170 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica XC
ALEXANDER I. ILIADI
The S a e Ins i u ion “Sou h Uk ainian Na ional
Pedagogical Uni e si y named a e K. D. Ushinsky”
ORCID id: o cid.o g/0000-0001-5078-8316
Fields o esea ch: e ymology, compa a i e-his o ical
linguis ics, gene al and ypological linguis ics.
ILONA M. DERIK
The S a e Ins i u ion “Sou h Uk ainian Na ional
Pedagogical Uni e si y named a e K. D. Ushinsky”
ORCID id: o cid.o g/0000-0002-8979-4745
Fields o esea ch: gene al and ypological linguis ics,
ansla ion s udies, co pus linguis ics.
DOI: doi.o g/10.35321/all90-07
UNIVERSALITY IN SEMANTIC
DYNAMICS: FROM ‘BODY’ TO
‘PERSON’, ‘SELF’, ‘SOUL’
Seman inės dinamikos uni e salumas:
nuo ‘kūno’ iki ‘asmens’, ‘sa as ies’, ‘sielos’
ANNOTATION
The esea ch is aimed a desc ibing a ele an egula i y in seman ics de elopmen
ending o be uni e sal due o he e idence in many languages. In he ocus o he esea ch,
he e is an iden ical sequence o s ages o seman ic e olu ion ‘body’, ‘co pus’ → ‘pe son’,
‘sel ’, ‘soul’ and i s ou come e ealed in he languages unde analysis. The e iewed seman ic
shi is p esen ed in gene ically ela ed and un ela ed languages in di e en pe iods o hei
his o y, which makes i possible o de ine i as a phenomenon diach onically ep oduced
a each ch onological c oss-sec ion. The pos ula e o he uni e sali y o he seman ic
co ela ion be ween ‘body’, ‘body pa s’ & ‘soul’, ‘spi i ’, ‘pe son’, and ‘sel ’ is based on
he eliably es ablished egula sequence o “s eps” om he e ymological ‘body’ o o he
meanings in he languages o ele en gene ic amilies. This co ela ion o sememes can be
de ined as a clus e o chains o seman ic changes. Despi e some di e ences, hese chains
S aipsniai / A icles 171
Uni e sali y in Seman ic Dynamics:
om ‘body’ o ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, ‘soul’
s ill i in o he amewo k o he same seman ic model, which was implemen ed in di e en
condi ions, om which hese di e ences o igina e. Tha is, all a ian s o seman ic shi s
ook place unde ce ain condi ions and we e included in he “ope a ional ield” o one
model.
KEYWORDS: seman ic uni e sali y, co ela ion o meanings, linguis ic ypology,
model, p onoun, compound wo d, e lex.
ANOTACIJA
Ty imo ikslas – ap ašy i a i inkamą seman ikos aidos dėsningumą, ku is dėl į odymų
daugelyje kalbų y a uni e salus. Ty imo objek as – iden iška seman inės aidos e apų seka
‘kūnas’, ‘ko pusas’ → ‘asmuo’, ‘asmenybė’, ‘siela’ i jos ezul a ai a skleis  analizuojamose
kalbose. Apž elgiamas seman inis poslinkis pa eikiamas gene iškai giminiškose i
nesusijusiose kalbose ski ingais jų is o ijos laiko a piais, o ai leidžia jį apib ėž i kaip eiškinį,
diach oniškai a sika ojan į kiek iename ch onologiniame pjū yje. Seman inės ko eliacijos
a p ‘kūno’, ‘kūno dalių’ i ‘sielos’, ‘d asios’, ‘asmens’, ‘sa as ies’ uni e salumo pos ula as
y a pag įs as pa ikimai nus a y a dėsninga „žingsnių“ seka nuo e imologinės ‘kūno’ iki ki ų
eikšmių ienuolikos gene inių šeimų kalbose. Šią sememų ko eliaciją galima apib ėž i kaip
seman inių pokyčių g andinių klas e į. Nepaisan kai ku ių ski umų, šios g andinės is
iek elpa į ieno i o pa ies seman inio modelio, ealizuojamo ski ingomis aplinkybėmis,
ėmus, iš ku ių i kyla šie ski umai. Tai eiškia, kad isi seman inių poslinkių a ian ai
yko am ik omis sąlygomis i bu o į auk i į ieno modelio „ope acinį lauką“.
ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: seman inis uni e salumas, eikšmių ko eliacija, ling is inė
ipologija, modelis, į a dis, sudė inis žodis, e leksas.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The e has been es ablished a special adi ion o s udying he p oblem
o ypicali y and e en uni e sali y o seman ic changes. Howe e , i hasn’
been gene ally accep ed so a , exis ing as a sum o ideas in he wo ks o
ep esen a i es o di e en linguis ic schools. O iginally na owly de ined by
Michail M. Pok o skij as a phenomenon o he egula i y o in e up ions
o meaning in he languages o Eu ope (acco ding o him, ‘iden ical, a he
o iginal, meanings in se e al languages independen ly o each o he a e wo ked
ou in he same way’; Pok o skij 1895: 13), i (o an idea close o i ) was la e
embodied in a pu ely p ac ical applica ion by Ca l Da ling Buck namely in his
wo k A dic iona y o selec ed synonyms in he p incipal Indo-Eu opean languages
(Buck 1949). Fo a long ime, he aspec o he sea ch o uni e sals in he
seman ic dynamics o wo ds emained he p e oga i e o e ymological s udies,
ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK
172 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica XC
whe e he pe suasi eness o he in e p e a ion o he econs uc ed meaning
and i s e olu ion depends on he eliabili y o ypologically simila examples
om o he languages. In pa icula , he ocus on ypological analogies in
seman ics dis inguishes such undamen al wo ks on e ymology as he His o ical
and E ymological Dic iona y o he Osse ian Language (1958–1995) by Vasilij
I. Abae , as well as he E ymological Dic iona y o Sla ic Languages (1974–
2021) published in Moscow and he ecen E ymological Dic iona y o Ge manic
Languages (2010) by Vic o V. Le i sky. Howe e , e ymological s udies, by
hei wide ange o asks, a e no limi ed o he ecalcula ion o ypological
analogies in he de elopmen o meaning and do no es ablish he a eal o hei
dis ibu ion; hey only collec ac s o hei own needs, which can become he
basis o u u e heo e ical esea ch in he ele an ield o uni e sology.
1.2. The indings o e ymological and semasiological esea ch wo ks on lexical
meaning in synch ony and diach ony equi e a heo e ical basis o nume ous
examples o he ypicali y and egula i y o seman ic dynamics in ime and space.
The e is a need in he heo y which migh elabo a e me hodological p inciples
o desc ibing and e i ying models o seman ic change common o a la ge
numbe o ela ed and un ela ed languages. The co esponding se o heo e ical
and me hodological issues has been pa ially analyzed in he ecen (1) s udies
by Anna A. Zalizniak, who was he i s o analyse he uni e sals in polysemy
and p oceeded o elabo a e a ca alogue o seman ic ansi ions (Zalizniak
2013: 397–409; 2018); (2) s udies by Elena G. Mikina (Mikina 2009; 2012;
2020; 2022) on he seman ic e olu ion o La in and Romanic e bs o speech.
E. G. Mikina’s wo ks illus a e o ganic syn hesis o compa a i e-his o ical
linguis ics and linguis ic ypology since he chains o s ages o he dynamics
o meaning a e es ablished agains a b oad Indo-Eu opean backg ound. Close
ideas a e se ou in: (Ne lich 1992; Gee ae s 1997: 28 and nex ).
1.3. The e is he sea ch o answe s o wo o he undamen al ques ions which
a e ele an o he cu en s a e o his issue. The i s one is abou he balanced
ela ionship be ween he synch onous s a e o seman ics and i s his o ical
dynamics in he scien i ic appa a us o esea ch. I is known ha ‘seman ic
e olu ion and synch onic polysemy a e wo sides o he same phenomenon’
(Zalizniak 2013: 413), bu i is no known ( esp. no ob ious) whe he his is a
pa icula case o seman ic de i a ion in he language(s) o a pa icula epoch
o whe he we a e dealing wi h an ancien co ela ion o sememes, ep oduced
in a la e ch onological slice. Bo h o hese phenomena need o be dis inguished.
