Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian

Takács, Gábor

doi:10.1163/ej.9789004164123.i-1012

Cited by 29 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are still more similar cases which I would have never suspected of borrowing if not for the few unequivocal examples opening up the possibility of the formers' interpretation as borrowing, too, though the odds of common origin with random survival or looking alike unrelated lexemes, of course, remain -for such cases only. 4 . I am unaware of any scholarly effort, including by Takács, to sort out the said parallels distinguishing between the inherited Afrasian lexemes randomly survived in Egyptian and Arabic and possible loanwords 5 .…”

Section: а ю милитарёвmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 . I am unaware of any scholarly effort, including by Takács, to sort out the said parallels distinguishing between the inherited Afrasian lexemes randomly survived in Egyptian and Arabic and possible loanwords 5 .…”

Section: а ю милитарёвmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…III. 4 On the author's attempt at their interpretation in connection with a Biblical narrative see [10]. That Takács himself did not admit direct borrowings between Egyptian and Arabic follows from his comparison made in [5, p. 269]: "NEg.…”

Section: а ю милитарёвmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ancient Egyptian - Arabic contacts in lexicon: clue to Arabic Urheimat?

Militarev

2020

Orientalistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper aims at demonstrating possibilities of the comparative and historical method in linguistics in reconstructing ethno-cultural prehistory of ancient peoples. Methodologically, it is based upon the analysis of 46 Ancient Egyptian-Arabic lexical parallels most of which are unattested in other Semitic and Afrasian languages, collected by the Hungarian specialist in Egyptian and Aftrasian languages G. Takacs and his predecessors. The author was the first to notice that some of 46 lexical parallels for semantic or phonetic reasons can hardly be considered to be randomly surviving cognates; neither can they be descarded as lookalikes. He suggests that they are direct lexical borrowings. This suggestion implies undiscovered contacts between Egypt and proto-Arabic speakers. According to the author's glottochronological dating, proto-Arabic separated from Central Semitic in early 3rd mill. BCE. These contacts started as early as the Old Kingdom and lasted through Middle to New Kingdoms. He concludes that the striking feature in this discovery is not only presumed Egyptian loans in Arabic but a small minority of very likely Arabisms in Egyptian language of all these periods. He argues that the most “robust” cases may testify to the Urheimat of proto-Arabic speakers located within reach of Egypt. The author is also inclined to identify the people of Midianites mentioned in both Hebrew and Arabic sources as Proto-Arabic speakers. However, as his competence is limited to comparative Afrasian linguistics and Semitic etymology, he leaves this arguable question to discuss archaeologists and historians.

show abstract

Section: а ю милитарёвmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: а ю милитарёвmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ancient Egyptian - Arabic contacts in lexicon: clue to Arabic Urheimat?

Militarev

2020

Orientalistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Forming this dataset required a large number of cognate words demonstrating reliable sound correspondences. Such sound correspondences were drawn primarily from Etymological Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian (Takács, ), Hamito‐Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction (Orel and Stolbova, ), Etimologičeskij Slovar’ Čadskix Jazykov ( Etymological Dictionary of the Chadic Languages ) (Stolbova, ) and Tower of Babel Etymological Database (Starostin and Starostin, ). Our reconstructed phonology of Proto‐Afro‐Asiatic was likewise drawn from these sources, and is displayed in Figure .…”

Section: Afro‐asiatic Cladisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Method for Computational Cladistics: An Afro‐Asiatic Case Study

Bacovcin

Wilson

2018

Trans of the Philol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper makes two contributions. First, we introduce a new method for computational cladistics that produces a rooted tree by minimising the number of homoplasies. This method is compared with lexicostatistics and maximum parsimony. We validate the method on Indo-European data and show that the tree derived is consistent with current understanding of the internal cladistics of that family. Secondly, we turn the method to treat the less well studied problem of the internal cladistics of Afro-Asiatic. We show that there is good evidence for a North/South division in Afro-Asiatic with Berber, Egyptian and Semitic in the North and Chadic, Cushitic and Omotic in the South. There is also tentative evidence for further grouping of Egyptian with Semitic and Cushitic with Omotic. INTRODUCTIONThe objective of this paper is to introduce a new method for computational cladistics and to show the results of that method on an Afro-Asiatic dataset. The goal of cladistics is to correctly identify clades, defined as ancestral speech communities identified by sharing some linguistic innovation (Hennig, 1966). Crucially, a clade is formed when a group of speakers depart from their neighbouring communities by developing a linguistic innovation (e.g., sound change, morphological reorganization or lexical innovation). Ideally, these clades correspond to historical speech communities, which continued to further sub-divide leading to the modern situation of languages belonging to larger language families. This situation of ever sub-dividing language families leads to the development of cladograms, which represent how various attested languages cluster into larger and larger clades. In many cases, the larger cladistic units are already identified (e.g., Proto-Indo-European). However, the internal cladistics of the language family remain debatable, i.e. how do the various languages in the family cluster within their larger family. The implications of these clades are not only of linguistic importance, but are also relevant for the study of historic and pre-historic population movements (or at least cultural diffusion). Since clades represent historical speech communities, the sub-division of clades in the cladogram reflect the dispersion of a once unified speech community at some point in the past. Thus, linguistic cladistics informs and can be informed by the archaeological record (Blench 2001;Bouckaert et al. 2012;Anthony and Ringe 2015;Chang et al. 2015).This paper presents a novel method for identifying clades computationally from a database containing lists of linguistic features from related languages. We start by giving a more in-depth background on the assumptions that we make about cladistics and computational cladistics in particular. We, then, discuss previous computational cladistic

show abstract

“…In a general sense, a constitution is a legally regulated order of social coexistence, which must, however, meet the criteria of constitutionality. 51 According to the Hungarian author Gergely Deli, a constitution is understood as a unified and self-perpetuating order that contains the two agreements underpinning human coexistence: the association of people with each other on the one hand and their submission to the state on the other. 52 Deli -with reference to Carl Schmitt -distinguishes between the era of natural and relative constitutions, 53 stating that the latter necessarily rests on the former.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Constitutional Values and Constitutional Identity in National Constitutions

Tribl¹

2022

Comparative Constitutionalism in Central Europe : Analysis on Certain Central and Eastern European Countries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National constitutions are the basis of our constitutional systems. The question is, however, whether each European constitutional system is the same or whether, on the contrary, they are all unique. The answer is twofold. Of course we might have the same values, the same principles, but we have unique characteristics and we have our own values as well. Each constitutional system has its own specific characteristics, based on the history of the constitutional community and the constitutional system itself. Reactions to certain events in history have shaped the constitutional community and the identity of the constitutional state. On this basis, it is possible to identify specific features that are specific to a given constitutional system, i.e. elements of its identity. At the same time, the constitutional system carries certain social and constitutional values which also define the system itself. We call these constitutional values, which could be different state by state, nation by nation and which created the idea of unity in diversity in Europe.

show abstract

Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

Ancient Egyptian - Arabic contacts in lexicon: clue to Arabic Urheimat?

Ancient Egyptian - Arabic contacts in lexicon: clue to Arabic Urheimat?

A New Method for Computational Cladistics: An Afro‐Asiatic Case Study

Constitutional Values and Constitutional Identity in National Constitutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About