Derchain-Urtei 1973, 39-40 contra Wb II 349, 15) ||| HECu. *gum?a "aii" [Hds. 1989, 411] ||| NOm.: Oyda gama "much, many" [Dig. 1973, 78]. For the Ar.-WCh. comparison: Sti. 1987, 218; OS 1990, 80, #55; HSED #888. Or

same is to be observed about Afro-Asiatic "hundred",95 "thousand",96 "ten thousand",97 and "hundred thousand".98

Summary

The results of the etymological analyses presented above lead us to the following table. Note that (+) in brackets signifies an existing, albeit indirect, correspondence of an Egyptian numeral, displaying some deviation in form. E.g., North Afro-Asiatic "two" (*Vcn) is ultimately related to South Cushitic and Chadic "two" (*Vcr), but only as ancient heteroclitic root varieties in Proto-Afro-Asiatic.

Eg. Sem. Brb. Cu. Om. Ch.

Vwî "1" + +? - - -

Vsn "2" + + (+) - (+)

Vhmt "3" - - + + +

Vfd "4" - - - + +

Vdj "5" (+) - - - -

Vsrs "6" + + - (+) (+)

Vsfh "7" + + +??? + +

Vhmn "8" + (+?) (+) (+) -

Vpsd "9" + +? - - +?

Vmd "10" - - (+) (+) +

cf. (2) Sem. *îasar- "10" [Dlg. 1986, 79, #14] ||| WCh.: Angas-Sura *sär "ten" [GT] (Angas-Sura data: Jng. 1965, 182; Hfm. 1975 MS, 20, #93; Stl. 1972, 182; 1977, 157, #188; JI 1994 II, 320; Takacs 2004, 334-5) ||| Eg. îs? [< *îsr] "viel (sein)" (OK, Wb I 228, 8-26). For the Eg.-Sem.-Angas-Sura etymology: Trb. 1902, 199; Ember 1917, 88, #135; ESS §3.b.4; Alb. 1918, 92; 1931, 150; Vrg. 1945, 128, §1.c.8; Cohen 1947, #47; Hodge 1976, 15, #165; OS 1988, 82; Blv. 1989, 15; Mlt.-Stl. 1990, 65.

95 Cf. NOm.: Kullo (Dawaro) tet-a "100" [CR 1913, 410] ||| Eg. twt "versammeln, versammelt sein" (PT, Wb V 259-260) ||| (?) WCh. *tVt- "to gather" [OS] (for the Eg.-PWCh. etymology see OS 1992, 195). Or cf. Sem. *Vrbb "big" > Ebl. rib(b)a or ribab "10.000" [Brugnatelli 1984, 86-87; Gordon 1988, 261] || Ug. rbt, Hbr. rababä, Aram. ribbabtä "10.000" (Canaanite: Ember 1917, 87; WUS #2481).

96 Cf. ECu. *kum- "1.000" [Sasse 1979, 12, 25; 1982, 120] || SCu. *kuma "1.000" [Ehret 1987, 30] ||| NOm. *kum-"1.000" [GT] ~ Eg. km "vollständig machen, vollenden" (MK, Wb V 128-130) ||| EBrb.: Siwa kôm, koma "tout, beaucoup" [Lst. 1931, 304] = "all, whole" [Mlt. 1991, 250] ||| LECu.: Baiso kamogani "much, many" [Ehret] ||| NOm.: POmeto *kum- "to be full" [GT] (NOm. data: LS 1997, 412).

97 Cf. Sem. *Vrbb "big" > Ebl. rib(b)a or ribab "10.000" [Brugnatelli 1984, 86-87; Gordon 1988, 261] || Ug. rbt | Hbr. rababä, Aram. ribbabtä "10.000" (Canaanite: Ember 1917, 87; WUS #2481). Or perhaps Eg. dbî "10.000" (I-, Wb V 365-366) ~ NOm.: She geba "many" [Flm.] || SOm.: Hamer & Karo ge?bi [Flm.: error for *gebi?] "big" [Flm.] (Om.: Flm. 1976, 317) ||| ECh.: WDangla goobé "remplir un récipient (en l'immergent dans l'eau)" [Fédry 1971, 329]. As noted by W. Vycichl (1934, 80), the comparison of Eg. dbî with WCh.: Hausa dubu "1.000" (suggested by N. Skinner 1981, 187-8, #105 pace Barth) is excluded. For an alternative etymology of Eg. dbî see Takacs 1997, 217, #9.

98 Cf. Eg. hfn [< *hfl] "100.000" (I-, Wb III 74, 1) ~ Sem.: Ar. hafala I "reichlich vorhanden sein", V "sich in grosser Zahl versammeln", hafl- "Menge", hafil- "zahlreich" [Vrg., Vcl.]. For Eg.-Ar. see Sethe 1916, 13-14; Ember 1917, 87, #135; ESS §9.a.7; Albright 1918, 93; Vergote 1945, 136, §9.b.26; Cohen 1947, #111; Vycichl 1958, 377; Lo-prieno 1986, 1310. For a different (less convincing) etymology of Eg. hfn see Holma 1919, 41; Hodge 1976, 12, #49; 1990, 370.

Conclusion

The first two, i.e., the most elementary and primary numerals, are evidently North Afro-Asiatic with no match in the southern block of the phylum, which clearly suggests an aboriginal northern affiliation of Egyptian just like the common North Afro-Asiatic apophony penetrating Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber morphology.

But the obvious South Afro-Asiatic nature of Egyptian "three" and "four" seems to testify to later renewed ties of Proto-Egyptian with the southern block, i.e., a secondary areal cohabitation, which agrees quite neatly with the lack of the prefix conjugation, an isogloss in the whole phylum shared by both Egyptian and Chadic grammar, which is paralleled by the undeniable domination of South Afro-Asiatic items in the overwhelming majority of Egyptian anatomical terminology, let alone the multitude of exclusively Egypto-Chadic lexical iso-glosses.

Egyptian "five" must be an Egyptian innovation based on an extinct Eg. *jd "hand" = Sem. *yad- "hand" as a nisbe form, which was to render "5" only on the Egyptian side. This innovation was either very late having ousted Semito-Berber *Vhms "5", or was simply much earlier than the latter. The former scenario seems more likely in the light of the separation of Egyptian from the Northern Afro-Asiatic block earlier than that of Semitic and Berber (cf. Takacs 2015).

Once again the set of Egyptian numerals from "six" to "nine" comprises Semitic (and Berber) words (only "seven" seems to be sporadically attested in South Afro-Asiatic too), but, for some suspicious reason, all of them suffer from some fundamental phonological irregularity in Egyptian atypical of genetically inherited Egypto-Semitic cognates, cf. Eg. -r- vs. Sem. *-d- in "6", Eg. -fh vs. Sem. *-b? in "7", Eg. h- vs. Sem. *t- in "8", Eg. p-/-d vs. Sem. *t-/*-S in "9". Does this puzzle speak for a borrowed and not inherited nature of these higher numerals during a later secondary areal contact with Semitic, perhaps in the neolithic Nile valley (5th mill. BC?)?

Finally, Egyptian "ten" is a South Afro-Asiatic word exclusively attested in Chadic (although the underlying verbal root is Common Afro-Asiatic), which may indicate a common decimal system created (together with SAA "3" and "4") during the above mentioned secondary areal cohabitation of Proto-Egyptian and Chadic (or South Afro-Asiatic).

Abbreviations of languages

(A): Akhmimic, AA: Afro-Asiatic, Akk.: Akkadian, Ar.: Arabic, Aram.: Aramaic, (B): Bohairic, BD: Book of the Dead, Bed.: Bed'awye, Brb.: Berber, Ch.: Chadic, CCh.: Central Chadic, CT: coffin texts, Cu.: Cushitic, ECh.: East Chadic, ECu.: East Cushitic, E: East(ern), Eg.: Egyptian, EWlmt.: East Tawllemmet, (F): Fayyumic, GR: Greek (Ptolemaic) and Roman Period, GW: syllabic or group-writing, Hbr.: Hebrew, HECu.: Highland East Cushitic, IMP: Intermediate Period, JAram.: Jewish Aramaic, (L): Lycopolitan (or Subakhmimic), LECu.: Lowland East Cushitic, Lit.: literary texts, LP: Late Period, M: Middle, Mag.: magical texts, MK: Middle Kingdom, N: North, NBch.: North Bauchi, NBrb.: North Berber, NK: New Kingdom, NOm.: North Omotic, OEg.: Old Egyptian, OK: Old Kingdom, Om.: Omotic, OT: Old Testament, PB: post-Biblical, PCh.: Proto-Chadic, PCu.: Proto-Cushitic, PT: pyramid texts, S: South(ern), (S): Sahidic, SBrb.: South Berber, Sem.: Semitic, W: West(ern), WBrb.: West Berber, WCh.: West Chadic, WSem.: West Semitic.

