Reconstructing a Cultural Lexicon for pre History: Berber Zoonyms of Afrasian… RECONSTRUCTING A CULTURAL LEXICON FOR PRE-HISTORY: BERBER ZOONYMS OF AFRASIAN (AFRO-ASIATIC) ORIGIN

The paper contains 63 common Berber zoonyms denoting domesticated and wild animals and their cognates in various branches of the Afrasian (Afro-Asiatic, Afroasiatic, Semito–Hamitic) macro–family including reconstructed proto-forms for each branch and the macro-family. The research is based on the classical comparative and historical method relying on the established sound correspondences between the languages of every taxon.

economy (hunting and the domestication of animals) and natural surroundings. For this contribution Berber zoonyms in an Afrasian perspective were selected.
From the point of view of etymology, the Berber lexicon is a mixed blessing. Due to the relative genealogical proximity between the Berber languages, 4 their common vocabulary is much easier to reconstruct compared to that of Semitic, Chadic, Cushitic or Omotic. Besides, individual idioms have been appropriately recorded by several generations of students, mainly, but not only, of the French school starting with Foucauld's incomparable Dictionnaire. 5 Great work on the identification of Arabisms, which make up a significant portion of the vocabulary of almost any Berber language, was carried out by Berberologists, many of whom were also professional Arabists; relatively small groups of Phoenician (possibly also Hebrew), Greek and Latin loanwords have also been identified. There are first-class comparative Tuareg studies by K.-G. Prasse 6,7 and intra-Berber comparative lexicons by M. Kossmann,8 K. Naït-Zerrad 9 (regrettably, first issues only), Aman Iman, M. A. Haddadou. 10 The latter three are elaborate and very helpful synchronous matching lists of words, though intended for inter-dialectal comparison rather than comparative-historical studies; Kossman's work following Prasse's neogrammarian approach aims at establishing phonetic rules and regular correspondences between Berber languages, but without external parallels, it cannot replace a full-fledged comparative-historical Berber dictionary. For all the conventionality of this distinction, Berber languages are far from qualifying as a group of dialects. Lexicostatistics based on Swadesh's 100-word list 11 show around 50% of cognates between the most genealogically distant languages (like any Tuareg vs. Siwa vs. Zenaga vs. any North Berber idiom) which roughly corresponds to the percentage of cognates between, say, Baltic vs. Slavonic and far surpasses the percentage of cognates between the most distant Romance, Slavic or Turkic languages. The status of a linguistic family with a chronological depth of about 3,000 years 12 actually cries out for the comparison of reconstructed Proto-Berber lexemes with non-Berber Afrasian data relying on the established regular correspondences in consonants 13 and a comprehensive ad maximum, fairly organized Afrasian etymological database with a convenient search function without which non-systematic, impressionistic comparison often proves to be inaccurate or outright wrong. 14 11 Recently transforming from "a controversial method" into one half-accepted by the linguistic mainstream. 12 See our differencesnot particularly fundamental -with Václav Blažek on the question of measuring the time depth of the Berber family, in other words, dating the Proto-Berber language in MILITAREV, A. Libyo-Berbers -Tuaregs -Canarians: Linguistic Evidence. 13 Correspondences in vocalism are still a weak point in the Afrasian comparison: the vocalic elements in the AA proto-forms in the present paper are rather tentative. It is to be noted, however, that in Afrasian comparative linguistics, by contrast with, say, the Indo-European one, matching of vowels, unlike consonants, plays practically no role in establishing word relationship. Of course, reconstruction of vowels is indispensable, among other reasons, for reconstructing the sounding, the "phonetic image", of the proto-forms, but not for etymology, in which it is of little help. On the contrary, consonant correspondences between the main AA languagesthe work started over 40 years ago by Igor Diakonoff's team (of which the present author was one of the active participants)are regular and quite reliable, serving as a solid base for the step-by-step reconstruction of proto-forms at the PAA and each branch and group level. 14 Missing the mark by hitting a "variant root" is quite common due to the considerable reduction of the Berber consonant system in comparison with the reconstructed PAA one, and the merging in Berber of two or more AA consonants, especially in the laryngeals and sibilant affricates area; another, and perhaps, the trickiest, issue in Berber-AA comparison is the case of Aujila and Ghadames *b̲ irresolvable without external comparison (in some cases irresolvable even with it); for details see footnotes 42 and 81. Such a database 15 was compiled between the end of the last century and the latter part of the first decade of our century by O. Stolbova and myself (in the first years, within the framework of the Santa Fe Institute's project "Evolution of Human Languages") and later further worked on by the present author. 16 At present it contains over 4,000 entries in the main Afrasian etymological base (liable to strong reduction in the final version, of course) and some 15,000 entries in the subordinate bases, connected with the main one.
