User:Chrysophylax/Golden Afroasiatic: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) m (→Dual) |
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) m (→Plural) |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
====Plural==== | ====Plural==== | ||
Plural formation strategies are many in Golden Afroasiatic with it being difficult to predict which form will be the dominant one for a selected noun. Additionally, when context is clear, plural marking may be eschewed completely. Various sociogeographiclects may prefer one pluralisation marker/strategy over the other. | |||
=====W-affixation===== | |||
The addition of ''-w'' (''-ū'') is a frequent pluralisation strategy in many Afroasiatic languages for masculine nouns. | |||
=====Reduplication===== | =====Reduplication===== | ||
The most basic formation of the plural is formed by R→L reduplication of the root morpheme. E.g. ''*lis-'' → ''*lislis'' ‘tongues’ | Golden Afroasiatic offers two competing reduplicative processes for forming plurals, one more common and one more rare. | ||
======End-to-front====== | |||
The most basic formation of the plural is formed by R→L reduplication of the root morpheme. E.g. | |||
:''*lis-'' → ''*lislis'' | |||
:‘tongues’ | |||
:''*maʔ''- → *''maʔmaʔ'' | |||
:‘waters’ | |||
Lipiński<ref>Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar — Lipiński, Edward, p.244, §31.21 “Plural by Reduplication”</ref> provides some examples of this formation in Afroasiatic languages: Hebrew ''mēmē'' ‘waters’, Hausa (Chad.) ''dambe'' ‘struggle’ → pl. ''dambedambe'', Bedja (Cush.) ''san'' ‘brother’ → pl. ''sanasanā'' . | |||
======Radical reduplication====== | |||
A less frequent, less widespread reduplicating formation of the plural which only occurs in the South Ethiopian Semitic, Chadic and Cushitic branches of Afro-Asiatic is the one where the last radical is reduplicated L→R. As it seems to be attested in both Semitic, Chadic and Cushitic, we will adopt this formation of the plural as well. The languages differ in how they pluralise a little, with the South Ethiopian languages adding a plural ''-t'' on top of this, while both Chadic and Cushitic have zero additional morphemes beyond the partial reduplication. Chadic and Cushitic strategies seem to have primacy in light of the originally derivational meaning of ''-t''. | A less frequent, less widespread reduplicating formation of the plural which only occurs in the South Ethiopian Semitic, Chadic and Cushitic branches of Afro-Asiatic is the one where the last radical is reduplicated L→R. As it seems to be attested in both Semitic, Chadic and Cushitic, we will adopt this formation of the plural as well. The languages differ in how they pluralise a little, with the South Ethiopian languages adding a plural ''-t'' on top of this, while both Chadic and Cushitic have zero additional morphemes beyond the partial reduplication. Chadic and Cushitic strategies seem to have primacy in light of the originally derivational meaning of ''-t''. | ||