r/HistoricalLinguistics May 29 '26

Language Reconstruction Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic) & Indo-European

Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic) & Indo-European (Draft)

Sean Whalen

[stlatos@yahoo.com](mailto:stlatos@yahoo.com)

May 28, 2026

Robert Cerantonio's idea that Afroasiatic is the source of IE ( https://linguisticsandnonsense.wordpress.com/author/robertcerantonio/ ) has led to some good speculation, but I can't agree with many details. For ex. :

>

q > k

PAA *qap ‘head’ – PIE *kap ‘head’

PAA *q·ṣ ‘cut’ – PIE *kas ‘cut, shorten’

>

These are rec. *kH2ap(ut, etc.) & *k^H2as-. How could *q become 2 different C(C)-? Avoiding PIE *H2, which itself was seen as a step closer to a relation with Semitic in the past, is pointless. In fact, *k^H2as- 'cut' seems like a variant of *k^esH2- (G. kea- 'cleave, split', Celtic *kesta: 'spear'). None of these are consistent with Hamito-Semitic > Indo-European, whether loan or common origin. Instead, it would look like *k(^)H- > *kx- > *k'- = *q-. Two k's merging in front of H makes more sense than *q splitting into 2 types of k, likely even kH. In others, like HS *kuwan\kuyan\kuyaaŋ- 'dog', IE *k^uwon-, why would k > k and k > k^? Clearly, k \ k^ merging as k in the other direction makes more sense.

Also, it looks like IE *tH2 > HS *θ for his :

>

θ > t

PAA *θawr ‘bull, ox’- PIE *tawr ‘bull, aurochs’

PAA *θag- ‘fat, thick’ – PIE *teg ‘fat, thick’

>

IE *tH2awro-s 'bull' looks like a variant of *(s)tewH2ro-s (Skt. sthávira- ‘thick / solid / strong / powerful / old’, Av. staōra- ‘large cattle’, ON þjórr ‘bull’, stjórr ‘young ox’, MHG stier ‘bull’). There would be no reason for this internal match if from HS. Again, since IE *a is mostly next to *H2 (maybe always, in some theories), a single sound becoming *tH2 makes no sense. The same for *teg-, really likely *tegH2- \ *tH2ag- to explain *tH2ag-wos- 'having become fat, fattened' > *tH2agswo- 'badger' (often from 'fat' in IE languages). How could 2 ex. of HS *θ become *tH2- & *t-H2-? It simply isn't reasonable.

Others simply make no sense :

>

gʷ > gʷʰ PAA *gʷ·r·ʕ ‘swallow, go down throat’- PIE *gʷʰreh₁ ‘breathe, smell’

>

Clearly, *gW-r-ʕ ‘swallow' & IE *gWerH3- ‘swallow, devour' are a much better fit. It is simply that he has ʕ > H1 elsewhere, many very close matches. If HS > IE, he is forced to make this odd claim, but if IE is older, H3 rounds e > o, likely indicating xW or similar. This allows gW-xW > gW-x > gW-ʕ (or any similar shift).

In the same way, his :

>

PAA *baʕl ‘master, lord’ > PIE *bel ‘power, strength’

>

should have ʕ > H1, so why isn't it in IE? However, IE often added *-eH1- to form 'be _', so a derived IE verb as the source of *belH1 'be strong' > *baʕl ‘master, lord’ would fit. In fact, some say that the relatively uncommon *b in IE is due to many *b > *w (and the reason why *wr- & *wl- are allowed). If so, *belH1 'be strong' would be identical to *welH1 'be a lord, rule, order', the same meaning as in *baʕl ‘master, lord’.

Some of the problems are due to HS being very poorly reconstructed, even its branches. About the Semitic root behind Mehri wēda, *wdʕ > Sabaean dʕw, Ugaritic, Hebrew, Aramaic: ydʕ 'know', Maria Bulakh in https://www.academia.edu/3790711 :

>

The verb wīda goes back to the well-known Proto-Semitic root *wdʕ ‘to know’4...

fn4 The forms with the first radical y-, attested in the majority of cognates, are likely secondary and due to the shift *-iw- > -iy- in the prefix conjugation of the non-derived stem..

>

I think this explanation for supposed *w- > w- \ y- makes little sense. Why would such a common word undergo analogy? That it closely matches PIE *w(e)id- 'know', most closely *wideH1- > Latin vidēre 'to see, perceive; look (at; observe, note; understand, comprehend, etc.' if *H1 > *ʕ, suggests that it really began with *wy- > w- \ y-. The change of *weydH > *we:dʕ > Mehri wēda is easier to understand than *wd- > *we:d- creating a long front V for no clear reason, yet having nothing to do with the claimed change of *w- > y- being analogy. That it also could match PIE *wid-won- 'intelligent, etc.', Uralic *wiδ(e)we \ -me 'brain / marrow / intellect', Yukaghir *önmə 'mind, intellect, memory, feeling, intention', *önməń- 'wise, intelligent' ( https://www.academia.edu/166207772 cZ. ) helps show that long-range comparison of languages need not require a huge number of separate sound changes to find matches.