Conspicuous lack of a comprehensive comparative and historical or etymological Berber dictionary is to some extent compensated by numerous disparate etymologies in the works of such Afrasianists as Aharon Dolgopolsky ( †), Olga Stolbova, Václav Blažek, Gábor Takács, and the present author; there are several etymological articles devoted to a specific group of Berber lexemes, such as kinship terms, 17 'year' 18 or the basic lexicon. 19 Some of the etymologies presented are quite convincing, some are debatable or even far-fetched, but in general they rely on the basic principles of the classical comparative and historical method in linguistics and correspond to the current level of comparative Afrasian studies. the description, "Compiled by Alexander Militarev and Olga Stolbova on the basis of multiple published sources as well as constantly on-going newer work. Both the main Afroasiatic database and all of the numerous subordinate databases are in a state of near-permanent construction, containing much raw data that still has to be polished, but nevertheless, the database even as it is is a considerable improvement on previously available etymological dictionaries. Subordinate databases include files with Semitic, Berber, Egyptian, Cushitic, and Chadic data (the latter courtesy of O. Stolbova, most of the others supported by A. Militarev)." To this somewhat outdated description I would add Omotic. The words "in a state of near-permanent construction" explain why "the final version" is still not posted on the Internet. 16 Stolbova has in recent years been busy compiling a comprehensive Chadic etymological database (available from https://book.ivran.ru/f/ilovepdfmerged.pdf)up till now the only basically successful attempt to enter mass lexical material of over a hundred Chadic languages into the Afrasian comparative studies based on regular consonantal correspondences established mostly by Stolbova  This article is devoted to Berber zoonyms and their Afrasian etymologies. The author did not set himself the tasks of presenting either a complete set of common Berber animal names or the reflexes of a particular Berber proto-form in all Berber idioms; or to delve into the combinative intricacies of Berber vocalism. The task was, first of all, to establish the continuity of Berber zoonyms from the common Afrasian ones. 20 The consonantal correspondences between Berber and other Afrasian branches relying on Militarev Историческая фонетика и лексика ливийско-гуанчских языков [Historical phonetics and lexicon of the Libyan-guanche languages]were developed by the author in the course of his work on the comparative AA dictionary in the team headed by I. M. Diakonoff 21 and mainly accepted, further specified and tested on a considerable lexical material chiefly in the studies by Stolbova, Blažek, Takács and the present author. The consonantal correspondences between the Afrasian branches are based on the team work by Diakonoff and his group and subsequent studies by all the above-mentioned authors, and within each of the branches and subbranches, on the works by the same and many other linguists.