Fo example, Indo-Eu opean e bs wi h a eliably es ablished p ima y meaning
‘ o ind’ egula ly ha e he seconda y sememe ‘ o gi e bi h’ (: Osse ian a yn
(Sou he n wa yn), e un ‘ o ind’ and ‘ o bege ’, Pami O mu i ā - ‘ o ind’ and
‘ o gi e bi h’ ~ PIE *e - ‘ o ind’ (Abae 1958: 73–74); Russian dial. ребяненок
S aipsniai / A icles 173
Uni e sali y in Seman ic Dynamics:
om ‘body’ o ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, ‘soul’
найдется ‘a child will be bo n’, Uk ainian dial. знайти дитину ‘ o gi e bi h
o a baby’, Se bian dial. нашло се дете and o he ~ *na-jь i (ESSJ XXII 113–
114, 116; Tols aja 1997: 290–291)) wi h he ele an ly ancien age. By he
way, among he Sla s, i a ose wi hin he amewo k o he language o he
i ual (s ill pagan!) ac ion o decei ing a e: a newbo n was allegedly b ough
by a gues who ound a child on he oad. Thus, he e may be p esumed he
ep oduc ion o long-es ablished seman ic ela ions in he la e pe iod o he
his o y o he languages o he wo g oups. Bu in he case o Tu kic ap- ‘ o
ind’, ‘ o gi e bi h’ (Abae 1958: 74) he e is no such cla i y as used o be in
P o o-Tu kic (S a os in, Dybo, Mud ak, eds., 2003: 1436: * ăp-; Teniše e al.
2006: 208, 288) o e en ancien Tu kic language condi ion (VII–XIII cc.) as
only he i s meaning was a es ed (DTS 533), howe e , he e is no da a on he
meaning o ‘ o gi e bi h’ o * ăp- in he an iqui y, so i can be seen as a local
la e seman ic de i a ion in one o he languages. Well, he cul u al condi ions
o his de i a ion among he Indo-Eu opeans (I anians, Sla s) and he Tu ks
do no coincide ei he .
The second one is ha each example o he p esumably uni e sal ype o
seman ic de elopmen should be conside ed “unde a magni ying glass” and
e i ied by a su icien numbe o a gumen s. The collec ion o e idence o each
case, i s e i ica ion, classi ica ion o he collec ed ma e ial and i s explana ion
is ime-consuming and e y labo ious wo k, bu almos always such esea ch
leads o e y in e es ing esul s. The wo ks on linguis ic comp ehension o
many o hese phenomena o seman ics a e ye o come, especially since he
impo ance o s udying uni e sals in he dynamics o lexical meaning has no
ye been ully ealised.
2. OBJECTIVE AND TASKS
An in e es ing example o he co ela ion be ween he ‘body’ & ‘pe son’,
‘sel ’, and ‘soul’ sememes which a e s udied he e, wi h some ese a ions, can
be ega ded as an illus a ion o he hesis abou he uni e sali y o some models
o seman ic de elopmen . This co ela ion has been igno ed in he specialized
li e a u e, and meanwhile, he e ha e been scien i ic p e equisi es o his o a
long ime. Fo example, in he elec onic ca alogue “The Ca alogue o Seman ic
Shi s” (Zalizniak e al.: h ps://da semshi . u/shi 4380), he ansi ion o
‘body’ → ‘sel ’ in se e al non-Indo-Eu opean languages is no ed. Al hough “The
Ca alogue” simply eco ds he synch onic co ela ion o hese sememes, he
da a collec ed p omp s he sea ch o mani es a ions o a simila co ela ion in
he Indo-Eu opean languages and he s udy o he condi ions o i s appea ance.
ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK
174 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica XC
Acco dingly, he objec i e o he esea ch is o desc ibe he model o seman ic
de elopmen ‘body/pa o he body’, ‘co pus’ → ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, ‘soul’
(o i s a ian s) and o p o e i s uni e sal na u e, i.e. i s implemen a ion in
he lexical and seman ic sys ems o languages o di e en gene ic amilies in
synch ony and diach ony.
The achie emen o his objec i e in ol es he ul ilmen o se e al asks,
namely: 1) o summa ize all known e idence o he co ela ion o he sememes
‘body’, ‘co pus’ & ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, ‘soul’; 2) o p o e he di ec na u e o seman ic
de i a ion in all (i possible) cases, excluding he possibili y o media ing
(in e media e) s ages; 3) subs an ia e he ep oducibili y o he model unde
conside a ion on di e en ch onological slices in he his o y o he languages
in ol ed in he analysis; 4) o ind ou he easons o his seman ic shi .
3. MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY
OF RESEARCH
3.1. The s udy in ol es he lexical ma e ial o ele en gene ic amilies o
languages, in which we see he implemen a ion o his model o seman ic
de elopmen . As a as we know, hese da a ha e no ye been he objec o a
special (wi hin he amewo k o he ou lined p oblem) linguis ic esea ch and,
acco dingly, he ypological simila i y o di e en wo ds, demons a ing he
commonali y o hei seman ic de elopmen , is no no ed and explained.
Since he p imacy o he meaning o ‘body’ conce ning sememes ‘sel ’, ‘pe son’,
‘soul’ e c. is essen ial o he p oposed s udy, he i s s ep in he p ocedu e
o p o ing he o iginali y o he soma ic meaning is o e e o he indings
o e ymology and econs uc ion. These da a a e p esen ed in e ymological
dic iona ies and pa ag aphs o compa a i e g amma s. The nume ous ac s
in hese sou ces o en need o be gene alized agains a b oad ypological
backg ound. I we a e dealing wi h languages whose ocabula y has no ye
ecei ed e ymological elucida ion, he ma e ial is ex ac ed om he a ailable
g amma ical desc ip ions o hese languages, hei ocabula y and ex s. This
applies o a g ea e ex en o he Algonquian and Aus onesian languages. Since
his a icle is no a co pus s udy bu aims o subs an ia e he uni e sali y o one
model o seman ic de i a ion, i seems o us su icien simply o indica e i s
mani es a ions in se e al languages o each o he conside ed language amilies.
3.2. When analyzing he ma e ial, we elied on he gene al heo e ical
p inciples o wo king wi h he dynamics o he seman ic s uc u e o he wo d,
ou lined in he wo ks o ou p edecesso s, namely: (Budago 1963; S e n 1964;

S aipsniai / A icles 175
Uni e sali y in Seman ic Dynamics:
om ‘body’ o ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, ‘soul’
T ubačio 1964; Schus e -Šewc 1975; Ne lich 1992; Gee ae s 1997: 23–122;
T augo 1999; T augo , Dashe 2002; Gee ae s 2010: 25–41; Mikina 2012).
The asks o he s udy de e mined he choice o i s me hods. In pa icula ,
some echniques o he ollowing me hods a e used he e: (1) compa a i e-
his o ical ( o cla i y he ela i e ch onology o he s a es o seman ics o he
objec s (wo ds) unde conside a ion in di e en pe iods o hei his o y and o
de e mine he gene ic ela ionship o he compa ed lexemes); (2) ypological ( o
desc ibe he e ogeneous uni s wi h simila seman ic e olu ion); (3) he me hod
o commen ing on dic iona y en ies ( o cla i y he logic o de elopmen and
di ec ion o seman ic connec ions be ween he sememes o a ce ain lexeme).
They a e implemen ed wi hin he amewo k o he analysis p ocedu e, he
essence o which is desc ibed h ough:
– he sum o he c i e ia o selec ing he ma e ial o he s udy;
– in e p e a ion o he ma e ial unde s udy;
– a scheme o ep esen a ion o ac s (see sec ion 4).
C i e ia
1. The lexemes employed in he s udy ha e wo poles o he seman ic
spec um: ‘body/pa o body’, ‘co pus’ VS ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, and ‘soul’.
2. The e mus be de i a i e ela ions be ween bo h g oups o meanings,
namely: he sememes ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, and ‘soul’ a e de i ed om ‘body’ o ‘pa
o he body’.
3. Wi hin a clus e o he sememes ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, and ‘soul’, de i a ion
ela ions a e also allowed in some cases.
4. I is aken in o accoun ha sememe ‘(my)sel ’ in he body may de elop
unde he h ee ollowing condi ions: a) due o he mo phological modi ica ion
o he body (by a ixa ion); b) as a pa o composi e wo ds; c) syn ac ically, i. e.
in he unc ion o he e lexi e p onoun (‘sel ’ as ‘my/i s/his body’). The las
condi ion is ue only o se e al languages o he same b anch o he Indo-
Eu opean amily and spo adically se e al languages inside he Indo-Eu opean
lingual a eal.
