Notes:Cf. HSED, 33 *ʔam- 'hand, arm': Sem; WCh. ( also quoted are Bgh am-ŝi and Geji wom-ẑi, but without any evidence demonstrating that the -ŝi/ẑi element is a suffix or part of a composed stem). Actually 'arm', not 'hand'. The comment "Related to *ʔam- "catch, seize" (for the semantic development cf., for example, Lith ranka "hand" ~ rinkti "grasp, seize")" is wrong as the meaning of both Semitic and WCh. nominal roots points not to 'hand', but to 'arm/forearm/elbow'. The meaning 'hand' is ascribed to the reconstructed root by the authors under the influence of their own idea of relation with "catch, seize". A typical vicious circle of argumentation.
Notes:Cf. EDE 126-7. Cf. HSED, 1828 *naf- 'breath' (Eg.; Saho 'breath' and Afar 'face', which is semantically doubtful; Som. 'breath, soul' and Oromo and Arbore 'body' which is very philosophical to relate with 'soul', though wrong, as 'soul' comes from 'breath' and it is hard to imagine the reconstructed term giving rise to 'breath' in some daughter languages and 'body', in others) and 1865 *nif- 'smell, breathe' (Sem. *nVpaḥ- supposedly "secondary formation based on *nap-", which is impossible to prove or disprove; Eg. nfy; CCh. *nif-, with *-f -prompted only by Eg. as both examples quoted have -p). Considering CCh. *-i-, Saho -a-, and Som. -a-/-ē (the other examples in both entries are irrelevant for semantical, and Eg., for phonetical reasons), there is not a least ground to reconstruct two roots.
Notes:Borrowing to Eth from ECu or visa versa is possible. Cf. SIFKYa 282; HSED, 1471 *koh- 'egg ': Hs, Grk; Beja; Gaw. Cf. Bla Review 503. Cf. *ʔ/ʕugaḥ/h- 'egg' and *ḳʷay(ʔ)- id.
