From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 27284
Date: 2003-11-16
>> See my afterthought. Brockelmann et al. were probably using aWell, I was only guessing.
>historical
>> transcription with /u:/ for /u/, and, presumably, /i/ and /u/
>for /&/.
>> I'm still puzzled about the stress.
>
>Fine, that's what we're talking about. You are terribly
>misrepresenting Brockelmann's notational practice, though.
>Unfortunately, Maho's web page did not help me much when I looked atYou've lost me. -tun in Ge'ez?
>it. It contains no phonology and no accents, only morphological
>charts given information I had already. It only claims to contain
>class-room notes from a course he attended. The -tä forms (with
>short a) are indeed accusatives according to my source, M.Chaine,
>Grammaire éthiopienne, Beyrouth 1938.
>
>I find the occurrence of nunation in the numerals quite bewildering.
>The -t- forms practical all end in -tun, but the short forms only
>have -un here and there.
>Your information that the nunation does not influence the accent isOK. Even though I knew it was true, I was having trouble finding an
>confirmed for Proto-Semitic by Sarauw who says so explicitly.
>I remain curious as to where this leads, and I'm gonna need someWell, as I already said, that story must be wrong. The definite nominative
>*real* literature to find out, what I have is fortuitous and dated.
>For now, I have not yet seen anything to make me discard the thought
>that a special kind of Semitic accent in a form with mimation could
>be reflected in *septm.´ . Perhaps it should be remembered that it
>does not have to be pan-Semitic, it just has to be some existing
>language old enough to serve as the donor of a loanword entering
>some prestage of Proto-Indo-European. However, if the story of *-C-m
>> Semitic *-C-um is to be correct, it must be older than Proto-
>Semitic.