SEMANTIC PATTERNS AND
SEMANTIC PROCESSES IN
THE SWADESH LIST:
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
A. Dybo, Moscow
• The long-distance relationship research requires the
capability to reconstruct Swadesh's wordlists for a
protolanguage. Wordlist reconstruction is the reconstruction
of language signs, that is, it requires reconstruction of the
semantics, and for such entities as glottochronological
wordlists, this reconstruction should rather be quite exact.
• On the methods of semantic reconstruction which strictly
require to include full analysis of lexical microsystems see
[Dybo 1996], [Dybo 2011].
• Swadesh's wordlist provides a large field for
experimentation here.
• Some remarks to the technology of semantic reconstruction:
• 1. Determination of the exact meanings of the words forming the
basis for reconstruction.
Smaller semantic components (features) can be isolated in a
lexeme's meaning, and they can be organized in a hierarchical
way. Our semantic constructions are most close to the semantic
model of the Meaning–Text theory. We are building semantic
trees as glosses of lexemes by analysing phraseologized uses of
lexemes in lexical mycrosystems for any language.
• 2. Word meaning analysis includes the determination of a
primary meaning and of the products of semantic derivation.
Historical-semantic analysis is as similar to this process as the
process of phonetic reconstruction is similar to the process of
building deep structures for the phonemic layer of a language.
During the reconstruction, reflex units are viewed as the
projections of deep (that is, protolanguage) units. In
comparative-historical semantic analysis, the variation of the
meaning of protolanguage word reflexes may be viewed as a
kind of polysemy - that is, polysemy within a language family.
• 3. The criterion for discrimination between polysemy
and omonymy: in polysemy, distinct meanings have a
common non-elementary component which represents
identical branches of glossing trees. In omonymy, the
common component of the meanings either is
elementary or represents non-identical branches of
interpretation trees [Apresyan 1995, 184].
• 4. The possibility of some universal semantic features
which are conditioning the comparability of the
semantics of words from distinct languages' wordlists
is, on one side, an implicit axiom lying in the basis of
Swadesh's method; on the other side, it is an axiom
lying in the basis of the both semantic models used by
the Meaning–Text theory - Apresyan-Mel'čuk's model
as well as Anna Wierzbicka's semantic primitives
theory.
• The glossing of Swadesh's words should serve to further
refinement of the methods of interviewing and Swadesh wordlist
isolation, which has been started in the article [Kass. et al.]. The
glossed words will allow for a stronger basis for discussing
which exact features of these words are conditioning the
circumstances of little transmissivity and great stability, which is
essential for the understanding of experimental results in
determining the degree of stability of the lexics within a wordlist
[Starostin 2005].
• Theoretically, the intransmissivity feature must be guaranteed by
the "precultural" character of Swadesh semantics. What of the
stability, the possibilities of semantic drift can be calculated for
every meaning of a word, based on its ECD-interpretation [Dybo
1984], [Shaykevich, Polinskaya 1989]: a) metonymic
possibilities - based on the additions and removals of semantic
features within an interpretation; b) metaphoric possibilities based on the replacements of semantic features
(anim.<=>inanim. and alike).
• The 100%-stable words in the Swadesh list for the Turkic languages
(marked with magenta): 20 words in the more stable half of the list ~
6 words in the less stable half.
• Examples of the groups of similar time depth:
• Baltic: 23 ~ 19
• Slavic: 32 ~ 24
−0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
CHV
TRK+CHV
ATU+KRX
ATU
TRK+ATU
KRX
TRK+GAG
TRK+AZB
AZB+TRM
TRK+SAL
SAL+XAL
JAK+DLG
TRK+TAT
TUV+TOF
KUU+KM D
ALT+TUN
TAT+ALT
ALT+TLN
BLK+KRM
BLK+QUM
TAT+BLK
TAT+BAS
TAT+SJG
TAT+KRQ
UZB+UIG
UZB+NOG
SJG+HAK
HAK+SHR
HAK+SAG
TRK
GAG
AZB
TRM
SAL
XAL
JAK
DLG
TUV
TOF
KUU
KM D
TUN
ALT
TUB
ALT+TUB
TLN
KRM
BLK
QUM
TAT
BAS
KRQ
UIG
NOG
KLP
KAZ
KLP+KAZ
UZB
KRG
SJG
SHR
HAK
SAG
• 1. All
• Kass. et al.: "1. He has cut down all the trees
•
2. He has killed all animals
•
3. All these men are brothers
• The “plural” ‘all’ (= Latin omnis). Not to be confused with ‘each,
every’ (cf. context 3). If possible, should be separated from the
“singular” ‘all’ (Latin totus, in contexts like: All of the water in the
lake/pool became frozen/evaporated; He has eaten all the meat),
which we recommend to exclude from the list."