5. Lexemes in which in e media e sememes a e ma ked be ween bo h clus e s
o meanings, excluding he di ec seman ic de i a ion o ‘body’ → ‘pe son’,
e c., a e excluded om conside a ion as hey do no co espond o he model
o seman ic de i a ion. Howe e , his c i e ion canno always be me due o
he lack o w i en monumen s in some languages o he low le el o hei
e ymological de elopmen .
6. Lexemes wi h he same ype o seman ic co ela ion ha a ose in di e en
cul u al-semio ic (my hological, eligious, apo opaic) condi ions (c . abo e he
example o he co ela ion ‘ o ind’ : ‘ o gi e bi h’) a e also no aken in o
accoun .
ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK
176 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica XC
In e p e a ion (gene al g ounds)
1. The na u e o he co ela ion o he meanings o one wo d o g oup o
cogna es is desc ibed by employing modelling, bu any model mus be e i ied
h ough ypological pa allels co esponding o he sum o he pa ame e s
speci ied by he model. This means ha he di ec ion and esul o seman ic
de elopmen (p ima ily in cases equi ing seman ic econs uc ion) ha e
been p o ed on he condi ion ha he same ec o o e olu ion o meaning,
i s ini ial, in e media e and inal s ages can be aced in di e en wo ds om
di e en languages. Wha is c ucial o analysis is only he ac o he ele an
ch onology o he seman ic s a es o he wo d e idence and he e i ica ion
o he p ese a ion o he sememes’ co ela ion as p ima y and seconda y in
di e en languages in di e en pe iods o hei his o y.
2. The wide he geog aphy o he model’s implemen a ion (i is ma ked in
many languages), he highe he p obabili y ha we deal wi h a uni e sal ype
o seman ic e olu ion.
3. I he ma e ial e eals he ele ance (u gency) o he men ioned ype o
seman ic de i a ion on se e al ch onological slices o e en o e he cou se o an
en i e his o ical pe iod, one should speak no o an inno a ion in he seman ic
s uc u e o wo ds ha a ose a some poin in he his o y o he language, bu o
old ela ions o seman ic de i a ion ep oduced in diach ony.
4. PROCEDURE
So, he e a e some ac s p o domo sua o he uni e sali y o he ans o ma ion
o lexical meanings wi h his ec o . The s udy in ol es he ollowing o de o
p esen a ion o ac s and hei analysis.
4.1. E idence o Indo-Eu opean languages
4.1.1. I anian lexicon
P o o-I anian *g īā- ‘neck, nape o he neck’, whose e lexes display he
ollowing meanings (wi h he ex ension o seman ics o ‘body in gene al’):
Khwa ezmian γ yw ‘body’ & ‘soul’ and u he he e a e indica ed meanings
‘sel , he sel , himsel , you sel ’, seconda y o ‘soul’ (Èdel’man 2008: 57), c .
combina ion o wo ds y’ γ yw ‘by mysel ; himsel ’; u he c . Sogdian ’γ yw,
man. γ yw ‘body’ & ‘pe son’, ‘soul’, ‘sel ’ (Li šic 1962: 128, 192; Ras o gue a,
Èdel’man 2007: 291–292; Gha ib 1995: 130, 167), Middle Pe sian g īw [glyw|]
S aipsniai / A icles 177
Uni e sali y in Seman ic Dynamics:
om ‘body’ o ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, ‘soul’
‘neck’, ‘ h oa ’, g īw [glyw|, g yw] ‘sel ’, ‘soul’ (MacKenzie 1986: 37; he e bo h
wo ds a e gi en in di e en dic iona y en ies), g yw, g yyw [g īw] ‘neck’, ‘ o m’
& ‘sel ’, ‘soul’, c . G yw hsyng ‘P imal Man’ VS g yw zyndg, g yw jywndg ‘Li ing
Soul’ (Du kin-Meis e e ns 2004: 164).
Such examples a e in e p e ed as a seman ic b anch (Ras o gue a, Èdel’man
2007: 292) o seman ic de elopmen (Èdel’man 2008: 57), bu he easons and
condi ions o his seman ic specializa ion a e no explained.
He e a e examples o he use o Sogdian ’γ yw as he equi alen o a e lexi e
p onoun in he ollowing ph ases: ’XRZY ZNH γ ywh nwšk(w?) myn’m –
‘Then I conside mysel immo al’ VS ’XRZY ZNH γ ywh ’m ch myn’m, li .
‘ hen I conside mysel dead’ (Li šic 1962: 128, 192).
Fo he seman ic de elopmen ‘body limbs’, ‘body pa s’ → ‘body in gene al’
in he I anian examples c . he ecen s udy o Veliza Sado ski (Sado ski 2017:
567–599; in pa icula see p. 577 and 579).
P o o-I anian * anū- ‘body’: A es an anū- ‘body’ & ‘pe son’, ‘i sel ’ (one
was used also as a e lexi e p onoun) (Ba holomae 1904: 633; Abae 1979:
261), c . ‘[…] hiia  mā ohū pai ī.jasa  manaŋhā / pə əsa cā mā ciš ahī kahiiā
ahī / kaθā aiia .daxšā ā ə asaiiāi dīšā / aibī θβāhū gaēθāhū * anušucā’ – ‘[…]
when he *su ounds me wi h good hough / and asks me ‘Who a e you? Whose
a e you?’ / How would you *submi you day(ly)-*ma k-ea nings o ques ioning /
* ega ding you he ds and pe sons’ (Skjæ ø 2018: 121).
Fu he c . Old Pe sian anūš ( nuuš) ‘body’, ‘ unk’ & ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’ (Hinz
1973: 152; Abae 1979: 261: ‘is also used as a e lexi e p onoun’), Khwa ezmian
n ‘body’, ‘ unk’ & ‘sel ’, c . y’ n’h ‘his body’ and ‘himsel ’ (Benzing 1983:
612), Middle Pe sian an [ n|] ‘body’ & ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, c . xwēš an ‘one’s sel ’
(MacKenzie 1986: 81; Du kin-Meis e e ns 2004: 324), Pe sian an, ana,
Pahla i an ‘body’ & ‘pe son’ (Abae 1979: 261), Zaza an ‘human, pe son’ <
* anu- ‘body’ (Cabolo 2010: 373), Pe sian än ‘body, lesh’ & ‘pe son’, ‘(hu)
man’ (Rubinčik 1970: 398).
As we can see, in I anian * anū- is o en used as a e lexi e p onoun. A yan
* anū- also pe o ms he same unc ion in he Da dic and Indo-A yan languages
(see below). In gene al, he seman ic spec um o P o o-I anian * anū- is
iden ical o he se o basic meanings o i s Indo-A yan e ymological coun e pa
(see below). I is pe missible o speak o wo p obable condi ions in which his
lexeme de eloped he meaning ‘mysel ’, and ‘sel ’.
1. In he wo d combina ion A es an anū- wi h x a- ‘i s, his’, ‘sel ’, ‘i sel ’,
‘himsel ’, c . auuaēna ā sūcā manaŋhā / āuua ənå īciθahiiā na m.na əm x aiiāi
anuiiē – ‘Obse e h ough ( his) lame by (you ) hough / he *p e e ences o
disc imina ion (= judgemen ) (made) man-by-man o his own body’ (Skjæ ø
2018: 34, 82), c . abo e Middle Pe sian xwēš an. The same is likely o be
ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK
178 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica XC
assumed o he Old Indian an- ‘sel ’, c . s áyā an  (an example is adduced
om: May ho e 1992: 621). Thus, ‘one’s/own body’ → ‘mysel ’, ‘sel ’,
‘pe son’.
2. In he wo d combina ions and composi es, o med based on he wo d
combina ions wi h he e lexes * anū-, c . Young A es an anu.kə ə a- adj. ‘made
by onesel , sel -c ea ed’ (Ba holomae 1904: 636), anūm (ā)guz ~ Old Indian
an àm gh ‘ o hide’ (May ho e 1992: 622) = ‘hide you sel ’’.
The de elopmen o he seman ics ‘body’ → ‘pe sonali y, pe son (= one,
he only)’ is also obse ed in mo phological de i a ion, c . Pahla i anīhā
‘alone’ (MacKenzie 1986: 82), Pe sian anha ‘alone’, ‘singula ’, ‘only’, de i ed
om an ‘body’ employing he ad e bial su ix -īhā (Cabolo 2010: 373–374).
