Eblaitic:(?) a-wi-um = Sum. [DÀR]A?.DÀ [MEE IV 1251']. // To be normalized as /ʔarwiyum/ - see *ʔarwiy- (on the orthographic conventions underlying this interpretation v. [Conti Ebla 19, 32ff.]) or /ʔawiyum/. Hardly to be identified with *ʔayyal- No. ... as proposed in [Bonechi-Conti 10].
Tigre:ʔäyot 'Ziege, Zicklein' Rein. Bed., 37 (not in LH)
Gurage:Gog wǝtǝňňä, Muh Msq wǝttǝňňä, Cha wǝtǝnä, Eža wǝttǝnnä 'the young (male) of a goat or a sheep, *ram' <Cush: Kam wātānču 'calf', Had wātānčo LGur 670; hardly so for semantic reasons
Akkadian:mešrêtu (pl. t.) 'limbs' OB on [CAD m2 40], [AHw 649] (with a meaning shift); šerʔānu (širʔānu) 'sinew, tendon, muscle' OA, OB on [CAD š2 308], [AHw 1216]
Judaic Aramaic:šuryānē, suryānē (pl.constr.) 'muscles (of the eye)' [Ja 1542] (in: šuryānē dǝ-ʕēnā; Jastrow gives the meaning 'bands' not attested in the contexts quoted)
According to [DM], from ARB, which is unlikely in the light of ARM data
Arabic:širʕat-, šarʕat-, širāʕ-, šarāʕat- 'corde de l'arc' [BK 1 1217], with a clear meaning shift from 'tendon', and ʔusrūʕ- 'tendon de la jambe de la gazelle' [ibid. 1083], with s in place of š (see above); šariyyān- 'artère' [BK 1 1224].
It is not clear whether this meaning refers to a singular or plural (šarāyīn-) form: data from other dictionaries corraborate the former suggestion (šuriyyān- do. [Dozy I 754], šaryān- [Belot 371]). Cf. šuriyyān- 'corde de l'arc' [BK 1 1217]; cf. also sarāʕān- do. [ibid. 1082], with -ʕ- and s- in place of the expected š-
Note combination ŝ. ḥǝrum 'sinew of the thigh', lit. 'the forbidden muscle' [ibid.]
Amharic:sǝrāsǝr 'blood vessels' [K 487] (redupl.)
Mehri:ŝǝráyn 'leg' [JM 382].
Note that Johnstone hesitates to place it under ŝry or ŝrʕ; also [SSL 2 238]
Jibbali:ŝǝrín 'muscles of the back' [JJ 257]
Soqotri:méŝǝräʕ 'tendon d'Achille' [SSL LS 1473].
Cf. šérʕehan, ŝérehon 'pieds' (pl. of ŝab) [LS 422; 434]; the form with ŝ- and -ʕ- is supported by all the examples quoted in [SSL LS 1473] and [SSL 4 97]: HADIBO ŝírʕǝhān, etc.
Notes:With a derived stem *ŝVry/ʕ-ān- {} *ĉVry/ʕ-ān- reconstructed as PSEM.
A very difficult case; irregular reflexes of the initial *ŝ- {} *ĉ- (relying on ARB, GEZ and MSA data) as š instead of s in most ARM examples, and as s instead of š in ARB ʔusrūʕ- and sarāʕān- are possibly due to contamination with ARM *šūr-ā and ARB surr- (and the like) 'umbilical cord' respectively (see *šurr-, No. ).
The examples with -ʕ may be alternatively separated and united under SEM *ŝirʕ-(at-/ān-) {} *ĉirʕ-(at-/ān-) based on ARB širāʕ-, širʕat- etc., SOQ méŝǝräʕ and ŝérʕehan, and probably on AKK šerʔānu (širʔānu).
Note such meanings as 'artery' in SYR šeryānā, MND širiana and ARB šariyyān-, and 'blood vessels' in AMH sǝrāsǝr (to be reconstructed as another meaning 'artery, blood vessel' for common SEM?); 'articulation' in SYR šārītā and šeryānā; and such similar semantic shifts as in AKK mešrêtu 'limbs' and MSA: MHR ŝǝráyn 'leg', SOQ šérʕehan 'feet' likely implying that a primary meaning in PSEM was not simply 'tendon/muscle', but 'tendon/muscle of leg/foot'.