• Usage structure in languages
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Semantic derivation in Turkic:
"Being" > omnis or syncr. – 5 cases
"Collected, taken" > omnis or syncr. – 6 cases
"Covered" > omnis or syncr. – 1 case
"Remained" > omnis or syncr. – 1 case
"Evenly, exactly" > omnis – 2 cases
"raised" ("up to the brim") > syncr. – 1 case
"Pressed" ("chock-full") > syncr. – 1 case
"through" > syncr. – 1 case
"Healthy" > totus – 1 case
"Finished" > totus or syncr. – 4 cases
"Filled" > totus or syncr. – 1 case
Borrowings: omnis 9, syncr. 3, totus 0
• Primary words:
• 1.1: all (totus): PT*bütüm
• ◊ Derived from PT *büt- 'to be finished, completed'. || PAlt mutʽi 'to be
finished/ to assemble' > PNMong *möči- 'hardly, barely' || PTM
*mute-w- 'to finish, to fulfill' (Caus) || PKor *mòt- 'to assemble in
flocks' > mòtắ 'all' (omnis).|| PJap *muta 'together with'.
• 1.2: all (omnis): PT *bār
• ◊ Semantical derivate from PT *bār 'exists, is available; presence' ||
PA *bā́ra 'to have, to receive' > PMong *bari- 'to take, grasp', PTM
*bara-n 'many', PKor *pə̄r- 'to receive'.
• 1.3: all: Оnly Old Тurkic qamug 'totus & omnis'.
• ◊ PA *kаma 'to unite, together': PMong *kam 'together', *kami- 'to
join', PTung *kamu- 'to collect, to join', PJap *kama-pa- 'to arrange'.
• 1.4: all (весь): Only Old Тurkic *qop 'totus & omnis'.
• ◊ PA *kʽopa-: PMong *kow 'totus & omnis', PNTung *(х)up- 'omnis',
PKor *kòp- 'to redouble', PJap *kúpá-pa- 'to add'.
• *bütüm
• *bār
• For the reflexes of *bütüm the meaning remains almost unchanged in
all branches of Turkic languages, except Oghuz, where an expansion
to quantifier uses occurs; the latter may be related to the complete
exclusion of the use of primary quantifier word *bār in this range of
meanings.
• Proto-Turkic quantifier meaning for *bār reflexes can be
reconstructed completely reliably (it shows everywhere, including the
most distant branches). Its use with collective nouns, it seems, can be
reconstructed for PCT on the same basis. As for the use with abstract
nouns, it can either be understood as CT or as an innovation,
independently appearing in three different areals – Yakut, Central
Asiatic in late times and Karaim; the latter being less probable.
Further syncretization of the meaning is certainly area-dependent – in
Yakut and Central Asiatic (Kazakh, Karakalpak and Uzbek) areas.
•
• Innovative words that draw a more or less clear distinction between
the two meanings' types under consideration appear mostly in areas
where syncretization of old words' semantics occurs (see Scheme 1,
Scheme 2).
• Scheme 1.
• Scheme 2.
• 2. Ashes
• It's reasonable for this clause in Swadesh list to differentiate
the following meanings:
• 'cinder' – shapeless black remains of burned down fuel in a
fire or a fireplace
• 'coals' - shaped black remains of burned down fuel in a fire
or a fireplace
• 'ashes' – very fine light gray powder or thin coating, which
can be found amongst these remains; also very fine light
gray powder, formed by smoking or burning of small
objects.