Ungulates Small cattle  38 In spite of the variation of consonantsprobably due to tabooingboth within Berber and Agaw and between the AA branches, all the quoted forms are hardly unrelated (this is the comparison which may be labelled "impressionistic" but is worth considering all the same). The AA term is still more intriguing if compared with the Proto-North Caucasian *ḵwač ̲ e (> Proto-Andi *gwVži) 'dog' (MILITAREV, A., STAROSTIN, S. Общая афразийско-севернокавказская культурная лексика (Afrasian-North Caucasian cultural terms), p. 259). 39 With their stable root vowel a and reduplicated -gin some of the forms, part of them may represent a chain of loanwords, or a Wanderwort, rather than a common Afrasian zoonym. According to some authors, the Eth. terms are borrowed from C. Cush., while according to others it is vice versa; the lack of non-Eth. Sem. cognates would point either to the borrowing from Agaw (note, however, that the Agaw terms are isolated in Cush.) or N. Omot., though, also poorly represented in one subgroup only. 6. Berb. *a-bakir 'young goat or ram': Semlal a-bukīr, pl. i-bukr-en 'jeune bouc'; Ahaggar é-beker, pl. i-bekr-ân 'agneau', Ayr, E. Tawllemmet. ebăkăr, pl. i-bəkr-an 'jeune mouton' < AA *ba/ukir-'kind of (young) small bovid': 40 Chad. W. *bVkVr-: Bolewa bark-e (met.) 'she-goat', Karekare bugur-è 'goat', Dera bukur-in (pl.) 'goats' C.: Tera bòkə̀r-à, Bachama bògúr-é 'hegoat', Musgu béŋger-ē and iki binkiri 'he-goat' (iki 'she-goat'). 41 ( Vol. 2, p. 24, "therefore cannot be considered", which is an arguable tenet. Cf. also *belbel (reduplication; perhaps descriptive) 'crier, bêler (bouc)': Nefusa belbel, Mzab bbelbel, etc. (NAÏT-ZERRAD, K. Dictionnaire des racines berbères (formes attestées), p.: 54). However, there is an alternative etymology excluding Gurara, Tuat and Tidikelt belli but, instead, including Audjila te-b̲ el and Ghadames ta-b̲ ali 'brebis' together with Nefusa t-ili, Zenaga t-iǯi, Ahaggar té-helé, Ghat či-hali, Ayr t-ele, E. Tawllemmet. tehəle, etc., the proto-form reconstructed as *b̲ Vli 'sheep', tentatively related to AA *ʔayl-'kind of lesser bovid' (below). The equally probable decision depends on the much-discussed but still unsettled issue of the interpretation of Berb. *b̲ yielding Audjila and Ghadames b̲ (conveyed by some authors by ß, v or f') and Tuareg h as *b (probably in contact with a laryngeal) or as a laryngeal/pharyngeal (probably labialized conventionally *Hʷ). Apparently, in every individual case, an etymological choice depends on the suggested AA parallels, which sometimes allow for both decisions. form, adduces Arab. bāhil, pl. buhhal-u 'верблюдица с неперевязанным выменем' [a she-camel with the udder untied] which can hardly be the origin of the Berb. terms meaning 'load camel' and 'old camel', matching them neither semantically nor phonetically. Of interest also is Ahaggar a-buɣəlli 'mulatto, bastard'. 57 This is one of the most debatable Semitic zoonyms (see discussion in SED II, No. 55) with a lot of conflicting hypotheses trying to explain the irregular correspondence ɣ vs. ḳ (and even g) by various borrowings; the irregular Cushitic parallels considered by some authors sources of the Eth. terms confuse the issue still further. The Berber terms fit well phonetically while their meanings make borrowing from Arabic unlikely, rendering the idea of a PAA origin of some odd-toed ungulate (far too early for a mule, of course, attested to much later) plausible. 58 There are also Aram.: Syr. bagl-ā, baḳl-ā, Mnd. bagal, Turoyo baɣl-o commonly recognized as Arabisms. 59 According to APPLEYARD, D. A Comparative Approach to the Amharic Lexicon, p. 25, the Eth. forms are "almost certainly of Cushitic origin". 60 While a direct borrowing from Arabic into each of the Tuareg idioms (not into Proto-Tuareg, of course) can obviously be suspected, the vocalism of the Tuareg forms rather speaks against it. 61 Though the PAA whose split I date to the mid-11th millennium seems too early for a camel, according to some authors (PROTHERO, D., SCHOCH, R. M. Horns, Tusks, and Flippers: The Evolution of Hoofed Mammals, pp. 53-4), ancestors of the dromedary occurred in the Middle East and northern Africa as early as by the Pleistocene. A series of dromedary sculptures found in the Saudi Arabian province of Al-Jawf was dated recently between 7,000 and 8,000 years old while in Somalia (in Laas Geel meaning 'well of camel' in Somali) there are paintings of dromedary dated from 5,000 to 9,000 years ago. 62 Arguably commented on in SED II No. 2 as "reliably attested in the Arabian area only, which makes its Common Semitic status doubtful" contra COHEN, D. et al. [] AADB 2508. Note a mixed term for ass and camel. Sem. *kirkar-~ *kurkir-(reduplication) 'she-camel': Hbr. kirkär-ät 'shecamel'; Hobyoṭ kóokər (part. reduplication) 'female camel (from 2 to 3 years)' 66 Cush .  [] AADB 2468. One more mixed term for donkey / wild ass and camel. Cush. E.: LEC *ḳaal-im-: Somali qaalin, pl. qaalimo, Rendille ḫaal'ím 'young female camel' (note similarity with the Tuareg forms).