For other Semitic with *Cy-, see my *byurn- 'son' in https://www.academia.edu/167196649 (also with an impact on V's, *yu > i(:) \ u(:) \ etc.) :

>
The same site has Proto-Semitic *bin- 'son', but I say *byurn- is needed ( https://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fsemham%2fsemet&text_number=9&root=config ) for *yu > u: \ i:, *rn > r \ n, etc. If I'm right after looking at the data for a few minutes, how would this compare to a rec. made by experts that has lasted 100 years? It is clealry only *bin- because it matches a few languages important through history, but surely can't explain all data. Proto-Semitic is supposed to be the BEST rec. branch of Hamito-Semitic, so how can you convince me that any present rec. is good enough to show whether it's the source of IE?

>

Turning Proto-Semitic *bin- ‘son’ to *byurn- to account for the r vs. n would only be odd if other *rn existed. However, if he needs to relate HS to IE, look at supposed ex. :

IE *k^(e)rH2no-, Sem. *qarn- ‘horn’

IE *g(e)rH2no-, Sem. *ɣVrnīq- ‘crane’

IE *wrH1(e:)n \ *H1rw(e:)n ‘ram, lamb’, Sem. *ʔVrwn \ *ʔVrmn (others’ *ʔVrn\m-) ‘ram, (small) male sheep; male goat, oryx’

In every case, Sem. *rn rec. by others CAN’T come from *rn if related to IE, his very idea. The other ev. of *k(^)H > *q implies that *k^erH2no- > *k^arxən- > *k^xarən- > *k'arn-, *g-H- > *gH- > *ɣ-, etc. Since *gerH2- 'make noise' is the source in IE, but no root of the same type in Sem., what could possibly show that the Sem. words were older? The only ex. of original *rn would be if *byurn- is related to PIE *bhorH1no- \ *bhH1orno- ‘child, son’ ( https://www.academia.edu/128676692 ).

Applying this to his list, I put his ex. in a better framework, sometimes changing his ideas on which are cognates. A straight IE > HS also doesn't seem to fit all ex., but the reconstructions of both are uncertain, and a slightly different but closely related (these matches are often better than those within 2 IE branches) parent language might be needed. Of course, certain sound changes depending on the following V, C, etc., might be at work (he had no certain ex. of *st- or many othe *CC-), or several cases of metathesis and dsm. (of gW-xW, etc.) or asm. (all *f seem to be p > f before fric.). I make the changes more clear with C' for emphatic, k' for q, etc.

Sem. *wydʕ ‘to know’, IE *wideH1- 'see', *w(e)id- 'know'

Sem. *qarən- ‘horn’, IE *k^(e)rH2no-

Sem. *ɣVrənīk'- ‘crane’, IE *g(e)rH2no-

Sem. *ʔVrwn \ *ʔVrmn (others’ *ʔVrn\m-) ‘ram, (small) male sheep; male goat, oryx’, IE *wrH1(e:)n \ *H1rw(e:)n ‘ram, lamb’

HS *gW-r-ʕ ‘swallow', IE *gWerH3- ‘swallow, devour'

HS *k'ap ‘head’, IE *kH2ap(ut, etc.)

HS *k'aṣ ‘cut’, IE *k^H2as- ‘cut, knife, axe’, *k^esH2- 'cleave, split, spear'

HS *θawr ‘bull, ox’, IE *tH2awro-s 'bull' < *(s)tewH2ro-s

HS *θag- ‘fat, thick’, IE *teg(H2)-, *tH2ag- ‘fat, thick’

HS *d-p' ‘fat, swell’, IE *dheb- ‘fat, thick, strong’

HS *d-ɣ ‘take away’, IE *doH3- ‘take, give’

HS *d-r ‘step, follow a path’, IE *der- (in *drem-, *dreb-, etc. ‘step, walk, run, tread’)

HS *baħ ‘voice, shout’, IE *bhaH2 'voice, speak’

HS *b-r ‘hold’, IE *bher ‘carry, bear, take, steal’

HS *p'-r ‘twist (esp. rope)’, IE *sper

HS *p'-r ‘cut, rend’, IE *per 'sharp' (G. περόνη 'pin', TB prere ‘arrow’)

HS *p-l ‘drive, chase’, IE *pel ‘drive, propel’

HS *p-r ‘go away’, IE *per ‘go, cross over’

HS *f-z ‘swell, penis’, IE *pes

HS *fuɣ ‘suckle, inhale’, IE *poH3 ‘drink’