• 'embers' - glowing hot shaped remains of burned down fuel
in a fire or a fireplace
• 'soot' – black coating, appearing on surfaces in containers or
rooms as a result of burning, which falls down in flocks,
reaching sufficient thickness.
•
•
•
•
Kass.et al.: "1. The campfire has left only ashes.
2. The wind scattered the ashes.
3. He scooped up a handful of ashes.
Ashes as the basic result of combustion of wood, grass, dry dung
(not after cremation, as in Russian прах). Not to be confused with
special words for “tobacco ashes”, “volcanic ashes”, or “embers”
(hot ashes/coals)"
• In the Russian text , however, зола was chosen, corresponding rather
to cinder. The choice is not evident - for Slavic lists пепел was
taken. Evidently, the semantic structure of cinder, зола is simpler
than that of пепел.
• For the Turkic material the situation here is relatively
simple.
• Semantic derivation in Turkic:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“to heat, to burn” >> “cinder”: 1
“spark” > “cinder”: 1
“embers” > “cinder”: 1
“to heat, to burn” >> “ashes”: 2
“litter, dirt” >> “ashes”: 3
“to strike fire” >> “spark”: 1
“to extinguish” >> “spark”: 1
“dry dung” >> “spark”: 1
“to burn” >> “soot”, “fume”: 1
“smoke” >> “soot”, “fume”: 1
• Borrowings: "ashes" 1, "spark" 1.
• Primary words:
• 2.1: ashes (cinder): PT *kül || PWA *kʽuli ( ~ -e) 'to burn, get hot',
PMong *köl-či- 'to get warm' || PТМ *xül-de- 'to warm, to incandesce',
deverbatives are "flame, light".
• 2.2: ashes (ashes): SouthSiberian, WestOghuz *Kōk 'ashes' || PT *Kōk
'dust, dirt, ashes' || PA *kṓkʽò 'trash, dirt', PNMo *kokir 'dirt; dried
dung'. || PTM *kuk-pun 'trash, dirt'. || PJap *kə̀k- 'to defecate; to husk'
JLTT 712.
"Spark": 1) PT *Kïp-γïn || PWA *gi̯ū̀pʽa 'to extinguish', PSTung *gūp- 'to
extinguish'.
•
2) PCT *čak-ïn/m 'spark; lightning; star' ◊ Derived from PT
*č(i)ak- 'to strike fire' || PA *čʽĕ́ kʽà 'to strike fire', PM *čaki- id.,
PTung *či(K)u-(n) 'flint', PKor čhắ-tòr 'firestone', PJap *ták- 'to set
fire'.
• 3) ? PT *Kï̄m || PA*KijmV || PKor *kīm 'steam'.
• "Soot": PT *köń-e ◊ Derived from PT *köń- ‘to burn slightly’ || PA
*kʽùńe ' to burn slightly ' > PMo *köɣe 'soot' || PKor *kɨ̀ńɨ̀r- 'soot' ||
PJap *kuànkàra- ' to burn slightly'.
• "Sooth, fume": PT *Kurum || PA *kʽi̯ŭ̀ru(mV) 'soot, ashes' > PNMo
*kirbu-su 'burned smell' || PTung *xurum-sa 'tobacco ashes; ear wax' ||
PKor *kur 'soot, fume'.
• "Fume, fliying ashes": South Siberian *pïr, *pïrïm ◊ PT *bur-uk 'dust,
smoke' || PA *bŏ́ ru 'dust, smoke' > PMo *bur-gi- / *bür-gi- ' to rise (of
dust, smoke)' || PTM *bure-ki-n 'dust, flying snow' || PKor *pằrằ-m
'wind'.
• "Coal": PT *kömür || PA *k‛ume 'black' > PKor *kə̄m- 'to be black',
Old Koguryo *kămul 'black'.
• "Embers": 1) PT *kȫř || PA *kʽū́ŕkV > PTM *xurkï 'soot'.
•
2) PCT *čōg || No etymology
•
•
•
•
PT "cinder" < PA "to warm, to burn"
? CT "ashes" < PA "dirt"
PT "soot, fume" < PA "soot, ashes"
PT "embers" < PA "soot" ~ "embers"
•
•
•
•
3. Bark
Kass. et al.: "1. He tore some bark off the tree.
