[YG Conlang Archives] > [westasianconlangs group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Hi Issac,You are right. Sorry for my misunderstanding. I'm not used to the 'stem' classification of verbs and I mistakenly read 'Stem II' in your post as 'Form II' :0) I wonder why Japanese textbooks don't use 'Stem' system.
Anyway, thank you for your input on Hebrew, which I haven't taken up yet. Seems I would enjoy learning Hebrew grammar very much :-)
Btw, in 'A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic of Cairo' by Badawi & Hinds, there are many quadriliteral verbs which you don't find in MSA dictionaries.
Kay Isaac Penzev wrote:
Kay wrote:No. Forms of Quadriliteral verbs are different from those of triliteral verbs. Although Form I of quadriliteral verbs is conjugated like Form II of triliteral verbs, they are not identical and treated as different forms.That's exactly what I meant. In Hebrew they are treated as one form (Stem III or binyan-Pi"el) because they are conjugated in the same way: perfect _tirgem_ as _dibber_ imperfect _y6targem_ as _y6dabber_ act ppl _m6targem_ as _m6dabber_ Isn't it the same in Arabic? I look into the table and see (both marked as Stem II, btw!): perfect _tarjama_, _sallama_ imperfect _yutarjimu_, _yusallimu_ act ppl _mutarjim_, _musallim_ For my practical purposes that's more than enough. I don't care if theoretically they are considered different. ObConlang: I have not yet found any true quadriliteral verbs in Ugaritic material, but if I find any (or borrow from other Semitic natlangs), "Newgaritic" will treat them as Intensive Stem (qattala). -- YitzikYahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/westasianconlangs/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: westasianconlangs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-- ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::