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@...>
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?
>> 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 -, and Hebrew
with h-: http://www.arts.uwa.edu.au/LingWWW/LIN325/Notes/Binyanim.pdf, pp.