Re: Are *dHeg^Hom and adamah cognates?

From: The Egyptian Chronicles
Message: 69963
Date: 2012-08-12

Joao S. Lopes wrote:

Could we assume that PIE *dHeg^Hom "earth" and Semitic 'DM "earth are
cognates? Could we infer a common Nostratic source? Or some mutual
influence? In both languages there's the pair earthly being (human)/earth,
cf. homo/humus and adam/adamah. Is there another language where the word for
"man" mean "earthly"?

-----------------------------------


Doesn't seem likely. Semitic lacks anything corresponding to *g^H.

That's right, as the IE and Semitic words don't match phonetically (IE *-m
is the accusative ending).

That's what I thought at first but a number of languages have another suffix
after the *-m, which suggests that this is a derivational suffix instead of
an inflectional one. However m-stems are extremely rare in IE, so it might
be that the word is just a borrowing and the *m is just part of the root in
whatever language it was borrowed from.

Starostin suggests cognation with:

Semitic: deḳaḳ-hān (pl.) 'mud' Soqotri Berber:
*dVḳ(ḳ)- 'clay' Western Chadic: *daḳ- 'clay soil'
Beḍauye (Beja): dekʷa 'dust' Central Cushitic (Agaw):
*daḳu- 'clay '

This is actually Militarev's (not all DBs found in Starostin's website are
his).

True. Me using Starostin is mainly a shorthand way of indicating that I'm
getting the data from the Tower of Babel website.

On the other hand, Orel & Stolbova (HSED 634) reconstruct an Afrasian root
*dak'- 'clay, sand', although no Semitic data is included.

Not surprising if it's found only in that one language.

This is a widespread Eurasian root with cognates in many language families:
Kartvelian *diq- 'clay, earth' Altaic *tHà:go 'dirt (sut, clay)'
Sino-Tibetan *dh@... 'clay, mire' Yeniseian *t@... 'clay, mud' Burushaski *toq
'mud'

Sounds like we may be dealing with a wanderwort though it's a strange word
to wonder around.

In addition to the "official" *dheg^hom, IE has also *dheig^h- 'to work
clay'.

Good catch. There's also *dheigW "to dig, stab". Not so close semantically
but not so far away as to be implausible.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ishinan: I agree *dHeg^Hom and adamah ('Idamah; which means the surface of
the earth) are unlikely cognates.

Instead, I am adding that has been overlooked so far from the Semitic
languages:

Classical Arabic has the following:

1) diq` & diq`im for earth on the surface of the ground.
2) daka': which means: earth, dust mould or clay.

http://www.theegyptianchronicles.com/LINKS/DQ3M.html