Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/šurš-

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This Proto-Semitic entry contains reconstructed terms and roots. As such, the term(s) in this entry are not directly attested, but are hypothesized to have existed based on comparative evidence.

Proto-Semitic

[edit]
*šuršūna

Noun

[edit]

*šurš- m

  1. root, wort

Inflection

[edit]

Reconstruction notes

[edit]

As the non-Sabaean-Old South Arabian and Ethiopian Semitic descendants of of *ṯalāṯ- (three), here too, against some voices, which posit *śurš-,[1] South Semitic exposes dissimilation, with the original identity of the first and third radical being preferredly reconstructed due to the rarity of this constellation in Proto-Semitic overall.[2]

Descendants

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Kogan, Leonid (2011) “Proto-Semitic Lexicon”, in Weninger, Stefan, editor, The Semitic Languages. An International Handbook (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft – Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science; 36), Berlin: De Gruyter, →ISBN, page 200 has *ŝVrš-, calling this reconstruction “conventional”. But Arabic شِرْس (širs, thornbush), with its root related to harshness and rare as it is, is likely an independent formation, for which the vowel variant شَرَس (šaras) is added evidence. Likely an extension of ش ر ر (š-r-r) “evil”, as also recognized by Růžička, Rudolf (1909) “Konsonantische Dissimilation in den semitischen Sprachen”, in Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft[1] (in German), volume VI, number 4, Leipzig · Baltimore: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung · The Johns Hopkins Press, page 13. Confer also the variation of سَرِيش (sarīš, kingspear), with which there might have been contamination, as a “gluey” plant “clings” like a thornbush, and note شَرْشَر (šaršar), شَرْشِير (šaršīr, caltrop).
  2. ^ Vernet i Pons, Eulàlia (2016) “Etymologischer Ursprung der reduplizierten und geminierten Wurzeln im Proto-Semitischen”, in Proceedings of the 6th Biennial Meeting of the International Association for Comparative Semitics and Other Studies (Babel und Bibel; 9)‎[2], Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, →DOI, →ISBN, page 193. And not even the نُون (nūn) and بَاب (bāb) therein are Proto-Semitic.