User:IlL/A Danified analytic Neo-Arabic/Ancient: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
mNo edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
The definite article was ''ʔaC-'' (~ Biblical Hebrew ''*haC-''). It caused gemination of the following consonant; if the following consonant was a guttural and thus could not geminate, it was lengthened to ''ʔō-''. | The definite article was ''ʔaC-'' (~ Biblical Hebrew ''*haC-''). It caused gemination of the following consonant; if the following consonant was a guttural and thus could not geminate, it was lengthened to ''ʔō-''. | ||
Unstressed ''-ō'' corresponds to the Biblical feminine singular ending ''*-ā''. ''-t'' was a much less common ending than in Biblical Hebrew. Eventually stress shifted away from gender/number suffixes across the board: The regular masculine and feminine plural endings were unstressed ''- | Unstressed ''-ō'' corresponds to the Biblical feminine singular ending ''*-ā''. ''-t'' was a much less common ending than in Biblical Hebrew. Eventually stress shifted away from gender/number suffixes across the board: The regular masculine and feminine plural endings were unstressed ''-īn'' and unstressed ''-ūt'', ~ Biblical Hebrew ''*-ī́m'' and ''*-ṓt''. | ||
Often ''-ō'' is found where Hebrew has ''-t''. | Often ''-ō'' is found where Hebrew has ''-t''. | ||
The construct state was much more predictable than in Tiberian Hebrew. | The construct state was much more predictable than in Tiberian Hebrew. | ||
====Other inflections==== | ====Other inflections==== |