Abbreviations of authors

Abr.: Abraham, Ajl.: Ajello, Alb.: Albright, Alm.: Alemayehu, Apl.: Appleyard, BA: Birru & Adal, BK: Biberstein & Kazimirsky, Blv.: Belova, Blz.: Blazek, Bmh.: Bomhard, Bnd.: Bender, Brg.: Bargery, Brk.: Brockelmann, Brt.: Bar-reteau, Cpr.: Caprile, CR: Conti Rossini, Crl.: Cerulli, Ctc.: Caitucoli, Dbr.-Mnt.: Djibrine & Montgolfier, Djk.: D'jakonov, Dlg.: Dolgopol'skij, Dlt.: Dallet, Drnb.: Doornbos, Dst.: Destaing, Ehr.. Ehret, Fcd.: Foucauld, Fdr.:

Fédry, Flk.: Foulkes, Flm.: Fleming, Frj.: Frajzyngier, Frz.: Fronzaroli, Ftp.: Fitzpatrick, GB: Gesenius & Buhl, Gcl.: Gochal, Grb.: Greenberg, GT: Takacs, Hds.: Hudson, Hfm.: Hoffmann, HL: Haberland & Lamberti, Hlw.: Hellwig, Hmb.: Homburger, HRV: Heine & Rottland & Voßen, Hyw.: Hayward, IS: Illic-Svityc, JA: Jungraithmayr & Adams, JI: Jungraithmayr & Ibriszimow, Jng.: Jungraithmayr, Jns.: Johnstone, Jst.: Justinard, KB: Koehler & Baumgartner, KM: Kießling & Mous, Kmr.: Kammerzell, Krf.: Kraft, Ksm.: Kossmann, Lks.: Lukas, Lmb.: Lamberti, Lnf.: Lanfry, LS: Lamberti & Sottile, Lsl.: Leslau, Lst.: Laoust, MB: Meyer-Bahlburg, Mch.: Mouchet, Mkr.: Mukarovsky, Mlt.: Militarev, Mnh.: Meinhof, MQK: Mous & Qorro & Kießling, Mrc.: Mercier, Mrn.: Moreno, MSkn.: M. Skinner, Mts.: Matsushita, Ncl.: Nicolas, Nct.: Nachtigal, Nhl.: Nehlil, NM: Newman & Ma, Ntg.: Netting, Nwm.: Newman, Old.: Ol'derogge, OS: Orel & Stolbova, PAM: Prasse, Alojaly, Mohamed, PB: Plazikowsky-Brauner, PG: Pillinger & Galboran, PH: Parker & Hayward, Pls.: Pilszczikowa, Prd.: Paradisi, Prs.: Prasse, RK: Reutt & Kogan, Rn.: Reinisch, Rns.: Renisio, Rpr.: Roper, Rsg.: Rossing, Rsl.: Rössler, Sbr.: Siebert, Scn.: Sachnine, Skn.: N. Skinner, Smz.: Shimizu, Snk.: Schenkel, Spg.: Spiegelberg, Srl.: Sirlinger, SSL: Simeone-Senelle & Lonnet, Stl.: Stolbova, Str.: Strümpell, Strm.: Stroomer, Sts.: Starostin, TC: Taïne-Cheikh, Tf.: Taïfi, Trb.: Trombetti, Trn.: Tourneux, TSL: Tourneux & Seignobos & Lafarge, Vcl.: Vycichl, Vrg.: Vergote, Wdk.: Wedekind, Wlf.: Wölfel, WP: Walde & Pokorny, Wst.: Westendorf, Wtl.: Whiteley, Zbr.: Zaborski, Zhl.: Zyhlarz, Zvd.: Zavadovskij.

References

Abel, Hans. 1933-4. Nubisch-ägyptisches Sprachgut. Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen 24: 303-306.

Abès, Mohamed. 1916. Manuel de berbère marocain. (Place not indicated), (publisher not indicated).

Abraham, R. C. 1962. Dictionary of the Hausa Language.2 London, University of London Press.

Abraham, R. C. 1964. Somali-English Dictionary.2 London, University of London Press Ltd.

AÄG = Edel, Elmar. 1955. Altägyptische Grammatik. Roma, Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.

AHW = Soden, Wolfram von. 1965-1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. I-III. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz.

Albright, William Foxwell. 1918. Notes on Egypto-Semitic Etymology. I. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 34/2, 81-98.

Albright, William Foxwell. 1918. Notes on Egypto-Semitic Etymology. II. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 34/4, 215-255.

Albright, William Foxwell. 1923. The Principles of Egyptian Phonological Development. Recueil de Travaux Relatifs à la Philologie et à l'Archéologie Égyptiennes et Assyriennes 40, 64-70.

Albright, William Foxwell. 1923. The Etymology of Egyptian hm.t "Woman". Recueil de Travaux Relatifs à la Philologie et à l'Archéologie Égyptiennes et Assyriennes 40, 71-72.

Albright, William Foxwell. 1926. The New Cuneiform Vocabulary of Egyptian Words. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 12, 186-190.

Albright, William Foxwell. 1927. Notes on Egypto-Semitic Etymology. III. Journal of the American Oriental Society 47, 198-237.

Albright, William Foxwell. 1931. Review of Ember, A.: Egypto-Semitic Studies. Language 7/2, 147-150.

Alemayehu, Abebe. 1993. Ometo Dialect Survey — A Pilot Survey Report. Survey of Little-Known Languages of Ethiopia (S.L.L.E.) Reports 4, 1-10.

Alio, Khalil. 2004. Préliminaires à une étude de la langue kajakse d'Am-Dam, de Toram du Salamaat, d'ubi du Guéra et de masmaje du Batha-est. In: Takacs, G. (ed.): Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies in Memoriam Werner Vycichl. Leiden, E. J. Brill. Pp. 229-285.

Allan, Edward J. 1976. Dizi. In: Bender, M. L. (ed.): The Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia. East Lansing, Michigan State University. Pp. 377-392.

Almkvist, Herman. 1885. Die Bischari-Sprache Tü-Bedäwie in Nordost-Afrika. Zweiter Band: Bischari-deutsches und deutsch-bischarisches Wörterbuch. Uppsala, Akademische Buchdruckerei.

Appleyard, David. 1991. The Vowel Systems of Agaw: Reconstruction and Historical Inferences. In: Mukarovsky, Hans G. (ed.): Proceedings of the Fifth International Hamito-Semitic Congress. Band II. Wien, Afro-Pub. Pp. 13-28.

Appleyard, David. 1991. A Comparative Agaw Wordlist. MS. London, 13 p.

Appleyard, David. 2006. A Comparative Dictionary of the Agaw Languages. Köln, Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.

ÄWb I = Hannig, Rainer. 2003. Ägyptisches Wörterbuch I. Altes Reich und Erste Zwischenzeit. Hannig-Lexica 4. Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

ÄWb II = Hannig, Rainer. 2006. Ägyptisches Wörterbuch II. Mittleres Reich und Zweite Zwischenzeit. I-II. Hannig-Lexica 5. Mainz am Rhein, Veriag Phiiipp von Zabern.

Bargery, G. P. 1934. A Hausa-English Dictionary and English-Hausa Vocabulary Compiled for the Government of Nigeria. London, Oxford University Press, Humphrey Miiford.

Barreteau, Daniei. 1988. Description du mofu-gudur. Langue de la famille tchadique parlée au Cameroun. Livre II. Lexique. Paris, Éditions de i'ORSTOM.

Barreteau, Daniei & Jungraithmayr, Herrmann. 1993. Caicuis iexicostatistiques et giottochronoiogiques sur ies iangues tchadiques. In: Barreteau, Daniei & Graffenried, Ch. von (éds.): Datation et chronologie dans le bassin du Lac Tchad (Dating and Chronology in the Lake Chad Basin). Paris, Éditions de i'ORSTOM. Pp. 103140.

Barton, George Aaron. 1934. Semitic and Hamitic Origins. Social and Religious. Phiiadeiphia, University of Pennsyi-vania Press.

Behnk, Frida. 1927. Lexikaiische Beiträge zur ägyptisch-semitischen Sprachvergieichung. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 62, 80-83.

Behnk, Frida. 1928. Über die Beziehungen des Ägyptischen zu den hamitischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 82, 136-141.

Beiova, Anna Grigor'evna. 1989. Refieksy semitskih sibiijantov v drevneegipetskom. Meroé 4, 9-21.

Bender, Marvin Lionei. 1970. Kunfel 100-Item Basic Word List (Investigator: T. Birru, Z. Adai). MS. Carbondaie, Iiii-nois. 6 p.

Bender, Marvin Lionei. 1971. The Languages of Ethiopia. A New Lexicostatistic Ciassification and Some Probiems of Diffusion. Anthropological Linguistics 13/5, 165-288.

Bender, Marvin Lionei. 1973. Awiya Basic Elicitation Form for Linguistic Fieldwork in Ethiopia (Investigator: Robert Hetzron). MS. Carbondaie, Iiiinois. 12 p.

Bender, Marvin Lionei. 1974. Word and Phrase List for Fieldwork in Western Ethiopia. Chara I. MS.

Bender, Marvin Lionei. 1975. Omotic: A New Afroasiatic Language Family. Carbondaie, Iiiinois, Southern Iiiinois University.

Bender, Marvin Lionei. 1983. Remnant Languages of Ethiopia and Sudan. In: Bender, Marvin Lionei (ed.): Nilo-Saharan Language Studies. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University. Pp. 336-354.

Bender, Marvin Lionei. 1994. Aroid (South Omotic) Lexicon. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 38, 133-162.

Bender, Marvin Lionei. 1994. The Mystery Languages of Ethiopia. In: Marcus, Haroid (ed.): New Trends in Ethiopian Studies. Voi. 1. Lawrenceviiie, Red Sea Press. Pp. 1153-1174.

Biberstein Kazimirski, A. de. 1860. Dictionnaire arabe-français. Voi. I-II. Paris, Maisonneuve & Co. Editeurs.

Birru, Teqebba; Adai, Zena; Cowiey, R. W. 1971. The Kunfäi Peopie and Their Language. Journal of Ethiopian Studies 9/2, 99-106.

Biachère, Régis; Chouémi, Moustafa; Denizeau, Ciaude; Peiiat, Charies (à partir de de ia page 2155). 1967-1976. Dictionnaire arabe-français-anglais (Langue classique et moderne). Tome I-III. Paris, Maisonneuve et Larose.

Biack, Paui D. 1974. Lowland East Cushitic: Subgrouping and Reconstruction. Ph.D. dissertation. Yaie University.

