The Chamito-

Chamito-Semitic morphology of Indo-

Indo-European languages
languages

Arnaud Fournet

The document describes some sections of the Chamito-Semitic morphology and their counterparts
in the lexical and morphological evidence contained in the Indo-European languages. The explicit
conclusion of the author is that Indo-European languages are a branch of Chamito-Semitic and that
the material described and analyzed constitutes inherited features that prove the relationship of
Indo-European to Chamito-Semitic.

• Introduction

The Indo-European languages as dealt with in the present document have the following traditional
perimeter. We will not deal with some of our proposals of inclusion of languages, which are currently
hold to be either isolates or not to be Indo-European. Our own classification is :
A. Anatolian. Now extinct since Late Antiquity. This is the earliest attested branch, mainly represented
by Hittite texts from the 16th century BC in cuneiform writing.
B. Non-Anatolian.
B1. Western Indo-European.
B1.1. Albanian, attested only since the 15th century. Proto-Albanian may have emerged from
Paleo-Balkanic predecessors, possibly related to the extinct and poorly known, Illyrian,
Thracian and Dacian languages. The two present-day dialects of Albanian contain a huge
amount of loanwords and the original vocabulary inherited from PIE is limited.
B1.2. Italic, represented by Latin and the Romance languages, and the now extinct Osco-
Umbrian sub-branch. Italy also has traces of languages like Venetic and Messapian, which
are possibly Indo-European.
B1.3. Celtic. The only present-day language with a significant number of speakers is Welsh.
Gaulish inscriptions are dated from the 6th century BC onward, in Greek and Etruscan
alphabets. The Old Irish manuscript tradition may be as early as the 8th century AD.
B1.4. Nord-West-Block. Extinct since the expansion of Germanic but a detectable substrate.
Other substrates are detectable.
B2. Central Indo-European.
B2.1. Greek. One of the earliest known IE language under the form of an indirect writing system
(Linear B) as Mycenaean Greek. There used to be a large variety of Greek dialects. Greek is
probably closely related to the extinct Phrygian language.
B2.2. Armenian language. The Bible was translated in the language after an adequate alphabet
was invented at the beginning of the 5th century AD.
B2.3. Balto-Slavic. Slavic is attested since the 9th century with texts in Old Church Slavonic
while Baltic is attested only since the 14th century.
 B2.4. Indo-Iranian. Numerically a very large part of the family, with four sub-branches : Indo-
Aryan, Iranian, Dardic and Nuristani. Sanskrit is attested since the 3rd century BC, but the
language of the Rig-Veda is older than this date thanks to a conservative oral transmission.
Iranian is attested since about 520 BC in the form of Old Persian Behistun inscription, but the
Avestan language is equally older than this date.
B3. Eastern Indo-European.
B3.1. Germanic. Includes the now hegemonic English language. The earliest documents are
runic inscriptions from around the 2nd century AD and the translation of the Bible in Gothic,
4th century AD.
B3.2. Tocharian. Represented by two extinct dialects, once spoken in Turkestan and attested
from roughly the 6th to the 9th century AD.

The traditional definition of Chamito-Semitic (CS) is meant to be the family of languages closely
related to Semitic. This includes at least Berber languages and Hieroglyphic Egyptian, and its late form
in Greek alphabet : Coptic. The words Afro-Asiatic or Afrasian (AA) have been coined to replace the
word Chamito-Semitic. We will not use these words in the document because we disagree with the
excessive extension that these two words convey and the uncontrolled inclusion of a large number of
African languages, which are not clearly related to any of the traditional Chamito-Semitic languages. In
our opinion, CS also includes the Hausa-centered part of western Tchadic and some sections of
"Cushitic". The rest which the alternative AA theory has lumped together should be preferably not
included, until CS has been better reconstructed.

In the next pages, we will deal with the counterparts or traces, either fossilized or alive, of the CS
morphology that the IE languages display.

