Re: [tied] Semitic (again - sorry about the OTness)

On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:34:55 -0000, "Lisa Jacqueline Emerson"
<eris@...> wrote:

>I always had trouble trying to tell whether authors meant "voiceless
>interdental fricative" or "voiceless aspirated stop". So, apparently,
>as you said, something like Anat/Anath would be aspirated, but I
>became a bit confused when you said: "As it happens, the /S/ found in
>the Akkadian and NW Semitic word for Ishtar/Astarte corresponds to an
>Arabic /T/ (English "th", interdental fricative)" ...I didn't see "th"
>on your chart there under the Arabic column.

I probably used /t_/, the traditional transcription (t-underscore), or
/T/, the ASCII-IPA way of writing IPA theta.

>Also, with the *t for
>Hebrew, you put in three values: "t, th, -h". Are all three valid,
>like a pick-and-choose sort of thing, or are they each found in
>certian environments?

t: in "strong" position (initial, medial when geminate) (tav + dagesh)
th: in "weak" position (medial between vowels) (thav without dagesh)
-h: in final position (e.g. feminine ending) (written h)

>One last thing - what is the period for? (ex: "t.")

Emphatic t.et, etc.

>I wasn't sure how to interpret this... Is Ugaritic from
>Proto-Canaanite like you show Hebrew and Phoenician to be, or is it a
>separate branch like you show Aramaic to be? And does Canaanite fall
>under the PC line with H & P, or is it to be considered the forerunner
>of H & P?

Ugaritic clearly represents a more ancient stage of Semitic than
Phoenician and Hebrew. Proto-Canaanite is a name that can be given to
[non-Ugaritic] N.W. Semitic inscriptions and fragments of roughly the
same period as Ugaritic (2nd millennium BC), while "Canaanite" could
be used for [non-Hebrew and non-Phoenician] N.W. Semitic languages of
the 1st millennium (such as Moabite and Edomite).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...