P o o-I anian *śa ah- ‘head’:
Sogdian s - /sa / ‘head’ (→ ‘sel ’) is used as he equi alen o a e lexi e
p onoun in he ollowing ph ases: ZKw s w nwš’kw myn’m – ‘I conside mysel
happy’ (li . immo al), p w s w pcγ β’n – ‘( he o de ) I will su ely ca y ou ’, li .
‘I will ake i on [my] head (= on mysel )’ (Li šic 1962: 128);
Osse ian sæ ‘head’ → ‘pe son’, he e is also a usage unc ionally close o
‘sel ’, ‘mysel ’, c .: (a) ‘nal mæ xæssys dæ sæ mæ’ – ‘you ha e become squeamish
abou me’; (b) (Kos a) ‘adæmy a næj kₒy skænin mæxīcæn kad æmæ sæ !’ – ‘I
only I could c ea e o mysel honou and digni y wi h he a n o he people!’, ‘dæ
sæ yl mæ ’ xæssaj’ – ‘may you sac i ice me o you sel (‘you head’)’(Abae
1979: 73, 74).
Opposi io
He e i is ad isable o poin o he e e se o de o he seman ic de elopmen ,
which is also a es ed in he I anian ocabula y. I is abou he e lexes o Old
I anian * i-āna- ‘b ea hing’ (Bailey 1943: 106–107), * yāna- (Nybe g 1974:
106), c . i s cul u al seman ics in: Middle Pe sian jān [y’n|] ‘ he animal spi i
o man’ (ibid.: 106), Pe sian ǰān ‘soul’, ‘spi i ’, ‘li e’ & ‘li e body’ and ‘essence’,
‘child, kid, baby’ (Rubinčik 1970: 425; A doe 2017: 18). He e he g oup o
sememes ‘soul’, ‘spi i ’, ‘li e’ is p ima y, mo i a ed wi h he p imo dial meaning
‘b ea hing’ (c . P o o-Sla onic *duxъ ‘spi i ’, *duša ‘soul’ (poe ic ‘li e’: Russian
душа моя ‘my li e’) : *dyša i, *( ъz)dъxnǫ i ‘ o b ea he’), meanwhile sememes
‘li e (= b ea hing) body’, ‘essence’ (→ ‘child, kid, baby’) a e seconda y.
I should be poin ed ou , ha seman ic de i a ion ‘b ea hing’ → ‘soul’ →
‘(b ea hing) body’ → ‘essence’ → ‘child’ is an example o ela i ely la e
ch onology because he Middle Pe sian ex s do no con ain pieces o e idence
o an iqui y ‘body’, ‘child’.
S aipsniai / A icles 185
Uni e sali y in Seman ic Dynamics:
om ‘body’ o ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, ‘soul’
o ‘body (= main pa o being)’ → ‘sel (= own body)’, ‘pe son’, ‘soul’
(in o he cases).
4.2.7. Vainakh languages
Chechen дог ‘hea ’ & ‘soul’ (c . дагахь ‘a hea ’, ‘in soul’) (Ka asae ,
Macie 1978: 147, 555), дуог ‘hea ’, Ingush дуог ‘hea ’, Ba sbi докI ‘hea ’
(Deše ie 1963: 527) ~ Chechen дегI ‘body’ (дегIан меженаш ‘body pa s’)
(Ka asae , Macie 1978: 615), c . ‘Догмайра Асланбек / Ша юккъе иккхича, /
Болатчу шен герзех / Кадетта и ваьлча […]’ – ‘Aslanbek is b a e in spi i , /
Bu s ing in o he middle o he enemies, / Became a s eel weapon / To cu down he
enemy […]’ (B. Saido ) (Index 2011: 67). Appa en ly, he sememe ‘soul’ is an
inno a ion o he Chechen wo d, since only he meaning o ‘hea ’ is no ed o
i s gene ic “coun e pa s” in o he languages.
In all hese cases we can see exis ing apa o ms which con inue an
e ymologically common p o o ype. In Vainakh languages his one was di ided
as he esul o he p ima y al e na ion o owels in he oo (see o example:
Deše ie 1963: 527).
4.2.8. A oasia ic lexicon
Semi ic
Ge’ez ’akāl ‘body’, ‘limb’, ‘subs ance’, ‘hypos asis’ & ‘pe son’, ‘ olume’,
Tig igna ’akal ‘body’, Amha ic akal ‘pe son’ ~ A abian ’ukl- ‘co ps’ (Belo a
2012: 53). The an iqui y o he co ela ion ‘body’ : ‘pe son’ de i es om i s
ep esen a ion al eady in he ancien E hiopian language (Ge’ez), now ex inc .
As we can see, mode n languages ha e e ained his co ela ion.
Ge’ez ˒abāl ‘body’, ‘ lesh, piece o lesh’, ‘membe o body’ & ‘(my)sel ’,
‘pe son’ e c. (Majzel’ 1983: 197; Leslau 1987: 3). C . ˒Emma ‘ayneka ˒en a yamān
āseḥḥe aka, melexā wa-’ awḍe’ā ˒em-lā ‘lēka, ˒esma yexēyyesaka kama […] ˒emenna
˒abāleka ˒em-kwellu […] as ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’ (Lambdin 1978: 307).
A amaic gūp- ‘body’ & ‘pe sonali y’, ‘mysel ’, Heb ew gūp-ā ‘co pse’, (Pos -
Biblical) gūp ‘body’ and gap ‘mysel ’, ‘sel ’ (Majzel’ 1983: 197), be-gappō ‘wi h
own body = alone’, Tig e go ‘body’, ‘hea ’ & ‘soul’ (Cohen 1970: 108).
A abic ǧuṯṯ-a - ‘body’, ‘co ps’, Soqo i gi eh ‘co pse’, ‘body’ (ibid.: 199) <
*gṯṯ ~ Egyp ian ḏs [< *gs] ‘pe son’, ‘-sel ’ (Takács 1999: 255).
Sou h A abian gi -eh ‘body’, ‘co pse’ ~ Egyp ian (Py ) ǯs ‘mysel ’ <
A asian *gVč-. See: (Majzel’ 1983: 197).
Epig aphic Sou h A abian g b ‘body’, ‘(bodily) li e’ & ‘pe son’, Sabaic
g b ‘body’ & ‘pe son’, Tig e gä ob ‘body’ & ‘pe son’ (Cohen 1970: 178) and

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK
186 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica XC
Meh i gǝ ǝbē ‘mass’, ‘g oup o people’ e c. < *gV Vb- (Blažek 2020: 56: wi h
li e a u e). I is an example o a ela i ely ancien ch onology o ‘body’ : ‘pe son’
co ela ion since bo h sememes a e a es ed in he Old A abic ocabula y.
Cushi ic
Beja ga i ‘body’, ‘ unk’ & ‘sel ’, acc. ga ob (Rp) = ga oo ‘body’ & ‘sel ’ ~
Se *gV Vb- (Blažek 2020: 56). Rega ding o he Semi ic cogna es see p e ious
i em. Rega ding he examples om Beja, he employmen o he soma ism body
in he unc ion o a e lexi e p onoun is achie ed by employing a echnique
simila o he one p esen ed in Hunga ian (see abo e). He e Beja ga i ‘body’
is u ned in o ‘sel ’ due o he addi ion o he possessi e su ix, c . uga ooyu
‘mysel ’. In he same way he sememe ‘sel ’ is ound in ni is ‘soul’ > uni su
‘mysel ’ (BPG 2005: 225).
4.2.9. Algonquian lexicon
Mohegan-Pequo -ahak ‘body’ and ‘mysel ’ used as he e lexi e p onoun,
c .: ‘Tapi ni nukucusumô nahak’ – ‘I can wash mysel ’; ‘Mus numic wici kahak
wiwáhcumunsh’ – ‘I will ea co n wi h you’ (Fielding 2006: 56). An illus a i e
example o a change in he g amma ical s a us o a wo d, accompanied by
he appea ance o p onominal seman ics. The an iqui y o he g amma ical-
seman ic ans o ma ion is unclea .
Menominee (as a pa o a one-wo d sen ence) ai1 askūqcikew – has a
sho body VS dni nēyaw – mysel (= my body). See: (MD 20–21, 151).
