[YG Conlang Archives] > [westasianconlangs group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [westasianconlangs] Any new ideas?



Jacob jazdy:

> Just a note on the syllable initial /o/ in the Hebrew word "kohen."  A
> look at the ancient Hebrew texts reveals that the Hebrew /o/ is merely
> dialectal and arose later on in history.  The ancients, i.e., Moses,
> David, etc., would most likely have said an /a/ vowel rather than
> an /o/ since no "waw" is present in the root "khn."  Masoretes were
> careful not to meddle with the original roots of words, and thus had
> to come up with a way to mark the vowels /o,u,i/ where the original
> roots did not provide them.  The same inclination for the vowel /o/ is
> seen in Turoyo/Suroyo Syriac (Western Aramaic).

I strongly doubt it was so. Transition from Semitic /a:/ to Canaanite /o:/
is well established by comparative studies and dated by appr. 14-12 cc.
BCD - that can be seen from glosses in old docs in other langs. If you look
at Hebrew's nearest cousin, Phoenician, it has it even one step further,
/a:/ > /u:/ (as in Yiddish ;)).
Absence of waw proves nothing. In words like |hho:q| 'statute' we see normal
shortening to |hhuqqi:m| in pl, regularly correspondent to its analogy among
front vowels |hhe:s.| 'arrow' > |hhis.s.i:m|, and there is no waw in the
former (as well as no yod in the latter).

> Also, the verb "kahen" in Aramaic is denominative from the
> noun "kahna" (priest).  Here the word "kahna" was obviously borrowed
> from Hebrew being that the ancient Aramaic word for priest
> is "qashisha."

Why not? I'd like just to note, that |ka:hna:| is an "emphatic" form of the
noun, while its absolute/dictionary form is |ka:he:n|.

> Shelam l'khon,
> Jacob

Shalom l'kha! Salaam 3alayki! And welcome to the group! Do you study Aramaic
(judging by the sig above)?
-- Yitzik

PS: This thread and translating lectures about Islam at the moment make me
wanting more and more to resurrect the "Ajami" project...