2. A piece of bark came loose from the tree.
The neutral word for ‘bark’, applicable to as many different
tree species as possible".
• This clause belongs as well to the encyclopedically loaded
lexics. As Swadesh word it's not a very good one being
geographically restricted. In the Turkic languages of South
Siberia, for example, we saw the following: only names of
certain trees' bark are used, due to their practical
importance: birch bark and larch bark; bark in general is
named with the same word that stands for animal and
human skin (*aγač tere-si), and informants are leaning
towards scientific, botanical use of this word, not everyday
use. Moreover, an opposition “bark as a part of a plant” ~
“bark as a production material” = “stripped bark” (parallel
to “tree” ~ “timber”) is observed.
• Semantic derivation in Turkic:
•
•
•
•
•
“bark” < “bark, skin” 2;
“bark” < “peel” 2;
“bark” < “leaf” 1 (and in the same region “foliage” < “bark” 2)
“bark” < “to strip” 4
“bark” < “cambium” < “hard” 1
• Borrowings: 1
• Primary words:
• 3.1: bark: PT *Kāpuk 'bark, shell' || PA *kʽā́pʽà 'bark; skin; leaf' >
PNMo *kawda-sun 'bark'; PTM *xabda(-nsa) 'leaf'. PKor *kàph- /
*kə̀ph- 'bark, skin'. PJap *kapa 'skin, bark'.
• 3.5: bark: CT *Kās 'bark, peel' < PSam *käsa 'bark'.
• 3.7. bark: CТ *qa/āz < PT *Ka/āř 'кора' || PA *k‛éŕà 'skin, bark, shell',
PTung. *xere- 'to peel, to skin'; PJap *kárà 'shell'.
• 3.8: bark: PT *Kaδiř 'bark, stripped bark' || PA *k‛ádí(-rV) 'to scrape;
any instrument for skin tanning': PMong *kederge 'scraper', PSTung
*xargan ' stock for fish and game skins processing', PJap *káintúr'scrape'.
• "Birch bark": PCT *Tōz || PWA *tṓŕu 'birch bark, birch bark
container'; PNMo *duru-sun 'birch bark, bast' || PTM *duri 'cradle
made of birch bark'.
• Only PT *Kāpuk 'bark, shell' and PT *Kaδiř 'bark, stripped bark; >
scales' evidently claim for PT meaning “bark of tree”. *Kās,
apparently borrowed from Samodic, and *Kāz, which evidently goes
back to the PA name for bark (although maybe *Kāpuk as well) are
CT words. It still appears impossible to reconstruct clear semantic
differences between all these names; only *Kaδiř is, most probably,
“stripped bark”.
• 4. Belly
• Kass. et al.: "1. While fighting, he punched him in the belly.
• 2. Wrap this belt around your belly.
• Part of the human body located directly above the pelvis.
Not to be confused with various terms that denote internal
organs (stomach, intestines) or semantically/stylistically
marked words (paunch)"
• Certainly in this glossing two sememes are merged: a) the
name of the "exterior" (according to Wierzbicka and
Arutyunova), that is, visible without destroying the
organism, body part (the front part of the trunk between
chest and groin) and b) the name of the "interior" body part
- the container of viscera: stomach, intestines, liver, spleen,
kidneys, urinary bladder. In principle, distinct words can be
used to signify the two sememes in a language (like in
Tatar: корсак 'exterior belly' (diagnostic contexts "he has
big belly", "hit in the belly" or "fasten the buckle of one's
belt on his belly"), карын 'interior belly' ("my belly hurts",
"my belly is empty")).
• The "exterior" word must correspond more with the criterion of
"intransmissivity", because it's less linked with the "illnesses and
medicine" conceptual area which is fatal for the transmissivity of
the names of body parts. It's clear which of these words
corresponds with the criterion of stability if we accept that
stability is linked to the number of potential single-step
metonymic shifts - for the "interior" belly it's all the types of
entrails contained within it and probably also its spiritual
"content", the inner world of a human being or the nutritional
content - food (so, at least 8); for the exterior belly there are only
3 possibilities: the body part which is higher, that is, chest; the
body part on the same height level, only not in front but in side,
that is, side ~ hip; and the hyperonymic meaning "the whole
trunk".
