# etymological links between Hebrew and Arabic



## kahlon

Hi,

I started to study standard Arabic a few months ago, using some textbooks.
I'm very interested in the links between Hebrew and Arabic.

My Hebrew dictionary indicates the Arabic equivalents (if exist) for every Hebrew root.
I'm looking for an Arabic dictionary which indicates the Hebrew equivalents for Arabic roots/words.

In case that's too much to ask for, any book you can recommend in the topic of Hebrew-Arabic etymologic links would be great.

Thanks, and feel free to ask me questions about Hebrew.

Kahlon


----------



## Abu Rashid

Many Hebrew reference books link to Arabic roots to validate them as pure Semitic roots, because Hebrew has been extinct and then revived, so linking a word to an Arabic word sort of validates the word in a sense.

Arabic on the other hand has always been a thriving language and is perhaps the most stereotypical of the Semitic languages. Therefore there's no need to refer to Hebrew roots.


----------



## suma

What Abu Rashid said is true, but the very scholarly work "Wright's Grammar of Arabic" does cite many etymological references from Hebrew as well as Syriac.


----------



## Flaminius

Welcome, *kahlon*, to the forums!

This is much shorter than to be rightfully called a book but I think the width of the topic range will entice you:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/

Go to the section "Semitic Roots" for discussions on English words of Semitic origin listed in _The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language_ (4th edition).

No Hebrew-Arabic cognates are discussed unless the Hebrew and the Arabic words are separately defined as dictionary entries.  The reason for this method is that historical linguistics is not concerned with which modern language is the closest to the oldest attested language but with how each attested language has been derived from a theoretical reconstruction (proto-language is exactly this) by means of scientific comparison.


----------



## origumi

Abu Rashid said:


> Many Hebrew reference books link to Arabic roots to validate them as pure Semitic roots, because Hebrew has been extinct and then revived ...
> 
> ... Therefore there's no need to refer to Hebrew roots.


This is some kind of joke, right?


----------



## Josh_

I'm with you, Origumi.  I think that those comments were a little odd and tending towards elitism. I disagree with the notion that Arabic should be the touchstone to which Hebrew (or other Semitic languages) is measured, but rather they should be compared with each other in order to help reconstruct common Semitic roots.  I'm also puzzled by the statement "most stereotypical of the Semitic languages."  I'm not sure what a "stereotypical" Semitic language is."  Or if such a thing exists what makes one stereotypical or not stereotypical.  

Anyway, hello Kahlon and welcome to the forums,

Like you, I also am interested in the links between Arabic and Hebrew. As such I'd be interested knowing what Hebrew dictionary you have.

Assuming it's not the same dictionary you have I recently bought the "Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon" which lists the Arabic cognates of Hebrew roots (as well as other Semitic languages) where they occur. So you would probably be interested in that. 

Other than that, I imagine you could reference a book on comparative Semitic linguistics and get a lot of information. That's something I've been wanting to do, but haven't gotten around to it.

Some connections between Arabic and Hebrew have been briefly discussed here on the forums.  For example, I started a thread here about demonstratives in both languages.  There is also an interesting discussion here about the Arabic letter غ and its cognate in Hebrew.  There is a smattering of other threads here and there in which the similarities of Hebrew and Arabic have been discussed.

I look forward to your contributions, should you choose to stick around.


----------



## origumi

kahlon said:


> I'm looking for an Arabic dictionary which indicates the Hebrew equivalents for Arabic roots/words.


Here is an online _Arabic Etymological Dictionary_ that contains nearly 7800 entries (in Latin transcription) with Semitic and other cognates. More than 1000 of the words have Hebrew equivalent.

http://etymological.freeweb.hu/AEDweb.htm


----------



## sokol

Hello Kahlon,

etymology means linking languages to each other (both directions, of course) and reconstructing the underlying, hypothetical oldest words. For this one should try and find the oldest written documents because they (supposedly) represent an older stage of development.

The oldest Semitic languages attested in writing is Akkadian; Hebrew, Aramaic, Phoenician and some others came much later, and Arabic even later as them of course. Still, some Semitic dialects not attested in script may have retained some archaic features so that they also are relevant for etymological research.

What is most relevant for etymology of course is not what is most widespread or most used in modern times but what is most likely the underlying Proto-Semitic form.


----------



## Mahaodeh

I have a personal opinion that may be relavent, I think that the reason why it's very hard to find Arabic dictionaries linking with Hebrew roots is that the most important and comprehensive dictionaries were written in the Middle Ages (التاج، القاموس، اللسان، الصححاح...الخ), at that time they were not very much interested in linking to Hebrew and the study of etmology was rather primitive; most words in those dicitionaries are not even given etmologies and the authors' interests were mostly on the exact meaning of the word and the uses in the time of the Prophet.

Modern dictionaries are highly dependant on the works of those scholars with the main purpose of conserving Classical Arabic rather than tracing the roots of the language so they don't bother to look into any etmology older than the fifth century AD.


Just a thought.


----------



## suma

Josh, Origumi
I did not think that Abu Rashid's post was out of line or "elitist". For better or worse, like it or not, I think that Arabic is the standard used when discussing Semitic linguistics, for the simple reason that it is the only surviving family member in continuous significant use since ancient times (Aramaic notwithstanding, survives in very small pockets in the Levant, as well as some other obscure dialects in Iraq).
Not to mention that Arabic has remained largely intact and the same over the many centuries due to the Quran and its effect on preserving the classical form of the language.
One has only to look at Hebrew's loss of some consonant sounds that survive only in the alphabet, i.e. various pairs of Hebrew letters that are pronounced the same.


Besides this, Maha's comments are quite accurate I believe as well.


----------



## clevermizo

suma said:


> I think that Arabic is the standard used when discussing Semitic linguistics



Really? I take it you don't often peruse the literature. In the current issue of the Journal of Semitic Studies, I found that out of 13 articles, 4 dealt with Hebrew, 1 with Arabic, 2 with Aramaic, 1 with Mehri, 1 with Old South Arabian, 1 with Punic, 1 an unknown inscription, 1 about Akkadian and Hebrew comparatively, and finally 1 about the development of the definite article across Semitic languages (which personally I'm tickled with anticipation to read).