In GEZ, such meanings as 'root, origin, stock, tribe' quoted by Leslau together with 'tendon, sinew' etc. [LGz 535] have cognates in MOD ETH forms like sǝr 'root' [ibid.] (sometimes considered Cushitisms, e.g. in [SIFKYA 98]). It is preferable to treat ETH *ŝVr 'root' independently to be compared to SOQ ŝéraḥ (pl.) 'racine' [LS 433] (likely < *ŝrʕ, with -ʕ due to the influence of SOQ méŝǝräʕ 'Achilles' tendon' and/or ŝérʕehan 'feet') and probably further to AKK šuršu, HBR šōräš, etc. (cf. [LGz 535], where the SOQ term is strangely translated as 'origin, source').
Note a variant stem in m- in AKK and SOQ probably to be reconstructed as PSEM *mi-ŝraʕ-(t-)
Soqotri:šíraḥ, pl. šireʕheten 'nombril' [LS 421]; also ŝiraḥ [LS 433].
In [SSL LS 1475] only forms with the initial š- and final -ʕ are given. Note that -ʕ, absent in this root in other SEM, may be due to contamination either with méŝǝräʕ 'tendon d'Achille' [SSL LS 1473] or with such forms attested only in JIB as s̃írɔ́ʕ 'navel' [JJ 267], mǝkráʕt 'swollen navel' [ibid. 133] (see comments below)
Notes:Note a controversial picture in MSA: MHR ŝīrɛ 'navel' seems a misprint for šīrɛ judging by the form šīrɛ́h quoted in the example given in [JM 395] and the fact that the word is placed under šrʕ. Cf., however, SOQ ŝiraḥ 'nombril' alongside with šíraḥ (and méŝǝräʕ 'tendon d'Achille', see *ŝVry/w- 'sinew, tendon', No. ). Note also JIB s̃írɔ́ʕ 'navel' [JJ 267] where s̃- at a first glance seems a palatalized variant of k- (cf. mǝkráʕt 'swollen navel' [ibid. 133]); however, registration of two forms, es̃ráʕ and ekráʕ both meaning '(children) to have a big, swollen navel' [ibid. 266] as well as forms with š (and ŝ-?) in other MSA languages rather suggest two parallel roots in JIB, one with k-, the other with s̃ (<*š-). Coexistence of terms with the radicals *šr(ʕ), *ŝrʕ (see in *ŝVry/w/ʕ-, No. ) and *krʕ with the same or close meaning in MSA is remarkable.
Notes:There is also Eth *bazr- 'mare', obviously eventually related (cf. Gz. bāzrā 'mare' [LGz. 118], Tgr. bazra,bazratat 'young horse' [LH 293], Tna. bazra, pl. bazratat 'cavalla' [Bass. 335], Gog. bazra 'mare' [LGur. 169]) with many parallels in Cushitic; it is difficult to say whether these forms were borrowed from Eth. in Cushitic or vice versa. However, a hypothesis of a Cushitic term related to Sem. *bariǯ- 'mule' with metathesis and a shift of meaning (borrowed in Proto-Eth.) looks more plausible than an assumption of Eth *bazr-at, with metathesis and a meaning shiftinherited from PSem.
Tigre:ʕǝwal 3 'young of the elephant' ("in der Poesie auch von anderen jungen Tieren gebraucht") [LH, 477], ʔäwal [ibid., apud Munz.] (hardly connected with *ʕVwVl- 'young of an animal' which is attested in Tgr as ʕǝlu 'young of the donkey' [LH 450]; <*ʔawāl- with a variant form in ʕ- through contamination with ʕǝlu) ?
Akkadian:laḫmu (laḫamu) 'a monster' OAkk. on [CAD l 41], 'ein mythisches Meerungeheuer' [AHw. 528]. Until recently, l. was known exclusively from literary texts (for its association with water cf. the well-documented expression laḫmū šūt tâmtim 'lahmus, those of the Deep'. Now, interesting evidence for l. as a real, non-mythical creature inhabiting the waters of Euphrates comes from Mari letters for which see [Guichard], [Durand 1993], [Durand 1997 344] (but cf. sceptical observations in [Edzard] and [Cavigneaux]).
Mehri:ǝwzáym (an evident misprint instead of ǝwḫáym) 'shark' [JM 259].
Akkadian:pīlu 'Elefant' [AHw. 867]. The earliest attestations are in the OB lexical list from Elam MDP 27 40 Rs. (AM.SI = pí-ru-um) and, probably, in the OB proverb BWL 272:8 (pi-i-ir ša-ad-di-[im] 'elephant of the steppe'); logographically (KA.AM.SI) also in UET 5 p. 71a. Note that l-forms are rare and late, chiefly in lexical lists. More details on p. see in [Salonen Jagd 232ff.], [Salonen Hippologica 90ff.].
Hebrew:pB. pīl 'elephant' [Ja. 1163].