A apaho (as a pa o a one-wo d sen ence) honoo3i3insinenoo – I am lying
on my back VS ceniiko’oo eihinoo – I am sel ish (Cowell, Moss e al. 2012: 22,
177; DoReCo: do eco.huma-num. /languages/a ap1274).
Na ick o Wôpanâak (Wampanoag) /hogk/ ‘a li ing body o pe sonali y’
& ‘c ea u e’, ‘pe son’, ‘soul, spi i ’, /-hogk(a)/ ‘body’, ‘sel ’, c .:
‘[...], n noh ke eahogkou pish ummuswau wu ch ummissinninnu u, [...]’ –
‘[...], ha soul shall be cu o om his people; [...]’;
‘[...]. kah noh ke eahogkou kesohkóad og’ – ‘[...], and ha pe son be guil y’
(AT 2011: 225, 226).
Cheyenne - é o e ‘body’ in he possessi e usage de elops he seman ics
‘mysel ’ (Leman 2011: 12; ChD: h ps://www.cheyennelanguage.o g/dic iona y/
lexicon.php?le e =13#e21037).
S aipsniai / A icles 187
Uni e sali y in Seman ic Dynamics:
om ‘body’ o ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, ‘soul’
4.2.10. Aus onesian lexicon
Malayo-Polynesian: Cham àj ~ ṭàj ‘body’ and ‘mysel ’, ‘ou ’ (Alie a,
Buj Kchan’ Tche 1999: 134). The di ec ion and age o seman ic de i a ion is
ques ionable.
Indonesian badan ‘body’, ‘ o so’ & ‘mysel ’, ‘in pe son’ (Ko igodskij 1990:
69). Acco ding o Robe Blus and S ephen T ussel (Blus , T ussel 2013: h ps://
www. ussel2.com/ACD/acd-lo_b.h m?zoom_highligh =badan), his wo d,
bo owed ‘ om A abic h ough Malay’, in all Aus onesian languages means
‘body’. Thus, sememes ‘mysel ’, ‘in pe son’ esul om seman ic de i a ion in
Indonesian.
Wes Fu una-Aniwa hkano ‘body’, ‘ lesh’, ‘essence’ ( adi ionally he mos
impo an aspec o he sel ) & ‘soul’, ‘spi i ’, ‘conscious sel ’, c .: ‘[…] kaie u i
ano hkano’ – ‘[...] bu black is his body’ VS ‘[…] iona nohkano’ – ‘his spi i ,
mind (conscious sel )’. Howe e , he sememe ‘soul/spi i ’ ‘ esul ing om swi ch
by missiona ies in signi icance o a a and hkano’ (Doughe y 1983: 263).
Malagasy èna ‘body’ is used o sel , as he e is no e lexi e p onoun in
Malagasy, c . namòno èna ìzy – he killed himsel (Pa ke 1883: 40).
*****
The ma e ial accessible o obse a ion in some mode n languages om
o he amilies only con i ms he co ela ion be ween ‘body’ & ‘human’, and
‘pe son’ (Zalizniak e al.: h ps://da semshi . u/shi 3666), howe e , he
lack o da a on hei his o y and e ymology makes i impossible o de e mine
he ec o and deg ee o an iqui y o seman ic e olu ion. This conce ns he
ollowing languages: Ca ineña (Tacanan amily), Yuwana o Hodï (gene ically
unclassi ied language), O omi ( he O o-Manguean language amily), Inanwa an
(Suabo) and Wa embo i ( he T ans–New Guinea amily o languages), Miki ( he
Sino-Tibe an language amily), She ( he Hmong-Mien (o Miao-Yao) amily o
languages), Yaminahua ( he Panoan amily o languages).
5. RESULTS (SYNTHESIS
AND COMMENTARIES)
5.1. The e iewed ma e ial allows us o dis inguish h ee no able ea u es.
These include in pa icula :
A) Lexemes wi h e ymological meanings ‘body (gene ally)’ and ‘co pus
(gene ally)’ a e he egula base o he de elopmen o sememes ‘soul’, ‘sel ’,
‘pe son’ and less equen cases when hese seconda y sememes a ise in he
ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK
188 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica XC
wo ds, deno ing ‘neck’, ‘ h oa ’, ‘head’ o ‘hea ’. A possible eason (my hological
backg ound) o he seman ic de i a ion o ‘hea ’ → ‘soul’ was he a chaic idea
abou he hea as he sea o he soul o eelings, c . La in pec us ‘bosom’, ‘hea ’
& ‘soul’ and abo e Vainakh, A oasia ic (Tig e) examples and closes analogy in
Manda sondomme ‘hea as he sea o eelings’, ‘cou age’ (Vyd in 1997: 234).
B) None o he p esen ed examples has a ull pa adigm o meanings; hey
demons a e he lacunas in he seman ic s uc u e. The desc ibed pic u e is
p esen ed in he able in he mos gene al o m.
Language O iginal
seman ics Seconda y seman ics
Indo-Eu opean ‘body’, ‘head’ ‘soul’,
‘spi i ’ ‘sel ’ ‘pe son’,
‘human’
‘one’s
own’
I anian ‘body’ + + +
Indo-A yan ‘body’ + +
Da dic ‘body’ + +
Ancien G eek ‘(li ing) body’ + +
La in ‘body’ + +
Hi i e ‘body’ + +
Ge manic ‘body’ +
Sla onic ‘body’ +
Finno-Ug ic ‘body’ +
Tu kic ‘body’ + +
Mongolian ‘body’ + + +
Tungus-Manchu ‘body’ + + +
Chuko ko-Kamcha kan ‘body’ +
D a idian ‘body’ + +
Vainakh ‘body’, ‘hea ’ +
A oasia ic ‘body’, [‘hea ’] +++
Algonquian ‘body’ + + +
Aus onesian
Cham ‘body’ + +
Indonesian ‘body’ + +
Malagasy ‘body’ +
Wes Fu una-Aniwa ‘body’ +
O he ‘body’ +
Howe e , we can con iden ly speak abou he uni e sali y o such ypes o
seman ic de elopmen as (1) ‘body’ → ‘sel ’, ‘pe son’ o body’ → ‘sel ’ →
‘pe son’; (2) ‘body’ → ‘sel ’, [‘pe son’], ‘one’s own’; (3) ‘body’ → ‘soul’,
‘pe son’ (models 2 and 3 a e ep esen ed in languages o h ee language amilies);
(4) ‘body’ & ‘pe son’. All o hem u n ou o be a ian implemen a ions
S aipsniai / A icles 189
Uni e sali y in Seman ic Dynamics:
om ‘body’ o ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, ‘soul’
o a single pa e n o seman ic de i a ion (c . Gee ae s 1997: 23–24), he
di e ence be ween which is due o he g amma ical (mo phological-syn ac ic)
and cul u al (wo ld iew) condi ions o he unc ioning o lexemes wi h he
speci ied se o meanings. Abou he local mani es a ions o his pa e n ([‘body’,
‘dead body’ → ‘disembodied soul’, ‘soul’]; [‘body’ → ‘(disembodied) soul’ →
‘pe son’]; [‘body’ → ‘li e (b ea hing) body’ → ‘soul’, ‘spi i ’/ ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’];
[‘body (= main pa o being)’ → ‘sel (= own body)’, ‘pe son’, ‘soul’] e c.) see
abo e.
As o he low equency o examples o seman ic de i a ion ‘body’ → ‘soul’,
‘spi i ’ (which does no nega e he ac ha i is ep esen ed in languages o
se e al amilies), hen his s a e in pa may be explained as he consequence o
he ealisa ion o he meaning ‘soul’ in special sac al e ms, he e o e i was no
necessa y o ex apola e ‘soul’ on o he wo ds. Bu his conclusion needs o be
e i ied wi h he da a o he w i en monumen s.
