Re: [tied]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 09:26:39 -0500 (EST), longgren@... wrote:

> I was just looking through Hoch's SEMITIC WORDS IN EGYPTIAN TEXTS OF
>THE NEW KINGDOM AND THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD. What Mr. Vidal is
>confused about is the fact that at this late stage of Egyptian Semitic
>words with "l" were transcribed as Egyptian "r". However, Semitic "r"
>was also transcribed as Egyptian "r".

I don't think I'm confused. The evidence in Hoch shows that in Middle
Egyptian, [l] and [r] were allophones, and that <3> (etymological *r)
was neither lateral nor rhotic.

>In a previous post, I showed the
>Egyptian word "per" comes from proto-Afroasiatic *par . Cognates in
>other Afroasiatic languages are all "r" and not "l".

You showed that Orel & Stolbova relate <pr> to Berber and Chadic words
with -r. Unfortunately, judging by their phonetic tables (XVIII-XX),
Orël and Stolbova's views on Egyptian are completely at odds with
those of the Egyptologists (at least the school to which Loprieno,
Kammerzell, Schenkel, and Roessler belong). Ehret's views on Egyptian
are even more bizarre.

> It is easy to confuse this with the vulture symbol, which changed
>from "r or l" to "a or e".
>The word for house does not use the vulture symbol.

Indeed not, it uses the "house" symbol <pr>. We know, however, that
this ended in the sound -r ("mouth", not "vulture"), which pretty much
excludes a reconstruction *pa(:)r (would have given Eg. *p3) and
suggests a prototype *pa(:)l.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...