...
This is getting tricky.. are we moving toward a discussion on who are
more conservative, Bedouin nomads or sedentary Egyptians? ;) ...
About your latter remark, I have been in Sharm once, and I usuallySo do I. And I also didn't stay long in Sharm, so you may be right that the locals actually assimilate.
heard people say something like "Sharm esh-Sheykh", I didn't hear the
"L" I think. If they use the "L"-sound, I'd say it's for the tourists'
convenience? Anyway, I didn't stay because I couldn't afford the
hotel, so I went on straight to "Jebel Musa" ;)
I love the Sinai desert, by the way.
...
However, what is your comment on the at-tarika vs. iltaqaa example?
That, too, is illustrative. I don't think dissimilation has to happen
in every case of gemination, as you suggest we should expect. The
difference with other geminations in Arabic is that the "article" is a
gemination of the first consonant, whereas other geminations usually
occur in the second or third consonant of a word (stem II/V, IX).
No, your theory works equally well if it is based on the short rather than the long YIQTOL. The only puzzle that I see is how the original short yaqtul preterite, without vav, has become a jussive in Hebrew - but that is a semantic problem, not a phonological or morphological one.
But is there an essential reason why the "primary prefix gemination
leads to Wayyqtl" theory would be more probable or less probable,
depending of the kind of Yiqtol "inside" Wayyqtl? If the apocopated
yiqtol was selected for forming the Wayyqtl tense, can we do anything
other than just take that for granted? Obviously, the loose apocopated
yiqtol really differs from Wayyqtl.
I think I agree with you. But then we still have the big problem: how
can *wa-yaqtulu (or *wa-yaqtul) lead to both wayyiqtol *and*
we-yiqtol?
I guess, even if we have to assume there was a preterite yiqtol
(*yaqtul), that when the distinction between the several yiqtols got
blurred (when short end vowels fell off) and the preterite yiqtol
started looking a lot like other yiqtols, the prefix gemination
apparantly took over the job of given expression to what the preterite
yiqtol (*yaqtul) had done before.
OK. But my real point is more general, that restricting analysis to direct speech may skew the selection of clause types.One concluding remark on word order: this is best studied by writing aPossibly, but that would skew the analysis of German and Dutch because
syntax of only those passages in BHebrew prose that clearly represent
direct speech.
subordinate clauses are rare in direct speech.
I don't agree with you here, I think subordinate clauses are not so
rare in Dutch, and certainly not in German. I speak the former daily,
the latter I'm not so fluent in, but I think I can safely say that if
we analyse direct speech in both, we will find a lot of "if..",
"when..." "whenever...", "unless.." type of clauses in these two
languages.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.