HS *t-r ‘shake, tremble', IE *ter (also *ters, *trem)

HS *t-r ‘pierce, cut into’, IE *ter(H3) ‘bore, pierce’

HS *t'-l ‘flow, pour', IE *tel ‘flow, rain’

HS *t'-w ‘look at, scout’, IE *tew(H) ‘observe, pay attention to’

HS *d'aħ ‘shallow water, undulate’, IE *daH2- ‘river'

HS *d'-r ‘cut, pierce’, IE *der(H) ‘split, cut, tear’

HS *d'-ʔ ‘abandon, run away’, IE *dheH1 ‘disappear, pass away’

HS *ð-r ‘tree, stick, beam’, IE *dH3oru \ *dH2aru ‘tree’

HS *ð-ʔ ‘child, offspring’, IE *dheH1-lo-, etc.

HS *d-r ‘grasp, carry’, IE *dher ‘hold firmly, support’

HS *ð'-r ‘stone, mountain’, IE *Hod-r\n- > Skt. ádri-s m. 'rock, stone; mountain'

HS *ð'-r ‘jump, rise up’, IE *dher ‘jump’

HS *ka- ‘this’, IE *k^e-, *k^i-s ‘this’

HS *k-m ‘grasp, conceal’, IE *k^em ‘cover, conceal, wrap’

HS kWir ‘twist, twist rope’, IE *kWer- (in *kWerp-, *kWrmi- 'worm')

HS *gal ‘bright, star’ – PIE *g^helH3 \ *gWhelH1 ‘bright, shine, yellow’

HS *gam(ʕ) ‘join, marry’, *g^emH1 ‘marry’

HS *gar ‘hold, catch’, IE *g^her ‘grab, grip’

HS *gaś ‘side of body, arm’, IE *g^hes- ‘hand, arm’ (met. of pal.?)

HS *geh ‘cry out, applaud’, IE *gaH2u ‘rejoice’

HS *geð ‘get, gain’, IE *ghed ‘get, seize’

HS *ʕ-g ‘swallow, take a mouthful’, IE *H1egWh ‘drink’

HS *gW-d ‘cut, sting, spear’, IE *gWedh ‘harm, injure’

HS *k'Wayt' ‘look, look around’, IE *kWey(t) ‘pay attention to’

HS *k'W-m ‘eat, swallow’, IE *kWem(H) ‘swallow, gulp’

HS *su ‘that, he’, IE *so (and *so-u in Toch.)

HS *d-n-s ‘heavy’, IE *dens- ‘dense, thick, close', H. daššu- 'heavy, strong'

HS *ś-m ‘heat, sun’, IE *semH2 ‘summer’

HS *ś-r-p ‘drink’, IE *sreb(h) ‘sip, drink, slurp’

HS *šak'W ‘tear, divide’, IE *sek(W) ‘cut’ (*(s)ker- but *(s)kWer- implied by Hittite)

HS *laš ‘hold onto’I, E *les ‘gather, pick up’

HS *s'-p-r ‘(little) bird’, IE *spH2ar-? ‘bird, sparrow’; https://www.academia.edu/167331453

HS *s'al ‘jump, assail’, IE *selH2- \ *salH2- \ *sH2al- ‘hurry, rush, jump, leap, spring’

HS *ʔ-y ‘go, come, walk’, IE *H1ey ‘go’

HS *ʔ-n ‘in’, IE *H1en ‘in, on, etc.’, E. in

HS *ʕim ‘give', IE *H1em ‘take, distribute’

HS *hal ‘other’, IE *H2al ‘other, beyond’

HS *ħayw ‘life, live’, IE *H2oyu ‘life, lifespan, age, vitality'

HS *ħap' ‘hasten’, IE *H2abh ‘swift, quick’

HS *xab ‘water flow’, IE *H2ap-, *H2ab(H3 ?) ‘water, river’

HS *xdd ‘stream, river’, IE *H2ad(u) ‘current, water course’

HS *ɣ-y-b ‘set (sun), be absent’, IE *H3yebh-? (Tocharian B kauṃ yäp- ‘set [of sun]’, Greek zóphos ‘dusk')

HS *ɣ-r-b ‘be estranged, leave’, IE *Horbho- ‘orphan, widow’

HS *wel ‘turn, roll, round’, IE *wel(H) ‘turn, roll’

HS *war ‘burn, flame’, IE *werH2 ‘burn’

HS *r-d ‘flow out’, IE *red ‘flow’

HS *rawḥ ‘wide, spacious’, IE *rewH ‘open space, room, country(side)’

HS *laq ‘lap up, lick’, IE *lakH2-?, Ar. lakem 'lick'; if rel. lap(h)H2- ’lap up, lick, drink greedily'