> it is the only surviving family member in continuous significant use since ancient times


It depends on what you count as significant I suppose, but Hebrew was and has been in continuous significant use among Jews since ancient times - it was used as a literary language of choice for correspondences between Jewish scholars. Rashi wrote his commentaries on the Bible in Hebrew in the Middle Ages, and even afterward, books of Jewish law were often rendered in Hebrew. Hebrew as a written language has never been dead, but Hebrew as a spoken language it is true fell out of use and was recently revived (19~20th centuries). In fact the grammar of modern Hebrew is *not* based on the grammar of the Bible; it is based on the grammar of the cultured written Hebrew which had been in continuous existence.

Furthermore Amharic has been and is used as a mother tongue by millions of people. Ethnologue lists a census report of circa 17 million speakers. 



> One has only to look at Hebrew's loss of some consonant sounds that survive only in the alphabet, i.e. various pairs of Hebrew letters that are pronounced the same.


Since Hebrew's loss of consonant sounds only affects the spoken language, in writing, it is still apparent and possible to do meaningful comparisons between Hebrew and other Semitic languages. All languages undergo sound change over time; this does not affect Hebrew's standing as a Semitic language. Arabic hardly preserves all the sounds of Proto-Semitic. I don't really understand the point of this comment.

I do decidedly agree with Maha that the reason such dictionaries are few as there has been relatively little interest or focus among Arabic grammarians/lexicographers of comparing Arabic to other Semitic languages.


----------



## origumi

Suma,

There's no question about the richness Arabic in terms of vocabulary and sounds, dialects and history, culture and art. There's Also no question about its dominance in the region for about 1400 years, with significant influence on the other Semitic languages, namely Aramaic and Hebrew. Yet, several claims that were made here are either inaccurate or unhelpful:

=> Hebrew was never extinct. In certain contexts it was always very much alive (Jewish religion and law for example). Many Christian clergymen could read biblical Hebrew in medieval and post-medieval times, in many cases for theological duels against their Jewish counterpart.

=> The fact that Hebrew was "frozen" for many hundreds (maybe thousands) of years does not make it less "pure" as a Semitic language. The opposite may be true - by not changing it maintained its original forms and was less exposed to foreign effections.

=> Arabic cognates in Hebrew dictionary are not intended to "validate" the Semitic nature of Hebrew. Comparisons between two near languages contribute to deeper understanding of both.

=> Arabic 101 requires no Hebrew. Hebrew 101 requires no Arabic. Yet, it seems that the thread opener is interested in more comprehensive input. For a Hebrew-speaking Arabic-learner, reference from Arabic to Hebrew should be very beneficial.

=> Not only Hebrew, also Aramaic and Akkadian / Babylonian / Assyrian lost many Proto-Semitic sounds. It happened at least 3000 years ago, apparently much earlier. Well, the same is true about Arabic, isn't it? It doean't make any of these languages less important in Semitic liguistics.


----------



## kahlon

Hi.

Thanks for all the greetings. I checked all the links you suggested and they were quite helpful. I’ll look up Wright’s book.​ 
I want to clarify. My interest in etymology is mainly practical. Memorizing Arabic words becomes much easier when they are based on my native language. Furthermore, learning Arabic actually sharpens my grasp of Hebrew. For example, I noticed the Arabic rootحمل means “to bear”, while the Hebrew root Hamal (חמל) is related to empathy. Checking more thoroughly I found a linkage between the Hebrew words describing physical load and emotional suffering (סבל, נשיאה) - of which I wasn’t aware.​ 

Abu Rashid:
As far as I know, most the Hebrew vocabulary can be roughly divided into 3 main layers: Words from the old testament (2000-3000 years ago), words from the Mishna (1500-2000 years ago), and the Modern Hebrew (150 years ago till now). Even nowadays, most of the words in Hebrew can be found in old texts. For example, next to the root אכל (akhal=eat) my dictionary indicates its equivalents in Ugaritic, Akkadian, Aramaic and Arabic (أكل). This root needs no validation. It’s well known to be a Semitic word. ​ 
Josh:
I use the “Even Shoshan” dictionary, which is probably the most common Hebrew-Hebrew dictionary here in Israel. 99% of its entries have etymologic reference (though sometimes marked as presumptive).
I checked the threads to which you linked. Every Hebrew/Arabic teacher I know explains the definite article in Hebrew (ה=ha) came from the Arabic أَل. The omission of the ل was compensated by adding a stress (شدة) after the ה. The word هٰذا is always compared to הזה=this. ​The letter غ is indeed usually equivalent to ע in Hebrew. To your list of words I can add غمق, صبغ, صدغ, غبر and more. Nevertheless, in some words the غ is replaced by a ג, especially in foreign words (غرام, غاز).


----------



## Abu Rashid

Josh,



> I think that those comments were a little odd and tending towards elitism


That's a little extreme. I was merely pointing out that Arabic has an unbroken history of widespread use. Hebrew does not. When a language goes for so long without being widely spoken,  then it can do things to it's evolution.



> I disagree with the notion that Arabic should be the touchstone to which Hebrew (or other Semitic languages) is measured... I'm not sure what a "stereotypical" Semitic language is." Or if such a thing exists what makes one stereotypical or not stereotypical.


Some Semiticists have concluded that Arabic is probably the Semitic language (surviving) which is closest to the theorised proto-Semitic. You might not consider it politically correct, but you should take it up with them, they are the experts in that field. If you like, for now though, we can pretend they're all perfectly evenly related to proto-Semitic, why not.


----------



## suma

cleverismo, Josh, Origumi
If it wasn't clear before, I'm not saying there's something wrong with comparative Semitic studies or that comparing Arabic to Hebrew cognates is useless. I was just trying to explain that why perhaps we don't find such comparisons made as often as we do with Hebrew to Arabic.

Furthermore to argue that Hebrew never ceased to be a language in daily use is much like arguing that Latin is still a living language, in my opinion, and some do make that claim.
For that matter, even Maimonides the Great Jewish scholar who lived in Muslim Spain (Andalus) wrote mostly in Arabic. Note, that these were his works on Jewish religious law and such related subjects.

As for Amharic, it is not at all the same language of antiquity, that being known as Ge'ez.

Could it be said that within English studies scholars often look to German when discussing the pure Germanic root or nature of the language? simply because German has a very long continous recorded history of use that has remained mostly unchanged from its Germanic origins?
But vice-versa the Germans would not look to English to sort out certain aspects of German etymology or syntax, simply because English has far too many borrowings from non-Germanic tongues to be reliable.


----------



## Abu Rashid

excellent points suma, I was trying to think of the same kind of relationship indo-european languages. I thought perhaps Russian was looked to as a language that probably preserves more of the traits of the proto-indo-european language, but you're right, German is often used to compare English words, and as a reference for their origin, as is French/Latin for that matter, but mostly because of borrowings, not because of origins.

