Re: [tied] All of creation in Six and Seven

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:14:14 +0000, Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
>Miguel:
>>Still, the standard explanation for feminine -at- is that it developed out
>>of a collective
>
>I presume you mean, in pre-Semitic, since naturally the feminine exists in
>Proto-Semitic itself.

Yes.

>Actually, I recall the use of t-forms for the plural
>of
>the second person, in opposition to k-forms in AA languages. Is this
>reconstructed for Semitic itself, Miguel?

Not sure what you mean. There is no opposition between 2nd. person plural
and singular: they both have "k-forms" and "t-forms". The paradigms for
Semitic are something like:

pp (nom) pp (obl) poss. vb.prefix vb.suffix (stative)
2m *?anta *kuw- *-ka *ta- *-ta ~ *-ka
2f *?anti *kuw- *-ki *ta- -i(n) *-ti ~ *-ki
2pm *?antun(u) *kun- *-kun *ta- -u:(n) *-tun ~ *-kun
2pf *?antin(a) *kin- *-kin *ta- -na: *-tin ~ *-kin

(the k-forms in the stative apply to S.Arabian/Ethiopic, the other
languages have t-forms).

The other AA languages are similar in general.

>Does this relate to the "collective" idea perhaps?

I don't think so.


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