Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Semitic (again - sorry about the OTness)

Expand Messages
  • Lisa Jacqueline Emerson
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/6169 First, thank you, Miguel, for all the information you provided me on the two Semitic questions I had awhile
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 28, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/6169

      First, thank you, Miguel, for all the information you provided me on
      the two Semitic questions I had awhile back. That helped me out
      immensely. Thanks for taking your time to type all that out.
      I always had trouble trying to tell whether authors meant "voiceless
      interdental fricative" or "voiceless aspirated stop". So, apparently,
      as you said, something like Anat/Anath would be aspirated, but I
      became a bit confused when you said: "As it happens, the /S/ found in
      the Akkadian and NW Semitic word for Ishtar/Astarte corresponds to an
      Arabic /T/ (English "th", interdental fricative)" ...I didn't see "th"
      on your chart there under the Arabic column. Also, with the *t for
      Hebrew, you put in three values: "t, th, -h". Are all three valid,
      like a pick-and-choose sort of thing, or are they each found in
      certian environments? (Or am I completely misreading/misunderstanding
      this?) Also, is Hebrew (Hebrew and the other NWS langs, or just
      Hebrew?) the only one with "th"? I didn't see it anywhere else, so I
      was just wondering. One last thing - what is the period for? (ex:
      "t.") Sorry about not knowing how to write/interpret properly online.
      Still new at it.

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/6168

      I wasn't sure how to interpret this... Is Ugaritic from
      Proto-Canaanite like you show Hebrew and Phoenician to be, or is it a
      separate branch like you show Aramaic to be? And does Canaanite fall
      under the PC line with H & P, or is it to be considered the forerunner
      of H & P?

      Thanks again! It is much appreciated.
    • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
      On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:34:55 -0000, Lisa Jacqueline Emerson ... I probably used /t_/, the traditional transcription (t-underscore), or /T/, the ASCII-IPA way
      Message 2 of 2 , May 8, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:34:55 -0000, "Lisa Jacqueline Emerson"
        <eris@...> wrote:

        >I always had trouble trying to tell whether authors meant "voiceless
        >interdental fricative" or "voiceless aspirated stop". So, apparently,
        >as you said, something like Anat/Anath would be aspirated, but I
        >became a bit confused when you said: "As it happens, the /S/ found in
        >the Akkadian and NW Semitic word for Ishtar/Astarte corresponds to an
        >Arabic /T/ (English "th", interdental fricative)" ...I didn't see "th"
        >on your chart there under the Arabic column.

        I probably used /t_/, the traditional transcription (t-underscore), or
        /T/, the ASCII-IPA way of writing IPA theta.

        >Also, with the *t for
        >Hebrew, you put in three values: "t, th, -h". Are all three valid,
        >like a pick-and-choose sort of thing, or are they each found in
        >certian environments?

        t: in "strong" position (initial, medial when geminate) (tav + dagesh)
        th: in "weak" position (medial between vowels) (thav without dagesh)
        -h: in final position (e.g. feminine ending) (written h)

        >One last thing - what is the period for? (ex: "t.")

        Emphatic t.et, etc.

        >I wasn't sure how to interpret this... Is Ugaritic from
        >Proto-Canaanite like you show Hebrew and Phoenician to be, or is it a
        >separate branch like you show Aramaic to be? And does Canaanite fall
        >under the PC line with H & P, or is it to be considered the forerunner
        >of H & P?

        Ugaritic clearly represents a more ancient stage of Semitic than
        Phoenician and Hebrew. Proto-Canaanite is a name that can be given to
        [non-Ugaritic] N.W. Semitic inscriptions and fragments of roughly the
        same period as Ugaritic (2nd millennium BC), while "Canaanite" could
        be used for [non-Hebrew and non-Phoenician] N.W. Semitic languages of
        the 1st millennium (such as Moabite and Edomite).

        =======================
        Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
        mcv@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.