• Hence, the name of the "exterior" belly is a more "Swadeshian"
word. But, as quite often the two sememes discussed above are
syncretically expressed with a single word, and a diachronic shift
between syncretical and distinct expression is often
imperceptible, we consider the expression of both meaning types
below. Also, we must pay attention to the meaning "animal
belly", that is, "barrel" (often linked to stylistically lowered uses
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Semantic derivation:
'Exterior belly' < 'Interior belly' 3
'Interior belly' < 'Exterior belly' 2
'Interior belly' < 'Stomach' 1,
'Interior belly' < 'Liver' 1
'Interior belly' < 'interior' 3
Primary words:
4.1: belly: PT *Kạrïm 'exterior belly' || PWA *karmu-:
NTung *kerimuk ‘stomach/intestines’, PMo *kormai ‘lap'.
• 4.2: belly: PT *ič 'inside, interior'; || PA *ič‛u 'den, interior',
PNMo *(h)iči- 'to get into the den, to hibernate', PJap *utu
'den, cavity'.
• 4.3: belly: PCT *Kurg-sak 'stomach': PA *k‛úrgo: PNMo
kurkag 'animal stomach', PTung *xurke-(nse) 'fish belly';
PKor *kùrə̀i 'thoracic cavity'.
• Scheme 3. PT *Karïm
• Scheme 4. PT *ič as body part
• Scheme 6. PCT *Kurg-sak
• PT *Kạrïm 'exterior belly'.
• NB: the development of "interior" semantics
reveal the regular synchronic polysemy 'reservoir'
> 'contents', so it can be independent in all the
cases.
• PT *ič 'interior belly' > syncr. in the North-Eastern
area
• PCT *kurgsak 'stomach' (remaining in the
periphery) > Karluk-Kypchak 'interior belly' >
syncr. The inverted opposition of 'interior' and
'exterior' belly in the Tatar-Bashkir-Nogai area
needs more detailed investigation on the material
of the medieval texts now difficult of access.
•
•
•
•
5. Big
Kass. et al.: "1. This person has a big nose, that one has a small nose.
2. A big stone (leaf, tree, pool, etc...).
An adjective or verb that may be applied to different objects. The
contexts are the same as in No.78 ‘small’."
• As in the theoretical semantics was shown, the meanings like"big"
shall be glossed with the help of the feature "norm" or "standart". "A
big house" is "a house bigger than standart", and "a big apple" is "an
apple bigger then standart". Other features that can be included in the
word meaning are different features characteristic for the object of
atributivisation. So, the size attributes may differ by the animated inanimated character of the object (English small vs little). Normally
the words exist that define the "bigness" of an object by individual
dimensions ("high" – vertical, "long" - horisontal). If it is an object
characterised by one marked dimension, the usage with the
neutralisation of the feature is possible (high tree = big tree), what
leads to a kind of polysemy and to a possibility of semantic shifts.
Theoretically, a shift in both directions is possible (big > high and
high > big).
• Here the most neutral word is required, that is with the
maximal list of objects. Such a word must be highly
frequent, what principially could provide "impenetrability".
But its stability shall be worse as for any more concrete
word, while for any word neutralising characteristic feature
it is just one semantic shift to the neutral "big", and for the
neutral "big" the narrowing of the meaning can go gaining
any of 4 dimensional features (high, long, wide, deep) and
moreover any other kind of feature.
• A type of meaning near to "big" is the lexical function
'Magn', related to the objects characterised by any kind of
features, and not only by physical size. Here also senmantic
shifts are possible (X > size and size > X), that are
metaphorical (as Russian большой ученый). The second
type is regular for Turkic languages; the examples for the
first type are Shor poγda ("sacred" > "big") ot Tatar зур
("strong" > "big").