• The affix -t-

Out of a particular verb, Semitic languages can draw several morphological derivatives. One of
them is the t- infixed form. It is represented by Arabic F.VIII iftaˁala (√f_ˁ_l), Aramaic ’ithpe‘al (√p_ˁ_l)
and Akkadian pitrus (√p_r_s). This form is productive but in Arabic there are many lexical items,
showing that the infix has been fossilized as a part of the root. For example :
Root √r_‘ : Arabic raˁa 'to graze' ~ rataˁ (F. IV) 'to let graze freely'
Root √m_š : Arabic mašša 'to milk' ~ mataš 'to milk softly'
Root √l_ḫ 'dirty' : Arabic laḫḫatun 'dirty and stinking (said of women)' ~ lataḫ 'to make dirty'
Cf. Hebrew liḫluḫ 'dirt' and liḫleḫ 'to make dirty'
Root √h_l : Arabic halla 'to pour (rain) ; to be full of tears' ~ hatal 'to be rainy (sky) ; to weep'
Root √ḥ_m : Arabic ḥamma 'to be black' ~ ḥutmat 'black color ~ ḥatim 'rook'
Cf. Arabic ’aḥamm ~ ’aḥtam 'black' ; ḥamam 'coal' ; ḥamḥam 'very black' ; yaḥmum 'black''
Root √ḫ_n : Arabic ḫanna ~ ḫana’ 'to cut (a palmtree trunk)' ~ ḫatan 'to cut off, shorten'
Root √f_q : Arabic faqqa 'to open, separate in two' ~ fataq 'to split in two'
 Cf. faqa’ ~ falaq ~ faraq 'to split in two'
The traditional lexicographic theory of Arab grammarians considers these items, with and without
infix -t- as independant roots, even though the productive morphology of the language can generate
derivative with that particular shape. Items of the same kind can be found in Indo-European languages
and especially Greek :
ptolis ~ polis 'town' ; polemos 'war' ~ ptolemaios 'bellicose' ; paio ~ ptaio 'to strike, hit'.
Meillet himself had noticed that the pair paio ~ ptaio cannot be dealt with separately : '[...] dans paio,
non plus que dans ptaio, qu’on n’en peut separer [...]. (Ernoult et Meillet,1932, p. 708). But so far, the
traditional approach of Indo-European has never integrated these items. Another set of words that is
not properly handled in the mainstream orthodoxy is :
Greek ptelea 'elm' ~ Latin populus 'poplar' ~ Russian topolj 'poplar'
What is the theoretical description of -t- in these words which seem obviously connected ? A thorough
examination of the Greek vocabulary shows that words starting with #pt- are all infixed by -t-. The only
exception is pteron 'wing' < *pet 'to fly'.
Greek pterna ~ sanskrit parśnis 'heel' (a very old example noticed since the XIXth century)
Greek pteron 'wing' < *pet 'to fly' ~ Latin penna 'feather' < *petna (-t- is part of the root)
Greek ptisso ~ Latin pinso (with another infix -n-) 'to crush, pound'
Greek pto(i)a ~ Latin paura 'fear'
Greek ptukhs 'bend' ~ German biegen 'to bend'
Greek ptuo ~ Latin spuo ~ English 'to spew'
Greek ptokheo ~ English to beg (these two words are supposed to be isolated)
Greek kti-zo 'to build a house' ~ Germanic *haim < *koim 'home, house'
So far, the standard theory recognizes the existence of the infix -n- of Latin pinso but fails to do so with
the infix -t- of Greek ptisso, even though these two words are obviously from the same PIE root *√pis.
And the same is true with all the other Greek words listed above. There is absolutely no reason to
deny these Greek words a full-fledged Indo-European origin.

• Verbal derived forms

As mentioned before, Arabic can derive verbs out of a primary one :

