Omniglot forum • View topic

Talib · Joined:Sun 19 Apr 2009 8:22 am Posts:768 Location: Canada

I think Neqitan is on the right track. From what I've seen of Egyptian, the grammar is not unlike other Afro-Asiatics, even Semitics, despite not being in the same branch of the family. I would say it's probably firmly in the fusional category.

Quote:

Well, I've skimmed some Ancient Egyptian dictionaries near me just for the fun, and so far the words resemble a very Semitic-like grammar (and that makes me believe they're from the same family). Haha, there were even some funny cognates with Arabic there and there I could recognize, like "m" standing for "what", just as Arabic mā (or maybe it's a coincidence...?).

Yeah, that is funny, isn't it? It's the same with Berber languages or something. I wonder what historical changes occurred for the languages to diverge that much.

Quote:

Maybe it's not the exactly the same in Ancient Egyptian, but in Arabic, verb conjugations are either suffixes (-a, -tum, -tunna) or circumfixes (ta...īna, ’a...u) around a stem (agglutinative), and the stem derives from a root using a prefix (ta-, inta-, ista-) and some vowel playing (daras-drus) (prefixes and fusional).

The conjugations are fusional, not agglutinative because each affix expresses a number of meanings, not just one. For example هنّ hunna is 3rd fem. plur. In Hungarian or Japanese, there would be a different suffix for each of these, right?

Neqitan · Joined:Fri 17 Apr 2009 9:59 pm Posts:397 Location: Canada

Talib wrote:

Quote:

Well, I've skimmed some Ancient Egyptian dictionaries near me just for the fun, and so far the words resemble a very Semitic-like grammar (and that makes me believe they're from the same family). Haha, there were even some funny cognates with Arabic there and there I could recognize, like "m" standing for "what", just as Arabic mā (or maybe it's a coincidence...?).

Yeah, that is funny, isn't it? It's the same with Berber languages or something. I wonder what historical changes occurred for the languages to diverge that much.

While the (mentally sane) Greeks embraced the concept of vowels for the rest of us, the Berbers preferred to despise it.
I mean, seriously.
:arrow:

http://www.omniglot.com/soundfiles/blog ... 0507-4.mp3
(That's supposed to be MSA-ish Moroccan Arabic...)

Quote:

Maybe it's not the exactly the same in Ancient Egyptian, but in Arabic, verb conjugations are either suffixes (-a, -tum, -tunna) or circumfixes (ta...īna, ’a...u) around a stem (agglutinative), and the stem derives from a root using a prefix (ta-, inta-, ista-) and some vowel playing (daras-drus) (prefixes and fusional).

The conjugations are fusional, not agglutinative because each affix expresses a number of meanings, not just one. For example هنّ hunna is 3rd fem. plur. In Hungarian or Japanese, there would be a different suffix for each of these, right?

Oh yeah, you're right. Thanks for the correction.

Talib · Joined:Sun 19 Apr 2009 8:22 am Posts:768 Location: Canada

It's theorized that contact with the Berber languages is what led to the deletion of most short vowels in Maghribi dialects.

Delodephius · **Posted:** Mon 15 Jun 2009 7:32 am

Sean of the Dead wrote:

If you want to try a non-IE language (or an isolated language), try Basque, it's pretty easy and straightforward.

That's in Western Europe. I'm not really interested about languages outside of East-Central Europe, Asia Minor and to an extent the Middle East.

Sobekhotep · **Posted:** Tue 16 Jun 2009 1:59 am

Sean of the Dead wrote:

I want to try learning a Semitic language, maybe Coptic

Coptic isn't Semitic. It's just Afro-Asiatic. Just like Berber.

Talib wrote:

The conjugations are fusional, not agglutinative because each affix expresses a number of meanings, not just one. For example هنّ hunna is 3rd fem. plur. In Hungarian or Japanese, there would be a different suffix for each of these, right?

I don't know anything about Hungarian. But in Japanese, verbs are not conjugated for person.

Sean of the Dead · **Posted:** Tue 16 Jun 2009 2:11 am

o.O I thought it was. Oh well, still like it. (:

Talib · Joined:Sun 19 Apr 2009 8:22 am Posts:768 Location: Canada

Sobekhotep wrote:

I don't know anything about Hungarian. But in Japanese, verbs are not conjugated for person.

Well if they were theoretically, there would be, I think. Can you enlighten us a little as to how Japanese agglutination works?

Sobekhotep · **Posted:** Wed 17 Jun 2009 10:05 pm

Talib wrote:

Sobekhotep wrote:

I don't know anything about Hungarian. But in Japanese, verbs are not conjugated for person.

Well if they were theoretically, there would be, I think. Can you enlighten us a little as to how Japanese agglutination works?

Well, it's all about the suffixes. Take the verb <書く> (kaku), which means "to write". There are several inflections:
-<書きます> (kakimasu) formal, nonpast, affirmative
-<書きません> (kakimasen) formal, nonpast, negative
-<書きました> (kakimashita) formal, past, affirmative
-<書きませんでした> (kakimasendeshita) formal, past, negative
-<書きましょう> (kakimashou) formal, volitional/propositive
-<書かない> (kakanai) informal, nonpast, negative
-<書く> (kaku) informal, nonpast, affirmative; also known as "dictionary form"; also could be considered infinitive
-<書けば> (kakeba) conditional
-<書こう> (kakou) informal, volitional/propositive
-<書いて> (kaite) used in compound verbs
-<書いた> (kaita) informal, past, negative

Neqitan · Joined:Fri 17 Apr 2009 9:59 pm Posts:397 Location: Canada

Japanese inflects verbs differently for negative polarity?!

That was an interesting first lesson on Japanese for me.

Sobekhotep · **Posted:** Sun 21 Jun 2009 1:29 am

Sobekhotep wrote:

-<書いた> (kaita) informal, past, negative

I made a mistake there. :oops:

That's actually affirmative, not negative.
And here's one I forgot:
-<書かなかった> (kakanakatta) informal, past, negative