User:IlL/A Danified analytic Neo-Arabic/Ancient: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Grammar) |
m (→Usage) |
||
| Line 676: | Line 676: | ||
Ancient Cubrite syntax is similar to Bibical Hebrew but appears more systematic and streamlined from an IE perspective. Basic word order was retained as VSO under the influence of Celtic (unlike in spoken Biblical Hebrew). | Ancient Cubrite syntax is similar to Bibical Hebrew but appears more systematic and streamlined from an IE perspective. Basic word order was retained as VSO under the influence of Celtic (unlike in spoken Biblical Hebrew). | ||
===Tense constructions=== | ===Tense constructions=== | ||
Ancient Cubrite preserved Biblical Hebrew-like verb conjugation quite well (even retaining the waw-consecutive), but also innovated tense constructions. This came from the fact that Celtic speakers attempting to use the aspect-based grammar of Canaanite wanted to indicate tense unambiguously. The choice of whether to use the non-waw or the waw forms is purely syntactic; it depends on whether there is a preverb or not. | Ancient Cubrite preserved Biblical Hebrew-like verb conjugation quite well (even retaining the waw-consecutive), but also innovated tense constructions. This came from the fact that Celtic speakers attempting to use the aspect-based grammar of Canaanite wanted to indicate tense unambiguously. The choice of whether to use the non-waw or the waw forms is purely syntactic; it depends on whether there is a preverb or not. | ||