C) The missing meaning o ‘sel ’ in he seman ic ange o some o he analyzed
wo ds can be explained wi h he es ic ions which a e laid wi hin he e y
sys em o he language. In pa icula p onoun ‘sel ’ could be de i ed and exis
u he only wi hin a special g amma ical class o wo ds wi h hei mo phology,
he e o e no o he lexeme om ano he g amma ical pa adigm (subs an i e,
nume al) wi h o he o mal ea u es could no p oduce app op ia e p onominal
seman ics. Fo example, such a pic u e is a es ed in Vainakh languages, whe e
he sel can eme ge only in p onoun pa adigm and ne e among nouns, c . he e:
p onoun ‘sel ’ сō (1 pe son, singula ), хьō (2 pe son), шā (3 pe son), вай-ваьш
(1 pe son, plu al), шайна (2 pe son), цара шаьш (3 pe son) & noun ‘soul’, ‘spi i ’
дог, са, ‘body’ дегI (Ka asae , Macie , 1978: 146, 147, 552, 615). Thus, he
sememe ‘sel ’ can eme ge in a noun only on he condi ion ha he e is no di ec
dependence o p onominal meaning on he o m, which ies seman ics wi h he
ce ain g amma ical class o wo ds. The language sys em a leas allows o wo
condi ions unde which he wo ds, deno ing he body o i s pa s, de elop he
sememes ‘sel ’ and ‘mysel ’: 1) in a ce ain con ex ; 2) as a pa o compound
wo ds (see below).
5.2. Commen s ega ding he speci ic ela ionship be ween ‘body’
& ‘pe son’, ‘soul’, and ‘sel ’. As illus a ed abo e he e iewed seman ic
co ela ion is a es ed in many languages. Lea ing aside he meanings ‘b unch’,
‘plan s em’ as seconda y ( om p ima y ‘body’, ‘co pus’), a esea che should
gi e special a en ion o o he meanings. Fi s and o emos we can conclude
seconda y ‘sel ’, ‘own’, ‘pe son’, ‘soul’ o ‘body’, ‘co pus’, and ‘ unk’, and
appeal o he da a o ocabula y en ies, ex s, e ymology, econs uc ion (see
abo e) indica es i . So, i is possible o s a e a seman ic uni e sal shi bu wha
is i s mechanism?
ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK
190 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica XC
A) Seman ic side. I s seman ic base ( o some cases) p obably was he
pe cep ion o he body as he main pa o a human being, he e o e ‘body’ o
‘head’ → ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’; ‘body’ → ‘sel ’ → ‘pe son’. Va ian de elopmen o
‘soul’: ‘li ing (body)’ and u he – ‘spi i ualized’ → ‘soul’.
I he lexemes a e ep esen ed by ‘sel ’ and ‘pe son’ in he se o meanings,
hen in mos cases ‘pe son’ is seconda y o ‘sel ’, since ‘sel ’ appea ed in he
body when i is used as ‘one’s body’ = ‘(my)sel ’ (c . also ‘body’ → ‘one’s own’,
‘own’ = ‘own body’), and hen ‘pe son’, ‘human’ a ose as a esul o “aliena ion”
(abs ac ion) om he “p onominal” con ex .
The di ec shi o ‘body’ → ‘pe son’, ‘human’ is based on synecdoche, as in
he case o he Russian тело ‘body’ and seconda y as ‘pe son’, ‘human’.
B) Mo phological ac o . In some languages, he shi ‘body’ → ‘sel ’
ook place in ce ain g amma ical o ms o he subs an i e body, whe e he
e y condi ions (g amma ical seman ics) ha e caused ha . Thus, he seman ic
mechanism ‘sel ’ ← ‘body’ is based on he mo phological modi ica ion o wo ds
wi h he meaning ‘body’. Examples o ha may be illus a ed wi h he da a o
he: (1) Pashai ānek as a eflexi e possessi e o m o ān ‘body’; (2) Hunga ian
language, whe e e lexi e-ampli ying p onoun sel was o med om he
subs an i e mag ‘body’ + app op ia e pe sonal-possessi e su ixes; (3) Beja
ga i ‘body’, which is u ned in o ‘sel ’ due o he addi ion o he possessi e
su ix; (4) Mongolian languages, whe e бījeра ‘pe sonally’ = ‘by a body’, ha
is a noun wi h he ma ke o an ins umen al case -ра; бījeренā ‘on you sel ’ =
‘on i s body’ – he o m o he loca i e wi h he ma ke -ре & he ma ke o
e lexus possessi um -нā. So, he e seman ics ‘sel ’, ‘mysel ’ de eloped in case
o ms, meaning ‘by a body’ (→ ‘pe sonally’ → ‘mysel ’, ‘sel ’), ‘on i s body’ (→
‘on you sel ’, ‘sel ’), and in he noun body, ex ended wi h pe sonal-possessi e
su ixes (‘body’ → ‘my, his body’ → ‘mysel ’ e c.).
C) Fac o o s em composi ion. In some examples, he lexeme body
acqui ed sememes ‘sel ’, ‘mysel ’ wi hin he ames o he ph ases, which
la e we e u ned in o compound wo ds. Tha is, wo d combina ions wi h he
body we e collapsed in o a lexical composi e, whe e he meaning ‘body’ was
neu alized jus as ‘(my)sel ’, c . A es an anu.kə ə a- adj. ‘made by onesel ’ : Old
Indian anū-k - ‘sel -c ea ed’. A simila si ua ion is ep esen ed in Hunga ian
(see abo e), whe e ‘body’ was neu alized in p onominal de i a i es.
Unde he same condi ions, seman ics ‘pe son’ appea s in he body: in
pa icula , in Old Indian an- i also appea s in he composi ion o compound
wo ds anū-kṛí ‘ o ming he pe son’, anū-pna ‘p o ec ion o he pe son’.
D) Syn ac ic condi ions. The meanings o ‘sel ’, ‘mysel ’, ‘(one’s) own’ in
he body appea as a esul o i s use in he sen ence as a e lexi e p onoun o as
a wo d unc ionally close o e lexi e and possessi e p onouns. The p onominal

S aipsniai / A icles 191
Uni e sali y in Seman ic Dynamics:
om ‘body’ o ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, ‘soul’
use o body i sel was o iginally based on such ph ases as A es an x aiiāi anuiiē
‘his own body’, Old Indian s áyā an  ‘one’s own body’ e c. O he examples
a e p esen ed spo adically in Middle I anian, mode n I anian (Osse ian)
languages and in Tu kic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu, Chuko ko-Kamcha kan
e c. C . Mohegan-Pequo -ahak ‘body’ changed i s g amma ical s a us, being
in eg a ed in o he composi ion o he polysyn he ic cons uc ion e c. Then, he
body in he p onominal unc ion eplaced simila cons uc ions.
Condi ions o eme gence o ‘sel ’ in body
Condi ions
Languages
Mo phological
a ia ion
Wi hin compound
wo ds
Syn ac ic
condi ions
Indo-Eu opean + + +
Finno-Ug ic +
Tu kic +
Mongolian + +
Tungus-Manchu +
Chuko ko-Kamcha kan +
D a idian
Vainakh
A oasia ic + +
Algonquian +
Aus onesian +
E) The “ze o seman ic co ela ion” ac o . Howe e , he e a e languages,
whe e he abo e-desc ibed seman ic shi is impossible. Pa icula ly ou a en ion
is a ac ed o such lexemes in he languages o A ica as Rwanda umu-bi i
‘body’, Kinga emi-hano ‘bodies’ (Topo o a 2000: 28, 29), Pulaa -Ful uldé (Fula)
e -gal ‘body’, e -ɗe ‘body pa s’ (Ko al’ 2000: 223), ɓandu ‘body’, See ee o
ɓaal ol ‘body’, Wolo уа W ‘body’ ~ See ee nje /ce ‘body’ (Pozdniako 1993:
40, 101), Pulaa -Ful uldé i an-du ‘soul’, pi al-i ‘souls’ (Ko al’ 2000: 162: wi h
he e e ence o Edwa d Sapi ). Wo ds o deno e ‘body’ and ‘soul’ he e belong o
di e en seman ic classes: “ac i e class” (class o ac i e objec s, ac i e names) VS
“passi e class” (class o passi e objec s, passi e names) e c. The laws o hese
classes do no allow he meaning o one class o be p oduced in he ames
o o he classes. In o he wo ds, seman ic de i a ion he e is p e y s ic ly
egula ed and dis inc om o he obse ed languages whe e he eme gence o
new meaning is possible due o a b oade spec um o cul u e ( eligious, poe ic
ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK
192 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica XC
and o he ) associa ions wi h a mo e ee- lowing, lexible na u e o ela ions
be ween meanings.
6. CONCLUSIONS
1. The ocabula y analyzed in his s udy p o ides su icien illus a ions o
he uni e sali y o he seman ic de i a ion model implemen ed in di e en
languages o he wides geog aphy (examples om 11 language amilies!). The
seman ic and g amma ical laws o hese languages c ea ed he condi ions o he
sum o simila seman ic shi s, de ined as mul iple mani es a ions o his model.
