Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2026 / Egypto-Semitic Comparison: Some Considerations on Bilabials and Dentals Relationship

Egypto-Semitic Comparison: Some Considerations on Bilabials and Dentals Relationship

Summary

Comparing Ancient Egyptian with Semitic is hard because the two do not line up neatly in sound. Egyptian seems to lack the dental fricatives and emphatics found elsewhere in Afroasiatic, so their fate in Egyptian is disputed. Franci examines the bilabial and dental series using two semantic fields of the Afroasiatic lexicon: anatomy and bodily functions, and physical environment, wild plants and wild animals.

He first sets out the working assumptions of the competing schools, including Diakonoff's School and the neure Komparatistik following Rössler. He then sorts the cognate sets into three groups:

  • regular matches, such as Common Semitic *p to Egyptian p and *b to b;
  • occasional alternations that are irregular but tolerated;
  • problem cases.

His conclusions are that Egyptian preserved both Afroasiatic *p and *f, which Semitic merged, and that some apparent irregularities come from borrowing rather than shared roots. He also flags Rössler's reading of the Egyptian pharyngeal ˁ as [d] as unresolved. The result is a cleaner, better-argued set of correspondences for Egypto-Semitic lexical comparison.

Key points

  • Bilabials: *p, *b and *f can be reconstructed for Afroasiatic. The *f/*p split rests on Egypto-Chadic matches, while an emphatic *ṗ is still not generally accepted.
  • Three-way versus two-way systems: Egyptian, Chadic and Southern Cushitic have /p f b/, while Semitic, Omotic, Berber and Cushitic have /p b/. Greenberg treats the Semitic merger as the innovation; Moscati treats the Egyptian split as the innovation.
  • Dentals: the triad *t, *d, *ṭ survives in Semitic, Berber and Cushitic. It was lost in Egyptian (apparently *ṭ > d) and in Chadic, with North Bauchi as the one exception.
  • The Egyptian ˁ problem:
    • Rössler maps ˁ to Common Semitic *d, *ḏ, *z and *ḏ̣.
    • Loprieno posits an intermediate lateral stage.
    • Zeidler proposes an unwritten third dental.
    • Pairs like *DARDAR- "thistle" versus ˁrˁr "tamarisk" leave the question open.
  • Interdentals: the match Common Semitic *ṯ to Egyptian š is attributed to loanwords, based on Semitic placenames in the Egyptian Execration Texts. The normal reflex is t.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. The author labels each correspondence as regular, tolerated-occasional (with a stated cause, such as Egyptian b possibly being fricative [β]) or unexplained, instead of forcing everything into one rule set. — For Mova (learn): self-induced repair rules could carry the same three-level status plus a recorded reason, so exceptions stay auditable rather than silently overriding the main rule.
  • I2. The theoretical premises (items a–g) are listed explicitly before any data is analysed, so readers can see which conclusions depend on which assumptions. — For Mova (learn): every witness parser or LLM teacher tier could declare its assumptions, letting silver-data disagreements be traced back to differing premises.
  • I3. Phonetic incompatibility infers an unknown sign's value from the sounds it never co-occurs with. In other words, negative distribution is used as evidence. — For Mova (tokens): the tagger could use systematic absences in context, not only positive co-occurrences, as explainable evidence when guessing the category of an unknown word.
  • I4. Borrowed and inherited material is separated using an independent, datable source (placenames in the Execration Texts) rather than sound shape alone. — For Mova (world): knowledge graph links could record provenance (native ontology versus imported Wikidata/FrameNet mapping), so conflicting facts can be judged by their origin.
  • I5. The comparison is restricted to a few semantic fields, which narrows the search space and makes candidate matches easier to check. — For Mova (frames): VerbNet role assignment could be tuned and validated one semantic field at a time (e.g., motion, perception), keeping error analysis focused.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

@inproceedings{franci2026egypto,
  title = {{Egypto-Semitic Comparison: Some Considerations on Bilabials and Dentals Relationship}},
  author = {Franci, Massimiliano},
  booktitle = {Folia Orientalia 51},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://wydawnictwo.pan.pl/index.php/fo/article/view/6861}
}

