Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Steven Williams <feurieaux@...>
Date:Tuesday, March 8, 2005, 19:58
--- Rob Haden <magwich78@...> wrote:
> > It seems typologically unlikely that Semitic had > /ts/, /dz/, and /S/, but not /s/ (if not also /z/).
I also have heard from one source or another that there was an opposition between laminal and apical [s] in PS, which may explain a few things. I like the theory that *[S] was *[s] better; it makes more sense, typologically. Or we could just accept that there was a three-way split between *[ts], *[dz] and *[S] and move on. There're weirder phonologies out there...
> One interesting part of Semitic morphology is in its > verbal system.
Hoo yeah... :)
> 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-:
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... ___________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 250MB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: