Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>
Date:Sunday, March 13, 2005, 10:26
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_