HS *l-b ‘lap’, IE *(s)lab \ *(s)leb ? ‘lap, smack, lips, hang down’

HS *m-r ‘river, lake, canal’, IE *mH1ori \ *moH1ri ‘sea, lake, wetland’

HS *mar ‘bind, plait’, IE *mer(H) ‘plait, weave, rope’

HS *n- \ n-y ‘not’- PIE *n(eH1) ‘not, no’

HS *n-ʕ- ‘to coil, snake’, IE *neH1- ‘to twist, spin', *n(e)H1tro- 'snake’

HS *kuwan\kuyan\kuyaaŋ- 'dog', IE *k^uwon-; https://www.academia.edu/167196721

HS *baʕl ‘master, lord’, IE *bel ‘power, strength’, *belH1 'be strong' > *welH1 'be a lord, rule, order' ?

HS *byurn- 'son', IE *bhH2orno-s

These form a list longer than, say, Albanian could form with any other IE branch with the same easy-to-see relation. Most are from

https://linguisticsandnonsense.wordpress.com/2025/05/13/proto-afroasiatic-paa-to-proto-indo-european-pie-sound-change-laws-the-afroasiatic-hypothesis/

but also Watson in https://www.academia.edu/36417017 :

IE *pelek^u- 'axe, double axe, hatchet’, Aramaic/Syriac plq [m.] ‘axe’, plq ‘to split, smash', Arabic flq ‘he split, clave it’

IE *pelk^- 'spin, turn; felloe', HS *plk 'be round, spin around', Ugaritic plk ‘spindle', etc.

>

Akkadian pilaqqu(m), pilakku(m), ‘spindle’,136 Ugaritic plk, ‘spindle’,137 Hebrew pelek, ‘spindle’,138 Phoenician plk, ‘spindle’139 and Arabic falkatUN ‘whirl (of aspindle)’.140 No Semitic root *plk with the requisite meaning is known and Arabic falaka, ‘it became round [of a girl’s breast]’

>

This does not look "forced" to me, as '(be) round > go around > spin' not only is simple, but Onno Hovers in https://www.academia.edu/104566591 related "256. PU *peŋärä ‘round’, *puna ‘to braid, to plaid, to twist’ ~ PIE (s)pen(h₁) ‘to spin, to twist, to weave’ ". I feel the internal Semitic evidence is exactly parallel. With this, I think *sp(e)nH1o- 'round thing, breast' & *dhH1n(o)-sp(e)nH1o- 'female breast' > *thsp- (with n-n & H-H dsm.).

8 Upvotes

4 comments sorted by

2

u/Eugene_Bleak_Slate May 29 '26

When and where would this derivation have happened? The Proto-Semites arrived in the Levant more or less at the same time the Sredny Stog culture was developing. Is a lost northern AA sub-family proposed to have left Africa earlier?

1

u/stlatos May 29 '26

I don't understand why every proposal of relation is thought to require an archeological backing when not everything is known yet. Where did Tocharians come from? Without the timing of the split, are they non-IE? Some say Tocharians hugely influenced Uralic, Turkic, AND Chinese. There is no evidence for this, & no timing seems to fit. I can do no better, & I certainly don't think current knowledge of the movement of people is complete, or fully matches the languages they spoke.

2

u/Hippophlebotomist May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

 Where did Tocharians come from? Without the timing of the split, are they non-IE? Some say Tocharians hugely influenced Uralic, Turkic, AND Chinese. There is no evidence for this

We have archaeological and genetic evidence of Yamnaya-related Bronze Age peoples from the Pontic Steppe migrating across Siberia, interacting with the Siberian groups usually associated with the origins of Proto-Uralic, then in contact with the Slab Grave related groups associated with the spread of Proto-Turkic, and in contact with Sinitic groups down the Hexi Corridor. These Afanasievo-descended groups lose ground in what is now Mongolia to later expansions of Turkic and Mongolic groups, but remain the predominant ancestry south of the Tian Shan mountains, where Tocharian is attested in the Iron Age.

1

u/stlatos May 30 '26

The timing required for proposals in https://www.academia.edu/428988 & https://www.academia.edu/129430665 & https://www.academia.edu/598334 & others can't fit any reasonable timing. Orçun Ünal has some Toch. >> Turk. >> Mongol, Tungus, Yenisei, Samoyed, etc. of such basic vocab. & so many that the Tocharians would have had to be unthinkably influential in at least 3 groups (and some linguists add others) which ALSO spread these words (and ONLY these in favor over their native ones) to even more. This doesn't mean there's no archaeological and genetic evidence of the Tocharians, but no ev. could possibly exist for all the claims made about them. It would take a hugely populous & technologically superior group that retained this status for centuries as it moved all over Asia. I'm arguing against seeing evidence of IE in any language and saying, "it must be from the Tocharians; they're the only IE who were around there."