Biazek, Vaciav. 1987. Afrasian Numerals. MS. Paper prepared for the 5th Internationai Hamito-Semitic Congress, Vienna.

Biazek, Vaciav. 1989. Lexica Nostratica. Addenda et Corrigenda I. Archiv Orientâlni 57, 201-210.

Biazek, Vaciav. 1989. A New Contribution to Comparative-Historicai Afrasian Linguistics. Asian and African Studies 24, 203-222.

Biazek, Vaciav. 1990. A Comparative-Etymoiogicai Approach to Afrasian Numerais. In: Mukarovsky, Hans G. (ed.): Proceedings of the Fifth International Hamito-Semitic Congress. Voi. I. Vienna, Afro-Pub. Pp. 29-44.

Biazek, Vaciav. 1991. The Fifth Internationai Hamito-Semitic Congress (Vienna, 28 September — 2 October 1987). Asian and African Studies 26, 201-210.

Biazek, Vaciav. 1993. The Microsystem of Cushitic Numerals. MS. Paper presented at the 23rd CALL, Leiden, September 11 p.

Biazek, Vaciav. 1997. Indo-European "Seven". In: Hegedüs, Irén; Michaiove, Peter A.; Manaster Ramer, Aiexis (eds.): Indo-European, Nostratic, and Beyond: Festschrift for Vitalij V. Shevoroshkin. Washington D.C., Institute for the Study of Man. Pp. 9-29.

Biazek, Vaciav. 1999. Numerals. Comparative-Etymological Analyses and Their Implications. Brno, Masarykova Univerzita v Brnë.

Blazek, Vaclav. 1999. Egyptian Numerals. In: Lamberti, Marcello & Tonelli, Livia (eds.): Afroasiatica Tergestina. Papers from the 9th Italian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) Linguistics, Trieste, April 23-24, 1998. Contributi presentati al 9o Incontro di Linguistica Afroasiatica (Camito-Semitica), Trieste, 23-24 Aprile 1998. Padova, Unipress. Pp. 229-264.

Bomhard, Allan R. 1988. Peresmotr indoevropejsko-semitskoj gipotezy. In: Novoe v zarubeznoj lingvistike. Vypusk XXI. Novoe v sovremennoj indoevropistike. Moskva, Progress. Pp. 433-450.

Brauner 1950, cf. Plazikowsky-Brauner.

Bravmann, Max M. 1977. Studies in Semitic Philology. Leiden, E.J. Brill.

Brockelmann, Carl. 1907/1908. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. I. Band: Laut- und Formenlehre. Berlin, Verlag von Reuther & Reichardt.

Brugnatelli, Vermondo. 1982. Questioni di morfologia e sintassi dei numerali semitici. Firenze, Publicazioni della Fac-ultà di Lettre e Filosofia dell'Università di Milano.

Brugnatelli, Vermondo. 1984. Some Remarks on Semitic Numerals and the Ebla Texts. In: Fronzaroli, P. (ed.): Studies on the Language of Ebla. Firenze, Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, Università di Firenze. Pp. 8599.

Caïtucoli, Claude. 1983. Lexique masa. Paris, Agence de Coopération Culturelle et Technique.

Caprile, Jean-Pierre. 1975. Lexique tumak-français (Tchad). Berlin, Verlag von Dietrich Reimer.

Cerulli, Enrico. 1929. Note su alcune popolazioni sidämä dell'Abissinia meridionale II: i Sidama dell'Omo. In: Ri-vista degli Studi Orientali 12, 1-69.

Cerulli, Enrico. 1936. Studi etiopici. I. La lingua e la storia di Harar. Roma, Istituto per l'Oriente.

Cerulli, Enrico. 1938. Studi etiopici. III. Il linguaggio dei Giangero ed alcune lingue Sidama dell'Omo (Basketo, Ciara, Zaissè). Roma, Istituto per l'Oriente.

Cerulli, Enrico. 1942. Il linguaggio degli Amar Cocche e quello degli Arbore nella zona del lago Stefania. In: Ras-segna di Studi Etiopici 2/3, 260-272.

Cerulli, Enrico. 1951. Studi etiopici. IV. La lingua caffina. Roma, Istituto per l'Oriente.

Chiomio, G. 1938. Brevi appunti di lingua uollamo (A.O.I.): Grammatica e dizionario. Torino, Istituto Missione Conso-lata.

Cohen, Marcel. 1947. Essai comparatif sur le vocabulaire et la phonétique du chamito-sémitique. Paris, Librairie Ancienne Honore Champion.

Conti, Giovanni. 1978. Rapporti tra egiziano e semitico nel lessico egiziano dell'agricoltura. Firenze, Istituto di Linguis-tica e di Lingue Orientali, Università di Firenze.

Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1912. La langue des Kemant en Abyssinie. Wien, Alfred Hölder.

Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1913., Schizzo del dialetto saho dell'alta Assaorta in Eritrea. Roma, Tipografia della R. Accademia dei Lincei.

Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1913. Studi su populazioni dell'Etiopia. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 6, 365-426.

Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1925. Sui linguaggi dei Naa e dei Ghimirra (Sce) nell'Etiopia Meridionale. Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, ser. VI, vol. 1, 512-636.

Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1927. Sui linguaggi parlati a nord dei Laghi Rodolfo e Stefania. In: Festschrift C. Meinhof. Sprachwissenschaftliche und andere Studien. Hamburg, Pp. 247-255.

Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1937. Contributi per la conoscenza della lingua Haruro (Isole del Lago Margherita). Rendiconti della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, Ser. VI, vol. XII, fasc. 7-10, 621-679.

CT = Buck, Adrian de. 1935-1961. The Egyptian Coffin Texts. Vol. I-VII. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Dallet, le P. Jean-Marie. 1982. Dictionnaire qabyle-français. Parler des At Mangellat (Algerie). Paris, SELAF (Société d'études linguistiques et anthropologiques de France).

DCT = Molen, Rami van der. 2000. A Hieroglyphic Dictionary of Egyptian Coffin Texts. Leiden, E.J. Brill.

DED = Burrow, Thomas; Emeneau, Murray Barnson. 1961. A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

DELC = Vycichl, Werner. 1983. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte. Leuven, Peeters.

Derchain-Urtel, Maria Theresia. 1973. Das n- Präfix im Ägyptischen. Göttinger Miszellen 6, 39-54.

Destaing, Edmond. 1938. Vocabulaire français-berbère (tachelhit du Soûs). Paris, Éditions Ernest Leroux.

DG = Erichsen, Wolja. 1954. Demotisches Glossar. Koppenhagen, Ejnar Munksgaard.

D'jakonov, Igor' Mihajlovic. 1965. Semitohamitskie jazyki. Opyt klassifikacii. Moskva, Nauka.

Diakonoff, Igor. 1974. Hamito-Semitic Languages. In: Encyclopaedia Britannica.15 Macropaedia. Volume 22. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Pp. 740-748.

D'jakonov, Igor' Mihajlovic. 1986. Obsceafrazijskie imennye kategorii. In: Pis'mennye pamjatniki i problemy istorii kul'tury narodov Vostoka. XIX godicnaja naucnaja sessija LO IV AN SSSR. Moskva, Nauka. Pp. 47-62.

Diakonoff, Igor. 1988. Afrasian Languages. Moscow, Nauka.

Djibrine, Bada Adoum Zaid; Montgolfier, Paul de (et beaucoup d'autres). Around 1973 (publication year deduced by G. Takács). Vocabulaire dangaléat. Kawo daqla. Place not indicated, publisher not indicated.

DLE = Lesko, Leonard H. 1982-9. A Dictionary of Late Egyptian. Vol. I-IV. Berkeley, B.C. Scribe Publications.

Dolgopol'skij, Aron Borisovic. 1966. Materialy po sravnitel'no-istoriceskoj fonetike kusitskih jazykov. Gubnye i dental'nye smycnye v nacal'nom polozenii. In: Uspenskij, B. A. (ed.): Jazyki Afriki. Voprosy struktury, istorii i tipologii. Moskva, Nauka. Pp. 35-88.

Dolgopolski, Aharon. 1967. La permutation des *m et *b initiaux dans les racines couchitiques. In: Il Congrès International des Africanistes. Communications de la délégation de l'URSS. Moscou, Nauka. Pp. 3-17.

Dolgopol'skij, Aron Borisovic. 1967. Nostraticeskie osnovy s socetaniem sumnyh soglasnyh. In: Étimologija, 296313.

Dolgopol'skij, Aron Borisovic. 1973. Sravnitel'no-istoriceskaja fonetika kusitskih jazykov. Moskva, Nauka.

Dolgopolsky, Aharon. 1983. Semitic and East Cushitic. Sound Correspondences and Cognate Sets. In: Segert, Stanislav & Bodrogligeti, A. J. E. (eds.): Ethiopian Studies Dedicated to Wolf Leslau. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz. Pp. 123-142.

Dolgopolsky, Aharon. 1986. Semitic Nomina Segolata in Ethiopic. In: Goldenberg, G. (ed.): Ethiopian Studies: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, Tel Aviv, April 1980. Rotterdam, Boston, Balkema. Pp. 71-90.

Dolgopolsky, Aharon. 1988. Semitic and East Cushitic: Word-Initial Laryngeals. In: Taddese, B. (ed.): Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, University of Addis Ababa, 1984. Volume 1. Addis Ababa, Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa. Pp. 629-637.

Dombrowski, Franz Amadeus & Dombrowski, Bruno W. W. 1991. Numerals and Numeral Systems in the Hamito-Semitic and Other Language Groups. In: Kaye, A. S. (ed.): Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau. Volume I. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz. Pp. 340-381.

Doornbos, Paul; Bender, Marvin Lionel. 1983. Languages of Wadai-Darfur. In: Bender, Marvin Lionel (ed.): Nilo-Saharan Language Studies. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University. Pp. 43-79.