Also your point about Latin is very relevant, since Latin has probably remained far more 'alive' throughout the past millenium or so (even though it wasn't anyone's native tongue) than Hebrew ever was during the disapora.


----------



## sokol

Well, this is about Hebrew and Arabic, but for the record: even though Slavic languages have retained much of Indoeuropean declension they're also quite removed from IE concerning verbal (aspect) system and phonology.
And English etymologists are good advised not at all to rely on German - they should rather rely on the already well-established reconstruction of Proto-Germanic from which German differs significantly.
(Of course it is true that your results would be much better if you try to explain English etymology through German than the other way round, but that's trivial nevertheless: even if you explain English through German your results ultimately will be false.)
Which is to say: it isn't as easy as that.

Some Arabic (Bedouin) dialects have retained archaic features in phonology (e. g. interdental fricatives which have become plosives e. g. in Egyptian where they merged with plosive phonemes) while ancient Akkadian has reduced the underlying Proto-Semitic distinction between 5 glottal consonants very early (approx. 4000 years ago) to one glottal consonant = the equivalent of 'alef, and monophtongisation of diphtongs - e. g. Semitic root *bait > bitum (Babylonian)/ betum (Assyrian) - already was known in both those younger varieties of Akkadian.
(Sources for Akkadian: Ungnad-Matouš, Grammatik des Akkadischen, esp. p. 13-29; for Arabic: Janet C. E. Watson, The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic, esp. p. 13-19.)

Nevertheless one is good advised to use Akkadian and other ancient Semitic languages if one wants to reconstruct original Semitic roots and Semitic morphology.

So anyway, there's no one-way-road to correct etymology.  Many paths should be taken into account.


----------



## clevermizo

Abu Rashid said:


> Some Semiticists have concluded that Arabic is probably the Semitic language (surviving) which is closest to the theorised proto-Semitic.



Who? I always thought that prize belong to Modern South Arabian languages.



suma said:


> I was just trying to explain that why perhaps we don't find such comparisons made as often as we do with Hebrew to Arabic.



I still agree most with Maha that from the side of Arabic grammarians and lexicographers there has been little interest in comparing Hebrew to Arabic because the goal was to preserve Arabic and not compare it to other Semitic languages. I assume comparing Arabic to Hebrew in certain dictionaries on the Hebrew side of the table would be of invaluable use to someone like Kahlon who is a Hebrew-speaking learner of Arabic.



> Furthermore to argue that Hebrew never ceased to be a language in daily use


No one has argued that. But what was argued is that Hebrew never ceased to be a written, cultured language among Jewish scholars.



> is much like arguing that Latin is still a living language, in my opinion, and some do make that claim.


That's a funny claim. But Latin is living in some sense, just not as a spoken vernacular (although arguably Classical Latin, much like Classical Arabic may not have ever been anyone's spoken vernacular). 



> For that matter, even Maimonides the Great Jewish scholar who lived in Muslim Spain (Andalus) wrote mostly in Arabic. Note, that these were his works on Jewish religious law and such related subjects.


Actually, the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam's (Maimonides') most important and seminal work on Jewish law was written in Hebrew. Many of his philosphical works, such as the Guide to the Perplexed, were written in Arabic.



> Could it be said that within English studies scholars often look to German when discussing the pure Germanic root or nature of the language?


I think people tend to look at a consort of Old English, Dutch, Frisian, Old Saxon and Gothic in addition to modern Standard German and modern German dialects.



> simply because German has a very long continous recorded history of use that has remained mostly unchanged from its Germanic origins?


Has it? German and an extinct Germanic language such as Old English or Gothic are quite different.



> But vice-versa the Germans would not look to English to sort out certain aspects of German etymology or syntax, simply because English has far too many borrowings from non-Germanic tongues to be reliable.


It is true that English has had a lot of borrowings, but we haven't lost our Germanic roots***! It's not like a German scholar can't find cognates to elucidate etymology. I don't know German personally, otherwise I'd search the literature and pull some papers out for you. English if anything would be a useful control for statistical analysis.

*** Note, every word in that starred sentence, except "Germanic" of course, is of Germanic origin.


----------



## clevermizo

sokol said:


> So anyway, there's no one-way-road to correct etymology.  Many paths should be taken into account.



I agree completely. Scholars use _all_ the data available (i.e. more than two languages) to reconstruct a proto-lexicon. It's like in statistics: You can always draw a straight line through 2 points, so positing a relationship from 2 data points is hardly significant.


----------



## origumi

Suma, Abu Rashid,

What's the point of these arguments? That Arabic is more "important" than modern or old Ethiopian / Canaanite / Aramaic / Akkadian and any other Semitic language? You must agree that such discussion is meaningless.

Claiming that Hebrew is less "pure" than Arabic, as in the German / English comparison proposed above, is futile. If a moderm Hebrew speaker could travel to Jerusalem of 2,500 years ago he's likely to understand Hebrew speakers of the time (except of accent issues) at least as good as a moderm Arabic speaker that goes 2,500 years back to Mecca or Al Madina. Right, it's mainly because Hebrew was preserved by being limited to certain aspects of life, yet this only emphsizes the issue.

Maimonides (موسى بن ميمون, הרמב"ם) wrote his greatest religious work, Complete Restatement of the Oral Law (משנה תורה, Mishneh Torah), in Hebrew, and his greatest philosophical work, The Guide of the Perflexed (دلالة الحائرين, מורה נבוכים) in Arabic. Many of his works are in Jewish Arabic, many other are in Hebrew mixed sometimes with Aramaic. It proves nothing.

No people considered classic (or late?) Latin as its language since the fall of the Roman Empire. Hebrew was always regarded by the Hebrew people as its language, even when speaking mainly German dialect (Yiddish), Spanish dialect (Ladino), several Arabic dialects ("Jewish"), Aramaic, English, or any other language.

And again, I cannot see where this discussion takes us to. If one thinks that "there's no need to refer to Hebrew roots" - well... do not refer to Hebrew roots.


----------



## suma

It seems that some of you are not reading my posts. Never did I say or try to hint that Arabic is "more important" or superior, or more pure. Nor did I say that using citations of Herbrew etymology was of no value. 
Please go back and look at my posts.

