4,735
edits
User:Chrysophylax/Golden Afroasiatic: Difference between revisions
User:Chrysophylax/Golden Afroasiatic (view source)
Revision as of 03:46, 2 December 2016
, 2 December 2016→Numerals
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) |
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) m (→Numerals) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
==Syntax== | ==Syntax== | ||
===Morphosyntactic alignment=== | ===Morphosyntactic alignment=== | ||
Proto-Afro-Asiatic's daughters seem to consistently hint at an earlier ergative system, whether it be the 'unbound' vs. 'bound' of Berber, the odd accusative marking for predicates and certain genitive constructions in Classical Arabic, Akkadian, and other Semitic languages, structural similarities between agentive markers and instrumentals, usw. I have chosen to fully embrace the ergative theory and construct a following opposition in NPs. | <s>Proto-Afro-Asiatic's daughters seem to consistently hint at an earlier ergative system, whether it be the 'unbound' vs. 'bound' of Berber, the odd accusative marking for predicates and certain genitive constructions in Classical Arabic, Akkadian, and other Semitic languages, structural similarities between agentive markers and instrumentals, usw. I have chosen to fully embrace the ergative theory and construct a following opposition in NPs. | ||
</s> R. Hasselbach<ref>Hasselbach, Rebecca. Case in Semitic: Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Oxford Scholarship Online, 2013. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671809.001.0001.</ref> makes a lot of sense discussing Archaic Proto-Semitic (APS); a marked-NOM for Semitic seems most probable. In light of Semitic, Berber, Cushitic (e.g. Beja) markers,with Egyptian inconclusive (no writing of final short *u, *a), and Chadic having zero traces of case, it seems more and more probable that PAA had a diptotic case system (if SBC is retention> E&CH loss). Thus for GA, we will assume a diptotic marked-S case system. The default is here the absolutive (= {{sc|acc}} in Sem.) which is used everywhere except for marking S with V (then {{sc|nom}}). | |||
{| | {| | ||
|- | |- | ||
! | !Subject-like | ||
|''*u'' | |''*u'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
! | !Absolute | ||
|''*a'' | |''*a'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
While several branches, of which, most notably Semitic show postposed forms of these, the Berber and other families in the phylum show preposed forms. <s>No order seems particularly deserving of primacy as far as I can see so I'll allow free variation in Golden Afroasiatic</s>. Note however that it could be argued that the preposed forms derive from originally deictic elements in Berber and possibly similar paths in other languages. In inflectional compounds, the case element appears to show up as a suffix more often than not (Egyptian, Semitic, Cushitic). | While several branches, of which, most notably Semitic show postposed forms of these, the Berber and other families in the phylum show preposed forms. <s>No order seems particularly deserving of primacy as far as I can see so I'll allow free variation in Golden Afroasiatic</s>. Note however that it could be argued that the preposed forms derive from originally deictic elements in Berber and possibly similar paths in other languages. In inflectional compounds, the case element appears to show up as a suffix more often than not (Egyptian, Semitic, Cushitic). Additionally, Hasselbach points out that ''-a'' seems to be an integral part of the nouns and might've possibly been the default noun ending at some point. | ||
For Golden Afroasiatic, the default position of the case element is after its noun. | |||
===Noun phrase=== | ===Noun phrase=== | ||
| Line 447: | Line 447: | ||
===Numerals=== | ===Numerals=== | ||
*1 | *1 | ||
:Sem. ‘(i)št could match Berber iǧ~išt 'one' | :Sem. ‘(i)št could match <s>Berber iǧ~išt 'one'</s> interesting but not too promising; iǧ not projectable to Proto-Berber (methodology fault or lack of data?), similar to Egyp. ‘fty (but /f/ does not match /s/ ?)<ref> | ||
Wilson-Wright, Aren. "The Word For 'One' in Proto-Semitic." Journal of Semitic Studies LIX/1 Spring, (2014): p. 7 </ref> | |||
:MSA. Mehri, Soqoṭri have a resembling ''ṭāṭ~ṭād~ṭd'' “one” which might be linked to Cushitic ''*dad'' “someone” | :MSA. Mehri, Soqoṭri have a resembling ''ṭāṭ~ṭād~ṭd'' “one” which might be linked to Cushitic ''*dad'' “someone” | ||
:Egyptian ''w‘(y-w)[-t]'' matches Berber ''yiwən, yiwət'' “one”. | :Egyptian ''w‘(y-w)[-t]'' matches Berber ''yiwən, yiwət'' “one”. | ||
| Line 499: | Line 500: | ||
==Books to acquire== | ==Books to acquire== | ||
*Northeast African Semitic: Lexical Comparisons and Analysis — Hudson, Grover | *Northeast African Semitic: Lexical Comparisons and Analysis — Hudson, Grover | ||
*Semitic and Afroasiatic: Challenges and Opportunities — Herausgegeben von Edzard, Lutz | *<s>Semitic and Afroasiatic: Challenges and Opportunities — Herausgegeben von Edzard, Lutz</s> ¤ | ||