Judaic Aramaic:pīl (pīlā) 'elephant' [Ja. 1163], [Levy WT II 262], [Levy WTM III 36], pyl 'elephant' [Sok. 431].
Syrian Aramaic:pīlā, f. pīlǝtā 'elephas' [Brock. 566], [PS 3102].
Mandaic Aramaic:pil(a) 'elephant' [DM 371].
Arabic:fīl-, fem. fīl-at- 'éléphant (en gen. et éléphant mâle)' [BK 2 655], [Fr. III 386], [Lane 2474], [LA XI 534]).
Notes:All (or most of) the above forms are usually regarded as non-Semitic or inter-Semitic borrowings. A typical statement of this kind is found in [Salonen Hippologica 91]: "Der akkadische Name pīlu/pīru ist sicher ein Fw. Nach Zimmern ... zunächst wohl aus dem Akk. > aram. pīlā, neuhebr. pîl (wohl > arab. fīl)", cf. also [Zimmern 50], [Hommel 324ff.], [Jeffery 230-1], [LGz. 159]. Within this approach, the elephant is explicitly or implicitly regarded as an exotic animal not typical of the habitat of the speakers of Semitic languages. This assumption is, however, overtly incorrect since elephants are well attested in Syria at least in late second millenium (cf. [Firmage 1140]: "A sub-species of the Asian elephant appears to have survived well into historical times in the marshes of the Middle Euphrates and Habur rivers... As a result of overhunting elephants were exter minated from W Asia by the 9th century B.C.E."). While it is easy to suppose that Hbr. pīl, Arm. pīlā and especially Arb. fīl- are not indigenous in the respective languages (Akkadian loans in Hbr./Arm., an Arm. loan in Arb., in each case possibly via some Iranian dialect), no loan hypothesis is tenable for Akk. pīru/pīlu which is known already in Old Babylonian (categoric statements like "Iranian origin coming through Aramaic could also apply to Akkadian pīlu" in [LGz. 159] look extremely strange in this connection). Moreover, early Mesopota- mian texts (where the elephant - Sum. AM.SI - is known from the Early Dynastic period!) show that this animal, even if regarded as foreign, was clearly perceived as a Western, not an Eastern rarity. Accordingly, a hypothetic loanword must have entered Akkadian from the West, i.e. some non-Semitic language of Northern Syria (about which, of course, nothing is known). Fi- nally, a foreign origin of Gez. falfal is safely excluded given the difference in vocalism, morphological shape and meaning between this term and the Asian parallels of the *pīl- type. To sum up, there is no compelling reason to exclude the present term from the PS lexicon, the only disturbing circumstance being -r- instead of -l- in most Akk. attestations, especially in the early ones. [Fron. 293]: *pīl- 'elefante' (Arb., Syr., Hbr. pB, Gez.); [LGz. 159]: Gez., Arb., Hbr., Arm., Akk.; [Firmage 1153]: Akk., Hbr., Arm., Gez., Arb.
Arabic:baɣl-, fem. baɣal-at- 'mule' [BK 1 146], [LA XI 60], baɣɣāl- 'mule, mulet' [ibid.]. // See [Hommel 112-7] (the Eth. origin for the Arb. term is advocated).
Epigraphic South Arabian:Sab. bɣl 'mule' [SD 27]. // Hapax in R 4146/5: hḳnyw ... bɣlm lbɣlh[mw] 'they dedicated ... [a statuette of a] mule for their mule' (see [Sima 40-2]).
Notes: In South Semitic area only, Common Semitic status is unlikely (Syr. baglā 'mulus' [Brock. 58], [PS 446] and bagal 'mule' [DM 46] are doubtless Arabic loans). Eth. -ḳ- vs. Arabian -ɣ- requires an explanation. According to the most widespread opinion, the Arabian words were borrowed from Geez (v. e.g. [Hommel 112ff.], [Nöldeke WB 58], [Jeffery 82]), which is not convincing phonologically. It would be tempting to suggest a borrowing from Tna. where -ḳ- > -x̣- (articulated very close to ɣ), but this would lead to date the spirantization of velars in this language already to the first century C.E. (to which the Sab. inscription mentioned above is dated by Sima), which does not look very likely. Sima's arguments in favour of an Arabic (Arabian?) loan in Eth. ([Sima 41]) deserve attention. // [DRS 79]: Arm. (baglā), Arb., Sab., Eth.; [LGz. 101]: Gez., Eth., Sab., Arb. (probably not a loanword), Syr. baḳlā (an Arabism; an error for baglā?); [Sima 40]: Sab., Arb., ESA, Gez.
