On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:24:13 +0200 BP Jonsson <bpj@...> writes:
> At 11:09 2002-08-20 -0400, Steg Belsky wrote:
> >I may change |hu-| to |ha-|; it's similar enough that i'm sure it
> could
> >have been completely absorbed by the Hebrew definite article
> instead of
> >just acting like it.
> What's the definite form like in Aramaic? Possibly something more
> convincingly Romance could be created out of it? The idea of Roance
> preserving Latin /h/ nags the hell out of me!
> /BP 8^)>
-
It's |-a| [O:] at the end:
Hebrew: yom "day" [jo:m] / hayom "the day" [hajjo:m]
Aramaic: yom "day" [jo:m] / yoma "the day" [jo:mO:]
I decided to go with |h-| for Judajca because i want the main Semitic
influence to be Judean Hebrew as opposed to Galilean Aramaic, and i
already stole the Aramaic article for Rokbeigalmki; one conlang with a
suffixed definite article is enough for me :-)
(Rokbeigalmki: rezat "day" [rEzat] / rezat-a "the day" [rEzat?a]
How early would the Vulgar Latin base of Judajca have to had broken away
in order to preserve the /h/ phoneme?
-Stephen (Steg)
"mozotros no avlamos 'spanyol."
~ el presidente mas valyente de mueva sefarad