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


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

Re: Any new ideas?



Yitzik,

Thanks for your input.  I agree that there was a transition from the 
earlier Semitic /a/ to the later Canaanite /o/ in the Hebrew 
language.  That is what I was trying to say, that the earlier speech 
of the Hebrew people was void of Canaanite influence.  The 
original /a/ vowel over an original /o/ is what I was taught since I 
was young.  One must remember that the Hebrew people didn't 
originate in Canaan but rather migrated westward from Ur of the 
Kasdim in Shumer.  The /o/ vowel primacy may hold up for later time 
periods, i.e., once the Hebrews had settled in Canaan, but before 
that time I very much doubt that they used it.  The /a/ and the /u/ 
would have been much more prominant, especially under the influence 
of Akkadian.  

Yes, I do realize that "kahna" is the emphatic state, but in my 
family's dialect of Aramaic it carries no more emphasis than the 
absolute state. We use a Neo-Aramaic dialect called Isarlaic for all 
our religious activities. I'm actually writing up a grammar and a 
leksiqon for my senior undergrad project.  Thanks again.

Push va Shlama, ("Remain in Peace")
Jacob      




--- In westasianconlangs@yahoogroups.com, "Isaac Penzev" 
<isaacp@u...> wrote:
>
 
> 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).
> 
> 
> 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|.
> 
> 
> 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...
>