Form I : basic form faˁal
Forme II : duplication faˁˁal
Forme III : lengthening faˁal
Forme IV : prefixation ˀafˁal
All these forms are attested in Indo-European as well. The form I is the citation form of each root. The
form II exists but the duplication is always that of the first consonant of the root. Within Semitic, very
few languages accept reduplication of the first syllable. The foremost exception is Ethiopian Semitic.
For example, if we take the root *√p_l 'full, abundant ; crowd' :
Latin populus ~ English folk ~ Arabic ḥafla 'crowd, people'
Latin plēnus (< *pleH1-nos) ~ Arabic ḥafil 'full' ~ Greek pimple-mi 'I fill up' (-mi : 'P1')
For reasons that remain to be understood, the form II is often associated in Indo-European with the
past tense. For example, in Latin mordeo 'I bite' ~ momordi 'I bit' ; do 'I give' ~dedi 'I gave'.
The form III with lengthening (Dehnstüfung) is well represented by the long vowels /e:/ and /o:/,
which do not originate in the fusion of /e/ and /o/ with a following laryngeal consonant /e+H/ or /o+H/.
The class VII of the so-called strong verbs of Germanic is based on the form III. The English verb to
bear used to belong to that class : I bear 'Present' ~ I bore 'Past'. The adjectif wet is based on the root
√wed with lengthening *ē.
The form IV is one of the most interesting. Its very existence in Indo-European is nearly negated by
the standard theory. The examples are hold to be aberrant formations, often described as popular, if
this were a description or explanation in the first place. Meillet in particular can be criticized for his
over-use of such labels. The numerous items exhibiting the form IV are dealt with as if they were not
part of the Indo-European vocabulary at all. One way of denying them any inherited character is the
easy and nondescript concept of substrate, as in the approach of Schrijver, who does not perceive
that these forms are so much widespread in the Indo-European languages that they can only be
inherited. This formation provides a large collection of concrete words for plants, animals and objects.
The morphological and semantic coherence of these items precludes chance as an explanation.
Moreover the root in these items is often at the zero grade, something wich seems to indicate that the
prefix was initially accented. We provide in footnotes the comments by Chantraine in his Dictionnaire
etymologique de la langue grecque. The received term to describe the affix #a- is 'prothesis', whose
medical origin is a clear witness how alien this affix is considered to be by the standard theory.
Greek aglis1 ~ gelgis 'garlic' < *√g_l_y
Greek aglaFos ~ glaukos 'bright' < *√g_l_w
Greek agreiphna2 'rake' et griphos 'net' < * gh_bh 'to seize, grab'
Greek aielouros < *awisel3 'wild cat' ~ Latin vison ~ English weasel < *√wis-
Greek aigupios4 ~ gups 'vulture'
Greel amalos ~ablekhros5 ~ blekhros 'soft, weak' < *√m_l
Greek anepsios6 'first cousin' ~ *√nep-ot 'nephew'
Greek apion7 < *a-pis-on ~ Latin pirus < *pisos 'pear'
Greek aspis 'aspic viper' ~ Latin serpens 'snake' < *√s_p 'to crawl'
Greek aspalaks ~ spalaks 'mole'
Greek aspharangos8 'throat, gorge' ~ pharungs 'throat'
Greek astaphis9 ~ staphis 'dry resin', staphule 'grapes'

1
Cf. Chantraine : 'ne peut être séparé de gelgis (voir ce mot)'.
2
Cf. Chantraine : 'l’α- étant une prothèse non autrement expliquée'.
3
The morpheme ouros means 'tail'.
4
The -i- after #a- is probably induced by other bird names starting with #ai-, according to Chantraine.
5
The alternation m/b is caused by the contact *ml- > bl-.
6
Cf. Chantraine : 'L' α- initial présente l'ambiguïté habituelle, mais semble devoir être interprêté comme une
prothèse (ou un ə2).'
7
Idem : 'Il faut admettre un thème *piso, l' α- initial fait difficulté comme souvent (prothèse ?).
8
Id. : 'Le sens précis du mot conduirait à le rapprocher de pharungs.'
 Greek astakhus ~ stakhus 'wheat-ear'
Greek astralos10 ~ Latin sturnus 'starling' < *√st_r-/tr_s- 'starling, thrush'
Greek atharē 'kind of porridge' < *ghrew 'groats'11
Greek anthrēnē 'drone' ~ tenthrēnē 'wasp' ~ thronaks 'drone' < *√dhren 'to drone, buzz'
Greek atrapos12 'path' ~ trapeo 'to tread on'
It can be noted that utilizing *ˀa- and *-t-, a coherence can be given to the following membra disjecta
that the standard theory cannot handle : Latin aquila 'eagle' ~ Greek aisalos < *?a-kw-ya-los 'merlin
hawk' ~ Greek iktinos13 'kite' (with infix -t-) ~ Germanic *ku-tya 'kite'.
A variant form *ˀi- of the préfix *ˀa- exists in another set of words :
Irish ath 'oven' < Celt *apatinos < *ˀa-kwH2-tinos ~ Greek ipnos < *ˀi-kwH2-nos < *√kwH2 'to burn'
Greek ignue 'knee joint' ~ gonu ~ gnuks 'knee' < *√g_nu 'knee'
Greek (dialectal) iknus 'ash' < *√k_n 14
Greek ikhthūs15 'fish' < *√gh-dh-uH 'fish' (possibly from < *√gh_uH 'to gape, be wide open'
Greek iskhion 'hip' (< *i-s_k-snos) ~ Sanskrit sakthi 'thigh' 16

