Sbar Template Word: Fill & Download for Free

Semitic languages form one of the branches of the Afro-Asiatic family. They all descend from the Proto-Semitic language, which was spoken in the Levant about 6,000 years ago. Semitic languages are very important to the study of Afro-Asiatic (albeit overstudied relative to other Afro-Asiatic branches), partly because of their early written attestation, such as Akkadian, which was first written about 4,500 years ago, the earliest attestation in the branch.Above: Written chronological history of the Semitic languages. [1]Thus, linguists have gleaned a great deal about the nature of Proto-Afro-Asiatic, though still in conjunction with information gleaned from other branches. Semitic languages, for example, make extensive use of what’s called root-and-pattern morphology, whereby consonantal roots (radicals) are placed into a template of vowels [and often consonants, too] that are used to expand the meaning of a root. This morphology occupies a distinctly large part of the grammar of Semitic languages. Some examples are below:Arabic: [2][3]Root: √s-l-m (meaning: peace, well-being, welfare) [4]template: mu__.__i__ ~ muC₁C₂iC₃muslim (مسلم) = “Muslim”template: ʾi__.__a__ ~ ʾiC₁C₂aC₃ʾIslam (إسلام) = “Islam”template: __a__a__ ~ C₁aC₂aC₃salam (سلام) = “peace”template: ʾa__.__a__a ~ ʾaC₁C₂aC₃aʾaslama (أسلم) = “surrender”template: __a__ā__a ~ C₁aC₂āC₃asalāma (سلامة) = “good health”Root: √k-t-b (meaning: rows, creating lines, writing) [5]template: __a__a__a ~ C₁aC₂aC₃akataba (كَتَبَ) = he wrotetemplate: ya__.__u_u ~ yaC₁C₂uC₃uyaktubu (يَكْتُبُ) = “he writes/will write”template: __a__a__nā ~ C₁aC₂aC₃-nākatabnā (كَتَبْنَا) = “we wrote”template: __ā__i__ ~ C₁āC₂iC₃:kātib (كَاتِب) = “writer”template: __i__a__ ~ C₁iC₂aC₃:kitab (كِتَاب) = “book”template: __u__u__ ~ C₁uC₂uC₃:kutub (كُتُب) = “books”template: ma__.__a__ ~ maC₁C₂aC₃:maktab (مَكْتَب) = “office”template: __u__a__yyi__ ~ C₁uC₂ayyiC₃.kutayyib (كُتَيِّب) = “booklet”Amharic: [6][7][8][9][10][11]→ Root: √s-b-r (meaning: “break,” “destroy”)perfective stem: säbbär- (gemination of the /b/.)template: __ä__.__ä_äčč ~ C₁äC₂C₂äC₃äččsäbbäräčč (ሰበረች) = “she broke”Note A: “č” in the romanization = [t͡ʃ] in IPA. So, “ch” as in “chalk.”Note B: “ä” in the romanization = [ə] in IPA. So, like the pronunciation of “a” in “about.”compound imperfective stem: säbr-template: tə__ä__.__alläčč ~ təC₁äC₂C₃alläččtəsäbralläčč (ትሰብራለች) = “she breaks ~ she will break”Note C: “ə” in the romanization = [ɨ/ø] in IPA.jussive stem: sbär-template: tə__.__ä__ ~ təC₁C₂äC₃:təsbär (ትስበር) = “let her break”The above is not unlike the ablaut patterns in Indo-European, which still exists, although to a much less prolific degree, in English:sing (simple present)sang (simple past)sung (past participle)song (noun)The same pattern can be seen to varying degrees in other Afro-Asiatic languages, but in Semitic, it’s particularly well-developed and occupies a much larger share of the grammar relative to other Afro-Asiatic branches. This root-and-pattern morphology is an example of non-concatenative morphology, [12] and the fact that it’s seen in Semitic helps to demonstrate that Proto-Afro-Asiatic had this feature as well.Notably, the majority of Semitic roots are triliteral (i.e., composed of three consonants/radicals), such as the examples above. This is in relative contrast to other Afro-Asiatic branches, which do have triliteral roots, but many fewer. Instead, there’s a higher number of biliteral roots in other branches. Ancient Egyptian is a good example of this, which, aside from having a significant number of biliteral roots, even had a significant number of monoliteral roots (one radical). [13][14]What we see is that the transition from mostly biliteral to mostly triliteral was aided by the inclusion of affixes that were eventually absorbed into the new root. [15] Some of these affixes may also speak to a possible relic Afro-Asiatic noun classification system. While some of these are Semitic-specific, some of these other relics are apparently seen in other Afro-Asiatic branches:Note D: The orthography is represented differently depending on the source used, such as *ħVmār v. *ḥimār. Below provides each consonant included and its IPA equivalent in brackets.