PL-MonosyllableMeaning.htm

I set for myself the task of determining the vowel qualities of words in Ancient Egyptian; and this led to an intensive study of ancient writing on the one hand, and phonology on the other. This original project, in which I believe I have succeeded, took me far afield from my original purpose.

In the course of my investigation, I began to see patterns of similarity among Ancient Egyptian words and Indo-European words; and, I confess, I was unaware of the theory usually called Nostratic when I first noticed these patterns independently. The realization that these patterns existed (at least, consonantally) enduced me to subscribe to the Nostratic Hypothesis in its minimum formulation (Indo-European and Afrasian) but, because of the peculiar nature of Indo-European vocalization (Ablaut) and Afrasian (vowel-patterning), I was still unable to determine the nature of Ancient Egyptian vocalization.

Of course, I might have concluded at that point with the position that is shared by most Egyptologists today: that Ancient Egyptian, being a member of the Afrasian language-family, shared the widespread but not universal Afrasian characteristic of having reduced morphemes to consonantal skeletons, which are fitted with vowels in patterns that indicate grammatical classifications and derived semantic variations.

After gaining familiarity with the work of J. Vergote principally [Grammaire Copte - Introduction, Phonétique et Phonologie, Morphologie Synthématique (Structure des Sémantèmes), 2 vol. 1973. Louvain: Édit. Peeters], which, I think, can still be said to be the foundation for the theories which attribute to Ancient Egyptian vowel-patterning analogous to that found in the Semitic branch of Afrasian; and becoming convinced these constituted only a vapid exercise in post hoc rationalization of attested Coptic vocalizations of Ancient Egyptian words; and, as a consequence, continuing my quest, I became aware that some of the patterns I had noticed among Ancient Egyptian and Indo-Europeans words extended to Sumerian, for which we had some solid indications of vowel quality in the invariable Sumerian stems.

I saw that, though Indo-European vowels fluctuated because of Ablaut variations, and what I was to later to learn to consider the effects of the laryngal-pharyngals (called, inaccurately, the "Laryngeal Theory"), which had disappeared in Indo-European, leaving only traces in the coloring of the vowels; words with Indo-European initial palatalized dorsals (g^, k^, g^h, k^(h), g^w, g^wh, k^w) corresponded to Sumerian "cognates" beginning with C + e/i but not to C + a/u.

This was, for me, a real breakthrough. When I, in turn, attempted to find these Indo-European cognates in Ancient Egyptian, I found, to my surprise, that both IE g^ and k^ corresponded to Ancient Egyptian k but that IE g and k corresponded to Ancient Egyptian T (barred t).

Now, though Ancient Egyptian k and T have different reflexes in Coptic (k and c), Ancient Egyptian d and t both have Coptic t; and, importantly, Indo-European cognates for these Egyptian words contained both d and t but not correlated; i.e. Ancient Egyptian d appeared as Indo-European d or t; and also, Ancient Egyptian t appeared as Indo-European d or t.

It appeared certain to me from this and other correspondences among cognates that several Ancient Egyptian pairs of consonants [3-r, p-f, d-t, k-T(bar t) D(bar d)-‘, H(dot h)-x, z-s, S(hook s)-X(bar h)] represented not differences of voicing but rather phonological characteristics attributable to the former presence of one of three vowels; a, e, or o.

So, although I could determine from the Ancient Egyptian consonant whether the following vowel had been non-e (r/f/t/T/'/x/s/X told me, I thought, that the vowel following had to be o or a), I could still not determine from Ancient Egyptian or Indo-European how to distinguish between an earlier C + a and C + o.

However, when I again looked for Sumerian cognates, I found, again to my surprise, that while C + e always corresponded with Sumerian C + e/i, both C + a and C + o corresponded with Sumerian C + a/u. I concluded from this that, in Sumerian, earlier a and o had either coalesced, or that, in our Akkadian interpretation of Sumerian vocalism, a distinction which might have been present in Sumerian was not capable of being maintained by the Akkadians.

But further comparison among the three surprised me again by showing that Ancient Egyptian k, which I thought represented Indo-European g^/k^, showed up in cognates in Sumerian as ge/i or ga/u. And a further study of Ancient Egyptian and Indo-European cognates revealed that Ancient Egyptian k could also appear in Indo-European as non-palatalized g and k.