Yes scholars use all the data available. But I do believe that some data is viewed more valuable then others due to the fact that it comes from a language of millions of speakers in continuous use with countless written records, as opposed to citations from long dead languages whose words, sounds, alphabets are to some degree theorized and reconstructed due to the lack of sufficient source material (i.e. Akkadian, South Arabic, Phoenician, Old Saxon, Gothic, among others).

As far as Maimonides, yes he wrote in Hebrew as well, but it cannot be denied that many of his major seminal works of Jewish scholarship, and secular sciences were written in Arabic (Judeo-Arabic). This as long ago as the *1100's. *It does raise the question of just how alive Hebrew was as a spoken or written language thru the centuries if one of its premier scholars chooses not to use it when writting on matters of Jewish spirituality and faith, but opts instead to write in the language of the day.


----------



## origumi

Suma, I do not want to loop forever so let me ask one short question: you don't say that Arabic is "more important", yet you do say that it is "more valuable". More valuable for what? And how?


----------



## WadiH

clevermizo said:


> Who? I always thought that prize belong to Modern South Arabian languages.



Really?  Why is that?



> I still agree most with Maha that from the side of Arabic grammarians and lexicographers there has been little interest in comparing Hebrew to Arabic because the goal was to preserve Arabic



It was even more limited than that initially -- to preserve Arabic _for the purpose of interpreting the Quran and Sunna_.  That probably made etymology even less important, because to them, the state of the Arabic language 2, 3, or 4 centuries before Islam was utterly irrelevant.  It was as if English linguistics were the specialty of American constitutional lawyers.


----------



## clevermizo

suma said:


> But I do believe that some data is viewed more valuable then others due to the fact that it comes from a language of millions of speakers in continuous use with countless written records, as opposed to citations from long dead languages whose words, sounds, alphabets are to some degree theorized and reconstructed due to the lack of sufficient source material (i.e. Akkadian, South Arabic, Phoenician, Old Saxon, Gothic, among others).



I really don't know that scholars view Arabic as more valuable than anything else. It depends on what "valuable" means. Some languages are useful for study for x reasons, others for y reasons. Have you read any papers that stress the value of Arabic for Semitic studies over other Semitic languages?

Also, I'm not sure what South Arabic is, but if you mean Modern South Arabian languages such as Mehri or Soqotri are hardly theorized or reconstructed, but are very much alive and spoken (though with far fewer speakers than Arabic boasts).



> This as long ago as the *1100's. *It does raise the question of just how alive Hebrew was as a spoken or written language thru the centuries if one of its premier scholars chooses not to use it when writting on matters of Jewish spirituality and faith, but opts instead to write in the language of the day.



Well let's put aside the poor Rambam for a moment, as he wrote so prolifically in Arabic and was such a long time ago. Also, while very respected, he was also highly criticized on matters of Jewish law and not completely accepted. If you'd like to see things that span the rest of that time, most of the responsa between the Rishonim and Akharonim was in Hebrew, and this spans the 12-19th centuries. 



Wadi Hanifa said:


> Really?  Why is that?



Well, from what I understand they have the most archaic inventory of sounds - this makes them a gem for Semitic scholars. 

However, I admit, and I think we've both talked about this in other threads, one really runs into a problem trying to say "Who's the most archaic?" just like "Which dialect is the most like fus7a?" in that some languages/dialects preserve certain archaic features, while other languages and dialects preserve other archaic features. I don't know how Mehri, for example, preserves any archaic syntactic or morphological features.


----------



## suma

clevermizo said:


> ...
> Well, from what I understand they have the most archaic inventory of sounds - this makes them a gem for Semitic scholars.
> 
> ...


 
clevermizo your statement above crystalizes what I've been saying. You say this about Modern South Arabian languages, while I've been trying to make the point that Arabic is regarded as a "gem" not only for its inventory of Semitic sounds.

Origumi, more useful or valuable for Semitic studies because it's perhaps the best example we have with us today as a living Semitic language the doesn't need reconstruction or the like, that preserves so much Semitic linguistic material. This statement says nothing about which one is richer, or superior. Indeed it may be that one of the other Semitic languages is/was richer (if we can even say that about a language) but how much of its inventory survives for us to consider, like the case with Arabic?


----------



## Josh_

> That's a little extreme.


Elitist may not have been the right word, but at the time I did not think of another.  With my comment I was not responding to the idea that all Semitic languages are equidistant from proto-Semitic.  In fact, that subject did not even come up in your previous post, so I do not know why you bring it up here. What I was responding to is the idea that Arabic is used somehow to "validate" Hebrew as a Semitic language.  And that by comparison with Arabic roots, Hebrew roots can truly be considered from the Semitic stock.  

To me, that doesn't make sense. I mean, how can we be sure of a Semitic root, except by comparing one language with other, related languages and finding the roots they have in common.  By comparing the two languages and finding the shared roots, we can determine Semitic roots and arrive at a better understanding of the Semitic root system.  This could not be done by analyzing only one language.  

So, that is why I do not see how we can put one in a favored position to which others need validation from and brush the others aside saying there is no need to refer to them, when in actuality it requires a group effort (so to speak) in order to determine a Semitic root. At least that's how I see it.

If anything, it is the mother language that needs to be validated.  That is, she can only be known by conducting a comparative analysis of the various daughter languages and finding similarities among them.  How else would we have arrived at knowledge of this language and have been able to reconstruct it (to a certain degree) except by way of a comparative analysis of the various Semitic languages that sprang from it.   That would not have been possible using one language alone.  

In other words, knowledge of the mother is dependent on the combined effort of her daughters. One alone does not do the trick.  Thus, one alone cannot stand as the touchstone to which others are measured.

And all this is irregardless of which daughter language is closest to her mother.



> I was merely pointing out that Arabic has an unbroken history of widespread use. Hebrew does not. When a language goes for so long without being widely spoken, then it can do things to it's evolution.


What kind of things would it do to it's evolution, other than arresting it?  I would tend to think that a living language would undergo more change and be more susceptible to foreign forces than one that has not been used for a long time. Thus, the logic would actually seem to be reversed, that Hebrew retains more features of a proto-Semitic language than Arabic.  

I don't necessarily believe that either, just pointing out the logic I see in it.  



> Some Semiticists have concluded that Arabic is probably the Semitic language (surviving) which is closest to the theorised proto-Semitic.


That very well may be.  I haven't studied it enough to know.  If Arabic is considered closer to the hypothetical proto-Semitic language than others and that can be demonstrated, ahlan wa-sahlan, I have _no_ problem with that. But that doesn't change the fact that knowledge of the hypothetical proto-Semitic language is still dependent on all its descendants.  One may be closer, but that does not mean the others are not important.



