Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Rob Haden <magwich78@...>
Date:Tuesday, March 8, 2005, 19:41
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:33:10 +0100, Steven Williams <feurieaux@...>

>I found a VERY exhaustive treatment of the Semitic >languages' phonology here at ><<>>. >Gave me a world of inspiration for my new conlang.
Woops, forgot that you already posted this. Yes, it's a very good treatement. I've read it before.
>> > Did Proto-Semitic presumably have /ts)/ as well? >> >> Yup. >> What's listed on the chart as _Alveolar Affricates_, >> even though they're written with just "s" and "z", >> seem to have been affricates originally. > >Waa-ait... PS had [ts] and [dz], but not [s] and [z]? >Doesn't that violate some universal somewhere? Or does >[S] suffice as a silibant, in opposition to the affricates?
It seems typologically unlikely that Semitic had /ts/, /dz/, and /S/, but not /s/ (if not also /z/). One interesting part of Semitic morphology is in its verbal system. 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 š-, and Hebrew with h-:, pp. 14-15. - Rob