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Semantic derivations:
"big" < Magn: 2
"big" < "high" 1
"big" < "stout" 3
"big" < "coarse" 1
"big" < "elephant" 1
Magn < "big": 9
Borrowings: 8
Primary words:
5.1: big: PT *ulug 'big, great; coarse; Magn' || PA *ulo 'big, many,
good (= Magn)'; PMo *olan 'many' || PTM *ulï- 'good' || PKor *ōr'absolutely'.
• 5.2: big: CТ *ülk-ken 'big, great; coarse; Magn' < PT *ülk-ken 'big;
beautiful' < PT *ülki 'pattern'.
• 5.3: big : CТ *bedü-k 'big, great; coarse; high; Magn', < PT *bedü- 'to
grow': PA *bĕ̀ dù 'stout'; PMo *bedüɣün 'fat, coarse' || PTung *bеrgu'stout, fat' || PKor *pɨ̀rɨ̀- 'fat, full' || PJap *pùtuà- 'stout, big'.
• 5.6: big: Chuv. mъnъ < PT *bạn-g 'big, adult, old; age'. PA *mana
'many, big', PNMo *mandu- / *mantu- 'to grow' || PTung *manduj
'multitude' || PKor *mān(h)- 'many'.
• Scheme 5.
• For CT the Swadesh word must be *ulug. But it
cannot be reconstructed as PT "big": in Old Bulgar
we have only one usage within a title.
• *Ülken receives the Swadesh meaning within a
coherent isogloss.
• *Bedük is the PCT word for "high".
• "Swadesh" usage for *idrik 'coarse' increases
spontaneously in two areas.
• We have two candidates for PT "big": PCT *ulug
'big' (Bulgarian 'Magn') and Bulgarian *bạn- 'big' (in
other Turkic languages 'adult'). For *ulug Altaic
parallels speak for common meaning "Magn"
(quantity and quality); for *bạn- - rather for
"many" ("quality"). So the choice is ambivalent.
• 6. Bird
• Kass. et al.: "1. Something is moving in the bushes, I
cannot tell if it is a bird or an animal.
• 2. Birds lay eggs, animals and people bear children.
• 3. There is a bird flying on high, I cannot tell what kind.
• Some languages make a contrast between ‘small bird’ /
‘large bird’ or have a special word for ‘large (predatory)
bird’. The contexts have been specially chosen so as to
assist in revealing the more neutral term."
• So, in a language a common word for "bird" may lack. In
Tutkic material the Kirgiz system contains three words:
"predatory/ hunting bird", "small bird" and "game (edible)
bird". From the other part, the cases exist when a word for
"bird" means in reality any flying animal. The second
case offers no difficulty; itn the first case evidently we
shall analyse both (or all the 3) words.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Semantic derivations:
"game" > "bird" 1
? "bird" > "large bird" 1
? "small bird" > "bird" 1
generalizing of an epithet: "flying" 1, "winged" 1
Borrowings: 2
Primary words:
6.1: bird: CT *Kuš < PT *Kuλ: 'bird' or 'a k. of large bird' ||
PWA *k‛ū̀ĺa 'predatory bird', PNMo *kuladu 'duck hawk' ||
PTung *xōlī 'raven'
• 6.2: bird: Chuv. kajъk. || PТ *gejik 'game'.
• 6.5: bird: PT *sïb-čuk 'small bird' (Dimin.) > West Kipchak
'bird' || PA *siba 'bird': PMo *sibawu 'bird' || Manch *sibir'swallow'|| PKor *sāi 'bird' (< *siba-I)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7. Bite, кусать.
Kass. et al.: "1. The dog bit him.
2. He bit his opponent in a fight.
Not to be confused with ‘to bite off’ (while eating) or ‘to gnaw’. Said
of animals or people (not a separate word like ‘to sting’ used for
insects, snakes, stinging plants etc.)."
The glosses for Russian кусать in MAS are:
"to take, to clench one's teeth; to wound smb. clenching teeth".
"to separate bits from smth. clenching teeth"
"to wound smb. sticking a sting" > "to sting (about nettle, wind)"
Apparently, the Swadesh meaning is "to wound smb. clenching teeth".
