Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc. (was Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?)

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:17 PM, J R <tanuef@...> wrote:

>
> Hebrew had such a change word-initially. See for example Arabic /walad/ vs.
> Hebrew /jElEd/ 'boy'. A certain amount of morphophonemic variation was
> created - 'to be born' shares the same root, but still contains /w/:
> /l@hiwwaled/. (And in Modern Israeli Hebrew of course /w/ is pronounced
> /v/,
> but that's another matter.)
>
> The ubiquitous conjunction /w@/ 'and, but, change tense', did not undergo
> this change.
>
> And the word for 'rose' actually didn't either. My etymological dictionary
> says it's a borrowing, ultimately from Iranian.
>
> Josh Roth

Ah, illuminating indeed! Many thanks. It seems like a valid inference, from
that, that the Arabic trivocalic system, rather than being the archetypal
"simple predecessor" is actually the product of vowel simplification
(reminds me of someone's theory that the Arab's developed guttural sounds
and simple vowels due to the harsh desert conditions-- was it Sapir?).

And of course I agree with Benct in clamouring for an explanation of the
conjunction that means "change tense"!

Eugene

Replies