References

45 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Blažek, V. 1988 “A New Contribution to Comparative Afrasian Linguistics”, AAS 24: 203-222. find
  2. Cohen, M. 1969 2 Essai comparatif sur le vocabulaire et la phonétique du chamito-sémitique, Paris. find
  3. Conti, G. 1976 “Il sistema consonantico egiziano”, OA 15:44-55. find
  4. Conti, G. 1978 Rapporti tra egiziano e semitico nel lessico egiziano dell’agricoltura, QuSem 6, Firenze. find
  5. Conti, G. 1980 Sul bilitterismo in semitico e in egiziano. Il tema n1212, QuSem 9, Firenze. find
  6. Crevatin, F. 1985 “Invito all’etimologia dell’egiziano antico”, InL 10 :125-138. find
  7. Diakonoff, I. M. 1988 Afrasian Languages, Moscow. find
  8. Dolgopolsky, A. B. 2004 “Etymology of some hamito-semitic (afroasiatic) animal names”, in G. Takács (ed.), Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies in Memoriam W. Vycichl, Leiden – Köln:417-436. M. Franci, Problemi di Toponomastica Semitica nei Testi di Esecrazione Egiziani, Tesi di Laurea AA 2000, MS. pp. 151-154. find
  9. Franci, M. 2010 “Estensione della radice nella comparazione egitto-semitica”, in CAMSEMUD 2007 : proceedings of the 13th Italian meeting of Afro-Asiatic linguistics. Held in Udine, May 21st-24th, 2007 - History of the ancient Near East. Monographs; 10 – edited by Frederick Mario Fales & Giulia Francesca Grassi, Udine: 87-110. find
  10. Fronzaroli, P. 1965 “Studi sul lessico comune semitico. III I Fenomeni Naturali”, ANLR se VIII, vo. XX, fasc.3-4, Roma :xx-xx. find
  11. Greenberg, J. H. 1954 “The Labial Consonants of Proto-Afroasiatic”, Word 14: 295-302. find
  12. Greenberg, J. 1958 “The Labial Consonants of Proto-Afro-Asiatic”, Word 14:295-302. 68 On the meaning of “wolf” see also Hodge 1976:11, and Cohen that suggested a comparison with Berber Sous uššen “jackal”, see Cohen 1969 2 : 199, n° 514. 69 See Cohen 1969 2 : 157. 70 Franci 2000: 151-154. find
  13. Greenberg, J. H. 1965 “The evidence for */ m b/ as a proto-Afroasiatic phoneme”, in A. Heinz – M. Karas (eds.), Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgie Kuryłowicz, Krakow: 88-92. find
  14. Haruna, A. 1995 “On the glottalic consonants in chadic”, in D. Ibriszimow – R. Leger (eds.), Studia Chadica et Hamitosemitca, Köln: 138-162. find
  15. Hayward, R. J. 2000 “Afroasiatic”, in B. Heine – D. Nurse (eds.), African Languages. An Introduction, Cambridge:74-98. find
  16. Hodge, C. T. 1976 “An Egypto-Semitic Comparison”, FO 17:5-28. find our card
  17. Illič-svityč, V.M. 1966 Iz istorii čadskogo konsonantizma: labialjnye smyčnye, Jazyki Afriki. find
  18. Kossmann, M. G. 1997 Grammaire du parler Berbèere de Figuig, Paris- Louvain. find
  19. Lacau, P. 1970 Les noms des parties du corps en égyptien et en sémitique, Extrait des Mémoires de l’Académie, Tome XLIV, Paris. find
  20. Loprieno, A. 1977 “A proposito delle consonanti dentali e velari in egiziano ed in semitico”, AION 37/2:125-142. find
  21. Loprieno, A. 1994 “As a summary: new tendencies in Egyptological linguistics”, Lingua Aegyptia 4:369-382. find
  22. Loprieno, A. 1995 Ancient Egyptian. find
  23. A Linguistic Introduction, Cambridge 1995. find
  24. Militarev, A. Y. 1976 O predpolagayemom prasemitiskom *ṗ (On the probable Proto-Semitic *ṗ), Istoriya i filologiya drevnego Vostoka, XI Godichnaya nauchnaya sessiya. Militarev, A. - L. Kogan 2000, Semitic Etymological Dictionary, Volume 1, Anatomy of Man and Animals, AOAT 276/1, Münster. Militarev, A. – L. Kogan 2005 Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. II Animal Names, Münster. find
