Far East Semitic: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Derivation) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
m (→Derivation) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
As in English, Far East Semitic verbs are analytic with some vestigial ablaut; participial (with ''m-'') and verbnoun (with ''t-'' and other grammaticalized noun derivations) forms are common, as in modern Aramaic dialects. It's relatively unpredictable which Semitic verb root was assigned to which pattern (but it should correlate with the semantics of the noun patterns before they turned into verbs, e.g. agency) | As in English, Far East Semitic verbs are analytic with some vestigial ablaut; participial (with ''m-'') and verbnoun (with ''t-'' and other grammaticalized noun derivations) forms are common, as in modern Aramaic dialects. It's relatively unpredictable which Semitic verb root was assigned to which pattern (but it should correlate with the semantics of the noun patterns before they turned into verbs, e.g. agency) | ||
==== Derivation ==== | ==== Derivation ==== | ||
Morphologybthat corresponds to binyanim in other Semitic languages are more concatenative and are used as triggers: | |||
*G-stem: xtab, xtob, xtib (agent trigger) | *G-stem: xtab, xtob, xtib (agent trigger) | ||
** D-stem: kʰətʰVb as opposed to xtVb should become an iterative? | ** D-stem: kʰətʰVb as opposed to xtVb should become an iterative? | ||