138,726
edits
User:IlL/A Danified analytic Neo-Arabic/Ancient: Difference between revisions
User:IlL/A Danified analytic Neo-Arabic/Ancient (view source)
Revision as of 01:46, 5 March 2024
, 5 MarchIlL moved page Knench/Ancient to User:IlL/A Danified analytic Neo-Arabic/Ancient without leaving a redirect
mNo edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
m (IlL moved page Knench/Ancient to User:IlL/A Danified analytic Neo-Arabic/Ancient without leaving a redirect) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Ancient Knench''', also called "Punic" in Irta (natively ''*hal-lasūn hak-kana3nījō'' 'the Canaanite language') is the earliest attested stage of [[Knench]], first attested in the era of Biblical Hebrew. Post-Christianity it underwent drastic changes in mere centuries, thus ushering in the era of modern [[Knench]]. Ancient Knench was spoken in Iberia. | '''Ancient Knench''', also called "Punic" in Irta (natively ''*hal-lasūn hak-kana3nījō'' 'the Canaanite language') is the earliest attested stage of [[Knench]], first attested in the era of Biblical Hebrew. Post-Christianity it underwent drastic changes in mere centuries, thus ushering in the era of modern [[Knench]]. Ancient Knench was spoken in Iberia. Its premise is "Phoenician or Punic but a bit more Proto-Germanic". | ||
Ancient Knench developed in isolation from Hebrew and was influenced by Azalic languages and Latin. It is a separate lineage from the dialect of Canaanite that eventually gave rise to Tiberian Hebrew and the modern Jewish Hebrew reading traditions in Irta. | Ancient Knench developed in isolation from Hebrew and was influenced by Azalic languages and Latin. It is a separate lineage from the dialect of Canaanite that eventually gave rise to Tiberian Hebrew and the modern Jewish Hebrew reading traditions in Irta. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Ancient Knench speakers were mostly Azalic speakers who adopted a Canaanite language. As such their religion differed markedly from ancient Hebrew polytheism (and seems to have adopted Semitic religious terms for concepts that were very different). | Ancient Knench speakers were mostly Azalic speakers who adopted a Canaanite language. As such their religion differed markedly from ancient Hebrew polytheism (and seems to have adopted Semitic religious terms for concepts that were very different). | ||
Surviving literature in Ancient Knench are | Surviving literature in Ancient Knench are attested in the Phoenician alphabet and in transcriptions into Greek or Latin. It includes a portion of the epic ''*Tabarē [?]'' (Tales of [?]) and some incantations. | ||
(Grimm should happen during Old Knench stage) | (Grimm should happen during Old Knench stage) | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
*Vowel reduction: | *Vowel reduction: | ||
**final originally unstressed long > short | **final originally unstressed long > short | ||
==Phonology== | ==Phonology== | ||
| Line 46: | Line 45: | ||
* /h/ and /ʔ/ into /ʔ~ɦ~h~Ø/ ([h] was an allophone used for emphasis.) | * /h/ and /ʔ/ into /ʔ~ɦ~h~Ø/ ([h] was an allophone used for emphasis.) | ||
* /s/ and /š/ into /s/ | * /s/ and /š/ into /s/ | ||
/m p b n t d t(phar) ts s(retracted) ts(phar) ɬ (Philly L) ħ k g q l w j r ʔ~ɦ~h~Ø/ {{angbr|''m p b n t d ᴛ z s c ś ȝ ħ k g ᴋ l w y r h''}} | /m p b n t d t(phar) ts s(retracted) ts(phar) ɬ (Philly L) ħ k g q l w j r ʔ~ɦ~h~Ø/ {{angbr|''m p b n t d ᴛ z s c ś ȝ ħ k g ᴋ l w y r h''}} | ||
===Vowels=== | ===Vowels=== | ||
Ancient Knench retained Proto-Canaanite vowel length and developed overlong vowels. It had the chain shift ''ā'' > ''ō'' > ''ū'', similar to Punic and | Ancient Knench retained Proto-Canaanite vowel length and developed overlong vowels. It had the chain shift ''ā'' > ''ō'' > ''ū'', similar to our timeline's Punic and Irta's Tsarfati Hebrew, and developed a new ''ā'' from compensatory lengthening. | ||
'''a e i u ā ē ī ō ū ê î ô û''' /a ɛ~e ɪ~ɨ ʊ~o aː ɛː iː ɔː uː ɛːː iːː ɔːː uːː/ | '''a e i u ā ē ī ō ū ê î ô û''' /a ɛ~e ɪ~ɨ ʊ~o aː ɛː iː ɔː uː ɛːː iːː ɔːː uːː/ | ||
| Line 68: | Line 65: | ||
===Prosody=== | ===Prosody=== | ||
====Stress==== | ====Stress==== | ||
==Morphophonology== | ==Morphophonology== | ||
| Line 89: | Line 81: | ||
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==== | ||