This meaning belongs to the group of predicates of physical influence,
the soubgroup of predicates of destruction. Such predicates are
defined by the types of instrument and object; the instrument and the
(animated) object of this verb provide "precultural" character of the
word (and such instrument as sting is geographically restricted). But
the semantic shifts for the predicates of destruction are multiple - the
metaphoric ones are innumerable, the metonymic ones are provided
by the shift of types of object, of instrument and of the grade of
destruction.
• Our meaning can be expressed syncretic with all of enumerated meanings, and such
verb we shall take for a Swadesh one, if there is no verb meaning strictly "to wound
smb. clenching teeth".
• Nearest meanings:
• "to gnaw" = to clench an object with teeth repeatedly, with the expected result of
destruction of this object.
• "to chew" = to clench an object with teeth repeatedly, with the expected result of
grinding of this object..
• Semantic derivations:
• 'bite' > 'eat' 3
• 'bite' > 'assault' 3
• 'bite' > 'gnaw' 3
• 'bite' > 'chew' 3
• 'bite' > 'sting' 2
• 'chew' > 'gnaw' 1
• 'snap' > 'bite' 1
• 'snatch by mouth' > 'bite' 1
• 'to break' > 'bite' 2
• 'to mow' > 'to sting' 1
• 'to crack (nuts)' > 'to sting' 1
• Borrowings: 1
• Primary words:
• 7.1: bite: PCT *ïsïr- || PA *ìsú 'to break, to crush': PTM *(x)ise- 'to
break, to beat ' || PKor *ɨsɨr- 'to break, to crush' || PJap *ùsú 'mortar'.
• 7.2: bite: CT * dīš-lA-, a derivate from PCT *dīš 'tooth', lexical
function Oper. The most common meaning is 'to take by teeth' > 'to
chew', 'to eat' and 'to bite'. It seems that this is the Proto-Common
Turkic meaning, and not many separate derivatives made by
productive model: another productive Oper - *dīš-A- - reveals such
meanings as "to shed teeth", "to dent" and "to whet a toothed
instrument".
• 7.3: bite: CT *Kap- < PT *Kap- 'to grasp, to take by mouth' || PWA
*k‛ap‛V 'to grasp, to squeese' > PMo *kab-či-, *kab-la- 'to clasp, to
squeese' || PTung *xap-ki- 'to strangle'.
• 7.4: bite: PT *dāla- 'to bite, to tear by teeth' || PWA *tā́lV > PMo
*dol[u]ɣa- 'to lick'', PTung *dala- 'to lap, swill; to eat (about
animals)'.
• 7.6: bite: Chuv. s’ïrt- < PT *jïrt- 'to tear to pieces', an intensive from
the PT *jīr- / *jȳr- 'tosplit, to break, to tear'.
• "to gnaw": PCT *gEmür-|| PA *kĕ̀ ma 'to gnaw, bite', PMo *kemeli- 'to
gnaw > to bite', PJap *kàm- 'to bite'.
• "to chew": PCT *čAj-na-|| PWA *č‛ăǯV 'cheek, cheekbone' > PMo
• Scheme 6
• The geography of reflexes of *ïsïr- (the periphery of CT) let
us presume that it is the PCT "bite". It cannot be drawn to
the PT layer, but it is interesting that in consideration of the
Altaic parallels it is the same semantic derivate as the
Chuvash word: "bite" < "break".
• The CT derivate *tīš-le- is the realization of the lexical
function Oper from "tooth", so a more common semantic
than "bite" shall be reconstructed - "to take, to clench one's
teeth".
• The PT *Kap- 'to grasp, to take by mouth' shows the shift to
"bite" as a entral innovation.
• The PT *dala- 'to bite, to tear by teeth', apparently is the
most probable candidate to the PT "to bite"; The Altaic
parallels speak for the common meaning "to eat (about
animals)".
• Conclusion
• The adduced exemples show the possibilities of
formal semantic analysis of Swadesh words
meaning. Only such method permits to accomplish
a reconstruction of Swadesh list for a
protolanguage. We can see by the way that as in
any structured sphere of language, in historical
semantics many processes disturbing the treeshaped scheme of language developments work.