On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:15:18 -0800 (PST),
enlil@... wrote:
>I'm not sure whether the message went through or not on Semitic. I don't
>think that it did... Here goes again:
>
>Miguel, you mentioned that "six" in Semitic is reconstructed as *s^idt_u
>even though iyho it should be *sidc^u. Can you explain further why *c^ is
>preferred over *t_, or for that matter *s^?
That's the Semitic s(h)ibilants question. Briefly:
Traditionally, the following sounds are reconstructed:
Akkadian Hebrew Arabic
*s s s s
*s^ s^ s^ s
*s' s^ s' s^
*s. s. s. s.
*s'. s. s. d.
*z z z z
*t_ s^ s^ t_
*t_. s. s. z.
*d_ z z d_
There is also a correspondence:
*s^ s^ h h
Diakonoff (I think it was) proposed to rearrange these reconstructions so
that they would make more sense as a system:
fric affr
dent-alv *s *c *c. *3
alv-pal *s^ *c^ *c^. *3^
lateral *L *£ *£. --
The correspondences are the following:
Akkadian Hebrew Arabic (trad.)
*s s^ s^ s *s^
*c s s s *s
*c. s. s. s. *s.
*3 z z z *z
*s^ s^ h h *s^
*c^ s^ s^ t_ *t_
*c^. s. s. z. *t_.
*3^ z z d_ *d_
*L/*£ s^ s' s^ *s'
*£. s. s. d. *s'.
> Is the medial cluster certain
>at all given the evidence? Just a thought, could one get away with a
>reconstruction like *s^iXs^u whereby X is a voiced fricative like ayin or
>perhaps *G?
I don't see why. The Southern forms (Arabic sitt-, Sabaic sdt_, Ge'ez
s&d&s-) unequivocally point to *s-d-t_. Outside of Semitic, we have
Egyptian s-r-s- ~ s-j-s- and Berber <sd.is>, which confirm the
reconstruction *sidc^-.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...