These circumstances made me realize that Ancient Egyptian k represented an earlier g/ka, which showed up in Indo-European as g/k + V and Sumerian as ga/u but also represented g/ke, which showed up in Indo-European as g^/k^ + V and Sumerian and ge/i.

On the other hand, Ancient Egyptian T, which I now thought I knew represented only an earlier g/ko, showed up in Indo-European only as g/k + V and Sumerian only as ga/u.

These circumstances induced me to conclude that

1. an earlier language, the parent of Ancient Egyptian (and Afrasian), Indo-European, and Sumerian, had had three vowels: e, a, and o;


2. that e and a had coalesced in Ancient Egyptian, and that consonants originally followed by these vowels had become phonemically distinguished from those originally followed by o;


3. that a and o had coalesced or were not distinguishable from the Akkadian transcription of Sumerian;


4. that, although all vowels had been leveled in Indo-European to one vowel (probably low central /a/; W. P. Lehmann's "syllabicity"), and modified by laryngal-pharyngals, and Ablaut, the presence of an earlier e could be detected, only in the dorsal series, by the retention of palatalization in the satem-language sub-grouping of Indo-European.

If these assumptions were correct, provided I could find a cognate in Ancient Egyptian, Indo-European, and Sumerian, I could determine the vowel-quality of the related earlier language word; and, if it contained a dorsal, an earlier e could be confirmed by palatalization in Indo-European:

C + E	C+A	C+O
Egyptian non-o form	Egyptian non-o form	Egyptian o-form
Sumerian C + e/i	Sumerian C + a/u	Sumerian C + a/u
Indo-European (palatalized)	Indo-European (non-palatalized)	Indo-European (non-palatalized)

These relationships allowed for the probable determination of the vowel following an initial consonant but, because of the usual stem form of many Sumerian and Indo-European words (CVC), although the non-o or o-quality of the vowel originally following the final consonant could be determined through Egyptian (and the occasional presence of palatalized dorsals in Indo-European words insured that, at some earlier date, vowels had followed the final consonants), and a palatalized final dorsal would allow the reconstruction of a final C + e in some cases, and, in a few cases, differential reflexes in Sumerian [earlier r/r^ho=l (as opposed to r); t^?/hse=z (as opposed to t); s^(h)e=S (as opposed to s); x^(h)e=S (as opposed to h)]; still, in many cases, neither Sumerian nor Indo-European would enable a determination to be made of whether the vowel following the final consonant had been a or e. And, Egyptian did not have distinguishable non-o and o-variants for every phoneme (b, m, n were written the same).

A further complication was that many words from the earlier language contained what had become a medial semi-vowel (w from f^(h); and y from ¿e), so that Sumerian C + e/i might represent Ce + y, Ca + y, Co + y, as well as simple Ce; and C + u might represent Ce + w, Ca + w, Co + w, as well as simple Co (and, possibly, Ca).

These circumstances prompted me to further efforts. At that point, no language I had investigated had preserved the original vowels in an unambiguously determinable form, so I began to look at other alternatives.

After some reading in sound symbolism, I began to wonder if semantic connections could be made between phonemes and generalized semantic ranges. After much trial-and-error experimentation, I came up with a hypothetical interpretation of the semantic properties of the individual phonemes that I had reconstructed for the earlier language, the Proto-Language, which was the ancestor of Afrasian, Indo-European, and Sumerian (and, as I was to discover later, the ancestor of all languages spoken on earth).

I hoped by doing this, to be able to identify the semantic components of CVC(V) roots so that a confirmation of the vowel qualities of both the initial and final consonants could be obtained. I have used it not as a determining factor in my reconstructions (except in unusual and highly circumscribed cases) but only as a general guide.

In languages like Basque, where phonological decay has reduced originally complex forms to deceptively simple ones, complex reconstructions will invite disbelief but, I hope, critics who criticize the reconstructions on that basis, will recognize that the individual components of compounds (where this is most apparent) were already considerably phonologically simplified in earlier stages of the language.

I will not argue for the validity of these speculative interpretations because the meanings are so generalized that I myself can imagine another set of Urbedeutungen that also might have some validity.

In spite of the uncertainty that, I am afraid, will always be inherent in exercises to recapture the details of a very distant past, I am relatively confident, however, that the meanings I have assigned to the Proto-Language monosyllables are essentially right (more reliable in the non-aspirated than the aspirated series), whether supported by the semantic interpretations provided by sound-symbolistic analysis or not.

