Re: Proto-Semitic (was Re: markjjones@HOTMAIL.COM)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:21:05 +0200, Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>
wrote:

>According to the theory i learned, |-m| and |-n| were both definiteness
>markers, which in some languages lost their definite strength and
>became indefinite markers.  This is also supposed to be the origin of
>the few Hebrew adverbs in |-am|, like _hhinam_ "for free", _reiqam_
>"empty".  The original plural marker they say was just the long vowel,
>so Hebrew |-im| developed from |-i-m|.
Given that we see -m in Hebrew and Akkadian, and -n in Arabic, I think
it's reasonable to reconstruct one marker, *-m, and an early sound-change
*-m > -n in Arabic.

Also, since it marks only the singular in Arabic and Akkadian, and only
the plural in Hebrew, it follows that the marker originally had no
specific number connotation and could be used for both singular and
plural.  Furthermore, the fact that it follows case-markings means that it
was likely an enclitic demonstrative.  Hebrew seems to have generalized
the oblique plural: *-i:-m > -im.

I wonder if the 'long vowel' ending is really no ending at all, just a
prosodic process.  If so, then we can reconstruct a stage for Proto-
Semitic where there were no number distinctions.  Then the enclitic
demonstrative *-m acquired secondary force as either a singulative (Arabic
and Akkadian) or plural (Hebrew) marker.  Another piece of evidence in
favor of this is the fact that, in both Hebrew and Arabic, the definite
article does not decline for case, number, or gender (cf. Classical Arabic
ar-rajulu 'the man (nom.)' vs. ar-rija:lu: 'the men (nom)').

- Rob

Reply