DRB = Naït-Zerrad, Kamal. Since 1998. Dictionnaire des racines berbères. Leuven & Paris, Peeters.

DUL = Olmo Lete, Gregorio del & Sanmartín, Joaquín. 2003. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Part One [?(a/i/u)-k]. Part Two [l-z]. Leiden, E.J. Brill.

EA = Knudtzon, J. A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln. I-II. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung.

EDE I = Takács, Gábor. 1999. Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Volume One: A Phonological Introduction. Leiden, E. J. Brill.

EDE II = Takács, Gábor. 2001. Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Volume Two: b-, p-, f-. Leiden, E. J. Brill.

Edel, Elmar. 1955., Altägyptische Grammatik. Roma, Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.

Edel, Elmar. 1975. Beiträge zum ägyptischen Lexikon VI. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 102, 13-30.

Edel, Elmar. 1975. Zur Deutung des Keilschriftvokabulars EA 368 mit ägyptischen Wörtern. Göttinger Miszellen 15, 11-16.

Edel, Elmar. 1980. Neue Deutungen keilschriftlicher Umschreibungen ägyptischer Wörter und Personennamen.

Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 375, 1-48.

Ehret, Christopher. 1980. The Historical Reconstruction of Southern Cushitic Phonology and Vocabulary. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Ehret, Christopher & Nuuh Ali, Mohamed. 1984. Soomaali Classification. In: Labahn, Thomas (ed.): Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Somali Studies. Vol. 1. Hamburg, Buske Verlag. Pp. 201-269.

Ehret, Christopher. 1987. Proto-Cushitic Reconstruction. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 8.

Ehret, Christopher. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian). Vowels, Tone, Consonants, and Vocabulary. Berkeley, Los Angeles, California, University of California.

Ehret, Christopher. 1997. (Additions to the Afroasiatic reconstructions.) MS. Los Angeles, California, 522 p.

Ember, Aaron. 1911. Semito-Egyptian Sound Changes. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 49, 87-92.

Ember, Aaron. 1912. Notes on the Relation of Egyptian and Semitic. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 50, 86-90.

Ember, Aaron. 1914. Several Semito-Egyptian Particles. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 28/2-4, 302-306.

Ember, Aaron. 1917. Kindred Semito-Egyptian Words (New Series). Continued from Vol. 51 pp. 110-121. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 53, 83-90.

Ember, Aaron. 1926. Partial Assimilation in Old Egyptian. In: Adler, Cyrus & Ember, Aaron (eds.): Oriental Studies Published in Commemoration of the Fortieth Anniversary (1883-1923) of Paul Haupt as the Director of the Oriental Seminary of the Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Pp. 300-312.

Erman, Adolf. 1892. Das Verhältnis des Ägyptischen zu den semitischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 46, 93-129.

ESS = Ember, Aaron. 1930. Egypto-Semitic Studies. Leipzig, The Alexander Cohut Memorial Foundation.

Faber, Alice. 1984. Semitic Sibilants in an Afro-Asiatic Context. Journal of Semitic Studies 29/2, 189-224.

Farina, Giulio. 1924. Le vocali dell'antico egiziano. Aegyptus 5/4, 313-325.

Farina, Giulio. 1926. Grammatica della lingua egiziana antica in caratteri geroglifici.2 Milano, U. Hoepli.

FD = Faulkner, Raymond Oliver. 1962. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Fédry, Jacques (avec la collaboration de Khamis, Jonas & o'Nedjei, Moussa). 1971. Dictionnaire dangaleat (Tchad). Thése de 3ème cycle, Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales. Lyon, Afrique et Langage.

Fleming, Harold C. 1976. Omotic Overview. In: Bender, Marvin Lionel (ed.): The Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia. East Lansing, Michigan State University. Pp. 299-323.

Fleming, Harold C. 2000. The Eight "Blood" Etymologies in Afrasian (pp. 1-4). The Two Two "Bone" Etymologies in Afrasian (pp. 4-6). Dominant "Four" and a Somewhat Lesser One (pp. 6-7). Stone, Sand, and Sometimes Mountain (pp. 7-9). Tooth and Sometimes Bite & Chew (pp. 9-11). Tongue and Its Actions, especially Lick (pp. 11-14). Bonus Etymology: Lightning or Bright, Shiny or Flash, Ray (pp. 14-16). MS. Presented at the 28th NACAL (Portland, Oregon, 10-12 March 2000). 16 p.

Foucauld, Charles de. 1951-2. Dictionnaire touareg-français, dialecte de l'Ahaggar. Vol. I-IV. Paris, Imprimerie Nationale de France.

Foulkes, H. D. 1915. Angass Manual. Grammar, Vocabulary. London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co.

Gabelentz, G. von der (herausgegeben nach dem hinterlassenen Manuscripte durch Dr. A.C. Graf von der Schulenburg). 1894. Die Verwandtschaft des Baskischen mit den Berbersprachen Nord-Africas nachgewiesen von G.v.d. Gabelentz. Braunschweig, Verlag von Richard Sattler.

Garbini, G. 1972. Le lingue semitiche. Studi di storia linguistica. Napoli, Istituto Orientale di Napoli.

GÄSW = Calice, Franz von. 1936. Grundlagen der ägyptisch-semitischen Wortvergleichung. Wien, Selbstverlag des Orientalischen Institutes der Universität Wien.

GB = Gesenius, Wilhelm (bearbeitet von Buhl, Frants). 1962. Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testment. Unveränderter Neudruck der 1915 erschienenen 17. Auflage. Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.

GD = Landberg, Le Comte de. 1920-1942. Glossaire datînois. Vol. I-III. Leiden, E.J. Brill.

Gordon, Cyrus H. 1988. West Semitic Factors in Eblaite. In: Arbeitman, Yoël L. (ed.): Fucus. A Semitic/Afrasian Gathering in Remembrance of Albert Ehrman. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, John Benjamins. Pp. 261-266.

Grande, Bencion Meerovic. 1972. Vvedenie v sravnitel'noe izucenie semitskih jazykov. Moskva, Nauka.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1947. Arabic Loan-Words in Hausa. Word 3, 85-97.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1950. The Patterning of Root Morphemes in Semitic. Word 6, 162-181.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1955. Studies in African linguistic Classification. Branford, Connecticut, Compass Publishing Company.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1958. The Labial Consonants of Proto-Afro-Asiatic. Word 14, 295-302.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1962. On the African Affiliation of Hebrew and the Semitic Languages. Jewish Social Studies 24, 79-85.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. The Languages of Africa. International Journal of American Linguistics 29.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1965. The Evidence for */mb/ as a Proto-Afroasiatic Phoneme. In: Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgie Kurylowicz. Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow, Widawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Pp. 88-92.

Grottanelli, Vinigi L. 1940. Missione etnografica nel Uollega occidentale. Volume primo. Roma, Reale Accademia d'Italia.

Grottanelli, Vinigi L. 1941. Gli Scinascia del Nilo Azzuro ed alcuni lessico poconoti della noro lingua. Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 1/3, 234-270.

Haberland, Eike & Lamberti, Marcello. 1988. Ibaaddo ka-Ba'iso. Culture and Language of the Ba'iso. Heidelberg, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Hayward, Richard J. 1982. Notes on the Koyra Language. Afrika und Übersee 65, 211-268.

Hayward, Dick (Richard J.) 1984. The Arbore Language: A First Investigation Including a Vocabulary. Hamburg, Heimut Buske Veriag.

Heine, Bernd. 1973. Vokabuiare ostafrikanischer Restsprachen. Teii I. Afrika und Übersee 56, 276-283.

Heine, Bernd. 1976. Notes on the Rendiiie Language. Afrika und Übersee 59, 176-223.

Heine, Bernd; Rottiand, Franz; Voßen, Rainer. 1979. Proto-Baz: Some Aspects of Eariy Niiotic-Cushitic Contacts. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 1, 75-91.

Heine, Bernd. 1980. The Non-Bantu Languages of Kenya. Beriin, Reimer.

Hodge, Carieton T. 1968. Some Afroasiatic Etymoiogies. Anthropological Linguistics 10/3, 19-29.

Hodge, Carieton T. 1976. An Egypto-Semitic Comparison. Folia Orientalia 17, 5-28.

Hodge, Carieton T. 1981. Comparative Evidence for Egyptian Historicai Phonoiogy. In: Young, D. W. (ed.): Studies Presented to Hans Yakob Polotsky. East Gioucester, Pirtie and Poison. Pp. 401-413.

Hodge, Carieton T. 1990. The Muitivaience of Hittite h. In: The Seventeenth LACUS Forum 1990. Lake Biuff, LACUS. Pp. 368-374.

Hodge, Carieton T. 1990. The Roie of Egyptian within Afroasiatic. In: Baidi, Ph. (ed.): Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology. Beriin, New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 639-659.

Hoffmann, Cari. 1970. Ancient Benue-Congo Loans in Chadic? Africana Marburgensia 3/2, 3-23.

Hoffmann, Cari. 1971. On the Ciassification of Nancere. Journal of West African Languages 8/1, 5-12.

Hoffmann, Cari. 1971. On the Position of Paduko. In: Actes du huitième congrès international de linguistique africaine. Abidjan, 24-28 Mars 1969. Voi. 1. Abidjan, Université d'Abidjan. Pp. 221-233.

Hoffmann, Cari. 1972. Masa and Kim. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 122, 180-219.

Hoffmann, Cari. 1975. Towards a Comparative Phonology of the Languages of the Angas-Goemai Group. MS. University of Ibadan, facuity seminar on 19 March 1975. 32 p.

Hoima, Harri. 1919. Zur semitisch-hamitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 32, 34-47.

