On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:43:48 +0100 (MET), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<
jer@...> wrote:
>I would tend to agree. I have been lectured by some who insist that a
>marked nominative is typologically unacceptable. I can rid them of the
>apparent marking in the Semitic nominative by assuming that the mimated
>form in -um was originally unmarked, and that the -u- is a propvowel that
>was coloured by the -m. The non-mimated form in -u is then analogical.
No. In Semitic, -u is definitely the (definite) nominative marker (omitted
in the construct, as is accusative -a). It was the nunation *-n that was
coloured to /-m/ by the /-u/ in this case (at least in Akkadian).
There are two kinds of nunation/mimation in Semitic. Classical Arabic
still distinguishes them clearly, but in all other languages they have been
lost, merged, or only one kind survives.
There is nunation/mimation as a definiteness marker, distributed as
follows:
masc. fem.
sing. N -u-0 -at-u-0
A -a-0 -at-a-0
G -i-0 -at-i-0
pl. N -u:-n(a) -a:t-u-0
AG -i:-n(a) -a:t-i-0
du. N -a:-n(i) -at-a:-n(i)
AG -ay-n(i) -at-ay-n(i)
The *-n (becoming *-m after u(:) in some languages) is here clearly a
plural marker (although omitted in the fem.pl.).
The second kind of nunation ("indefinite") applies across the board:
masc. fem.
sing. N -u-n -at-u-n
A -a-n -at-a-n
G -i-n -at-i-n
pl. N -u:-n(a) -a:t-u-n
AG -i:-n(a) -a:t-i-n
du. N -a:-n(i) -at-a:-n(i)
AG -ay-n(i) -at-ay-n(i)
In Akkadian, only the forms of this indefinite nunation are present (but
with definite and indefinite meaning):
masc. fem.
sing. N *-u-n -> -um *-at-u-n -> -atum
A *-a-n ~> -am *-at-a-n ~> -atam
G *-i-n ~> -im *-at-i-n ~> -atim
pl. N *-u:-n -> -u:m > -u: *-a:t-u-n -> -a:tum
AG *-i:-n ~> -i:m > -i: *-a:t-i-n ~> -a:tim
du. N *-a:-n *-at-a:-n
AG *-ay-n -> -i:n *-at-ay-n -> -ati:n
(Regular sound changes indicated by ->, analogical ones by ~>)
>The
>IE form in syllabic /m/ may now even be form the *prestage* of Semitic -um
>with a less chromatic syllabic peak before the -m. I know nothing about it
>myself, but Sarauw says Semitic accented the vowel preceding the last
>consonant of the word.
Obviously not counting mimation or nunation.
>If that is applied to 'seven', we get something
>like *sept&'m
Semitic *sab`átum (following Sarauw's accentuation rule).
>with accented propvowel, i.e. something very close to the
>form with accented m sonans. The retention of the -e-
Which -e-?
>indicates very
>strongly that IE ablaut was already a thing of the past when the word eas
>adopted.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...