Re: Emegali Verb Review

--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@J...> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:02:04 -0600 "Anthony M. Miles"
> <theophilus88@H...> 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?  I can't remember hearing a
Semitic
> root LGL 'rule' before (it sounds to me more like a variant of
Hebrew GLL
> 'roll'), but it looks like the English word "legal".
Emegali (< eme-gal `the great speech') is the language spoken in 3rd
millennium BCE Yemen. Its grammar is based on Akkadian, but its
lexicon on Sumerian (with probably a few Egyptian loanwords). LGL
comes from Sumerina /lugal/ king (the verbs are regularly
Semiticised, but the noun forms are a hodge-podge).  I don't have
Emegali names for the verbal forms yet. As usual, just as I've
finished, I found the need for alteration. I've updated my names to
Akkadian ones.
>
> > Qal
> > Present
> > 3sm     ilagal
> -
>
> like |y-|
Except Akkadian (and Sumerian) doesn't have a /y/  (Emegali does,
since /e/ is often analysed as /ay/ {especially if that allows a
triconsonantal root})
<snip>
> > Preterite
> > 3sm     ilgul
> -
>
> Now these are different! Semitic languages use suffixes for the
past
> tense, for instance to use Arabic patterns *lagaltu, *lagalta,
*lagalti,
> *lagal, *lagalat... (i've usually seen their verb charts go 1-3
person,
> not 3-1.  your order confused me for a second :) )
Actually, according to my source (1998), /ilgul/ is the 3sm form of
the Second Imperfect of the Pe'al in Akkadian.
>
<snip>
> These look like the Semitic past tenses.  What is
your "Permansive"?
See below under geminate radicals.
>
<snip>
>
> > Nip'al (passive): `be ruled'
> > Telic           illagal
> > Atelic          illagil
> > Imperative      nalagil
> > Infinitive      nalagulu
> > Participle      mullagilu
> -
>
> Geminated first radicals, like Hebrew.  But what are the Telic and
> Atelic?
That's part of the fun of working with multiple sources ; ( . I've
changed the system to Present (ilagal), Preterite (ilgal), and
Permansive (lagil).
"The first imperfect (=Present) expresses continuous action whether
in the past, present, or future…"; the verbal equivalent of an
accusative of extent of time.
"The second imperfect (=Preterite), which is the ordinary narrative
tense, is chiefly used to mark an action as occuring at a point of
time"; a verbal equivalent of a dative of time at which.
"The permansive has generally intransitive meaning, and denotes
continuance of a state or quality…"; closer to a noun or adjective.
I think that the present could be used for "I rule the province for
the king (but am liable to deposition and reappointment elsewhere",
while the king could use the permansive, since he is king by right
(unless a Hebrew sensibility of god(s) as supreme governor(s) slips
in, in which case the present would be appropriate).
>
<snip>
> This reminds me more of the Pi`eil (intensive) semi-productive
causative
> sub-paradigm "Shif`eil", ex. ShHhRR "to free" (from HhRR(? maybe
HhRH)
> "free", ShKPL "to clone" from KPL "double".
Well, Hip'il can be causative in Biblical Hebrew.
>
> > Hitpa'el (intransitive/denominative): `be king'
> > Telic           ultaggala/ulgaggala
> > Atelic          ultaggil/ulgaggil
> > Imperative      lutaggil/lugaggil
> > Infinitive      lutaggulu/lugaggulu
> > Participle      multaggilu/mulgaggilu
> -
>
> Ooooooh, Arabic-style |-t-| infixes! :-)
>
I was thinking of making a rule that the /t/ of the /ta/ infix
assimilates to the following consonant (second root letter) to
preserve a Sumerianized aspect of speech.
<snip>
> Very cool!  But is there no definite article?
Hadn't thought about that. Probably the same as `he, she, they' (per
the development of Hebrew):
If taken from Akkadian:
SM      Su:
SF      Si:
PM      Su:nu
PF      Si:na
If taken from Sumerian:
SM      ene/aynay/etc.
SF      enet/aynayt/etc.
PM      enene/enayni/etc.
PF      enete/enayti/etc.
Any preference?
> 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! :-)
I'm using Akkadian/Assyrian, actually.

My two sources are:
D. G. Lyon, "Beginner's Assyrian" Hippocrene Books, Inc.: New York
1998 (an Xmas present)
Louis H. Gray, "Introduction to Semitic Comparative Linguistics"
Columbia University Press: New York 1973.

Now, what _I_ need to find out is how to deal with quadrilateral
roots, which would be much more common in the Sumerian lexicon of
Emegali than a normal Semitic language (I can creatively avoid
hollow verbs by Sumerian reduplication). Untangling the Sumerian-
Akkadian sprachbund is as difficult as untangling the Italic and
Greek vocabulary in Etruscan and the Etruscan and Greek vocabulary
in Italic.
And I may/almost certainly have mistyped an /l/, /ll/, /g/, or /gg/
somewhere in the conjugations.
>
>
> -Stephen (Steg)
>  "t'avwan uk'shot."