185 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ETHIOPISCH 186

intelligibility seems to lead to firm results in determining linguistic subgroups (p. 27-31). Lexicostatistics appears therefore as the best method to conduct such a research (p. 31-34). The choice of fifteen languages is then explained and justified (p. 34-55), but the variety Dahalik, spoken on the Dahlak Islands, is finally not taken in consideration because of lack of sufficient lexical data (cf. OLA 230, p. 397 with n. 83). Since only lexical comparisons can be readily quantified and in Hudson’s opinion offer a justified answer to his dou- ble question, he first presents 250 basic words of English with their equivalents in 14 ESe languages and, in many cases, their cognates in Proto-Semitic, Proto-Agaw, and Proto-East Cushitic. The general presentation of this word- list is followed by explanatory notes on the comparisons, considering eventual gaps, different spellings, judgement of cognates, reconstructions, synonyms, borrowings (p. 57-67). The research does not aim at simply increasing the number of comparisons and goes beyond the attempt at providing good evidence of the validity of the group of all ESe lan- guages. It should provide a basis for the subgrouping of ESe and contribute evidence for an Afro-Asiatic reconstruction. These lexical data are clearly presented on p. 69-104 in tables of comparison. Their superscript numbers indicate a common basis of the words listed in each column. For instance, the set of cognates marked by the superscript num- ber 1 in the column of yesterday indicates a common basis, represented in the following dictionary by its first entry male. This comparative and etymological dictionary is then pre- sented on p. 105-236, with the needed abbreviations on p. 107. The abbreviations are sometimes complex. For instance, South Argobba dialect described by M. Cohen in 1939 is indicated by the abbreviation SAr, explained sepa- rately for S=South and Ar=Argobba. The dictionary is followed by seven indexes providing the ETHIOPISCH information which appears regularly in dictionary entries and has an independent interest or significance. The first index HUDSON, G. — Northeast African Semitic: Lexical Com- lists Proto-Semitic cognates of ESe words (p. 237-245). Then parisons and Analysis. (Porta Linguarum Orientalium, follow Proto-Agaw cognates with 62 roots (p. 245-247) and Neue Serie, Band 26). Verlag Otto Harrassowitz, Wies- Proto-East Cuthitic cognates with 124 roots (p. 247-251). baden, 2013. (24 cm, X, 323). ISBN 978-3-447-06983- A list of 85 Proto-ESe reconstructed roots and words is then 0, ISSN 0554-7342. € 48,-. presented (p. 251-254). The reconstructions are based on ESe The book under review results from a years-long work of cognate words having the same or a related form and mean- a specialist in Ethio-Semitic, dealing also with Cushitic and ing in at least four of the five ESe subgroups presented in the interested in Afro-Asiatic. It concerns the Semitic languages tree diagram 7 of p. 289. The first group comprises the tra- of Ethiopia and Eritrea (abbreviation: ESe), and consists ditional North Ethiopic with Tigre, Tigrinya, and Ge‘ez. mainly in a lexicostatistical analysis of 250 sample words Gafat is standing alone, while Hetzron’s Gunnän-Gurage from 14 of 30 retained varieties of Ethio-Semitic speech. The corresponds to the subgroup of Soddo, Mesqan, Muher, and Author aims at determining the approximate number of Chaha, then comes Hetzron’s Eastern Transversal South- Semitic languages spoken in north-eastern Africa and at Ethiopic with Silt’e, Zay, and Harari, and there is finally offering a concrete, quantified basis for their linguistic sub- Hetzron’s Central Transversal South-Ethiopic with Argobba grouping. The absence of lexical evidence for a comprehen- and Amharic. sive South Ethio-Semitic leads the Author to distinguishing Following is a list of five or more shared cognates unique five subgroups of ESe. to a group of ESe languages. They represent possible lexical