There are also the two volumes from Ugarit Verlag by Militarev and Kogan, AOAT 278/1 (2000) & AOAT 278/2 (2005), Semitic Etymological Dictionary.
Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
Eisenbrauns, Good books for over 30 years
Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
on behalf of Peter T. Daniels
Sent: Tue 12/4/2007 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Proto-Semitic lexicon
I believe that somewhere I once saw a statement that only one installment of Fronzaroli's series remained unfinished (it might be in the last published one). But he became one of the first specialists in Eblaite instead. The last one I know of is no. 7 from 1971.
Common Semitic lexicon has not been a topic of major interest! David Cohen's root dictionary was resumed in 1993 and got all the way to Zayn in 1999, and stopped.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
----- Original Message ----
From: Yigal Bloch <yigal9@...
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 3:13:08 PM
Subject: [ANE-2] Proto-Semitic lexicon
In the 1960s, Pelio Fronzaroli published in Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei a series of studies on common Semitic lexicon, arranged by semantic areas: anatomy and physiology, wild nature, domestic nature, natural phenomena, and religion. The assumption was that the common Semitic terms go back to Proto-Semitic, and thus collecting those terms should enable one to establish the character of civilization maintained by the speakers of Proto-Semitic before daughter languages began to branch off from it, while correlating the lexical finds with the archaeological record should enable one to date approximately that hypothetical final stage in the development of Proto-Semitic.
In an English summary of his studies, published in the volume Hamito-Semitica (1975), Fronzaroli wrote of the necessity to examine more semantic fields of common Semitic lexicon: social organization, working methods, feeding habits and economy, and perhaps also mental processes and "general terms" (whatever those might be). Does anyone know whether the studies of the common Semitic lexicon belonging to those fields were indeed published? And how are Fronzaroli's studies of the 1960s treated in present scholarship?
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]