On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:43:53 +0000, Marco Moretti
<
marcomoretti69@...> wrote:
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "S.Kalyanaraman" <kalyan97@...>
>wrote:
>> My view is that soma is electrum
>> http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/monographs/Electrum.pdf As cited
>> at this URL, Joseph Needham also seems to suggest this: assem in
>Old
>> Egyptian means electrum (in the context of extraction of silver
>from
>> electrum).
>
[...]
>As far I know, in Old Egyptian there is not assem, but s.`m (` being
>the `ayin), and the sibilant being enphatic. The meaning is (as far I
>know) "pure gold", and it is probably the same root s.rp we find in
>Semitic languages "to melt", "to purify metals": Old Egyptian often
>shows strange phonetic correspondences with the other Afro-Asiatic
>languages (/r/ is very instable).
Actually, the Egyptian word is Damw (MdC transcription), i.e. <d_-`-m-w>.
Pronunciation would have been roughly /c^.á¿maw/ (an emphatic postalveolar
affricate, some (stressed?) vowel, an `ayn, an /m/, and /-aw/, cf.
<s-f-x-w> "7" = /sáfxaw/).
Whether this can be related to Akkadian s.arpu "refined" is debatable.
According to the "traditional" Egyptological view, Eg. /d_/ can correspond
to Semitic /s./ (or /z./ or /d./), and, while Eg. /`/ usually corresponds
with Sem. /`/ or /g./, there are a few cases of /`/ ~ /r/, /l/.
The view of Roessler, Loprieno etc. is radically different. <d_> reflects
a (palatalized) back emphatic (*k., *h.), while <`> normally corresponds to
Sem. voiced dentals (*d, *d_, *z, also *r, *l). Neither view accomodates
Eg. /m/ vs. Sem. /p/, but they are both labials.
Obviously, there can hardly be a connection with so:ma / haoma (*sau.mVn-).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...