I, now, offer my interpretation of the sound-symbolism ⁽¹⁾ of the phonemes of the Proto-Language, perhaps only for its curiosity value.

I. It appears that the Proto-Language phonological system can be grouped in six major categories semantically by generic consonant:



A. Labials (P), which indicate the idea of surface;

B. Apicals (T), which indicate the idea of side;

C. Dorsals (K), which indicate the idea of back;

D. Glottals (?), which indicate the idea of across;

E. Pharyngals (¿), which indicate the idea of below;

F. Flaps (R), which indicate the idea of above.




II. The meanings of these generic consonants were modified in three ways by vowels:




A. (E), which involves movement towards the non-oral environment, conveyed movement from;

B. (A), which involves no movement with regard to the non-oral environment, conveyed rest at;

C. (O), which involves movement away from the non-oral environment, conveyed movement to.




III. In the Labials, Apicals, and Dorsals, the addition of a glottal stop (/?/) indicated point:




A. P?E conveyed "move from a point on the surface"; P?A conveyed "rest at a point on the surface"; and P?O conveyed "move to a point on the surface";

B. T?E conveyed "move from a point on the side"; T?A conveyed "rest at a point on the side"; and T?O conveyed "move to a point on the side";

C. K?E conveyed "move from a point on the back"; K?A conveyed "rest at a point on the back"; and K?O conveyed "move to a point on the back".




IV. In the Glottals, Pharyngals, and Flaps, analogous meanings were established:




A. ?E conveyed "move from a point across"; ?A conveyed "rest at a point across"; and ?O conveyed "move to a point across";

B. ¿E conveyed "move from a point below"; ¿A conveyed "rest at a point below"; and ¿O conveyed "move to a point below";

C. RE conveyed "move from a point above"; RA conveyed "rest at a point above"; and RO conveyed "move to a point above".




V. Spirants conveyed the idea of points:




A. FE conveyed "move from points on the surface"; FA conveyed "rest at points on the surface"; and FO conveyed "move to points on the surface";

B. SE conveyed "move from points on the side"; SA conveyed "rest at points on the side"; and SO conveyed "move to points on the side";

C. XE conveyed "move from points on the back"; XA conveyed "rest at points on the back"; and XO conveyed "move to points on the back".




VI. Affricates conveyed the idea of a dual reference: point and points:




A. P?FE conveyed "move from a point to points on the surface"; P?FA conveyed "rest at a point over points on the surface"; and P?FO conveyed "<>move to a point from points on the surface";

B. T?SE conveyed "move from a point to points on the side"; T?SA conveyed "rest at a point over points on the side"; and T?SO conveyed "move to a point from points on the side";

C. K?XE conveyed "move from a point to points on the back"; K?XA conveyed "rest at a point over points on the back"; and K?XO conveyed "move to a point from points on the back".




VII. Nasals conveyed the idea of enclosure:




A. ME conveyed "move from an enclosure on the surface"; MA conveyed "rest at an enclosure on the surface"; and MO conveyed "move to an enclosure on the surface";

B. NE conveyed "move from an enclosure on the side"; NA conveyed "rest at an enclosure on the side"; and NO conveyed "move to an enclosure on the side";

C. QE conveyed "move from an enclosure on the back"; QA conveyed "rest at an enclosure on the back"; and QO conveyed "move to an enclosure on the back".




VIII. All non-aspirated monosyllables had bodily parts as primary referents, and nominal/verbal meanings derived from characteristics of the bodily part: e.g. RA, "rest at a point above", ‘vertebral column', ‘be tall'.


IX. Aspiration added the idea of animacy, and could be added to any consonant, after the glottal stop was removed if present, except the pharyngal stop:




A. All aspirated monosyllables and the pharyngal spirant HH discussed below had animals as primary referents, and nominal/verbal meanings derived from charactertistics of the animal: e.g. : RHA, "move itself at rest (position) at a point above", ‘bird', ‘be high'.


B. PHE conveyed "move itself from a point on the surface"; THE conveyed "move itself from a point on the side"; KHE conveyed "move itself from a point on the back"; FHE conveyed "move itself from points on the surface"; SHE conveyed "move itself from points on the side"; XHE conveyed "move itself from points on the back"; .PHFE conveyed "move itself from a point to points on the surface"; THSE conveyed "move itself from a point to points on the side"; KHXE conveyed "move itself from a point to points on the back"; MHE conveyed "move itself from an enclosure on the surface"; NHE conveyed "move itself from an enclosure on the side"; QHE conveyed "move itself from an enclosure on the back"; HE conveyed "move itself from a point across"; RHE conveyed "move itself from a point above".