> You might not consider it politically correct, but you should take it up with them, they are the experts in that field. If you like, for now though, we can pretend they're all perfectly evenly related to proto-Semitic, why not.


I don't adhere to some language political correctness doctrine.  My comments have nothing to do with political correctness, and nothing to do with being perfectly even with  proto-Semitic. One may be closer, but that is immaterial to my point.  The fact of the matter is that all Semitic languages have deviated from their mother language, some more than others and some in different ways from others.  

Again, my issue is with one being used to "validate" the other, because, after all, they all have deviated from their mother.  Not one is exactly like her, because she is a different language. And knowledge of her is dependent on all.  Not one can give us a complete picture.  So rather than using one language as a validation point for another, it should be that finding a root shared by more than one language "validates" it as a Semitic root.  That makes much more sense to me. 

Anyway, I'm repeating myself now and kind of rambling on.


----------



## WadiH

clevermizo said:


> Well, from what I understand they have the most archaic inventory of sounds - this makes them a gem for Semitic scholars.



Interesting.  I've listened to clips of Mehri, and it sounded like it had fewer consonants than Arabic, and I seem to remember reading something to the same effect.  Hopefully I'll revisit that question when I have more time.  However, I do distinctly remember reading that Modern South Arabian languages are more conservative than the dialects found in the ancient South Arabian inscriptions (though in what way, I do not know).


----------



## clevermizo

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Interesting.  I've listened to clips of Mehri, and it sounded like it had fewer consonants than Arabic, and I seem to remember reading something to the same effect.  Hopefully I'll revisit that question when I have more time.  However, I do distinctly remember reading that Modern South Arabian languages are more conservative than the dialects found in the ancient South Arabian inscriptions (though in what way, I do not know).



Not to veer too off-topic, but it may be that only some of them have the full inventory. I do know that some have a more conservative set of emphatic vs. non-emphatic (they even have the [ɬ] and emphatic [ɬ] sounds (sometimes transcribed "lh", or the voiceless "l"), which is the theorized ancient pronunciation for ض in Arabic before it became [D] or [Dh].


----------



## Josh_

kahlon said:


> Hi.
> 
> I want to clarify. My interest in etymology is mainly practical. Memorizing Arabic words becomes much easier when they are based on my native language. Furthermore, learning Arabic actually sharpens my grasp of Hebrew. For example, I noticed the Arabic rootحمل means “to bear”, while the Hebrew root Hamal (חמל) is related to empathy. Checking more thoroughly I found a linkage between the Hebrew words describing physical load and emotional suffering (סבל, נשיאה) - of which I wasn’t aware.​


Hello again Kahlon,

Since you are more interested in the practical side of things, there is an (obscure) Arabic dictionary of Hebrew verbs, but it's main purpose is to link the Hebrew verbs with their current meanings to Arabic and so most verbs are not cognates, but there are a few here and there.  Also, it is a very basic dictionary only listing the default third person masculine past tense of the verb, in both Arabic and Hebrew.  Anyway it is called "قاموس الأفعال العبرية" in Arabic or "Dictionary of Hebrew Verbs" in English.  The author is some guy named M. Debahy in English or م. ضباعي in Arabic.  Chances are this is not what you are looking for.

This my also not be exactly what you are looking for, but may be worthwhile nonetheless since you noted that it is easier to learn Arabic based on Hebrew.  There is a dictionary of Palestinian Arabic, written entirely in Hebrew, including the Arabic transliterated into Hebrew.  It is called "המילון החדש לערבית מדוברת" by יוחנן אליחי.
​ 


> Josh:
> I use the “Even Shoshan” dictionary, which is probably the most common Hebrew-Hebrew dictionary here in Israel. 99% of its entries have etymologic reference (though sometimes marked as presumptive).
> I checked the threads to which you linked. Every Hebrew/Arabic teacher I know explains the definite article in Hebrew (ה=ha) came from the Arabic أَل. The omission of the ل was compensated by adding a stress (شدة) after the ה. The word هٰذا is always compared to הזה=this. ​The letter غ is indeed usually equivalent to ע in Hebrew. To your list of words I can add غمق, صبغ, صدغ, غبر and more. Nevertheless, in some words the غ is replaced by a ג, especially in foreign words (غرام, غاز).


Thanks for the dictionary and the information you provided.

Here is also another thread that I just thought of that may interest you.  It is about the possibility of two-letter roots in early Semitic languages.  In it I compare many Hebrew and Arabic roots that have two of the same root letters and have similar meanings.
====================


Now, to something fun.  If there is anyone who doubts or denies that there are deep connections between Arabic and Hebrew, show them this play on words that I came up with which shows just how close the two languages really are.  (It really merits it's own thread because it is that clever, if I do say so myself.)  It plays on the fact that both the words for Hebrew and Arabic have the same root letters in both languages, albeit in different positions, and that the the verb عبر/עבר also shares these three root letters and has the same meaning of "to pass over" in both languages.  Here it is:

==
  מה צריך לקרות כדי שעברית תגיע לערבית?
  הבית צריך לעבור את הריש.




  ماذا يجب أن يحدث لكي تصل العبرية إلى العربية؟
  يجب أن يعبر الباءُ الراءَ.


(What must happen for Hebrew to get to Arabic?
  The ‘b’ must pass over the ‘r’.)
==

  Or the other way around:

==
  ماذا يجب أن يحدث لكي تصل العربية إلى العبرية؟
  يجب أن يعبر الراءُ الباءَ.


  מה צריך לקרות כדי שערבית תגיע לעברית? 
  הריש צריך לעבור את הבית.  


(What must happen for Arabic to get to Hebrew?
  The ‘r’ must pass over the ‘b’.)
==


----------



## suma

Also interesting that the Arabic root  عرب  must somewhere have had the meaning of movement or passing over because we have the words  عربة   عربية all meaning vehicle, carriage, and in Egypt the most common word used for car.


----------



## besalt

suma said:


> Josh, Origumi
> I did not think that Abu Rashid's post was out of line or "elitist". For better or worse, like it or not, I think that Arabic is the standard used when discussing Semitic linguistics, for the simple reason that it is the only surviving family member in continuous significant use since ancient times (Aramaic notwithstanding, survives in very small pockets in the Levant, as well as some other obscure dialects in Iraq).
> Not to mention that Arabic has remained largely intact and the same over the many centuries due to the Quran and its effect on preserving the classical form of the language.
> One has only to look at Hebrew's loss of some consonant sounds that survive only in the alphabet, i.e. various pairs of Hebrew letters that are pronounced the same.
> 
> 
> Besides this, Maha's comments are quite accurate I believe as well.


