I think we should convert the text on this page to IPA or some other more consistent transcription system.
IbnBatriq 16:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely. I'd do it myself if I knew any Hebrew or Arabic. —Keenan Pepper 02:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The Arabic is already in IPA, except that an informal transcription ` is used for the `ayn consonant ع (but only in the grammatical stem-names, not in the example forms), and long-vowels are shown doubled (which will display on a wider range of browsers). If the Hebrew were put into IPA, then you'd have to address the issue of exactly which form of Hebrew you're transcribing (a problem which is pretty much successfully fudged at present), and it would obscure the relationship between spirantized (i.e. fricative) and non-spirantized (stop) consonant quasi-allophones in different derivations from the same root (as explained in the italicized note near the bottom of the table). AnonMoos 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Arabic stem names
I think that standard Arabic terminology refers to verbal forms by their perfect conjugation rather than their imperfect, ie fa'ala rather than yaf'alu, af'ala rather than yuf'ilu 126.96.36.199 21:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's certainly the perfect forms of each stem which are more often listed in Arabic-English dictionaries, but I read once that native Arabic grammarians more often used the imperfect as shorthand to refer to all forms derived from a given root and stem. But I don't absolutely know for sure. AnonMoos 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- However, the Hitpa``el has the same "h" consonant which corresponds with Akkadian etc. Š in the Hiph`il. The Hebrew Hitpa``el probably represents a historical merger of several earlier Semitic stems (including some which roughly corresponded with classical Arabic stems V and X), but I'm not sure why you use the formula "Gt" when both the Arabic Hitpa``el and Arabic stem V have doubled second radical consonants. I chose to compare the Hitpa``el and Arabic stem X here because Arabic root k-t-b does not appear to have a commonly-used Stem V verb form... AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, but your etymological justification (which is hidden from view on this Talk page) doesn't change the fact that the two forms (Hitpa``el and Form X) are now completely unrelated in both form and usage! All this has done is confuse visitors to this page and provide them with wrong information (which looks suspiciously like original research.) The extant Hebrew Hitpa``el corresponds in both form and meaning to Arabic Form V. Arabic Form V is the reflexive of Form II, which has a doubled root letter. It is formed by the prefix T- added to Form II. Hitpa``el is similarly the grammatical "reflexive" of the Pi``el, with the prefix hi-T- added to a modified Pi``el stem, which has a doubled second root letter. Arabic Form X is the "considerative" or the "self-seeking" form, which has nothing to do with the inchoative/reflexive Hitpa``el, or with the intensive. Your references to Akkadian here are irrelevant, since no Akkadian verbs are listed in this chart. I suggest using a different stem that has a Form V and Hitpa``el meaning, or using an "invented" stem to explain this concept to the learners who will be using this page. Loewejelen (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- First, labels such as "Gt" originated from the study of Akkadian grammar, and are almost always etymological when referring to non-Akkadian languages. Second, I would very strongly recommend that we NOT use an invented artificial root, because the meaning differences between stems are not always consistent or predictable, so it would be a blatant brazen act of original research to assign meanings to the various different stems and derivatives of the invented artificial root. I'm open to suggestions for real dictionary-listed roots to use other than k-t-b, but k-t-b actually has several advantages. And the Hitpa``el is the stem in Hebrew which most closely corresponds to Arabic stem X, so I don't think there's a major problem with putting them in the same row of a chart like this. (Of course, stem X may not be the stem in Arabic which most closely corresponds to the Hebrew Hitpa``el, but you can't always have everything...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Clarification on traditional 4-consonant maximum
Note that I'm not including some scattered forms in certain early Semitic languages which were based on reduplicating the last two root consonants of a triliteral as being quinqueliteral in any useful or relevant sense (the last two consonants of such forms could be considered to be derivational rather than basic)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Zuckermann's remarks are similar to those made in the 1880's by Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC) See Gesenius, 1910, page 99. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Gesenius seems to think that only one type of shift is possible, such as k to g. Actually, the opposite is also possible.
- Of course, we are guessing about the distant past, with the 2-consonant stems and their affinity in some cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Alphabetical order of the "See Also" section
Please take care of the fact that the alphabetical order for "Khuzdul" may not be appliable for linguistics privacy reasons: i.e. "untranslatable".
AnonMoos pointed out in his good faith undoing edit that took place about five days ago:
- "rv - Khuzdul rather different than the other links".
- "rv - Khuzdul rather different than the other links".
- I have no idea what "privacy"(??) has to do with anything, but all the other terms in the see-also list are linguistics terminology, while Khuzdul is a semi-obscure "art language" which Tolkien briefly sketched in, but never fully developed. Therefore it's quite appropriate that it should follow the others on the list... AnonMoos (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
V as BH?
Why does it show לכתוב in its various forms transliterated as a bh rather than a v? Liktov, Ani kotev, catavti, ani ektov, etc. It's clearly a v. What is this bh business? Although some words with vet can have it become bet, I don't think that's every the case with כ.ת.ב. (messes up the periods), and it certainly isn't the case in the verb examples given. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Did you look at the italicized note at the bottom of the table? -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is the article title "Semtitic" Root? While I understand that this is a feature of Semitic languages, it is also a feature of other Afroasiatic langauges, such as the Egyptian language, which is not a Semtitic language. To me, it would make more sense for the page to be titled something like "Triliteral Root" or something else. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- It was originally two separate articles "Triliteral" and "Quadriliteral", before these were merged and consolidated by User:Dbachmann. Anyway, while it could be considered theoretically "unfair" to non-Semitic branches, the system is rather obscured or residual in a number of modern branches of Afroasiatic, with little direct evidence to tell us what the situation was in ancient times. The only non-Semitic Afroasiatic language with solid information available from ancient times is Egyptian, and the complete lack of vowels in Egyptian writing makes it difficult to understand many of the details of how the root system worked in the ancient Egyptian language. The languages with a well-developed consonantal root system which currently have the largest numbers of speakers, as well as the prominent written cultural languages encountered by Europeans before the 19th century (Hebrew, Arabic, etc.) are all Semitic (as far as I know)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)