Re: [tied] Re: Monovocalism: sequel

> > How do you treat the middle vowel of the perfect/imperfect of
> > class I?
> > kataba ~ yaktubu
> > fatah.a ~ yaftah.u
> > d.araba ~ yad.ribu
> >
> > And the verbs differ as to the middle vowel of the perfect. How is
> > that not a lexical property (in Classical Arabic - not some earlier
> > stage)?
>
> You're right, I misremembered.
>
> I don't have my books here with me. Can anything be said about the relative
> frequency of the vowels a/i/u in the perfect and in the imperfect?

Yes. I don't have the books ('til tomorrow) here either but from memory: a
is the most frequent, u the second most (and is esp. common with
laryngeal-middle-consonant verbs and stative verbs) and i the least
frequent. This is type-frequency, token-frequency would have the
differences bigger.

> How do you intepret Diakonoff's assertion, quoted by Jens:
>
> "I.M.Diakonoff, Afrasian Languages (Moscow 1988) writes: "2.3.1. One
> characteristic feature of Semitic languages is usually pointed out in
> works on Semitic linguistics, viz., that the root in these languages
> comprises only consonants." And later: "2.3.2. The general formula given
> under 2.3.1. and characterizing the Semitic root is actually completely
> valid only for Arabic and the Southern Peripheral Semitic languages. It is
> valid there for all verbal as well as for all nominal roots, ..." (64).

As for the verbs, he probably thinks of the vowels as abstract patterns.
So for the vowel of the perfect + that of the imperfect we have at most
3 * 3 "patterns". To rename lexical vowels as being manifestations of
different "patterns" can be done for any language and the notion of
"comprising lexically only of consonants" is thus unfalsifiable.

The difference in Diakonoff's mind could be that the number of patterns
in Classical Arabic is much lower than for a random language. Probably,
only 7 or so of the 9 patterns actually occur. Of those remaining, it is
likely that Diakonoff tentatively assigns some meaning to them, like
the u of the perfect, and then he explains them away. If I know my
Diakonoff, he's often dancing in the borderland between linguistics and
intelligent guesswork.

For the nouns, he probably thinks something similar. But the case is
even harder to make there. I don't know what languages he means by
"Southern Peripheral".

mvh

Harald