Peter Schrijver has made a survey of some bird-names in the languages of Western Europe. The
data collected reveal the existence of the prefix #a- in those languages as well, not only in Greek. The
idea that these bird-names are substratic is in our opinion unfounded. When properly analyzed, the
words appear to be fully Indo-European and are instances of the form IV.
*mesəl- ~ *aməsl- 'black-bird' : Welsj mwyalch ; Latin merula > French merle ; OHG amsla, amasla,
amisla, amusla ; OE ōsle.
*laHw- ~ *aləHw- 'lark' : OE lāverce > lark ; OHG lērahha, lērihha ; Middle Dutch leewerke ; Gaulish
alauda. This item has been borrowed into Finnish as leivo(nen).
*raud- ~ *arud- 'ore' : Latin raudus 'lump of ore' ; OHG aruz, ariz ; OE arut. This item has been
borrowed into Finnish as rauta and in Saami as ruowde.
*leuk- ~ *aleuk 'white' : French Alose < alausa 'a fish of the Moselle called shad, Culpea alosa'
attested in Ausonius.
It can be further added that some Hispanic toponyms like Arandis 'Junto al límite' become clear when
analyzed as being *a+rand 'limit, border'. As pointed out by previous analyses, *are+rand is difficult
and ad-hoc. The widespread distribution from Spain to Scandinavia and Greek cannot be explained
with local substrates. This prefix *ˀa- (and *ˀi-) is an inherited feature of Indo-European languages.

9
Id. : 'Le thème fait penser à celui de staphule 'grapes'. La forme à initiale α- semble la plus ancienne. Est-ce
une prothèse ?'
10
Id. : 'Avec prothèse, se rapproche évidemment de v.h.a. stara, lat. sturnus.'
11
This supposes a metathesis : *ghrew > *ghwer > θer.
12
Cf. Chantraine : 'Il faut admettre un α- copulatif et la racine qui se trouve dans trapeo 'to tread on' [...] c'est
la piste foulée.'
13
This word has an exact correspondent in Armenian.
14
The standard word is konia.
15
The Greek form is morphologically extraordinary and has both #ˀi- and the infix -dh-.
16
These two words have long been suspected of being related but the standard theory cannot handle the
relationship.
 • The prefix m-

Semitic, and Chamito-Semitic, is well-known for having an instrumental prefix #m-, which is used to
create several nominal derivatives from a given verb :
- name of instrument of action : mi-fˁal / mi-fˁāl,
- name of place of action : ma-fˁil / ma-fˁal,
These forms have close relationships with the passive participle mafˁūl and they are built according to
the same pattern, which combines the pronoun maˀ 'what, that which' and a verbal form. This pattern
is old in the CS family and examples of that formation can be found in Hieroglyphic Egyptian and in
Berber, at least. Examples in Hieroglyphic Egyptian are scarce : Coptic mesobe 'awl' related to ts_z_b
'sew' is one clear item. Sometimes, these derivatives have exact formal counterparts in Indo-European
languages :
Arabic ma-ġbīn 'loin' ~ Latin inguen, -is 'loin' < *ngwən with *m > *n assimilation.
Other examples exist :
Greek m-askhalē 'armpit, shoulder' ~ Latin axilla 'armpit' < Pok4 *aks 'armpit'
Latin m-ustela 'weasel' ~ English weasel < Germanic *wisulō < Pok1134 *wis 'vison, weasel'

