Reconstructions Search

The OArm. spelling with t (rather than š) makes unlikely the relationship between PArm. *tənan and Hbr. ˁāšān, Arb. ˁaṯan- ‘smoke’ (HALOT 896, Lane 1954) assumed in LSyr. 828 and Beyer 1984:419 and corroborates its connection with Gez. tann ‘smoke’ and its cognates in modern EthS (CDG 577).

A semantic evolution of *ṭalay- ‘lamb’, whose original meaning almost completely disappeared from Aramaic

No feminine formation from PS *ṯawr- ‘bull, ox’ is attested outside PArm. *ṯawr-at-. The only exception is Arb. ṯawrat-, but this rare word is certainly no basic designation of “cow” in Arabic (in TA 10 338, only one verse by al-Aḫṭal is adduced as an illustration, which may testify to the restricted use of this lexeme).

Attested from Official Aramaic onwards. The only, semantically very remote WS cognate to the Aramaic verb is Arb. wmˀ ‘to make a sign’. Conversely, the Akkadian verb wamāˀu ‘to swear’ is attested as early as the Sargonic royal inscriptions, so the possibility of an early loan cannot be ruled out (Kogan–Krebernik 2021a:389). 

diminutive pattern, together with PArm *γulaym- child, otherwise typical for Arb only

on meaning shift “sturdy, strong” > “old” cf. Buck 1949:959

in the “North Ethiopian” negative particle *ˀal is restricted to the combination *ˀal(a)-b- ‘there is not’

Must be analyzed as a broken plural from an unattested *malk- ‘king.’

Borrowed from Cushitic according to Dolgopolsky, but treated as cognate to the corresponding Cushitic forms in Militarev 2004:309, 2010:65 (cf. SED I No. 160, Appleyard 1977:27).