  25. Moscati, S. 1969 An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages, Roma. find
  26. Orel, V. 1995 “From Hamito-Semitic to Ancient Egyptian Historical Phonology”, FOLH 16:143-155. Orel, V. – O. Stolbova 1995 Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary, Leiden. find
  27. Petraček, K. 1988 “Nochmals über die Struktur der Wurzeln mit den Pharyngalen im Altägyptischen und Semitischen und ihre Inkompabilität“, in Y. L. Arbeitman (ed.), Fucus. A Semitic/Afrasian Gathering in Remembrance of Albert Ehrman, Amsterdam: 371-377 Roccati, A. 2000 “Ricerche sulla scrittura egizia – V Aporie della notazione linguistica egizia nel III e II millennio a.C.”, RSO 74 :1-7. find
  28. Roquet, G. 1973 “Incompatibiliés dans la racine en ancien égyptien”, GM 6: 108-117. find
  29. Rössler, O. 1964 “Libysch – Hamitisch – Semitisch”, Oriens 17: 199-216. find
  30. Rössler, O. 1971 “Das Ägyptische als semitische Sprache”, in F. Altheim - R. Stiehl, Christentum am Roten Meer, vo. 1, Berlin - New York : . Satzinger, H. 1997 “Egyptian in the Afroasiatic Frame: Recent Egyptological Issues with an Impact on Comparative Studies”, in: A. Bausi, M. Tosco (eds.), Afroasiatica Neapolitana, Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale: 27-48. find
  31. Schenkel, W. 1993 “Zu den Verschluss- und Reibelauten in Ägyptischen und (Hamito) Semitischen. Ein Versuch zur Synthese der Lehrmeinungen”, Lingua Aegyptia 3:137-149. find
  32. Stolbova, O. V. 1996 Studies in Chadic Comparative Phonology, Moscow. find
  33. Svolacchia, M. 1987 “Tipologia delle ostruenti labiali in afroasiatico e implicazioni diacroniche e teoriche”, Atti della 4° giornata di studi camito-semitici, Milano:181-193. find
  34. Takács, G. 1997 “Selected Egypto-Afrasian correspondences from the field of anatomical terminology”, in A. Bausi e M. Tosco (eds.), Afroasiatica Neapoletana, Napoli:225-250. find
  35. Takács, G. 1999a Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Volume One A Phonological Introduction, Köln. find
  36. Takács, G. 1999b “Sibilant and Velar consonants of South Cushitic and their regular correspondences in Egyptian and other Afro-Asiatic branches”, in Crevatin, M. -Lamberti, M. (eds.), Afroasiatica Tergestina, Proceedings of the 9 th Italian Meeting on Afroasiatic Linguistics (Trieste 23-24 April 1998), Trieste:393-426. find
  37. Takács, G. 2000 “Recent Problems of Egyptian Historical Phonology at the Present Stage of Comparative-Historical Afroasiatic Linguistics”, in J. Lecarme – J. Lowenstamm – U. Shlonsky (eds.), Research in Afroasiatic Grammar, Amsterdam: 345-378. find
  38. Titov, E.G. 1991 “On the history of the study of Semito-Hamitic Languages Family”, Semitic Studies in Honour of W. Leslau, II, Wiesbaden:1549-1561. find
  39. Tosco, M. 2001 The Dhaasanac Language, Köln. find
  40. Voigt, R. 2002 “The Hamitic Connection”, IOS 20: 265-290. find
  41. Ward, W. A. 1961 “Comparative Studies in Egyptian and Ugaritic”, JNES 20:31-40. find
  42. Ward, W. A. 1962 “Some Egypto-Semitic Roots”, OrNs 31:397-412. find
  43. Ward, W. A. 1985 “Reflections on Methodology in Egypto-Semitic Lexicography”, in J. N. Tubb (ed.), Palestine and the Bronze and Iron Ages, Paper in Honour of Olga Tufnell, London: 232-248. find
  44. Westerndorf, W. 1962 Grammatik der medizinischen Texte, Berlin. find
  45. Zeidler, J. 1992 “Altägyptisch und Hamitosemitisch. Bemerkungen zu den Vergleichenden Studien von Karel Petracek“, LingAeg 2:206-210. find

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/franci-2026-egypto-semitic-comparison-some-considerations/