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

On Mar 13, 2005, at 2:01 AM, Rob Haden wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:39:12 +0200, Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>
> wrote:
>> Ancient South Arabian: addition of |m| for indefinite. also |n| for
>> definite (« "han"?)  |klbn| vs. |klbm|
> Do you know if |klbn| and |klbm| are attested in the same inscriptions
> and/or texts?  If so, then we can safely say that they are two
> different
> markers.  Otherwise, if |klbm| is attested first and |klbn| later, then
> it's plausible that there's only one marker *-m which became *-n in
> South
> Arabian (including Arabic).  The least certain possibility is that
> |klbm|
> and |klbn| are attested at the same time, but never together.
Sorry, i don't know... but i'd expect that the researchers wouldn't
have theorized that one is definite and the other is indefinite if they
didn't appear in the same texts.

> Question: Is the *-m element present in the dual?  Arabic has nom.
> -a:n(i),
> acc./gen. -ayn(i).  Hebrew has non-terminal -ayim and terminal -Oyim,
> for
> the absolute state only (never the construct state).
Don't know.

>> In my notes, under PLURAL i have a comment about the Hebrew ending:
>> |-m| < |*-ma|, the particle "ma"?
>> The nasal was added late.  The original form might be found in the
>> construct form, without the nasal.
>> (Hebrew) |devar _ma_| (=some thing (sic)) indefinite article!
> There is an indefinite pronominal stem *ma- in Proto-Semitic.  I think
> this
> is the identity of the *-m ending.  So it was probably an indefinite
> article the entire time.
> In the plural: devari: ma 'some things' > deva:ri:m 'things'.
Exactly, that's pretty much what my notes were saying!


-Stephen (Steg)
  "You know, I rather like this God fellow.
   Very theatrical, you know.
   Pestilence here, a plague there.
   Omnipotence ... gotta get me some of that."
      ~ stewie griffin, _family guy_