Print

Print


On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:50:43 -0500 Padraic Brown
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Steg Belsky wrote:
> >AMĀL  (to love)  [a'mAl]  <  amāre
> >(active)
> >amō  ['amow]  <  įmō
> >amā  ['amA]  <  įmās
> >ama  ['ama]  <  įmat
> >amāmus  [a'mAmuS]  <  amāmus

> Oo, another one that keeps [u].

> >amāti  [a'mAsi]  <  amātis
> >aman  ['aman]  <  įmant
> >(passive)
> >amo  ['amo]  <  įmor
> >amāri  [a'mAri]  <  amāris
> >amātu  [a'mAsu]  <  amātur
> >amāmul  [a'mAmul]  <  amāmur
> >amāmīn  [amA'mijn]  <  amāmķnī
> >amant  [a'mant(@)]  <  amįntur

> Tres cool! J keeps the whole passive?  Everyone else dumped these;
> and
> even Kernu only keeps a couple as impersonal forms. Is there some
> kind
> of adstrate influence at work (i.e., do Hebrew or Aramaic have
> passives)?
> Pretty neat.
> Padraic.
.

Thanks!  Yup, it's adstrate influence.  Hebrew has three-and-two-halves
passives (simple passive, passive-intensive, passive-causative, as well
as adjectival present simple and reflexive-passive past), and Aramaic has
at least one paradigm (itpa`al) which is either a true passive or a
reflexive-passive.

Did i get the original Latin accented syllables right?  What do you think
about the 1st and 4th person 'problems'?


-Stephen (Steg)
 "repeat after me:  maētāl. maētō, maētā, maēta..."