Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Grammatical Summary of Kemata

From:Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>
Date:Friday, December 14, 2001, 8:44
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 08:57:07 +0100 Christophe Grandsire
<christophe.grandsire@...> writes:
> > Sure. And you know it: Classical Arabic. (St. constructus > regularly > > differs from St. absolutus in having neither the definite article > nor the tanwins;
> True, though I had taken the absence of article from an > impossibility to add it > to an already definite noun. But that's valid nonetheless.
> OTOH gen. is mostly distinguishable from nom. and acc., > > except > > sentence-finally).
> And pause-finally, which accounts for a lot of places since > genitives are > almost always at the end of phrases. > Still, this "construct" state is nothing like the construct state of > Hebrew. It > seems to me to account more of problems of liaison and definition > than of a > real grammatical structure. Though the frontier between those two > ideas is probably thin...
- From my first (now over) semester of Arabic, i got the impression that its three cases were Nominative, Accusative, and Prepositional... that's an incorrect assessment? And what do you mean that the construct states of Arabic and Hebrew are nothing alike? -Stephen (Steg) "ha-Don Kishot..." ~ some good song in Hebrew a random Israeli on the bus downstate played for me

Reply

Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>