Mul iplici y p esupposes he p esence o a clus e o chains o seman ic shi s
(see abo e), based on which seman ic de i a ion is modelled.
2. In eali y we ha e easons o asse ion abou he di ec ion o he seman ic
de i a ion ‘body’ → ‘sel ’, ‘pe son’, ‘soul’, because ‘body’ and ‘co pus’ a e
o iginal, which is con i med wi h he e ymological da a.
3. The ep oducibili y o he conside ed model in diach ony is p o ed by
i s ep esen a ion in he lexical seman ics o languages in di e en pe iods o
hei his o y. La e seman ic de i a ion in languages whe e i was no p e iously
eco ded es i ies o he ypicali y o some seman ic s uc u es o linguis ic
hinking.
4. We deal wi h one o he uni e sal seman ic shi s, howe e in he ame
o his seman ic pa e n i s “ echnical aspec ” (condi ions and mechanism) o
meaning eme gence o ‘soul’, ‘pe son’, ‘human’, and ‘sel ’ migh be di e en . In
pa icula , he easons o he gene a ion o hese sememes a e de e mined by
he peculia i ies o he wo ld pic u e, he cul u al backg ound, he peculia i ies
o he mo phological a ia ion o wo ds, hei unc ion in he sen ence and he
composi ions ha a ose based on he co esponding wo d combina ions.
REFERENCES
Abae Vasilij I. 1958: Абаев, Василий И. Историко-этимологический словарь
осетинского языка [Is o iko-è imologičeskij slo a ’ ose inskogo jazyka] 1, Москва,
Ленинград: Издательство АН СССР [Mosk a, Lening ad: Izda el’s o AN SSSR].
Abae Vasilij I. 1973: Абаев, Василий И. Историко-этимологический словарь
осетинского языка [Is o iko-è imologičeskij slo a ’ ose inskogo jazyka] 2, Москва,
Ленинград: Наука [Mosk a, Lening ad: Nauka].
S aipsniai / A icles 193
Uni e sali y in Seman ic Dynamics:
om ‘body’ o ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, ‘soul’
Abae Vasilij I. 1979: Абаев, Василий И. Историко-этимологический словарь
осетинского языка [Is o iko-è imologičeskij slo a ’ ose inskogo jazyka] 3, Москва,
Ленинград: Наука [Mosk a, Lening ad: Nauka].
Alie a Na al’ja F., Buj Kchan’ Tche 1999: Алиева, Наталья Ф., Буй, Кхань
Тхе. Язык чам. Устные говоры восточного диалекта [Jazyk čam. Us nye go o y
os očnogo dialek a], Санкт-Петербург: Петербургское востоковедение [Sank -
Pe e bu g: Pe e bu gskoe os oko edenie].
AT – The S a e o he Ma e ial: algonquian ex s, a ailable online, 2011. A ailable a :
h ps://web.a chi e.o g/web/20120606165553/h p://people.umass.edu/ae 6000/
Tex s/AlAlgonqui/Massachuse /Alia/T mbll.pd [ e ie ed 02.05.2024].
A doe Teimu az V. 2017: Авдоев, Теймураз В. Езидско-русский словарь
[Ezidsko- usskij slo a ’] (Fe hengoke Êzdîkî-Ȓûsî), ч. 1: Лексический словарь [č. 1:
Leksičeskij slo a ’], Калининград: Апокриф [Kalining ad: Apok i ].
Bailey Ha old W. 1943: Zo oas ian P oblems in he Nin h-Cen u y Books, Ox o d:
Cla endon P ess.
Ba holomae Ch is ian 1904: Al i anisches Wö e buch, S assbu g: Ve lag on
Ka l J. T übne .
Beekes Robe S. P. 2010: E ymological Dic iona y o G eek, wi h he assis . o
L. an Beek, Leiden, Bos on: B ill.
Belo a Anna G. 2012: Белова, Анна Г. Этимологический словарь древнеарабской
лексики (на материале избранных текстов доисламской поэзии) [È imologičeskij
slo a ’ d e nea abskoj leksiki (na ma e iale izb annych eks o doislamskoj poèzii)],
вып. 1 [ yp. 1], Москва: Институт востоковедения РАН [Mosk a: Ins i u
os oko edenija RAN].
Benzing Johannes 1983: Chwa esmische Wo index, mi eine Einlei ung on
H. Humbach, h sg. on Z. Ta a , Wiesbaden: O o Ha assowi z.
Blažek Václa 2020: An Exce p om he Compa a i e and E ymological Dic iona y
o Beja: Ana omical Lexicon. – Folia O ien alia 57, 25–125.
Blus Robe , T ussel S ephen 2013: The Aus onesian Compa a i e Dic iona y,
web edi ion. A ailable a : h ps://www. ussel2.com/ACD/ [ e ie ed 03.05.2024].
Bogo as Waldema 1917: Publica ions o he Ame ican E hnological Socie y 5: Ko yak
Tex s, ed. by F. Boas, Leyden: B ill.
BPG – Wedekind Klaus, Wedekind Cha lo e, Abuzeinab Musa. Beja Pedagogical
G amma , Aswan 2004 – Asma a 2005.
ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK
194 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica XC
Buck Ca l D. 1949: A Dic iona y o Selec ed Synonyms in he P incipal Indo-Eu opean
Languages: A Con ibu ion o he His o y o Ideas, Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess.
Budago Ruben A. 1963: Будагов, Рубен А. Сравнительно-семасиологические
исследования (романские языки) [S a ni el’no-semasiologičeskie issledo anija
( omanskie jazyki)], Москва: МГУ [Mosk a: MGU].
Bu ow Thomas, Emeneau Mu ay B. 1984: A D a idian E ymological Dic iona y,
2nd edi ion, Ox o d: Cla endon P ess.
Cabolo Ruslan L. 2010: Цаболов, Руслан Л. Этимологический словарь курдс-
ко го языка [È imologičeskij slo a ’ ku dskogo jazyka] 2 (N–Z), ред. Д. Н. Ушаков
[ ed. D. N. Ušako ], Москва: Восточная литература [Mosk a: Vos očnaja li e a u a].
ChD – Cheyenne Dic iona y, a ailable online. A ailable a : h ps://www.
cheyennelanguage.o g/dic iona y/index.h ml [ e ie ed 28.05.2024].
Cincius Ve a I., ed., 1975: Цинциус, Вера И., ред. Сравнительный словарь
тунгусо-маньчжурских языков: материалы к этимологическому словарю
[S a ni el’nyj slo a ’ unguso-man’čžu skich jazyko : ma e ialy k è imologičeskomu
slo a ’ju] 1 (А–), cоставители В. А. Горцевская, В. Д. Колесникова,
О. А. Константинова, К. А. Новикова, Т. И. Петрова, В. И. Цинциус, Т. Г. Бугаева
[sos a i eli V. A. Go ce skaja, V. D. Kolesniko a, O. A. Kons an ino a, K. A. No iko a,
T. I. Pe o a, V. I. Cincius], Ленинград: Наука [Lening ad: Nauka].
Clauson Ge a d 1972: An E ymological Dic iona y o P e-Thi een h-Cen u y Tu kish,
Ox o d: Cla endon P ess.
Cohen Da id 1970: Dic ionnai e des acines sémi iques ou a es ées dans les langues
sémi iques, comp enan un iche compa a i e de J. Can ineau, Pa is, La Haye: Mou on
& Co.
Cowell And ew, Moss Alonzo S . e al. 2012: Dic iona y o he A apaho
Language, 4 h edi ion, Wyoming: Uni e si y P ess o Colo ado.
Dal’ Vladimi I. 1989: Даль, Владимир И. Пословицы русского народа [Poslo icy
usskogo na oda] 1, Москва: Художественная литература [Mosk a: Chudožes ennaja
li e a u a].
Deše ie Junus D. 1963: Дешериев, Юнус Д. Сравнительно-историческая
грамматика нахских языков и проблемы происхождения и исторического развития
горских кавказских народов [S a ni el’no-is o ičeskaja g amma ika nachskich jazyko
i p oblemy p oischoždenija i is o ičeskogo az i ija go skich ka kazskich na odo ],
Грозный: Чечено-ингушское книжное издательство [G oznyj: Čečeno-ingušskoe
knižnoe izda el’s o].