=====
Ordinary me now has the cdrom The Trope Trainer in her laptop. And also has successfully used this and Jeff Benner's MECHANICAL TRANSLATION OF GENESIS to communicate with my daughter in English. It's amazing how this has calmed down how we communicate because we both found out that we understand Genesis the same way. 

So that's why I'm interested in Arabic. Until someone produces in the 21st Century, a Mechanical Translation of the Quran, Arabic to Hebrew, then it's simply exchanges of hormonal opinions. 

For instance isn't it YShLM, a predicate noun? Also Jeff Benner created a dictionary of 1000 Common Hebrew Words in TaNaKh (words used 25 or more times). So comparing roots in the transliterated translation of the Quran to English online has helped me a whole lot recognizing the ancient semitic roots. I think the Mechanical Translation of the Quran, Arabic to Hebrew can help all PhD's in language a whole lot. It already helps me. What's the difference between Ibrahim and Abraham in ancient Middle East as far as meaning is concerned. Seems it's a matter of vowels. Maybe if we compare the Arabic Quran to the Hebrew TaNaKh, we'll all be more educated. What's the harm? The Quran is translated into Chinese already. When I saw the transliteration into English, seems they took the same roots and gave it two different meaning depending on the bias the translator wanted to give. Just present the 1000 most common words in the Quran for starters with English transliteration if doing it in Hebrew is offensive.


----------



## besalt

Josh_ said:


> Hello again Kahlon,​
> 
> 
> 
> Now, to something fun. If there is anyone who doubts or denies that there are deep connections between Arabic and Hebrew, show them this play on words that I came up with which shows just how close the two languages really are. (It really merits it's own thread because it is that clever, if I do say so myself.) It plays on the fact that both the words for Hebrew and Arabic have the same root letters in both languages, albeit in different positions, and that the the verb عبر/עבר also shares these three root letters and has the same meaning of "to pass over" in both languages. Here it is:
> 
> ==


 ========
That is fun.  Especially those 3 characters are cited often in First Testament Bible studies as the meaning for the word "Hebrew" as a person and means they were ancient people "who crossed over".  Even though I can't read the Arabic.  It really does help to have a Quran as well as the NRSVwithApocrypha for understanding the languages of the Mediterranean area. Even if it's all in English.  Just having the ability to read/write either Arabic or Hebrew helps out to cross over to the other.  

Oops: Just decided to see in iGoogle the translation of Islam and Muslim from English to Hebrew.  They use a samech instead of s/h/in.  The words Muslim and Islam did not exist in TaNaKh which was 1000 years before classical Arabic.  So you do have to know Arabic, Hebrew and English in order to have confidence in the science of ancient languages. Having read the transliterated translation of the Quran is very helpful and I'm sure RaMBaM understood all this in the 12th century because he could translate the Quran in his head, from Arabic to Hebrew during the Golden Age of Islam and Judaism.

Only now do I understand how RaMBaM appreciated the Quran as a confirmed Jewish "Messiah" type.  He could do in his head what every single capable PhD semitic language person can with the help of a computer professional.  Just like Jeff Benner has shown and that's not his full time job.  He told me he can't take on the Quran because TaNaKh is a full time avocation.


----------



## besalt

suma said:


> It seems that some of you are not reading my posts. Never did I say or try to hint that Arabic is "more important" or superior, or more pure. Nor did I say that using citations of Herbrew etymology was of no value.
> Please go back and look at my posts.
> 
> Yes scholars use all the data available. But I do believe that some data is viewed more valuable then others due to the fact that it comes from a language of millions of speakers in continuous use with countless written records, as opposed to citations from long dead languages whose words, sounds, alphabets are to some degree theorized and reconstructed due to the lack of sufficient source material (i.e. Akkadian, South Arabic, Phoenician, Old Saxon, Gothic, among others).
> 
> As far as Maimonides, yes he wrote in Hebrew as well, but it cannot be denied that many of his major seminal works of Jewish scholarship, and secular sciences were written in Arabic (Judeo-Arabic). This as long ago as the *1100's. *It does raise the question of just how alive Hebrew was as a spoken or written language thru the centuries if one of its premier scholars chooses not to use it when writting on matters of Jewish spirituality and faith, but opts instead to write in the language of the day.


=====
He was forced to act like a Muslim else how could he be the physician to the Caliph? He had to do his Hebrew thing in secret. It's called Judaic-Arabic.
Wikipedia:
dialects spoken by Jews living or formerly living in the Arab world; the term also refers to more or less classical Arabic written in the Hebrew script, particularly in the Middle Ages. Just as with the rest of the Arab world, Arabic-speaking Jews had different dialects depending on where they lived. This phenomenon may be compared to cases such as different forms of Yiddish (Judæo-German) such as Western Yiddish and Eastern Yiddish, or forms of Ladino (Judæo-Spanish) in areas such as the Balkans, Thessaloníki/Istanbul, Morocco, etc.


----------



## clevermizo

besalt said:


> =====
> He was forced to act like a Muslim else how could he be the physician to the Caliph? He had to do his Hebrew thing in secret. It's called Judaic-Arabic.



That's utter nonsense. Maimonides was never forced to act like a Muslim or write in Hebrew in secret. He was forced to go into exile after the Muwa77iduun (the "Almohads") took over Al-Andalus and settled in Egypt where he eventually became physician to Salaa7 ad-Diin (Saladin). I won't even touch the comment about his being a "Messiah-type" which I find puzzling. Also his writing in Hebrew has absolutely nothing to do with Judeo-Arabic. The Mishneh Torah is in Hebrew undeniably.


----------



## Josh_

suma said:


> Also interesting that the Arabic root  عرب  must somewhere have had the meaning of movement or passing over because we have the words  عربة   عربية all meaning vehicle, carriage, and in Egypt the most common word used for car.


I absolutely agree. In fact I think many surmise that the word (عرب) originally meant nomads, which is of course related to movement.  This idea of movement is also found in the verbs غرب -- to depart, to set (of the sun); هرب -- to escape; قرب to come near; and others.  This suggests a two-letter proto-root of ر-ب which had to do with motion.  There is more information at this webpage  which Maha provided in the thread I linked to above about two-letter roots.  To see the discussion about ر-ب you have to scroll down towards the bottom.


