Reconstructions Search

one of the four widespread designations of camel in individual languages, the similarity between these designations must be due to diffusion from an Arabian source

Akk.-Ugt. isogloss, has no parallel elsewhere in Semitic. If the Akk. and Ugr. terms are related as cognates, the traditional derivation of Akk. išaru from ešēru 'to be straight' (<*yšr) become impossible.

The origin of Akk.-Ugr. *ˁmḳ ‘to be strong’ is uncertain. Hypothetical WS cognates with the meaning “strength” (notably, Hbr. ˁēmäḳ) are quite doubtful (with HALOT 849 and contra Greenfield 1967:89). Somewhat more promising are Tgr. ˁammäḳä ‘to rob, to defraud’ (WTS 456), Amh. ammäḳä ‘to oppress, to rule by force’. There is no transparent semantic link between Akk.-Ugr. *ˁmḳ ‘to be strong’ and *ˁmḳ ‘to be deep’. According to CAD E 161, Akk. emūḳu ‘strength’ is, in its origin, an anatomical term (“arm”), but there is no etymological support for this conjecture. (Kogan 2015:333)

Compared to Afras. *ˁVng- ‘neck, throat’ in SED I. May be also attested in Ebla: in-gu /ˁingu(m)/ or /ˁinḳu(m)/ ‘neck’, cf. SED I p. 18.

Borrowed from Akkadian (often via Aramaic and Arabic) into a wide range of Semitic languages. The origin of the Akkadian lexeme is uncertain.