Re: Emegali Verb Review

Message: 5 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:08:03 +0200 From: "Isaac A.
Penzev" <isaacp@...> Subject: Re: Emegali Verb Review Anthony,
Steg, shalom! Sorry for delayed reply, I have lots of work these
days... Steg Belsky wrote: <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Anthony M. Miles writes: >
l-g-l > Qal (active): ilagal 'rule' > Nip'al (passive): illagal 'be
ruled, serve' > Hip'il (causative): uSalgal 'cause to rule, anoint'
> Hitpa'el (intransitive/denominative): 'be king' > Pi'el
(pluralize/intensive): 'rule for a long time' Are these the Emegali
names for the paradigms? I can't remember... is Emegali a Semitic
conlang with a 'grand master plan', or is it just supposed to be
very Semitic-like? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Btw, these name aren't
universal, they fit only Hebrew! Arabic, for instanse, has different
names based on their own affixes and vocalizations! Anthony, you'll
need your own names badly, otherwise you should use Proto-Semitic
equivalents... 2. What about other passive binyanim like Hof`al and
Pu`al?

Idbut Marcus:
Using the Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Stems of Akkadian, I've
got (? = forms which are not attested in Akkadian, but which could
have existed):
S-r-d `multiply'
I 1     Pe'al           simple stem                     iSrud
II 1    Pa'el           intensive                       uSarrid
III 1   Shafel          causative                       uSaSrid
IV 1    Nifal           passive, rarely reflexive
        iSSarid (<inSarid)
ta                      reflexive/middle
I 2     Ifte'al         simple r/m                      iStarid
II 2    Ifta'al         intensive r/m                   uStarrid
III 2   Ishtafal                causative r/m
        uStaSrid
IV 2    Ittafal/Intafal passive r/m                     ittaSrid
(<intaSrid)
tan-                    = -ta-
I 3     Iftane'al
        iStanarid
II 3    ?Iftana'al                                      ?uStanarid
III 3   ?Ishtanafal                                     ?iStanaSrid
IV 3    Ittanafal
        ittanaSrid
        (<Intanafal)                                    (<intanaSrid)
Perhaps I-IV2 (-ta-) could be reflexive and I-IV 3 (ta-n-) passive
(since the –n- reminds me of Nifal). Does that seem reasonable?
Here are
Personal Pronouns
1sc     Nae
2sm     za
2sf     zi
3sm     ene
3sf     bi
1sc     menden
2sm     zenden
2sf     zinden
3sm     eneden
3sf     biden
Direct Object Verbal Suffixes
-a- is attached to verbal forms ending in a consonant
1sc     Nu
2sm     zu
2sf     za
3sm     ne
3sf     bi
1sc     me
2sm     zunu
2sf     zina
3sm     nene
3sf     bina
Genitive Nominal Suffixes
-a- is attached to nominal forms ending in a consonant
1sc     Nua
2sm     zua
2sf     za:
3sm     naya
3sf     bia
1sc     maya
2sm     zunua
2sf     zina:
3sm     nenaya
3sf     bina:
Indirect Object Verbal Suffixes
-a- is attached to verbal forms ending in a consonant
1sc     Nura
2sm     zura
2sf     zara
3sm     nera
3sf     bira
1sc     mera
2sm     zunura
2sf     zinara
3sm     nenera
3sf     binara
Would -r be bettter than -ra here?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< (i've usually seen their verb charts go 1-3 person,
not 3-1. your order confused me for a second :) ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
think Anthony learned Hebrew in a Bible college using either P.Kelly
or Th.Lamdin textbooks. They both use this strange order in
paradigms. People say, this is a traditional order among
Semitologists, but I find it confusing too...

I'm still learning Hebrew, and on my own. It's the order which my "
Beginner's Assyrian" (published 1998) uses.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< If you're basing this off of a 'grand master plan'
from Proto-Semitic, please tell me where i can get the info you
have! This is making me want to work on my Unnamed Semitic
Conlang! :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Me too! Me too! > -Stephen (Steg) kol
b'rakhoth, Yitzik

Perhaps you ought to give it a shorter provisional name, Steg? If
it's a 3rd millennium BCE language, you could have the Emegali
world's Bahrain/Dilmun or Oman (the Emegali dominions stretch from
Yemen to Socotra and Italian Somaliland).