Essai comparatif sur le vocabulaire et la phonétique du chamito-sémitique

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:15:52 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 312 REVIEWS Essai comparatif sur le vocabulaire et la phon6tique du chamito-s6mitique. By MARCEL COHEN. (Bibliothbque de I'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, publi6e sous les auspices du Ministbre de l'Education Nationale: Sciences Historiques et Philologiques, Vol. 291.) Pp. xi + 248. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honor6 Champion, 1947.On the question whether Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, and Cushitic are genetically related, Marcel Cohen takes a positive stand. He has expressed it in his numerous articles on the subject and in his stimulating teaching at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes of Paris. The question is not a new one. Starting as early as the end of the 18th century, it was the preoccupation of specialists in the different language families constituting the Hamito-Semitic group. The most important study in the initial stage of Hamito-Semitic, or more exactly of Semito-Egyptian comparisons, is the work by the Indo-Europeanist Theodor Benfey, tber das Verhailtniss der Agyptischen Sprache zum semitischen Sprachstamm, Professional Semitists and Egyptologists, including Erman, Sethe, Ember, and Albright, made important contributions to the subject, partly in the domain of the morphology but mainly in that of the vocabulary. Through the contributions of the Egyptologist and Cushitist Reinisch, the Cushitic languages were introduced into the field of Hamito-Semitic comparisons; others, among them Zyhlarz, worked mainly in the domain of Berber and Egyptian. Thus, thanks to the studies both of Hamito-Semitists and of specialists in each particular language family, the genetic relation between Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, and Cushitic is well established; it is this group of languages that is now called Hamito-Semitic. There is complete agreement concerning the term 'Semitic', but this is not the case for the term 'Hamitic'. The question arises whether Hamitic is a single entity with definite characteristics as opposed to Semitic, or is a conventional term given to all the non-Semitic languages of the Hamito-Semitic group.If so, Hamito-Semitic would consist of four independent groups: (1) Semitic, (2) Egyptian, (3) Berber, (4) Cushitic. The answers to this question differ, as might be expected. Thus, Brockelmann, Gibt es einen hamitischen Sprachstamm?, Anthropos 27.797-818 (1932), answers in the negative, whereas Zyhlarz thinks that there is a Hamitic group. In the present state of our knowledge it is safer to assume, with Marcel Cohen, that Hamito-Semi...

Semito-Hamitic or Afro-Asiatic consonantism and lexicon: Episodes of a comparative research I (Part 1: The long century of Semito-Hamitology until the middle of the 20th century)

“…This kind of moderate approach then culminated in the Essai comparatif. Henceforth, contrary to Voigt's assessment (who was silent about so many precious works of the "post--classical Hamitology" between Meinhof 1912 andCohen 1947), this substantial "post--classical" phase was hallmarked by both dominant figures of the Viennese school who, luckily, abandoned the artificial "widened Hamitological" setting of the "classical" phase and so they returned to the more solid position of "pre-classical Hamitology" (to use Voigt's labels). So may I set forth discussing the outstanding output of this "post-classical" trend:…”

“…Beke (1845), followed by C. Lottner (1860-1). 17 All this had been stated already a whole century prior to Cohen 1947 andGreenberg 1955! Unfortunately, this fact does not change a bit about the poor quality of lexical comparison from the whole era (if such was offered at all).…”

“…M. Cohen (1947) offered an almost exhaustive annotated bibliography and history of AA researches in general, which F. Hintze (1951) has neatly complemented in his very thorough and sharp-minded review. In the following half of century or so, a number of partial overviews were published: e.g., Hodge 1970, 1971, 1976, Köhler 1975, Burrini 1978-9, Mukarovsky 1981, Petráček 1984 (on the research in the 3 rd quarter of the 20 th cent., where, typically and unfortunately, comparative phonology had hardly any echo among many other theoretical issues).…”

“…Voigt (1988: 160ff. ; 2001: 1321-2, §4) attributed the "classical period" solely to Müller, Reinisch, Meinhof, which, in his view, was followed by a further "intermediate phase" (Voigt 2001(Voigt : 1322) singled out to cover the decades until M. Cohen's (1947) Essai comparatif, previous to Rössler's new era. The only reason Voigt (2001Voigt ( : 1322 adduced for this chronological sequencing is that "die Forschung nach Meinhof strebte nicht einen Aufbau 64 Mbulunge and Ufiomi were the only right hits in this amalgamate list, both being members of Southern Cushitic (Burunge and Asa, resp.).…”

Semito-Hamitic or Afro-Asiatic consonantism and lexicon: Episodes of a comparative research I (Part 2: Marcel Cohen’s Essai comparatif)

“…those by J. Cantineau (1948), C. Brockelmann (1950) and F. Hintze (1951 were based on thorough critical analyses of the materials and only they have bravely addressed some heavy methodological problems behind the multitude of the etymological entries, such as:…”