Hoimer, Niis M.: The Semantics of Numerais. In: Arsbok 1963-4 (1966), 14-48.

Homburger, Liias. 1928. Notes sur queiques morphèmes communs à i'égyptien et aux iangues négro-africaines. Journal Asiatique 212, 323-345.

Hommei, Fritz. 1883. Die semitischen Völkern und Sprachen. Leipzig, Otto Schuize.

Hommei, Fritz. 1894. Über den Grad der Verwandtschaft des Aitägyptischen mit dem Semitischen. Beiträge zur As-syriologie 2, 342-358.

Hommei, Fritz. 1915. Miszeiien. In: Weii, G. (ed.): Festschrift Eduard Sachau zum siebzigsten Geburtstage gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern. Beriin, Veriag von Georg Reimer. Pp. 15-21.

HSED = Orei, Viadimir Émmanuiiovic & Stoibova, Oi'ga Vaier'evna. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden, E. J. Briii.

Ibriszimow, Dymitr. 1988. Some Remarks on Chadic Numerais. In: Möhiing, J. G. (ed.): Afrikanistische Beiträge zum XXIV. Deutschen Orientalistentag, 26.-30. September 1988. Köin, Institut für Afrikanistik. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere, Tagungsband, XXIV. Deutschen Orientalistentag (1988), 64-74.

Ibriszimow, Dymitr. 1990. Towards a Common Chadic Lexicon. Zeszyty Naukowe Universytetu Jagiellonskiego. Prace jçzykoznawcze 102, 1-122.

IL = Institute of Linguistics. 1972. Bauchi Area Survey Report presented by N. Campbeii and J. Hoskison. MS. Zaria.

Iiiic-Svityc, Viadisiav Markovic. 1964. Drevnejsie indoevropejsko-semitskie jazykovye kontakty. In: Toporov, Viadimir Nikoiayevic (red.): Problemy indoevropejskogo jazykoznanija. Moskva, Nauka. Pp. 3-12.

Iiiic-Svityc, Viadisiav Markovic. 1966. Iz istorii cadskogo konsonantizma. Labiai'nye smycnye. In: Uspenskij, Boris Andreevic (red.): Jazyki Afriki. Voprosy struktury, istorii i tipologii. Moskva, Nauka. Pp. 9-34.

Iiiic-Svityc, Viadisiav Markovic. 1976. Opyt sravnenija nostraticeskih jazykov (semitohamitskij, kartvel'skij, indoevrope-jskij, ural'skij, dravidijskij, altajskij). Sravnitel'nyj slovar' (l-j). Ukazateii. Moskva, Nauka.

Johnstone, Thomas Muir. 1977. Harsüsi Lexicon. London, Oxford University Press.

Johnstone, Thomas Muir. 1981. Jibbali Lexicon. London, Oxford University Press.

Johnstone, Thomas Muir. 1987. Mehri Lexicon. London, University of London.

Jungraithmayr, Herrmann. 1961. Beobachtungen zur tschadohamitischen Sprache der Jegu (und Jonkor) von Abu Teifan (Repubiique du Tchad). Afrika und Übersee 45, 95-123.

Jungraithmayr, Herrmann. 1965. Materiaien zur Kenntnis des Chip, Montoi, Gerka und Burrum (Südpiateau, Nordnigerien). Afrika und Übersee 48, 161-183.

Jungraithmayr, Herrmann. 1973. Masa (Bongor) Lexicon. MS. Marburg (now in Frankfurt).

Jungraithmayr, Herrmann. 1977. Kofa Wordlist. MS. 18 p.

Jungraithmayr, Herrmann & Shimizu, Kiyoshi. 1981. Chadic Lexical Roots. Vol. II. Tentative Reconstruction, Grading and Distribution. Berlin, Verlag von Dietrich Reimer.

Jungraithmayr, Herrmann. 1982. Chadic within Hamitosemitic or between Hamitosemitic and Nigritic? In: Jungraithmayr, Herrmann (ed.): The Chad Languages in the Hamitosemitic-Nigritic Border Area. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Pp. 3-8.

Jungraithmayr, Herrmann. 1990. Lexique mokilko. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Jungraithmayr, Herrmann. 1990. Lexique mubi-français (Tchad oriental). MS. Frankfurt a/M, 50 p.

Jungraithmayr, Herrmann & Ibriszimow, Dymitr. 1994. Chadic Lexical Roots. Volume I. Tenative Reconstruction, Grading, Distribution and Comments. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Jungraithmayr, Herrmann & Ibriszimow, Dymitr. 1994. Chadic Lexical Roots. Volume II. Documentation. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Jungraithmayr, Herrmann. 2004. Das Birgit, eine osttschadische Sprache — Vokabular und grammatische Notizen. In: Takacs, Gabor (ed.): Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies in Memoriam Werner Vycichl. Leiden, E. J. Brill. Pp. 342-371.

Kammerzell, Frank. 1994. Panther, Löwe und Sprachentwicklung im Neolithikum. Bemerkungen zur Etymologie des ägyptischen Theonyms Mfd.t, zur Bildung einiger Raubtiernamen im Ägyptischen und zu einzelnen Grosskatzenbezeichnungen indoeuropäischer Sprachen. Göttingen, Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie.

Kammerzell, Frank. 1994. Zur Etymologie des ägyptischen Zahlworts "4". Lingua Aegyptia 4, 165-189.

Kane, Thomas Leiper. 1990. Amharic-English Dictionary. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag.

KB = Koehler, Ludwig & Baumgartner, Walter. 1994-2000. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. I-V. Leiden, E. J. Brill.

KHW = Westendorf, Wolfhart. 1977. Koptisches Handwörterbuch. Heidelberg, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Kießling, Roland & Mous, Maarten. 2004. The Lexical Reconstruction of West-Rift Southern Cushitic. Kuschitische Sprachstudien, Band 21. Köln, Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.

Klein, Ernest. 1987. A Comprehensive Eymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English. New York, Macmillan.

Korostovcev, Mihail Aleksandrovic. 1963. Vvedenie v egipetskuju filologiju. Moskva, Izdatel'stvo Vostocnoj Litera-tury.

Kossmann, Maarten. 1999. Essai sur la phonologie du proto-berbère. Köln, Köppe.

Kraft, Charles H. 1972. Gude-Dialekte. MS.

Kraft, Charles H. 1981. Chadic Wordlists. Vol. I-III. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Lacau, Pierre. 1970. Les noms des parties du corps en égyptien et en sémitique. Paris, Librairie C. Klincksieck.

Lacau, Pierre. 1970. Études d'Égyptologie. I. Phonétique égyptienne ancienne. Le Caire, IFAO.

Lambdin, Thomas Oden. 1958. The Bivalence of Coptic eta and Related Problems in the Vocalization of Egyptian. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 17, 177-193.

Lamberti, Marcello. 1993. Die Shinassha-Sprache. Materialien zum Boro. Heidelberg, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Lamberti, Marcello. 1993. Materialien zum Yemsa. Heidelberg, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Lamberti, Marcello. 1993. The Ari-Banna Group and Its Classification. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 22/1, 39-87.

Lamberti, Marcello. 1993. Some Phonetic Laws of the Gonga Languages. Second Part. Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 37 (1993), 89-114.

Lamberti, Marcello & Sottile, Roberto. 1997. The Wolaytta Language. Köln, Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.

Lane, Edward William. 1863-1893. An Arabic-English Lexicon. Vol. I-VIII. London, Edinburgh, Williams and Nor-gate.

Lanfry, Jacques. 1973. Ghadames. II. Glossaire. Alger, Le Fichier Periodique.

Lang, Karl. 1923-4. Die Etymologie des Wortes "Pyramide". Anthropos 18-19, 551-553.

Laoust, Émile. 1931. Siwa. I. Son parlier. Paris, Librairie Ernest Leroux.

LÄ = Helck, Wolfgang & Westendorf, Wolfhart (Hrsg., begründet von Wolfgang Helck und Eberhard Otto). 19751992. Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Band I-VII. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

Lefébvre, Gustave. 1955. Grammaire de l'égyptien classique.2 Le Caire, Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, Le Caire.

Lesiau, Woif. 1931-4. Expiications et rapprochements à propos de queiques éiéments du vocabuiaire mehri. In:

Comptes-Rendues du Groupe Linguistique d'Études Chamito-Sémitiques 1, 35-38.

Lesiau, Woif. 1938. Lexique soqotri (sudarabique moderne), avec comparaisons et explications étymologiques. Paris, Librairie C. Kiincksieck.

Lesiau, Woif. 1945. Gafat Documents. Records of a South-Ethiopic Language. Grammar, Text and Comparative Vocabulary. New Haven, Connecticut, American Orientai Society.

Lesiau, Woif. 1959. A Dictionary of Moca (Southwestern Ethiopia). Berkeiey, Los Angeies, University of Caiifornia Press.

Lesiau, Woif. 1962. Semitic and Egyptian Comparisons. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21, 44-49.

Lesiau, Woif. 1963. Etymological Dictionary of Harari. Berkeiey, Los Angeies, University of Caiifornia.

Lesiau, Woif. 1979. Etymological Dictionary of Gurage (Ethiopic). Vol. III. Etymological Section. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz.

Lesiau, Woif. 1987. Comparative Dictionary of Geîez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz.

Lexa, Frantisek. 1922. Comment se revèient ies rapports entre ies iangues hamitiques, sémitiques et ia iangue égyptienne dans ia grammaire des pronoms personneis, des verbes et dans ies numéraux cardinaux 1-9. Phi-lologica 1, 151-177.

Lexa, Frantisek. 1938. Déveioppement de ia iangue ancienne égyptienne. Archiv Orientâlni 10, 215-272.

Lipinski, Edward. 1997. Semitic Languages. Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Leuven, Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies.