C. PHA conveyed "move itself at a rest (position) at a point on the surface"; THA conveyed "move itself at a rest (position) at a point on the side"; KHA conveyed "move itself at a rest (position) at a point on the back"; FHA conveyed "move itself at a rest (position) at points on the surface"; SHA conveyed "move itself at a rest (position) at points on the side"; XHA conveyed "move itself at a rest (position) at points on the back"; .PHFA conveyed "move itself at a rest (position) at points on the surface"; THSA conveyed "move itself at a rest position at points on the side"; KHXA conveyed "move itself at a rest (position)at points on the back"; MHA conveyed "move itself at an enclosure on the surface"; NHA conveyed "move itself at an enclosure on the side"; QHA conveyed "move itself at an enclosure on the back"; HA conveyed "move itself at rest (position) at a point across"; RHA conveyed "move itself at rest (position) at a point above".


D. PHO conveyed "move itself at a point on the surface"; THO conveyed "move itself to a point on the side"; KHO conveyed "move itself to a point on the back"; FHO conveyed "move itself to points on the surface"; SHO conveyed "move itself to points on the side"; XHO conveyed "move itself to points on the back"; .PHFO conveyed "move itself to a point from points on the surface"; THSO conveyed "move itself to a point from points on the side"; KHXO conveyed "move itself to a point from points on the back"; MHO conveyed "move itself to an enclosure on the surface"; NHO conveyed "move itself to an enclosure on the side"; QHO conveyed "move itself to an enclosure on the back"; HO conveyed "move itself to a point across"; RHO conveyed "move itself to a point above".




X. The animate nuance of the pharyngal position was conveyed by HH:




A. HHE conveyed "move itself from a point below"; HHA conveyed "move itself at rest (position) at a point below"; and HHO conveyed "move itself to a point below".

I would welcome any suggestions or ideas on how these interpretations might be improved.

the latest revision of this document can be found at
HTTP://WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/proto-language/PL-MonosyllableMeaning.htm

Patrick C. Ryan * 9115 West 34th Street - Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * (501)227-9947
PROTO-LANGUAGE@msn.com

Maurice Bloomfield:

"Every word, in so far as it is semantically expressive, may establish, by haphazard favoritism, a union between its meaning and any of its sounds, and then send forth this sound (or sounds) upon predatory expeditions into domains where the sound is a first a stranger and parasite. A slight emphasis punctures the placid function of a certain sound element, and the ripple extends, no one can say how far... No word may consider itself permanently exempt from the call to pay tribute to some congeneric expression, no matter how distant the semasiological cousinship; no obscure sound-element, eking out its dim life in a single obscure spot, may not at any moment find itself infused with the elixir of life until it bursts its confinement and spreads through the vocabulary a lusty brood of descendants... The signification of any word is arbitrarily attached to some sound element contained in it, and then congeneric names are created by means of this infused, or we might say, irradiated, or inspired element."

Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz:

[on the connection between words and things, or rather on the origin of natural languages] "We cannot claim that there is a perfect correspondence between words and things. But signification is not completely arbitrary either. There must be a reason for having assigned this word to that thing. Languages do have a natural origin in the harmony between the sounds and the effect impressed on the soul by the spectacle of things. I tend to think that this origin can be seen not only in the first language, but in the languages that came about later, in part from the first one, and in part from the new usages acquired by man over time and scattered over the surface of the earth."

Baron Alexander von Humboldt:

"But since language-making finds itself here in a wholly intellectual region, at this point there also develops, in a quite eminent way, yet another, higher principle, namely the pure and — if the term be allowed — quasi-naked sense of articulation. Just as the effort to lend meaning to sound engenders, as such, the nature of the articulated sound, whose essence consists exclusively in this purpose, so the same effort is working here toward a determinate meaning. This determinacy becomes greater as the field of the designandum still hovers effectively before the mind; for this field is the soul's own product, though it does not always enter, as a whole, into the light of consciousness. The making of language can thus be more purely guided here by the endeavor to distinguish like and unlike among concepts down to the finest degree, by choice and shading of sounds. The purer and clearer the intellectual view of the field to be designated, the more the making of language feels compelled to let itself be guided by this principle; and its final victory in this part of its business is that principle's complete and visible dominance.... The crux of the matter is that significance should truly permeate the sound; that nothing in the sound but its meaning should appear, at once and unbroken, to the ear that receives it; and that, starting from this meaning, the sound should appear precisely and uniquely destined for it. This naturally presupposes a great precision in the relations delimited, since it is these that we are chiefly discussing at this point, but also a similar precision of the sounds."

