Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Strong/weak verbs, expanded infinitives and applicatives

From:Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>
Date:Sunday, August 14, 2005, 20:28
On Aug 11, 2005, at 3:52 PM, tomhchappell wrote:
> Was my comment about the "hollow" roots on-track or off-track? > (I didn't use the word "hollow", > but you can see what I meant if you read what I wrote.) > Also, isn't there a special consideration that has to be made in > Hebrew for roots that begin (or is it end?) with nun (or is it mem?)? > If so, is what I wrote about the "servile consonants" on-track, or > off-track? > Thanks again, > Tom H.C. in MI
Let's see... :) On Aug 9, 2005, at 6:31 PM, tomhchappell wrote:
> Also, there are some prefixes and suffixes that contain just one > consonant each. If one of these is used, it is called a "servile > consonant". > In this case you could have, for instance, "m" for a servile > consonant in the prefix, or "t" for a servile consonant in the > suffix, and get words with patterns that might be like > vmvDvRvSv > vDvRvSvtv > vmvDvRvSvtv
I don't think i've heard the term 'servile consonant' before, but Semitic languages do make use of vowel patterns that include additional consonants. examples: the Hebrew _Hitpa`eil_ paradigm: root /l b S/ simple paradigm: _a_a_ = /labaS/ [lOBaS] = 'he wore' hitpa`eil: hit_a_²ei_ = /hitlabbeS/ = 'he got dressed' the M+ 'place' noun form: Arabic root /s dZ) d/ "worship" ma__i_ = _masjid_ = 'mosque' Hebrew root /t> b X\/ "slaughter" mi__a_ = _mitbahh_ = 'kitchen' Arabic root /k w n/ "be" <-- hollow! ma_a_ = _makaan_ = 'place' Hebrew root /k> w m/ "stand" <-- hollow! ma_o_ = _maqom_ = 'place' Arabic root /d r s/ "learn" ma__a_a = _madrasa_ = 'school'
> Problems come up if; 1)the first consonant of the root is one of the > consonants allowed as a servile consonant in a prefix; 2) the last > consonant of the root is one of the consonants allowed as a servile > consonant in a suffix; 3) the second consonant of the root is the > same as its first consonant; 4) the second consonant of the root is > the same as its last consonant; 5) any of the consonants of the root > is a semi-vowel; 6) any of the consonants of the root is a glottalic > or laryngeal. If a root has just one of these problems, there are > well-established, systematic ways to handle it. If a root has > exactly two of these problems, it can be handled in various > idiosyncratic ways. If a root has three or more of these problems, > then, I think, it is not likely to be used much as a root.
In the realm of weird roots, there's the Hebrew root /n k h/ meaning 'hit, strike', with the final weak _h/y_ and the initial prone-to-assimilation _n_. In Biblical Hebrew, the _hif`il_ paradigm 3rd person singular masculine consecutive-imperfect form of the root comes out _vayakh_ /vajjak/, where only the middle root letter /k/ survives!
> I'm still curious whether anyone else thinks my parallel (between > broken plurals and strong verbs) was apt.
Sure, why not? They're both semi- or pseudo-irregular parts of a system where the 'simple' or 'expected' process is also used for other words. -Stephen (Steg)