Re: [tied] Re: Numerals query again + Ge'ez forms

> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:47:23 +0100 (MET), Harald Hammarstrom
> <haha2581@...> wrote:
>
> >Nevertheless, to keep the post on topic. I looked up my Thomas
> >O. Lambdin _Introduction to Classical Ethiopic_ (an absolutely
> >brilliant book btw) to cite some forms for Miguel et al:
> >
> > Masc.: Fem:
> >nom.: sab'atú sab'ú
> >acc.: sab'atá sab'ú
> >
> >Masc. nom. has a common variant form sab´a:tú and there you
> >see that Lambdin transliterates a for the vowel that corresponds
> >to Ar. a and a: for Ar. a: etc. The stress placement is from the
> >Ethiopic tradition rather than comparative data (the source is
> >likely to be E. Mittwoch, _Die traditionelle Aussprache des
> >Äthiopischen_, Berlin 1926).
>
> Does the book say anything else relevant to the question?

Can't find any. But I'll have a look in an article by Hetzron
is JSS when I get to work which might tell us more.

> Is nunation attested in Classical Ethiopic?

I don't think so. There's no def. or indef. article and no "nunations"
or "mimations" anywhere in the book. But I don't know enough Ethiopic to
definetely exclude it's presence.

> Does the final -u in the
> numerals (and also in some pronouns and verbal endings) go back to -un, to
> -u: or simply to -u?

I don't know. As you know the -u disappears in regular nouns but if the
stress shift (or retention) was before the loss I imagine that may have
caused an -u to stay. This would be strengthened by many pronominal forms
that end in stressed ú (however 2nd p pl masc is 'antému with "preserved"
-u without stress). Regular perfect verbs 3p pl masc end in -u < u:. I
don't know what *-un would have yielded in Ge'ez.

all the best,

Harald