Re: Proto-Semitic (was Re: markjjones@HOTMAIL.COM)
|From:||Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, March 8, 2005, 21:06|
On Mar 8, 2005, at 10:41 PM, Rob Haden wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 20:58:23 +0100, Steven Williams
> If there was */ts/, */dz/, and */s/, then we could say that */K/
> became /S/
> in Arabic (rather than merging with /S/). However, the South Arabian
> languages have both /K/ and /S/. Perhaps */s/ > /S/, */ts/ > /s/, and
> */dz/ > /z/ there. But what would cause /s/ to become /S/?
Isn't /s/ becoming or has become /S/ in Portuguese?
>>> 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...
> Heh, you're telling me. :) I don't mean to sound pretentious, but I
> if the traditional interpretation of written Akkadian is a little
> incorrect. Not only does Akkadian show |š| in the S-stems, where
> shows ?- and Hebrew h-, but it also has |š| in the personal pronouns:
> šu: 'he', ši: 'she' (cf. Arabic huwa 'he', hiya 'she'). So the
> is, did Akkadian retain an earlier /S/ where Arabic and Hebrew did not?
> - Rob
Or maybe it's a whole different phoneme! Something like */C/, maybe...
My notes and handouts from that class are around here *somewhere*...
Or maybe i should just break out my Semiticonlang, instead... ;-)
"Ezekiel... he has like the crazy thing!"
~ brilliant biblical commentary by n