Content area
Full Text
Historical Phonetics of Amharic. By BARUCH PODOLSKY. TelAviv: BARUCH PODOLSKY, 1991. Pp. 84.
The national language of Ethiopia, Amharic, as well as the other Ethiopian Semitic (also known as Ethio-Semitic) languages, are of particular interest to the Semitist, as well as the general linguist. In addition to their obvious Semitic features, the Ethiopian Semitic languages, and particularly the stillspoken languages, underwent influence from the Cushitic substratum in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Since the book under review deals with historical phonetics, special mention should be made of the glottalized or ejective pronunciation of some consonants, of the rounded or labialized consonants, and of the considerable number of palatalized consonants, features that are not known in the other Semitic languages. While the first study of Amharic goes back to the seventeenth century, the study of the historical phonetics of the language is still in its infancy. It is therefore gratifying to have a treatise dealing with this subject-a treatise that is challenging and informative, and displays original ideas concerning the historical phonetics of the language. The observations that follow reflect my interest in the subject: I have devoted the last five years to the compilation of a "Reference Grammar of Amharic."
P. 13. It should be stressed that t in the sequence t-d of Amharic lämmädä 'harness' lost its glottalization in Ghana dämädä through a process of assimilation, t-d becoming d-d. As for d in daqä 'laugh' in Western and Northern Gurage, it developed through dissimilation from saqä > Gafat sagä by assimilation > *taqä (s becoming t in South Ethiopie) > daqä by dissimilation.
P. 14. I agree with the author that the labiovelars are phonemic and did not necessarily develop "from plain velar consonants in the presence of rounded vowels o, u." Cushitic influence should not be excluded. Incidentally, the labiovelars are not generalized in Ethiopian Semitic. They do not occur in Tigre or in Harari.
We have no proof from Gecez itself that the vowels a, i, u were long. Chances are that Gecez had vocalic length, to judge from Tigre, Harari, and some Gurage dialects such as Ennemor and Selti.
P. 15. I do not think that Geez forms such as -ewwo (from *gäbäru-o > gäbäruwwo > gäbärewwo) or -syyo (from *gäbärki-o >...