Print

Print


--- Rob Haden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> It seems typologically unlikely that Semitic had
> /ts/, /dz/, and /S/, but not /s/ (if not also /z/).

I also have heard from one source or another that
there was an opposition between laminal and apical [s]
in PS, which may explain a few things. I like the
theory that *[S] was *[s] better; it makes more sense,
typologically. Or we could just accept that there was
a three-way split between *[ts], *[dz] and *[S] and
move on. There're weirder phonologies out there...

> One interesting part of Semitic morphology is in its
> verbal system.

Hoo yeah... :)

> 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 -, 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...


	
		
___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 250MB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de