S aipsniai / A icles 201
Uni e sali y in Seman ic Dynamics:
om ‘body’ o ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, ‘soul’
Teniše Èdgem R. e al. 2006: Тенишев, Эдгем Р. и др. Сравнительно-
историческая грамматика тюркских языков. Пратюркский язык-основа. Картина
мира пратюркского этноса по данным языка [S a ni el’no-is o ičeskaja g amma ika
iu kskich jazyko . P a iu kskij jazyk-osno a. Ka ina mi a p a iu kskogo è nosa po
dannym jazyka], Москва: Наука [Mosk a: Nauka].
Tols aja S e lana M. 1997: Толстая, Светлана М. Из полесской обрядовой
лексики: нашлось дитя [Iz polesskoj ob iado oj leksiki: našlos’ di ia]. – Український
діалектологічний збірник [Uk ajinskyj dialek olohičnyj zbi nyk] 3, Київ: Довіра
[Kyji : Do i a], 287–292.
Topo o a I ina N. 2000: Топорова, Ирина Н. Морфемика и морфонология
имени существительного в языках банту [Mo emika i mo onologija imeni
suščes i el’nogo jazykach ban u]. – Основы африканского языкознания: морфемика,
морфонология [Osno y a ikanskogo jazykoznanija: mo emika, mo onologija], ред.
В. А. Виноградов [ ed. V. A. Vinog ado ], Москва: Восточная литература [Mosk a:
Vos očnaja li e a u a], 9–45.
T augo Elizabe h C. 1999: The Role o P agma ics in a Theo y o Seman ic
Change. – P agma ics in 1998. Selec ed Pape s om he 6 h In e na ional P agma ics
Con e ence 2, ed. J. Ve schue en, An we p: In e na ional P agma ics Associa ion,
93–102.
T augo Elizabe h C., Dashe Richa d B. 2002: Regula i y In Seman ic Change,
Se . Camb idge S udies in Linguis ics, 97, Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
T ubačio Oleg N. 1964: Трубачёв, Олег Н. «Молчать» и «таять». О необходимости
семасиологического словаря нового типа [“Molča ’” i “ aja ’”. O neobchodimos i
semasiologičeskogo slo a ia no ogo ipa]. – Проблемы индоевропейского языкознания.
Этюды по сравнительно-исторической грамматике индоевропейских языков
[P oblemy indoe opejskogo jazykoznanija. È iudy po s a ni el’no-is o ičeskoj
g amma ike indoe opejskich jazyko ], oтв. ред. В. Н. Топоров [o . ed.
V. N. Topo o ], Москва: АН СССР [Mosk a: AN SSSR], 100–105.
de Vaan Michiel 2008: E ymological Dic iona y o La in and he o he I alic Languages,
Leiden, Bos on: B ill.
Vladimi co Bo is J. 1989: Владимирцов, Борис Я. Сравнительная грамма-
ти ка монгольского письменного языка и халхаского наречия. Введение и фонетика
[S a ni el’naja g amma ika mongol’skogo pis’mennogo jazyka i chalchaskogo na ečija.
V edenie i one ika], 2-e изд. [2-e izd.], Москва: Главная редакция восточной
литературы изд. «Наука» [Mosk a: Gla naja edakcija os očnoj li e a u y izd.
“Nauka”].

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK
202 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica XC
Vyd in Valen in F. 1997: Выдрин, Валентин Ф. Следы именной классификации в
языках манде [Sledy imennoj klassi ikacii jazykach mande]. – Основы африканского
языкознания. Именные категории [Osno y a ikanskogo jazykoznania. Imennye
ka ego ii], ред. В. А. Виноградов [ ed. V. A. Vinog ado ], Москва: Аспект Пресс
[Mosk a: Aspek P ess].
Zalizniak Anna A. 2009: Зализняк, Анна А. О понятии семантического
перехода [O ponia ii seman ičeskogo pe echoda]. – Компьютерная лингвистика
и интеллектуальные технологии: по материалам ежегодной Международной
конференции «Диалог 2009» [Kompiu e naja ling is ika i in ellek ual’nye echnologii:
po ma e ialam ežegodnoj Mežduna odnoj kon e encii “Dialog 2009”] 8(15), 107–111.
Zalizniak Anna A. 2013: Зализняк, Анна А. Русская семантика в типологической
перспективе [Russkaja seman ika ipologičeskoj pe spek i e], сep. [se .] S udia
philologica, Москва: Языки славянской культуры [Mosk a: Jazyki sla ianskoj
kul’ u y].
Zalizniak Anna A. 2018: The Ca alogue o Seman ic Shi s: 20 Yea s La e . –
Russian Jou nal o Linguis ics 22(4), 770–787.
Zalizniak Anna A. e al.: The Ca alogue o Seman ic Shi s. A ailable a : h ps://
da semshi . u/shi s [ e ie ed 04.05.2024].
Žuko a Ale ina N. 1990: Жукова, Алевтина Н. Словарь корякско-русский и
русско-корякский – около 4000 слов [Slo a ’ ko iaksko- usskij i ussko-ko iakskij –
okolo 4000 slo ]: пособие для учащихся начальной школы [posobie dlia učaščichsia
načal’noj školy], 2-е изд. дораб. [2-e izd. do ab.], Ленинград: Просвещение, Ленингр.
отд-ние [Lening ad: P os eščenie, Lening . o d-nie].
Seman inės dinamikos uni e salumas:
nuo ‘kūno’ iki ‘asmens’, ‘sa as ies’, ‘sielos’
SANTRAUKA
Soma inių žodžių, eiškiančių ‘kūnas’ a ba ‘kūno dalis’, s ebėjimas ienuolikoje gene iškai
ski ingų šeimų kalbose a skleidžia įdomią okių žodžių sememų ko eliaciją. Visų pi ma,
kon eks ai, ku iuose soma izmai pa eikiami, be ki a ko, bū inai pa odo, kad jie a ojami
kaip ‘asmuo, žmogus’, ‘aš, sa as is’ i ‘siela, d asia’. Toks sememų san ykio dėsningumas
a gu a y a a si ik inis, o seman inė- ipologinė analizė, a lik a a siž elgian į e imologijos
i ling is inio modelia imo duomenis, su eikia im ų p iežasčių many i, kad okie gausūs
S aipsniai / A icles 203
Uni e sali y in Seman ic Dynamics:
om ‘body’ o ‘pe son’, ‘sel ’, ‘soul’
a ejai a skleidžia uni e salios seman inės kalbinio mąs ymo s uk ū os ap aiškas. Šią
s uk ū ą galima apib ėž i kaip seman inio da inio ipą, pe eikiamą seman inių poslinkių
g andinėmis: [‘kūnas’ → ‘siela’], [‘kūnas’ → ‘asmenybė’, ‘žmogus’], [‘kūnas’ → ‘sa as is’ →
‘aš pa s’], [‘kūnas’ → ‘sa as is’ → ‘asmenybė’ → ‘žmogus’]. Ka u jie suda o daugiama į
seman ikos kū imo modelį su ienu ek o iumi. Galima da y i p ielaidą, kad modelis
neapsi iboja am ik u kalbos is o ijos laiko a piu, be y a a ku iamas diach oniškai dėl jo
aizda imo ski inguose sinch oniniuose pjū iuose.
Šio ipo seman inio da inio ealiza imo niuansai isiškai p iklauso nuo sąlygų ( eiksnių)
isumos – seman inio, mo ologinio, kamieno kompona imo i sin aksinio eiksnio.
Nag inėjamas seman inės da ybos ipas būdingas ne ik a ikiečių kalboms dėl speci inės
jų seman inių san ykių sis emos o ganizacijos pagal žodžių, p iklausančių ski ingoms
klasėms ‘ak y us’ i ‘pasy us’, p incipą, odėl ‘ak y iajai’ klasei būdinga semema ‘siela’
negali bū i įkūny a leksemoje iš ‘pasy iosios’ klasės.
Į eik a 2024 m. gegužės 5 d.
ALEXANDER I. ILIADI
ILONA M. DERIK
The S a e Ins i u ion “Sou h Uk ainian Na ional Pedagogical Uni e si y
named a e K. D. Ushinsky”
65020, Uk aine, Odessa
34, S a opo o anki ska S .
alex[email p o ec ed]om
[email p o ec ed]om