Re: Proto-Semitic (was Re: markjjones@HOTMAIL.COM)
|From:||Rob Haden <magwich78@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, March 10, 2005, 15:11|
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 23:21:26 +0200, Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>
>On Mar 8, 2005, at 10:41 PM, Rob Haden wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 20:58:23 +0100, Steven Williams
>> If there was */ts/, */dz/, and */s/, then we could say that */K/
>> became /S/
>> in Arabic (rather than merging with /S/). However, the South Arabian
>> languages have both /K/ and /S/. Perhaps */s/ > /S/, */ts/ > /s/, and
>> */dz/ > /z/ there. But what would cause /s/ to become /S/?
>Isn't /s/ becoming or has become /S/ in Portuguese?
I believe so, at least when it precedes a stop. For example, I've
heard 'estou' "I am" pronounced [StoU].
>>>> There's a class of verbs called 's-stems', with
>>>> transitive/causative, destative, or denominal
>>>> meanings. However, they don't begin with s- at all,
>>>> it seems; in Arabic they begin with '-, Akkadian
>>>> with -, and Hebrew with h-:
>>> We-eird... It also seems somewhat anomalous that
>>> switching consonants around like that could serve a
>>> concrete grammatical function. The Semitic languages
>>> look more and more like some bizarre loglanging
>>> experiment gone horribly awry...
>> Heh, you're telling me. :) I don't mean to sound pretentious, but I
>> if the traditional interpretation of written Akkadian is a little
>> incorrect. Not only does Akkadian show || in the S-stems, where
>> shows ?- and Hebrew h-, but it also has || in the personal pronouns:
>> u: 'he', i: 'she' (cf. Arabic huwa 'he', hiya 'she'). So the
>> is, did Akkadian retain an earlier /S/ where Arabic and Hebrew did not?
>> - Rob
>Or maybe it's a whole different phoneme! Something like */C/, maybe...
>My notes and handouts from that class are around here *somewhere*...
>Or maybe i should just break out my Semiticonlang, instead... ;-)
Perhaps. The interesting thing is, Arabic /s/ often corresponds with
Hebrew /S/: e.g. Arabic sala:m vs. Hebrew shalom. I think the Akkadian
cognate also has /S/.