Loprieno, Antonio. 1986. Zahiwort. In: Lexikon der Ägyptologie VI, 1306-1319.

Loprieno, Antonio. 1994. Zu einigen Phänomenen ägyptischer Phonoiogie. In: Behimer, Heike (Hrsg.): Quaerentes Scientiam. Festgabe für Wolfhart Westendorf zu seinem 70. Geburtstag überreicht von seinen Schülern. Göttingen, Hubert & Co. Pp. 119-131.

Loprieno, Antonio. 1995. Ancient Egyptian. A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Lukas, Johannes. 1937. Zentraisudanische Studien. In: Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet der Auslandskunde, Hansische Universität, Reihe B, Band 45/24.

Lukas, Johannes. 1941. Deutsche Quellen zur Sprache der Musgu in Kamerun. Beriin, Dietrich Reimer Veriag.

Lukas, Johannes. 1966. Tschadohamitische Sprachproben aus Nordnigerien (Karekare- und Boianci-Texte). In: Lukas, Johannes (Hrsg.): Neue afrikanistische Studien. Hamburg, Deutsches Institut für Afrika-Forschung. Pp. 173-207.

Lukas, Johannes. 1977. Tschadische Studien I. Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Mokuiu. Afrika und Übersee 60, 1-58, 182229.

MacDonaid, John. 1963-5. New Thoughts on the Biiiterai Origin for the Semitic Verb. The Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society 5, 63-85.

Matsushita, Shuji. 1972. An Outline of Gwandara Phonemics and Gwandara-English Vocabulary. Tokyo, Tokyo Press.

Meinhof, Cari. 1906. Linguistische Studien in Ostafrika. Fortsetzung. Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen 9, 278-333.

Meinhof, Cari. 1907. Linguistische Studien in Ostafrika. Fortsetzung. Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen 10, 90-123.

Meinhof, Cari. 1912. Die Sprachen den Hamiten. Hamburg, Friedrichsen & Co.

Mercier, Gustave. 1933. La numération iibyenne. Journal Asiatique 222, 303-322.

Meyer-Bahiburg, Hiike. 1972 (?). Deutsch-Musgu: Nomina (Girvidig aufgenommen von J. Lukas in 1957-58, Pus aus dem Neuen Testament). MS. 11 p.

Meyer-Bahiburg, Hiike. 1972-3. Texte im Musgu von Girvidik (Nordkamerun). Afrika und Übersee 56, 61-71.

Miiitarev, Aieksandr Jur'evic & Stoibova, Oi'ga Vaier'evna. 1990. First Approach to Comparative-Historicai Pho-noiogy of Afrasian (Consonantism). In: Mukarovsky, Hans G. (ed.): Proceedings of the Fifth International Hamito-Semitic Congress. Band I. Wien, Afro-Pub. Pp. 45-72.

Miiitarev, Aieksandr Jur'evic. 1991., Neskoi'ko peredneaziatskih étimoiogij. In: Sarbatov, Grigorij Samiievic (red.): Irano-afrazijskie jazykovye kontakty. Vypusk 2. Moskva, Nauka. Pp. 72-77.

Miiitarev, Aieksandr Jur'evic. 1991. Guancskie jazyki. Fonetika. In: Soincev, Vadim Mihajiovic (red.): Jazyki Azii i Afriki. IV, kniga 2. Moskva, Giavnaja Redakcija Vostocnoj Literatury. Pp. 163-173.

Miiitarev, Aieksandr Jur'evic. 1991. Istoriceskaja fonetika i ieksika iivijsko-guancskih jazykov. In: Soincev, Vadim Mihajiovic (red.): Jazyki Azii i Afriki. IV, kniga 2. Moskva, Giavnaja Redakcija Vostocnoj Literatury. Pp. 238267.

Moreno, Martino Mario. 1938. Introduzione alla lingua ometo. Milano, Mondadori.

Moscati, Sabatino; Spitaler, Anton; Ullendorf, Edward; Soden, Wolfram von. 1964. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Phonology and Morphology.2 Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz.

Mouchet, Jean. 1950. Vocabulaires comparatifs de quinze parlers du Nord-Cameroun. Bulletin de la Société d'Études Camerounaises 29-30, 5-74.

Mouchet, Jean. 1966. Le parler daba: esquisse grammaticale précédée d'une note sur l'ethnie daba, suivie de lexiques daba-français et français-daba. Yaoundé, R.E.C.

Mukarovsky, Hans G. 1987. Mande-Chadic Common Stock. A Study of Phonological and Lexical Evidence. Wien, Afro-Pub.

Müller, W. Max. 1907. Ägyptische und semitische Umschreibungsfragen. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 10, 299305, 358-360.

Müller, W. Max. 1909. The False r in Archaic Egyptian Orthography. Recueil de Travaux Relatifs à la Philologie et à l'Archéologie Égyptiennes et Assyriennes 31 (NS 15), 182-201.

NBÄ = Osing, Jürgen. 1976. Die Nominalbildung des Ägyptischen. Band I-II. Maiz/Rhein, Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

Nehlil, Mohamed. 1909. Étude sur le dialecte de Ghat. Paris, Éditions Ernest Leroux.

Newman, Paul. 1964. A Word List of Tera. Journal of West African Languages 1/2, 33-50.

Newman, Paul & Ma, Roxana. 1966. Comparative Chadic: Phonology and Lexicon. Journal of African Languages 5/3, 218-251.

Newman, Paul. 1977. Chadic Classification and Reconstructions. Afroasiatic Linguistics 5/1, 1-42.

Nicolas, Francis J. 1953. La langue berbère de Mauritanie. Dakar, Institut Français d'Afrique Noire.

Oomen, Antoinette. 1981. Gender and Plurality in Rendille. Afroasiatic Linguistics 8/1, 35-75.

Orel, Vladimir Émmanuilovic & Stolbova, Ol'ga Vladimirovna. 1988. K rekonstrukcii praafrazijskogo vokalizma. 1-2. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 5, 66-83.

Orel, Vladimir Émmanuilovic & Stolbova, Ol'ga Vladimirovna. 1992. On Chadic-Egyptian Lexical Relations. In: Shevoroshkin, V. (ed.): Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, Austric and Amerind. Bochum, Brockmeyer. Pp. 181-203.

Parker, Enid M. & Hayward, Richard J. 1985. An Afar-English-French Dictionary (with Grammatical Notes in English). London, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Pillinger, Steve & Galboran, Letiwa. 1999. A Rendille Dictionary. Köln, Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.

Pilszczikowa, Nina. 1958. Contribution à l'étude des rapports entre le haoussa et les autres langues du groupe nigéro-tchadien. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 22/2, 75-99.

Plazikowsky-Brauner, Herma. 1950. Schizzo morfologico dello shinasha. Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 9, 65-83.

Plazikowsky-Brauner, Herma. 1963. Zahlen und Zahlensysteme in den sogenannten kuschitischen Sprachen. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 8/3, 466-483.

Prasse, Karl-G. 1969. A propos de l'origine de h touareg (tahaggart). Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 43/3.

Prasse, Karl-G. 1972. Manuel de grammaire touaregue. I-III. Phonétique — écriture — pronom. Copenhague, Université de Copenhague.

Prasse, Karl-G. 1974. Manuel de grammaire touaregue. IV-V. Nom. Copenhague, Akademisk Forlag.

Prasse, Karl-G.; Alojaly, Ghoubeïd; Mohamed, Ghabdouane. 1998. Lexique touareg-français. Copenhague, Museum Tusculanum Press, Université de Copenhague.

Prasse, Karl-G.; Alojaly, Ghoubeïd; Mohamed, Ghabdouane. 2003. Dictionnaire touareg-français (Niger). Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen.

PT = Sethe, Kurth. 1908-1910. Die altägyptischen Pyramidentexte. Band I-II. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung.

Reinisch, Leo. 1874. Die Barea-Sprache. Wien, Wilhelm Braumüller.

Reinisch, Leo. 1886. Die ÎAfar-Sprache. II. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Classe 113/2, 795-916.

Reinisch, Leo. 1888. Die Kafa-Sprache in Nordost-Afrika. II. Kafa-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Classe 116, 251-386.

Reinisch, Leo. 1890. Wörterbuch der Saho-Sprache. Wien, Alfred Hölder.

Reinisch, Leo. 1890 Das Zalwort vier und neun in den chamitisch-semitischen Sprachen. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Classe 121/12.

Reinisch, Leo. 1894. Die Bedawye-Sprache in Nordost-Afrika. III. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Classe 130/7, 1-80.

Reinisch, Leo. 1895., Wörterbuch der Bedawye-Sprache. Wien, Alfred Hölder Verlag.

Renisio, Amédée. 1932. Étude sur les dialectes berbères des Beni Iznassen, du Rif et des Senhaja de Sraïr. Grammaire, textes et lexique. Paris, Éditions Ernest Leroux.

Roper, E.-M. 1928. Tu Bedawie. An Elementary Handbook for the Use of Sudan Government Officials. Hertford, Stephen Austin & Sons.

Rossing, Meivin Oiaf. 1978. Mafa-Mada: A Comparative Study of Chadic Languages in North Cameroun. Ph.D. dissertation. Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Rössier, Otto. 1952. Der semitische Charakter der iibyschen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 50, 121-150.

Rössier, Otto. 1966. Das äitere ägyptische Umschreibungssystem für Fremdnamen und seine sprachwissen-schaftiiche Lernen. In: Lukas, J. (ed.): Neue afrikanistische Studien. Hamburg, Deutsches Institut für AfrikaForschung. Pp. 218-229.

Rössier, Otto. 1971. Das Ägyptische ais semitische Sprache. In: Aitheim, F. & Stiehi, R. (Hrsg.): Christentum am Roten Meer. Band I. Beriin, New York, Waiter de Gruyter. Pp. 263-325.