G. Hudson first provides a review of the background of innovations (p. 254-272) and are discussed on p. 284-289 his study, starting with data that show the relative diversity with tree diagrams 5, 6, 7. There is next a list of cognates of ESe within Semitic. Without discussing at length the shared by ESe and other proto-languages (p. 272-274), which somewhat problematic distinction of language and dialect, he are discussed on p. 296-297 as possible ESe-Afro-Asiatic presents 30 varieties of ESe speech (p. 7-19), observing that inheritance, Chadic included. As example, one can give the possibility of ESe languages extinct after the 16th-century motä, “to die” (p. 187), attested as màadé in Mubi, spoken Oromo invasion deserves investigation (p. 20). The qualifica- in eastern Chad Republic, and as múut in Mushere, belonging tion “Gurage” is then examined on p. 20-27, showing that to West Chadic and spoken in Nigeria (PLO n.s. 24, p. 337, this can hardly be a valid linguistic group. Neither mutual 346). G. Hudson does not deal with Chadic, spoken faraway,

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 9595 330/05/160/05/16 11:5811:58 187 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXIII N° 1-2, januari-april 2016 188

but provides a list of 213 ESe words with at least one Agaw suffixes, -lä being a phonetic variant of -nä. This seems to cognate (p. 275-277). indicate that *hanše was a West Asiatic culture word, used The chapter entitled “Findings and Analyses” (p. 279- at least from the third millennium B.C. on. 297) characterizes the evidence provided by the lexical com- A completely different case, belonging to a much later parisons and the dictionary of ESe words. G. Hudson men- period, concerns Gafat gǝzzä, “money” or “cattle” (p. 90, tions 1) the validity and coherence of ESe groups and their 158). This word, just like gänzäb (p. 155), is borrowed relationship; 2) the validity and coherence of the ESe branch through Aramaic/Syriac from Median *ganza-. The n is often of the Semitic family; 3) the existence of wider relations of assimilated to the following z, like in Syriac gazzā next to ESe within Semitic; 4) the extent and possible significance ganzā and in Greek γάζα, “treasure”, what perfectly corre- of Agaw and East Cushitic influence on ESe in relation to sponds to Gafat gǝzzä. Argobba gizi, “domestic animal, Semitic inheritance. Further research on Semitic linguistic money”, and Kanbāta (Cushitic) gizza, “money” (p. 158), history is not undertaken, leaving this study to others. How- derive from the same loanword, but are vocalized in i like ever, the collected comparative data constitute a significant Aramaic ginzayyā’ (Ezra 5:17; 6:1) and gizzaḇrayyā’ (Ezra contribution also to comparative lexicography and to histori- 7:21). The ESe derivatives of this root are probably more cal linguistics. numerous, as explained by the reviewer in Anabasis 5 (2014), This general presentation is followed by tables with the p. 7-12. numbers of shared cognates in the 250-word lists. They con- Another Gafat word, appearing also in Amharic and in stitute the quantified basis of the following tree diagrams Oromo (p. 187), reveals contacts with the Nile valley. It is showing the ESe subgroups (p. 279-291). Proto-language mossay, “boy”, to be related to Egyptian mś, “child”, and to cognates are then described (p. 291-295) with a short estima- the verb mśἰ, “to give birth” (OLA 80, §8.18). These cog- tion of the Afro-Asiatic inheritance (p. 289-290). One could nates should be placed in a wider context, including Meroitic, add that the number of cognates increases, if some roots where one also finds mse, “child” (cf. RocznikOrientalistyc- CwC and CyC are regarded as variants (cf. OLA 80, §28.10 zny 64/2 [2011], p. 98, no. 23). A semantically close ESe and §43.9), for instance awra, “male” in Argobba and word tǝkä, “boy, child” (p. 71, 216), might also appear in Amharic (p. 89, 124), compared with ’air in Arabic, ’ōr, Meroitic, if tke- is interpreted as “child”. One could translate “son” in