< AA *ṗVrɣVč-'flea, grasshopper': 103 In WÖLFEL, J. D. Monumenta linguae Canariae, p. 563, compared to the Snus form (mentioning that it is common Berber), and to Latin salmo-onis. It is very likely that the Latin and Celtic terms for 'salmon' (note that this fish plays such an important role in Celtic mythology) were borrowed from the Proto-Libyo-Berber plural form *(i/a-) salm-an. 104 With the relative adjective suffix *-ay, probably reflecting the original Egyptian meaning 'scaly (fish)'. That only the Ghadames term's order of root consonants matches the Egyptian one can be accounted for by the former (and, perhaps, similar unregistered forms in other East Berber languages) retaining the original -Egyptianorder, while in non-Eastern Berber, metathesis apparently took place due to the incompatibility tendency between the two lateral consonants in immediate contact: l and s which, according to the regular correspondence established by the author (Berber *s ~ Egyptian š < Afrasian voiceless lateral sibilant *ŝ), must have still been pronounced as a lateral sibilant in early Berber. If this reasoning is correct, the "secondary" order of radicals in Canarian salema probably features it as a borrowing, conceivably from Tamâhaq/Ahaggar, rather than going back to the Proto-Berber-Canarian level. The Berber term was, in its term, borrowed in Hausa as lámsà (likely from Ghat) and in the Central Chadic language of Bura as šalmwi (from some other Berber language) 'a kind of fish'. In spite of the unspecified kind of fish in both Berber and Chadic, the coincidence of the triradical terms with regular consonant correspondences in all the languages in question practically rules out a happenstance.

Discussion
According to the author's half a century of experience in comparative-historical and etymological research, the comparison in the widest possible coverage of each individual language lexicon in all related linguistic families and lexical reconstruction at the most chronologically deep levelor, alternatively, search for all possible sources of borrowingcan range from beneficial to indispensable for establishing even seemingly obvious phonetic correspondences / rules and suggestive etymologies within even the youngest and most compact language family such as Berber, not to mention complex and controversial cases. Lack of interest in going beyond the "narrow" comparison or inability to apply the correct methods of "broad" comparison often leads to what can be described by the oxymoron "scholarly folk etymology," called by me "mythetymology". These are false etymologies, often based upon a venerable scholarly tradition in a given field and sometimes honoured with great names. One of the most striking examples from the field of Semitic etymology illustrating the last point relates to Akkadian iṣṣūr-u 'bird' (cognate with Ugaritic ʕṣr /ʕuṣṣūru/ 'bird, domestic fowl, poultry') to Sem. *ʕiṣpūrproposed by some Semitists and uncritically repeated by others. Though the complete assimilation of -pin the *-ṣp-cluster is not attested in Akkadian (to say nothing of Ugaritic), it seemed natural and appealing to connect it with Arabic ʕuṣfūrand further on to a solid Sem. root *ṣVp(p)Vr-'(kind of small) bird'. Added to this is the notion in many heads, including those of certain linguists, that sound laws function with a lot of "spontaneous" exceptions and that regular sound correspondences are something sporadic and can rely on a single example. 117 In fact, the decisive argument is a deeper etymologyin this case, on a common Afrasian level. Both debated terms, *ʕiṣṣūr-and *ṣVp(p)Vr-, 118 have matches in other Afrasian branches: (1) AA *ʕac ir-~ *c iraʕ-'(kind of) bird': Sem. *ʕiṣṣūr-'bird (generic)'; Cush. E.: Saho č ar(r)ā́ʕ 'hornbill ', S. 117 There are, in fact, what can be conventionally called exceptions to the sound laws, though rare and accounted for by our insufficient knowledge of subtle and understudied phenomena like contamination or variant roots which are to be turned up and puzzled out to the extent possible. 118 From which Arabic ʕuṣfūr-, with a prefixed root extention -ʕvery likely derivedprobably, due to contamination with *ʕiṣṣūr-(see discussion in SED II No. 212 comments).