Verse:Mwail/Tucootka/Lexicon: Difference between revisions

IlL (talk | contribs)
IlL (talk | contribs)
Line 575: Line 575:


==Nouns==
==Nouns==
{{PAGENAME}} nouns decline in definiteness, three numbers (singular, dual and plural), and three cases (direct, genitive, instrumental-locative). Unusually for a modern Semitic language, case plays a very important and productive role. There is no counterpart to the construct state or possessed forms of other Semitic languages (The {{PAGENAME}} forms are from the original construct state forms); however, the possessor always follows the noun.
{{PAGENAME}} nouns decline in definiteness, three numbers (singular, dual and plural), and four cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, instrumental-locative). Unusually for a modern Semitic language, case plays a very important and productive role. There is no counterpart to the construct state or possessed forms of other Semitic languages (The {{PAGENAME}} forms are from the original construct state forms); however, the possessor always follows the noun.


{{PAGENAME}} nouns are notable for inheriting the oldest version of the Proto-Semitic case system, the diptotic (two-case) system, with nominative singular ''-''Ø < {{recon|''-ъ''}} < PSem {{recon|''-u''}} and genitive/accusative singular ''-o'' < PSem {{recon|''-a''}}. Feminine singular nominative {{recon|''-atu''}} was changed to {{recon|''-ā''}} > ''-a'' under Indo-European influence. The instrumental/locative is older than the definite affixes and wasformed by suffixing inflected forms of the preposition {{recon|''bi''}} 'with/by, in'. This means that overall, the fusional nature of the Semitic nominal declension is well-preserved.
{{PAGENAME}} nouns are notable for inheriting the oldest version of the Proto-Semitic case system, the diptotic (two-case) system, with nominative singular ''-''Ø < {{recon|''-ъ''}} < PSem {{recon|''-u''}} and genitive/accusative singular ''-o'' < PSem {{recon|''-a''}}. Feminine singular nominative {{recon|''-atu''}} was changed to {{recon|''-ā''}} > ''-a'' under Indo-European influence. The instrumental/locative is older than the definite affixes and wasformed by suffixing inflected forms of the preposition {{recon|''bi''}} 'with/by, in'. This means that overall, the fusional nature of the Semitic nominal declension is well-preserved.
Line 592: Line 592:
!style="width: 100px;" |Indefinite!!style="width: 100px;" |Definite!!style="width: 100px;" |Indefinite!!style="width: 100px;" |Definite!!style="width: 100px;" |Indefinite!!style="width: 100px;" |Definite
!style="width: 100px;" |Indefinite!!style="width: 100px;" |Definite!!style="width: 100px;" |Indefinite!!style="width: 100px;" |Definite!!style="width: 100px;" |Indefinite!!style="width: 100px;" |Definite
|-
|-
! direct
! nominative
| ''júm''<br/>{{ara|يُٰوم}} || ''júm'''ov'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰومُۋ}} || ''júm'''a'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰوما}} || ''júm'''ava'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰوماۋا}} || ''júm'''y'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰومو}} || ''júm'''yly'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰومولو}}
|-
! accusative
| ''júm''<br/>{{ara|يُٰوم}} || ''júm'''ov'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰومُۋ}} || ''júm'''a'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰوما}} || ''júm'''ava'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰوماۋا}} || ''júm'''y'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰومو}} || ''júm'''yly'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰومولو}}
| ''júm''<br/>{{ara|يُٰوم}} || ''júm'''ov'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰومُۋ}} || ''júm'''a'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰوما}} || ''júm'''ava'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰوماۋا}} || ''júm'''y'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰومو}} || ''júm'''yly'''''<br/>{{ara|يُٰومولو}}
|-
|-