Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 21/06/2004 05:11, Trevor Peterson wrote:

> > ===== Original Message From Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org> =====
> > Akkadian: shamu, mu
> > Ugaritic: shamuma, my
> > Phoenician: shmm, mym
> > Achaemenid Aramaic: shmin, myn
> > Syriac: shmayya, mayya
> > Classical Arabic: sama', ma'
> > Ge`ez (Ethiopic): samay, may
> > Sabaean: shmy, mw
> > Jibbali: sieh (with a nasalised e), mih
> >
> > Aramaic and Phoenician also show the plural suffix, but the other forms
> > do not. This suggests that the innovation is a bit more widespread than
> > just Hebrew, but still localised to a small part of NW Semitic.
> >    
>
> The Akkadian and Ugaritic forms are also plural.
>
>
>  
Thank you, Trevor. In this case it is possible that, for some unknown 
reason, both words were originally plural in form, but many Semitic 
languages have (independently?) lost the plural form. This common 
feature might tend to support an original etymological link, but also 
confirms that it goes back to proto-Semitic i.e. at least to the 
original split between East and West Semitic.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/