Beja, ar, “male” in Meroitic, ’yr in Old Aramaic, Mni tke by “child of Amon” and understand the name a-ia-rù=zi-k[a-ru] in the Akkadian list of synonyms Malku Wos-tke as “Child of Isis”. True, Claude Rilly has proposed =šarru 1, as well as Awngi (Central Cushitic) ira, “son” for tke the translation “to love” (Leméroïtiqueetsafamille (cf. RocznikOrientalistyczny 64/2 [2011], p. 90, no. 2). linguistique, Louvain-Paris 2010, p. 141-142) and the The major result of the research is presented by the tree reviever suggested a comparison with Arabic taqīy, “God- diagram 7, already mentioned above. The existence of a fearing, devotee” (RocznikOrientalistyczny 64/2 [2011], South ESe group opposed to the Northern group appears as p. 101, no. 35), but the construction with the modifiers Mni lacking a good lexical basis, while the features which were and Wos preceding the modified element tke records South regarded by Robert Hetzron as innovations witnessing to a Ethiopic and Highland East Cushitic. Also Gafat ǝstabbwä, common origin and development are considered by Hudson “uncle”, and ästimwitä, “aunt”, not included in the sample as retained archaisms (p. 288). This leads to a five-branch of 250 words, suggest a comparison with Meroitic ste/sete, grouping instead of the traditional distinction of a North and “cognate”, which seems to be composed in Gafat with the a South ESe groups, both further subdivided. usual words for “father” and “mother”, the prefixed ste hav- The tree diagram 7 thus shows five subgroups, what is ing a prosthetic vowel, not marked in Meroitic (cf. Rocznik generally consistent with the lexicostatistical evidence. The Orientalistyczny 64/2 [2011], p. 100, no. 32). traditional North ESe remains with Ge‘ez, Tigre, and An interesting case is provided also by the verb sänäfa, Tigrinya. Gafat constitutes a subgroup on its own. Instead of which means “to fear” in Chaha (p. 78, 204) and is related a large South ESe subgroup, lexicostatistical evidence sug- by Hudson to the causative salfi-sa, “to frighten” in Oromo. gests to distinguish a subgroup of closely related Argobba Such a derivation is unlikely, because the root appears in and Amharic, another subgroup of Harari with a traditional West Semitic onomastics as early as the 8th century B.C., if “East Gurage”, i.e. Zay and Silt’e, and a fifth subgroup with not the 17th or 16th century B.C. It is attested by the Ammo- the remaining, loosely termed “Gurage” languages, i.e. nite name Śanīpu, which might occur already in Amorite as Hetzron’s Gunnän-Gurage. Za-ni-pu-um or Sa-ni-pu-um. This interpretation is uncertain The book offers a very useful and important work instru- in the Amorite case, but the name is certainly found later in ment for scholars interested in comparative linguistics of the Nabataean and in Ṣafaitic anthroponomy (cf. RocznikOrien- ESe languages, in Semitic linguistics in general, and in talistyczny 67/2 [2014], p. 37-38). The basic meaning of the the mutual influence of Cushitic and ESe. Besides, some reg- root ought to be “to be tired, weak”, like in Tigre. istered lexemes invite to extend the research to other idioms The examples given here show that Hudson’s publication and they imply historical connections of the Horn of Africa can be a work instrument serving for further research in a with other regions. An apparently unique case among the 250 quite large linguistic field, with historical implications. We words analyzed is presented by Gafat anšǝlä, “donkey” (75, should thank the Author for this publication and suggest that 121), and its variant hansiya or hasiya in Argobba (p. 75, he should extend his research, for instance to morpho- 162). As observed already in OLA 80, §30.10, but unnoticed syntactic comparisons of ESe with Highland East Cushitic. by the Author, this word can hardly be separated from Sumerian a n š e, “donkey”, since -ya and -lä are obviously Brussel, November 2015 E. LIPIŃSKI

998873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd8873_Bior_2016_1-2_01.indd 9696 330/05/160/05/16 11:5811:58