The two prefixes *ˀa- and *m- can be combined to form *ˀam(a)-. This formation is mainly attested
in Berber languages, with possible attestations in some "Tchadic" languages as well. Examples in
Indo-European languages are not numerous but very clear :
Greek amārakon 'Organum majorana' ~ arakon 'a kind of weed, Lathyrus'
Greek amānītos 'Amanite mushroom' (< which causes pain) ~ anīē 'pain, suffering' (Homeric long ī)
The long /ā/ supposes /a+a/ and the prefix #ama- can then be segmented.
Greek amalθeia 'Amaltheia' < Pok651 *leH2-(dh) 'to hide, to forget'
The name of the goat who fed Zeus means 'that who hides Zeus', in relationship with the myth.
Greek amugdalē 'almond' < Pok472 *gwel 'acorn, ovale-shaped fruit with a hard shell'
This word was borrowed in Latin as *amanda which suggests that this original form was *amagdulā.
The metathesis in Greek is probably due to the frequency of -alē in Greek word formation and the later
opacity of this word to Greek speakers. It is unclear if the -d- of *amagdulā is an additional affix or a
phonetic development. Some Cyrenic forms with -s- as amusgela, amusgula, suggest that -d- may
well be an infix, and amaldūnô is coherent with this morphological scheme. In all cases, this word can
be analyzed meaning : 'something which has *ama-' plus 'the shape of an acorn *gdulā'. The root is
*gwel, a well attested Indo-European root and for that matter, *ama must have been a Proto-Indo-
European morpheme as well.
Greek amaldūnô 'to wipe, wash away' < Pok692 *lou- 'to wash'
The formation is exactly the same as in amugdalē : #ama- plus infix -d-.
It can be noted that the prefixes #m- and #a-m- provide a paradigm for the following set of words,
in relationship with milk : Latin lactus 'milk' ; Pok722 *melg 'to milk' ; Greek amelgô 'to milk'. The only
word that does not fit easily is Greek gala(kt-) milk.
References

BEEKES Robert, 1995, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
BENVENISTE Emile, 1935, Origines de la formation des noms en indo-europeen, Paris, Maisonneuve.
BOHAS Georges, 1997, Matrices, etymons, racines, Leuven, Peeters.
BOISACQ Emile, 1923, Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue grecque, Paris, Klincksieck.
BRUGMANN Karl, 1905, Abrege de grammaire comparee des langues indo-europeennes, Paris, Klincksieck.
CHANTRAINE Michel, 1983, Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue grecque, Paris, Klincksieck.
COLLINGE Neville E., 1985, The Laws of Indo-European, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
ERNOULT et MEILLET, 1932, Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine, Paris, Klincksieck.
GRIMM Jakob, 1848, Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache, Leipzig, Herzel.
KIMBALL Sara E., 1999, Hittite Historical Phonology, Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft, n° 95,
Innsbruck.
KURYŁOWICZ Jerzy, 1956, L’apophonie en indo-europeen, Wrocław, Ossolineum.
LEHMANN Winfred P., 1955, Proto-Indo-European Phonology, Austin, Univ. of Texas Press.
LEIBNIZ G. W., 1990, Nouveaux essais sur l’entendement humain, Paris, Flammarion.
MALLORY James, 1997a, A la recherche des Indo-Europeens, Paris, Le Seuil.
MALLORY James, 1997b, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.
MARTINET Andre, 1986, Des steppes aux oceans, Paris, Payot.
MEIER-BRUEGGER Michael, 2002, Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter.
MELCHERT H. Craig, 1994, Anatolian Historical Phonology, Leiden Studies in Indo-European.
MOLLER Hermann, 1906, Semitisch und Indogermanisch, Copenhague, H. Hagerup.
POKORNY Julius, 1959, Indo-Germanisches etymologisches Worterbuch (IEW), Berne, Francke Verlag.
PUHVEL Jaan, 1984, Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Berlin, Mouton Publishers.
SALMONS Joseph C., 1993. The Glottalic Theory. Survey and Synthesis, Journal of Indo-European Studies,
Monograph Series, n° 10, McLean, Institute for the Study of Man.
SCHRIJVER Peter, 1991, The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin, Amsterdam, Rodopi.
SAUSSURE Ferdinand de, 1870, Memoire sur le systeme primitif des voyelles dans les langues
indoeuropeennes, Leipzig, Teubner.
SCHLEGEL Friedrich, 1808, Ueber die Sprache und die Weisheit der Indier, Heidelberg, Mohr und Zimmer.
SERGENT Bernard, 1995, Les Indo-Europeens, Paris, Payot.
SZEMERENYI Oswald, 1973, La theorie des laryngales de Saussure a Kuryłowicz et a Benveniste, BSL, n° 68.