Rundgren, Frithiof. 1961. Semitische Wortstudien. Orientalia Suecana 10, 99-136.

Sachnine, Michka. 1982. Dictionnaire lamé-français. Lexique français-lamé. Paris, SELAF.

Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1975. Gaiia /s/, /s/ und /f/. Afrika und Übersee 58, 244-263.

Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1976. Weiteres zu den ostkuschitischen Sibiianten. Afrika und Übersee 59, 125-142.

Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1979. The Consonant Phonemes of Proto-East-Cushitic (PEC). Afroasiatic Linguistics 7/1, 1-67.

Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1982. An Etymological Dictionary of Burji. Hamburg, Heimut Buske Veriag.

Schenkei, Woifgang. 1990. Einführung in die altägyptische Sprachwissenschaft. Orientalistische Einführungen in Gegenstand, Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Einzelgebiete. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgeseiischaft.

Schenkei, Woifgang. 1991. Tübinger Einführung in die kiassisch-ägyptische Sprache und Schrift. Tübingen, Universität Tübingen.

Schenkei, Woifgang. 1993. Zu den Verschiuss- und Reibeiauten im Ägyptischen und (Hamito)Semitischen. Ein Versuch zur Synthese der Lehrmeinungen. Lingua Aegyptia 3, 137-149.

Schenkei, Woifgang. 1997. Tübinger Einführung in die klassisch-ägyptische Sprache und Schrift. Tübingen, Universität Tübingen.

Schiee, Günther. 1978. Sprachliche Studien zum Rendille: Grammatik, Texte, Glossar. Hamburg, Heimut Buske Veriag.

Schuh, Russeii G. 1981. A Dictionary of Ngizim. Berkeiey, Caiifornia, University of Caiifornia.

Schuh, Russeii G. 1982. The Hausa Language and Its Nearest Reiatives. Harsunan Nijeriya 12, 1-24.

Schuh, Russeii G. 1984. West Chadic Vowei Correspondences. In: Bynon, J. (ed.): Current Progress in Afro-Asiatic Linguistics. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Pp. 167-223.

SD = Beeston, Aifred Feiix Landon; Ghui, Mahmud Aii; Müiier, Waiter W.; Ryckmans, Jacques. 1982. Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic). Dictionnaire sabéen (anglais-français-arabe). Louvain-ia-Neuve, Beyrouth, Peet-ers, Librairie du Liban.

SED I = Kogan, Leonid & Miiitarev, Aiexander (with assistance of Anna Beiova, Anatoiy Kovaiev, Adei Nemi-rovskaja, Denid Nosnitsyn). 2000. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. I. Anatomy of Man and Animals. Münster, Ugarit-Veriag.

Sethe, Kurt. 1911. Das Wort für König von Oberägypten. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 49, 15-34.

Sethe, Kurt. 1912. Das Wort für "Hand" im Ägyptischen und der Laut d. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 50, 91-99.

Sethe, Kurt. 1916. Von Zahlen und Zahlworten bei den alten Ägyptern und was für andere Völker und Sprachen daraus zu lernen ist. Strassburg, Kari J. Trübner.

Sethe, Kurt. 1927. Das Zahiwort "fünf". Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 62, 60-61.

Shimizu, Kiyoshi. 1978. The Southern Bauchi Group of Chadic Languages. A Survey Report. Africana Marburgen-sia. Special Issue 2, 1-50.

Siebert, Raiph. 1994. Languages of the Abbaya/Chamo Area — Report Part I (with Notes on Koorete by L. Hoeft). Survey of Little-Known Languages of Ethiopia (S.L.L.E.) Reports 21, 1-24.

Siebert, Raiph & Wedekind, Ciaus. 1994. Third S.L.L.E. Survey on Languages of the Begi/Asosa Area. Survey of Little-Known Languages of Ethiopia (S.L.L.E.) Reports 15, 1-19.

Skinner, Neii. 1977. North Bauchi Chadic Languages: Common Roots. Afroasiatic Linguistics 4/1, 1-49.

Skinner, Neii. 1980. Loans in Hausa and Pre-Hausa: Some Etymoiogies. In: Jungraithmayr, Herrmann (ed.): Berliner afrikanistische Vorträge. XXI. Deutscher Orientalistentag, Beriin, Beriin, 1981., Dietrich Reimer Veriag, 169-202.

Smith, Sidney; Gadd, Cyril John. 1925. A Cuneiform Vocabulary of Egyptian Words. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 11, 230-240.

Starostin, Sergej Anatol'evic; Dybo, Vladimir Antonovic; Dybo, Anna Vladimirovna; Helimsky, Evgenij Ana-tol'evic; Militarev, Aleksandr Jur'evic; Mudrak, Oleg Alekseevic; Starostin, Georgij Sergeevic. 1995. Basic Nostratic-Afrasian-Sino-Caucasian Lexical Correspondences. Preliminary working version. MS. Moscow.

Stolbova, Ol'ga Valer'evna. 1972. Soglasnye verhnezapadnocadskih jazykov. Geneticeskie sootvetstvija. In: Makaev, Énver Ahmedovic (red.): Istoriko-tipologiceskie i sinhronno-tipologiceskie issledovanija (na materiale jazykov raznyh sistem). Moskva, Institut Jazykoznanija Akademii Nauk SSSR.

Stolbova, Ol'ga Valer'evna. 1977. Materialy k sravnitel'noj fonetike afrazijskih jazykov (zapadnocadskie rekon-strukcii). In: Ivanov, Vjaceslav Vsevolodovic; Bulatova, Rimma Vladimirovna; Dybo, Vladimir Antonovic; Helimskij, Evgenij Arnol'dovic (red.): Konferencija "Nostraticeskie jazyki i nostraticeskoe jazykoznanie". Tezisy dokladov. Moskva, Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkanistiki Akademii Nauk SSSR. Pp. 64-65.

Stolbova, Ol'ga Valer'evna. 1977. Opyt rekonstrukcii verhnezapadnocadskih kornej. In: Jazyki zarubeznogo Vostoka. Sbornik statej. Moskva, Nauka. Pp. 152-160.

Stolbova, Ol'ga Valer'evna. 1987. Sravnitel'no-istoriceskaja fonetika i slovar' zapadnocadskih jazykov. In: Porho-movskij, Viktor Jakovlevic (red.): Afrikanskoe istoriceskoe jazykoznanie. Problemy rekonstrukcii. Moskva, Nauka. Pp. 30-268.

Stolbova, Ol'ga Valer'evna. 1996. Studies in Chadic Comparative Phonology. Moscow, "Diaphragma" Publishers.

Strümpell, Kurt (und Struck, Bernhard). 1910. Vergleichendes Wörterverzeichnis der Heidensprachen Adamauas. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 42, 444-488.

Strümpell, Kurt. 1922-3. Wörterverzeichnis der Heidensprachen des Mandara-Gebirges (Adamaua). Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen 13, 109-149.

Takacs, Gabor. 1994. Some Notes on the History of Egyptian m^ "Ten". Folia Orientalia 30, 217-218.

Takacs, Gabor. 1995. Afrasian Numerals in Egyptian and Egyptian Numerals in Afrasian. MS. Székesfehérvar.

Takacs, Gabor. 1996. Egyptian Lexics in an Afrasian Perspective: New Etymologies. Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 1, 125-171.

Takacs, Gabor. 1996. Towards the Etymology of Egyptian md "Ten". Acta Orientalia Acadaemiae Scientiarum Hun-gariae 49/3, 441-448.

Takacs, Gabor. 1997. Afrasian Numerals in Egyptian and Egyptian Numerals in Afrasian. Lingua Aegyptia 5, 211222.

Takacs, Gabor. 1999. Development of Afro-Asiatic (Semito-Hamitic) Comparative-Historical Linguistics in Russia and the Former Soviet Union. München, Newcastle, Lincom Europa.

Takacs, Gabor. 1999. Review of Solncev, Vadim Mihajlovic (red.): Jazyki Azii i Afriki IV/2 — A New Contribution to Berber Comparative-Historical Linguistics by Aleksandr Jur'evic Militarev: Some Etymological Notes. Lingua Posnaniensis 41, 198-209.

Takacs, Gabor. 2000. The Origin of Ahaggar h in an Afro-Asiatic Perspective. In: Chaker, Salem & Zaborski, Andrzej (éds.): Études berbères et chamito-sémitiques. Mélanges offerts à Karl-G. Prasse pour son 70e anniversaire. Paris, Louvain, Éditions Peeters. Pp. 333-356.

Takacs, Gabor. 2004. Comparative Dictionary of the Angas-Sura Languages. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Takacs, Gabor. 2006. Tamazight Lexicon and Its Afro-Asiatic Background: The Evidence of Root-Initial d- and z-. In: Allati, Abdelaziz et al. (éds.): Linguistique amazighe: les nouveaux horizons. Actes du Colloque international: 17, 18,19 février 2005. Tétouan, Publications de la Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines de Tétouan, Université Abdelmalek Essaâdi. Pp. 48-63.

Takacs, Gabor. 2015. Archaeologia Afroasiatica I: Disintegration of the Parental Language. Mother Tongue 20, forthc.

Toselli, P./Fr. Giovanni (a cura del P. Giovanni Chiomio). 1939. Elementi di lingua magi. Grammatica e dizionario con alcuni cenni sulla popolazione magi. Torino, Istituto Missioni Consolata.

Tourneux, Henry; Seignobos, Christian; Lafarge, Francine. 1986. Les Mbara et leur langue (Tchad). Paris, Société d'Études Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France.

Tourneux, Henry. 1991. Lexique pratique du munjuk des rizières. Dialecte de Pouss. Paris, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.

Da Trento, Gabriele. 1941. Vocaboli in lingue dell'Etiopia meridionale. Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 1, 203-297.

