--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:
> > > I only said
> > > there is reportedly no lexical use of vowel oppositions in
> Semitic.
> > > to me it means that
> > > the vowel system of the Semitic *lexicon* is zero,
> >
> > Hebrew shows minimal lexical pairs, e.g.:
> > yo:m = day; ya:m = sea
> > (ayin)e:z = goat; (ayin)o:z = strength
> > ?el = to ?e:l = god
> > etc
> > So I think the starting point for this discussion is misguided.
> Vowels are
> > used lexically (and morphologically) in at least one Semitic
> language.
>
> Isn't this as simple as Sanskrit in that e: and o: are /ay/
> and /aw/?
Not quite. The unpointed spellings are <ywm>, <ym>, <`z>, <`z> (I
presume - not in my limited dictionaries), <?l>, <?l>.
While /yo:m/ v. /ya:m/ thus reflects {yawm} v. {yam}, the plural of
{yawm} is /ya:mi:m/, implying an allomorph {yam}! The construct
plural contracts with {bi} 'in', so 'in the days of' is /bi:me:/.
The she-goat word has plural /`izzi:m/ (despite being feminine!) so
that lexeme is {`izz}. Extracting the underlying morpheme of /`o:z/
is more difficult. There is an adjective /`a:z/ (I think - my
dictionary gives /`az/, but that looks wrong) with
femining /`azza:/, so the underlying form is {`uzz}. However, there
is a possibly complicating verb /`az/ with stem <`wz>!
The difference between /?el/ and /?e:l/ is one of stress and
juncture - /?el/ 'to' is normally a prefix to a noun - I don't
remember whether it ever takes a pronoun suffix and keeps the /?e/.
(The normal form of 'to' with pronounds is /l-/, e.g. /li:/ 'to me'.)
A better contrast is /`im-/ <`m> 'with' and /`a:m/ <`m> 'people'.
The morphemes here are {`imm} (as in the name 'Immanuel') and
{`amm}, so 'with me' is /`immi:/ and 'my people' is /`ammi:/
The Hebrew vowels are hard to predict from the consonants -
e.g. /o:zen/ {uzn} 'ear' but /regel/ {ragl} 'foot'. (See
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Hrg.html for some
intriguing possible connections of the latter word.) At one level,
therefore, the vowel has to be part of the lexeme. At a deeper
level, perhaps there are two homophonous morphemes {`zz}, one
meaning 'she-goat' and the other 'strong, mighty'. An explanation
might be that the vowel alternations make vowel difference
unreliable for distinguishing morphemes, and therefore one lexeme
would be eliminated if homophony were not acceptable.
Richard.