----------



## origumi

Josh_ said:


> This suggests a two-letter proto-root of ر-ب which had to do with motion. There is more information at this webpage which Maha provided in the thread I linked to above about two-letter roots. To see the discussion about ر-ب you have to scroll down towards the bottom.


As I understand it, the idea of two-letter roots in Semitic languages is a hypothesis that requires much support which is not necessarly available.
There are combinations of two letters that express common ideas. Sure. The citated article does it for Arabic, there are nice examples for Hebrew and apparently other Semitic languages. Unfortunately, these examples are far of establishing the concept.

To deminstrate the weakness of too-fast conclusin we used to do something like the following:

1. The double-use test: let many people compile many groups of similar-idea words that look as if they belong to a two-letters root. Validate that all groups really seem to make sense. Now examine the groups and see that in many cases the same word participates in more than one group, each time with different two letters.

2. The cross-language test: compile such groups in several Semitic languages. The similarity betwen the languages can be estimated in advance (by comparing the shared vocabulary for example). Compare the groups and you may find the the two-letters roots are shared by the languages in a lower level than the over-all similarity (I don't think that neither r-b רב nor b-r בר express motion in Hebrew, for instance). This is surprising because the two-letter roots are supposed to be older and closer to proto-Semitic, thus shared by the different languages no less that three lettes roots.

3. The alternative-theory test: compile groups of roots that represent similar ideas and obtain similar sounds by changing one letter to a similar letter, such as t and d and dh and z, t and tz and s, p and b, g and k and kh, an so on (in Hebew look on kh-t-ch חתכ and k-tz-tz קצצ and k-t-t כתת and k-t-f קטפ and g-d-d גדד for instance, all near the idea of "cut"). This results in what we may call "the shifting sound hypothesis", as nice as the two-letters roots hypothesis, with no less examples to demonstrate it.

4. The statistical test: by having to express anything via three-letter roots Semitic languages must use similar combinations. Take the number of distinct high-level ideas (such as "motion") on one hand, the number of three-letters combinations on the other hands, and by appying statistical tests you may find that many ideas are likely to be covered by several roots with joint two letters. It has nothing to do with language, only playing with the numbers.

These tests and other do not prove that the two-letters root hypothesis is wrong. Yet they show the need for comprehensive comparative combinatory linguistic statistic historic and even cultural analysis before taking it seriously.


----------



## kahlon

The phenomenon of groups of 3-letters roots with 2 common letters and a similar meaning is common in Hebrew. For example, קצב, קצץ, קצה, קצר, קצע - all related to trimming. There is a theory in Hebrew Etymology based on a similar idea. If you're interested, here's a link - www dot hebrewetymology.com

 However, I agree with Origumi's doubt on the 2-letters roots theory. The notion of "similarity" in meaning is a bit vague, and I think there are simpler explanations for these phenomena.


 Judeo-Arabic is not such an old memory. I remember celebrating the Passover as a child, with a Haggadah (book of prays for Passover) written in Judeo-Arabic. The text was read twice: once in Hebrew ("the holy language") and once in Arabic (for the women to understand).


 Josh: your game of words is nice, but I'm afraid it's quite well-known (at least here).

 Origumi: The word "bar" (בר) means "outside" in Aramaic (and Hebrew).


----------



## origumi

kahlon said:


> There is a theory in Hebrew Etymology based on a similar idea. If you're interested, here's a link - www.hebrewetymology.com
> ...
> Origumi: The word "bar" (בר) means "outside" in Aramaic (and Hebrew).


Just for the record:

1. The word "bar" = "outside" is most probably Sumerian, from which it may have been borrowed by Akkadian and then Aramaic / Hebrew. Therefore it's risky to take is as a candidate for two-letters Semitic root. See for example Halloran's Sumerian Lexicon, rerefenced from http://www.sumerian.org/sumerlex.htm.

2. The Hebrew Etymology book you refer to is very intereseting but also very much nonconformist. It goes ba3ada ba3ada two-letters directly to one-letter roots and claims that each word is compound of these. I am not sure whether such theory is acceptable anywhere.


----------



## Josh_

Of course the idea of bi-consonantal roots in proto-Semitic is just a theory.  I am certainly not putting it forward as stone-cold fact.  But even if there is not as much evidence as some may like, it should not be dismissed summarily.  There is certainly evidence to suggest it, such as what we have been discussing here -- roots that have two of the same root letters and share related ideas.  More compelling to me is when the same roots exist in more than one Semitic language with the same general concept, such as many roots that have ف-ر/פ-ר and ق-ط/ק-צ as their first two root letters.  

There is also a small set of words that could be considered as representing fundamental human concepts (and thus were perhaps among the first to have words referring to them) and that are (perhaps still) bi-consonantal, such as يد/יד (hand), دم/דם (blood), فم، فو/פה (mouth), أب/אב (father), أم/אם (mother), ابن/בן (son), أخ/אח (brother), اسم/שם (name).

Notes:
 أمّ actually has a geminated م, but it is not too far a stretch to imagine that a root letter could have been geminated in order to fit into the tri-consonantal norm.  I'd go so far as to say that perhaps an argument could be made for the reason gemination came about was so that roots could be easily made tri-consonantal, especially where verbs are concerned.  

Both اسم and ابن have an alif, but the alif has a hamzat al-waSl (meaning that the hamza can be elided), which only occurs in a small set of Arabic nouns and some verbal forms in which it is added to act as a sort of liaison in order to avoid a two-consonant cluster at the beginning of a word.  So my guess is that the alif was not originally part of the word, but was added later, the original words probably being سم and بن.  

Most other words have three or four root letters having been derived from tri- or quad-consonantal roots.

Again, this does not confirm the theory of bi-consonantal roots in proto-Semitic, but just lends evidence to suggest that idea.

By the way, بر (barr*) in Arabic means land, [as opposed to sea, most commonly بحر baHr, but the word يم (yamm*) also exists which is the cognate of the Hebrew ים (yam)] or open land, hence the connection to being outside.  So it seems that there may be a relation between Hebrew בר and Arabic بر.

Edited to add:  I forgot to add that there is a word, برا barra (which may only exist in certain colloquial dialects), derived from بر, which means "outside."

* Like أم, both the second letters of بر and يم are doubled, but perhaps were originally single.  As an aside, These also could possibly be considered as representing basic human concepts, although not as fundamental as words like father, mother, son.

As far as the play-on-words, I figured that it had been "discovered" long before, but at least I can say that I "discovered" it independently of anyone else.