"The specific and unphysical the latter, the more sharply they are set off from one another. Through the dominance of the sense of articulation, both the receptivity and the spontaneity of the language-making power are not merely strengthened, but also kept on the one right track; and since this power invariably deals with every detail of language as if the entire fabric that the detail deals with were simultaneously present to it by instinct, it follows that in this area, too, the same instinct is at work and discernible, in proportion to the strength and purity of the sense of articulation."

Maurice Grammont:

"Quel est le son d'une idée abstraite ou d'un sentiment? Par quelles voyelles ou par quelles consonnes le poète peut-il les peindre? La question même semble absurde. Elle ne l'est pas. Nous nous proposons précisément de montrer par une étude minutieuse des chefs-d'oeuvre de nos plus grands poètes qu'ils ont presque toujours cherché à établir un certain rapport entre les sons des mots dont ils se servaient et les idées qu'ils exprimaient, qu'ils ont essayé de les peindre, si abstraites fussent-elles, et que la poésie descriptive n'est pas une chose exceptionelle et à part, distincte de la poésie."

"On peut peindre une idée par des sons: chacun sait qu'on le fait en musique, et la poésie sans être de la musique, est, comme nous le verrons plus loin, dans une certaine mesure une musique; les voyelles son des sortes de notes. Notre cerveau continuellement associe et compare; il classe les idées, les met par groupes et range dans le même groupe des concepts purement intellectuels avec des impressions qui lui sont fourniers par l'ouïe, par la vue, par le goût, par l'odorat, par le toucher."

Leonard Bloomfield:

"We have seen how an old ablaut base — a strong verb IE. *sleng- Germanic *slinken E. slink, let us say — has given rise to a number of words — as E. slink (strong verb): dial. slank (weak verb): dial. slunk (weak verb)... But it is natural, if not inevitable that such words should become semasiologically differentiated. E. slink 'sneak': dial. slank 'go about in a listless fashion': dial. slunk 'wade through amire' are examples. What has determined the direction of this differentiation in meaning? In many cases, the old laws of derivation must have been decisive... But one cannot so explain the meanings of slink : slank : slunk, nor indeed the great majority of such modern Germanic word groups: another force has been at work. This force is the old inherent Germanic sense for vowel pitch... If a word containing some sound or noise contains a high pitched vowel like i, it strikes us as implying a high pitch in the sound or noise spoken of; a word with a low vowel like u implies low pitch in what it stands for... Its far reaching effects on our vocabulary are surprising. It has affected words not only descriptive of sound like E screech, boom... but also their more remote connotative effects. A high tone implies not only shrillness, but also fineness, sharpness, keenness; a low tone not only rumbling noise, but also bluntness, dullness, clumsiness; a full open sound like a, not only loudness, but also largeness, openness, fullness..."

"Since in human speech, different sounds have different meaning, to study the coordination of certain sounds with certain meanings is to study language."

"Fónagy does not see 'wissenschaftliche Metapher' as having an aesthetic role, but as concerning only the content of the word. In his treatise of 123 pages, he outlines the meanings that have been given phonemes in the grammars of various languages throughout history."

Suitbert Ertel:

"Wenn — wie gezeigt worden war — zwischen der 'Ebene' der Phonetik und der 'Ebene' der Semantik allgemeinqualitative, also psychologischen Vermittlungen bestehen, die universell in Erscheinung treten, dann müßten sich diese erst recht an spezifischeren und handlungsnäheren phonetisch-semantischen Kovariationen aufweisen lassen... Wenn auch für die Lautgebärde über das selektive Demonstrieren einzelsprachlicher Beispiele hinaus ein für allen Sprachen gültiges breites Spektrum an Verflechtungen zwischen Phonetik und Semantik statistisch aufweisbar wäre, müßte man Grund haben, die radikale Trennung der beiden Ebenen aufzugeben."