Trombetti, Alfredo. 1902. Delle relazioni delle lingue caucasiche con le lingue camitosemitiche e con altri gruppi linguistici. Giornale della Società Asiatica Italiana 15, 177-201.

Trombetti, Aifredo. 1977. Elementi di glottologia.2 Boiogna, Arnoido Forni Editore.

ÜKAPT I-VI = Sethe, Kurt. 1935-1962. Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den altägyptischen Pyramidentexten. Band I-VI. Giückstadt, Hamburg, J. J. Augustin.

Venberg, Rodney. 1975. Phonemic Statement of the Peve Language. Africana Marburgensia 8/1, 26-43.

Vergari, Moreno & Vergari, Roberta. 2003. A Basic Saho-English-Italian Dictionary. Asmara, Eritrea, (pubiisher not indicated).

Vergote, Josef. 1945. Phonétique historique de l'égyptien. Paris, Le Muséon.

Vernus, Pascai. 2000. Situation de i'égyptien dans ies iangues du monde. In: Fauveiie-Aymar, François-Xavier; Chrétien, Jean-Pierre; Perrot, C.-H. (éds.): Afrocentrismes. L'histoire des Africains entre Égypte et Amérique. Paris, Éditions Karthaia. Pp. 169-208.

Voigt, Rainer Maria. 1994. Die Entsprechung der ursemitischen Interdentaie im Aitäthiopischen. In: Heinrichs, Woifhart & Schoeier, Gregor (eds.): Festschrift Ewald Wagner zum 65. Geburtstag. Band 1. Semitische Studien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Südsemitistik. Beirut, im Komission bei Franz Steiner Veriag Stuttgart. Pp. 102-117.

Vycichi, Werner. 1934. Hausa und Ägyptisch. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Hamitistik. Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen an der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin 37, 36-116.

Vycichi, Werner. 1938. Festgabe für Hermann Junker zu seinem 60. Geburtstag. Archiv für Aegyptische Archaeologie 1/6, 131-140.

Vycichi, Werner. 1953. Die ägyptischen Ausdrücke für "Seibst". Muséon 66, 41-44.

Vycichi, Werner. 1955. Der Umiaut in den Berbersprachen Nordafrikas. Eine Einführung in die berberische Sprachgeschichte. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 52, 304-325.

Vycichi, Werner. 1957. Piîeiformen im Ägyptischen und im Koptischen. Die Etymoiogie von koptisch cooun "wissen". Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 5, 10-25.

Vycichi, Werner. 1958. Grundiagen der ägyptisch-semitischen Wortvergieichung. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 16, 367-405.

Vycichi, Werner. 1959. Is Egyptian a Semitic Language? Kush 7, 27-44.

Vycichi, Werner. 1960. The Beja Language Tü Bedawiye. Its Reiationship with Oid Egyptian. Kush 8, 252-264.

Vycichi, Werner. 1966. Sprachiiche Beziehungen zwischen Ägypten und Afrika. In: Lukas, Johannes (Hrsg.): Neue afrikanistische Studien. Hamburg, Deutsches Institut für Afrika-Forschung. Pp. 265-272.

Vycichi, Werner. 1974. Les études chamito-sémitiques à i'Université de Fribourg et ie "Lamekhitique". In: Caquot, André & Cohen, David (eds.): Actes du premier congrès international de linguistique sémitique et chamito-sémitique, Paris 16-19 juillet 1969. Paris, Mouton. Pp. 60-67.

Vycichi, Werner. 1978. L'état actuei des études chamito-sémitiques. In: Fronzaroii, Peiio (ed.): Atti del Secondo Con-gresso Internazionale di Linguistica Camito-Semitica, Firenze, 16-19 aprile 1974. Firenze, Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientaii, Università di Firenze. Pp. 63-76.

Vycichi, Werner. 1987. The Origin of the Hamito-Semitic Languages. In: Jungraithmayr, Herrmann & Müiier, Waiter W. (eds.).: Proceedings of the Fourth International Hamito-Semitic Congress, Marburg, 20-22 September 1983. Amsterdam, Phiiadeiphia, John Benjamins. Pp. 109-121.

Vycichi, Werner. 1992. Die pharyngaien Laute îayin und -ä im Berberischen. In: Ebermann, Erwin; Sommerauer, E. R.; Thomanek, K. É. (Hrsg.): Komparative Afrikanistik: Sprach-, geschichts- und literaturwissenschaftliche Aufsätze zu Ehren von Hans G. Mukarovsky. Wien, Afro-Pub. Pp. 383-386.

Ward, Wiiiiam A. 1985. Reflections on Methodoiogy in Egypto-Semitic Lexicography. In: Tubb, Jonathan N. (ed.): Palestine and the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. London, Institute of Archaeoiogy. Pp. 232-248.

Wb = Erman, Adoif & Grapow, Hermann. 1957-1971. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. Band I-V.2 Beriin, Akademie-Veriag.

Wente-Lukas, Renate. 1973. Zur sprachiichen Steiiung des Bana (Mandara-Gebirge, Nordwestkamerun). Afrika und Übersee 57, 1-15.

Westendorf, Woifhart. 1962. Grammatik der medizinischen Texte. Beriin, Akademie-Veriag.

Whiteiey, Wiifred H. 1953. Studies in Iraqw. Kampaia, East African Institute of Sociai Research.

Woiff, Ekkehard. 1974. Neue iinguistische Forschungen in Nordostnigeria. Afrika und Übersee 58/1, 7-27.

Worreii, W. H. 1926. The Hamitic Background of Semitism. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science. Arts and Letters 7, 269-272.

Wölfel, Dominik Josef. 1954. Les noms de nombre dans le parler guanche des Iles Canaries. Hespéris 41, 47-79.

Wölfel, Dominik Josef. 1965. Monumenta linguae Canariae. Die kanarischen Sprachdenkmäler. Eine Studie zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Weißafrikas. Graz, Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt.

WUS = Aistleitner, Josef. 1963. Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, phil.-hist. Klasse 106/3.

Yeivin, Shmuel. 1932. Haqlröt haswa?a babalsanüt semit-misrit. 1. Lasönenü 2, 136-153.

Zaborski, Andrzej. 1971. Biconsonantal Verbal Roots in Semitic. Zeszyty Naukowe Universytetu Jagiellonskiego, prace jçzykoznawcze 5, 51-98.

Zaborski, Andrzej. 1983. Basic Numerals in the Omotic Languages. In: Segert, Stanislav & Bodrogligeti, Andras J. E. (eds.): Ethiopian Studies dedicated to Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday November 14th, 1981 by His Friends and Colleagues. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz. Pp. 375-392.

Zaborski, Andrzej. 1987. Basic Numerals in Cushitic. In: Jungraithmayr, Herrmann; Müller, Walter W. (eds.): Proceedings of the Fourth International Hamito-Semitic Congress, Marburg, 20-22 September, 1983. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, John Benjamins. Pp. 317-347.

Zaborski, Andrzej. 1989. Der Wortschatz der Bedscha-Sprache. Eine vergleichende Analyse. In: Schuler, E. von (Hrsg.): XXIII. Deutscher Orientalistentag, vom 16. bis 20. September 1985 in Würzburg. Ausgewählte Vorträge. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag. Pp. 573-591.

Zavadovskij, Jurij Nikolaevic. 1967. Berberskij jazyk. Moskva, Nauka.

Zavadovskij, Jurij Nikolaevic. 1974. Les noms de nombre berbères a la lumiere des études comparées chamito-semitiques. In: Caquot, André & Cohen, David (eds.): Actes du premier congrès international de linguistique sémitique et chamito-sémitique. Paris, Mouton. Pp. 102-112.

Zavadovskij, Jurij Nikolaevic. 1975. Problema berberskih cislitel'nyh v svete sravnitel'nogo semito-hamitskogo jazykoznanija. In: Drevnij Vostok. Sbornik 1. K semidesjatiletiju akademika M. A. Korostovceva. Moskva, Nauka. Pp. 42-51.

Zeidler, Jürgen. 1992. Altägyptisch und Hamitosemitisch. Bemerkungen zu den Vergleichenden Studien von Karel Petracek. Lingua Aegyptia 2, 189-222.

Zima, Petr. 1990. Songhay and Chadic in the West African Context. In: Mukarovsky, Hans G. (ed.): Proceedings of the Fifth International Hamito-Semitic Congress. Band 1. Wien, Afro-Pub. Pp. 261-274.

Zyhlarz, Ernst. 1931. Die ägyptisch-hamitische Dekade. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 67, 133-139.

Zyhlarz, Ernst. 1932-3. Ursprung und Sprachcharakter des Altägyptischen. Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen 23, 25-45, 81-110, 161-194, 241-254.

Zyhlarz, Ernst. 1934. Konkordanz ägyptischer und libyscher Verbalstammtypen. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 70, 107-122.

Zyhlarz, Ernst. 1934-5. Die Sprachreste der unteräthiopischen Nachbarn Altägyptens. Zeitschrift für EingeborenenSprachen 25, 161-188, 241-261.

Zyhlarz, Ernst. 1950. Das kanarische Berberisch in seinem sprachgeschichtlichen Milieu. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 100, 403-460.

Габор Такач. Древнейшие лексические слои египетского языка VIII: числительные.

Статья продолжает серию публикаций автора, объединенных общей целью проанализировать древнейшие слои базисной лексики древнеегипетского языка, расклассифицированные по семантическим полям, и разделить их на «семитский» и «африканский» пласты, существование которых было предположено П. Лако несколько десятилетий тому назад. В данной статье анализу подвергаются числительные древнеегипетского языка.

Ключевые слова: древнеегипетский язык, афразийские (афроазиатские) языки, этимология, сравнительно-историческая фонетика, числительные.