----------



## origumi

Josh_ said:


> ...the idea of bi-consonantal roots in proto-Semitic...


There are two theories regarding such roots, which of them you refer to?

1. In the beginning there were few 2-consonant and many 3-consonant roots. In a later development the 2-consonant became 3 by gemination or adding consonant/vowel such as "a", "i", "o", "u", "w" or padding by "n", "h", etc.

2. In the beginning there were only 2-consonant roots that later developed into clusters of 3-consonant roots, each conveys a certain aspect of the seminal 2-consonant root.


----------



## WadiH

Josh_ said:


> أمّ actually has a geminated م, but it is not too far a stretch to imagine that a root letter could have been geminated in order to fit into the tri-consonantal norm.




As you know, فم in Classical Arabic has no شدة, yet in many (maybe most) dialects, it is pronounced with a شدة in much the same manner as أم.  In fact, I've witnessed this process across two generations: in Arabia, the word was rendered by my father's generation as ثم without a شدة, but has evolved with the younger urban generation ثمّ or فمّ with the شدة.  The same process occurred with يد.

So, the phenomenon does occur.  I don't know if we can say it was simply done deliberately to make it trilateral though.


----------



## Josh_

origumi said:


> There are two theories regarding such roots, which of them you refer to?
> 
> 1. In the beginning there were few 2-consonant and many 3-consonant roots. In a later development the 2-consonant became 3 by gemination or adding consonant/vowel such as "a", "i", "o", "u", "w" or padding by "n", "h", etc.
> 
> 2. In the beginning there were only 2-consonant roots that later developed into clusters of 3-consonant roots, each conveys a certain aspect of the seminal 2-consonant root.


I really don't know.  My interest in the etymology of Semitic languages is more casual, so I have not delved much into it.  Everything I have written here represents my own thoughts based my knowledge of Arabic and Hebrew and the little I have read on the subject.  I think that things often tend from the simple to the more complex and I would venture to say that as life became more involved and complex so did language.  So it could have been that in the very beginning there were two-letter roots that soon after developed into three-letter roots as life began becoming more involved and more ideas and concepts acquired names.  And that for a while perhaps two-letter roots existed side by side with three-letter roots until they all eventually became three-letter.  That is, of course, just a wild guess.



Wadi Hanifa said:


> As you know, فم in Classical Arabic has no شدة, yet in many (maybe most) dialects, it is pronounced with a شدة in much the same manner as أم. In fact, I've witnessed this process across two generations: in Arabia, the word was rendered by my father's generation as ثم without a شدة, but has evolved with the younger urban generation ثمّ or فمّ with the شدة. The same process occurred with يد.
> 
> So, the phenomenon does occur.  I don't know if we can say it was simply done deliberately to make it trilateral though.



Oh, yes, I absolutely agree.  I didn't mean to imply it was a conscious effort.  I do agree that it is most likely a phenomenon that just occurred, and still does.  It could be that since most words have three or four roots, and given the fact that Arabic is a language of patterns which gives it a certain rhythm, that words like these just sort of acquired a third, doubled letter in order to fit into the pattern and/or rhythm.  Assuming two letter roots existed in the beginning, side-by-side with three-letter roots, that could be how they ended up as three-letter -- they sort of just evolved as such due to the rhythmic nature of the language. I don't know if that is it, just another wild conjecture based on my initial thoughts on the subject.


----------



## WadiH

kahlon said:


> My Hebrew dictionary indicates the Arabic equivalents (if exist) for every Hebrew root.



Does anyone know what dictionary @kahlon was referring to by any chance?



kahlon said:


> In case that's too much to ask for, any book you can recommend in the topic of Hebrew-Arabic etymologic links would be great.



I don't think this question was ever adequately answered (except for one link by @origumi that no longer works).  If anyone knows a good resource (particularly Hebrew >>> Arabic rather than vice versa), that would be much appreciated.


----------



## Awwal12

Wadi Hanifa said:


> particularly Hebrew >>> Arabic


Direct loans (if we're speaking about loanwords) of that kind seem rather unlikely for chronological reasons, don't they? Maybe some words were loaned through Aramaic/Syriac or other intermediates, though.
P.S.: السَّبْت looks like one of the loanwords of that kind.


----------



## Abaye

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Does anyone know what dictionary @kahlon was referring to by any chance?


Possibly this: قاموس سجيڨ: عربي-عبري، عبري-عربي
Sold here (it's the publisher's site).


----------



## WadiH

Awwal12 said:


> Direct loans (if we're speaking about loanwords) of that kind seem rather unlikely for chronological reasons, don't they? Maybe some words were loaned through Aramaic/Syriac or other intermediates, though.
> P.S.: السَّبْت looks like one of the loanwords of that kind.



Sorry I didn’t mean loans from Hebrew to Arabic; I meant a dictionary where you look up a Hebrew word and it will mention its Arabic or other Semitic cognates (if any).


----------



## fdb

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Sorry I didn’t mean loans from Hebrew to Arabic; I meant a dictionary where you look up a Hebrew word and it will mention its Arabic or other Semitic cognates (if any).


If you have access to a university library there is the Biblical Hebrew dictionary by Gesenius-Meyer-Donner (not to be confused with the older reworkings of Gesenius), with copious discussion of etymologies and cognates for every word. It is in German. Otherwise, there is Klein, but this is not reliable.


----------



## radagasty

fdb said:


> There is the Biblical Hebrew dictionary by Gesenius-Meyer-Donner (not to be confused with the older reworkings of Gesenius), with copious discussion of etymologies and cognates for every word.



‘Copious discussion of etymologies and cognates for every word’ may be a slight exaggeration (only very slight), but Genesius-Meyer-Donner is indeed excellent for etymologies. Just leafing through it now, I just learnt that יַיִן is an Indo-European loanword from the putative Pontic, and is in fact cognate with English _wine_ (itself a Germanic loan from Latin _vinum_). I’m stunned that I’ve only just discovered this!

An alternative would be the Koehler-Baumgartner, which has been translated into English, if German is an obstacle. For etymology and cognates, it is quite good, but Genesius is probably somewhat better, and it occurs to me now that I really should make more use of it. Unfortunately, I have electronic access to the former, but the latter only in print (even though my bookcase is but a few metres from my desk), and, all too often, laziness wins the day.


----------



## WadiH

radagasty said:


> An alternative would be the Koehler-Baumgartner, which has been translated into English, if German is an obstacle.



I've found it and it's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!


----------

