Re: Monovocalism: sequel

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> > > 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:/.

I must confess I am not really *very* surprised that this does not
work for Hebrew. Things are much more transparent in Arabic, for
which I do have the impression that the statement that the basic
semantemee are expressed by consonants alone comes quite close to
the truth. And if there is a Semitic language which is close to
using only consonants for the basic semantic nuclei, I would
consider it a fair possibility that there could also have been stage
in the develoment of IE that came equally close to that ideal.

Jens