ʿ = [ʕ] (“ayin”) | ʾ = [ʔ] (“aleph”)ḳ = [kʼ] | ṭ = [tʼ]ṯ = [θ] | ḥ = [ħ]ḫ = [x ~ X] | ḏ = [ð]š = [ʃ] | ṣ = [s’]ẓ = [θʼ] | y = [j][V] = unidentified vowelPS: -b suffix, most likely indicating wild and possibly dangerous animals. [16]*ḏiʔb- — “wolf”*kalb- — “dog”*ʔaḳrab- — “scorpion”*ṯaʕlab- — “fox”*dubb- — “bear”*habb- — “elephant”There seem to be relatives of this in other Afro-Asiatic branches: [17][18][19]Egyptian: zꜣb — “jackal”Chadic (West Chadic): *ǯib- — "civet"Tuareg (Berber): a-gʸanba — “crocodile”Highlands East Cushitic: zabbä — “lion”Somali (Cushitic): warābe — “hyena”PS: *-(a)t suffix, indicating the feminine: [20]*ʾāyat‑ — “sign, mark”*bint‑ — “daughter” (c.f., *bin- “son”)*dalt‑ — “door”*liʾat‑ — “cow” (c.f., *liʾ‑ “bull”)*marʾat‑, *māriʾat‑ — “lady, woman, mistress”*raḥt‑ — “hand, palm of the hand”Note E: This is solidly present throughout Afro-Asiatic at large, and, unlike the other affixes, it largely remains a separable part of the root.Egyptian: snt — “sister”“Berber:” tamghart — old woman/female leader*-l ~ *-r possibly for tame/domesticated animals: [21]*ṯawr- — “bull” (alternative root to the above)*baḳar- — “cow” (alternative root to the above)*xVzzīr- — “pig”*ħVmār- — “donkey”Note F: This may also be seen in Afro-Asiatic, with the following examples: [22]Saho (Cushitic): dábel — “goat”Afar (Cushitic): bakál — “kid”“Berber”: izmər — “ram, lamb”*-n for body parts: [23]*baṭn- — “stomach”*ʕayn- — “eye”*lašān- ~ lišān- — “tongue”*šinn- — “tooth”*ḳarn- — “horn”*ʾuḏn- — “ear”*baṯn — “stomach”*paʾn — “foot”Also possibly in other Afro-Asiatic branches: [24]Oromo (Cushitic): afān — “mouth”To return to the affixes’ relevance to the Semitic preference for triliteral roots, one can see some examples below to see how new roots may be added to existing ones to give a new more temporally relevant meaning (i.e., Epipaleolithic v. Neolithic and Eneolithic):PS: -r suffix, most likely indicating a material augment and sometimes, as previously stated, a domesticated animal marker: [25]√kb: *kab — “burn” v. “kibr-īt — “sulfur”√qd: *qad — “burn” (secondary root) v. *qidr — “clay vessel”√hm: *ḥam — “become black” v. *ḥimār — “donkey”There was also *ḥamm — “burn, red.” With the addition of -r, the new root is √hmr for *ḥimār, apparently with the meaning of “the red animal” for “donkey.”For the sake of comparison, one can look at roots that are biliteral and the ones that are triliteral. The former usually encompasses more basic concepts from the Epipaleolithic, but then the latter usually encompasses more specialized terms, especially agricultural and Neolithic/Eneolithic-associated terms:Biliteral roots and reconstructions: [26][27]√nr: *nūr — “light”√my: *māy ~ *māˀ —“water”√kr: *kūr — “kiln”√ẓr: ẓūr — “flint”√tn: tīn — “clay”√dm: *dam- — “blood”√št: *šīt — “cloth(es)”√ks: *kīs — “small bag”Triliteral Roots and reconstructions:Agricultural and Neolithic/Eneolithic words: [28]√tbn: *tibn — “straw”√pm: *paḥm —“charcoal”√ḫn: *duḫn — “millet”√hgr: *hugār — “arable land”√krm: *karm — “vineyard”√škr: *šikar — “beer”√kpr: *kapr — “village”√grn: *gurn — “storage, threshing place”√štl: *štl — “to plant” (no vowels reconstructed for the above)√hṣb: *haṣb: — “pottery, potsherd”√lbn: *labin-at — “brick”√spr: *sipar — “copper, bronze”√ksp: *kasp — “silver”√b (base root consonant): *šˀb — “to draw water”Additionally, most agricultural-linked Proto-Semitic reconstructions actually cannot be derived from earlier biradical roots with wider Afro-Asiatic cognates. [29] The only ones of the selected reconstructions from above that are likely to have true Afro-Asiatic cognates, for example, are apparently *hugār and *šˀb. At least from the source I chose, there are only a handful more agricultural-linked terms in addition to the aforementioned ones that could have wider non-Semitic Afro-Asiatic cognates, which the source itself notes.So, triliteral roots in Semitic are widespread, but most are reconstructable in their entirety only to a certain point. Biliteral roots are most abundant for words relating to materials from Epipaleolithic, yet materials discovered and exploited in the Neolithic (importantly, including agricultural terms) and Eneolithic are overwhelmingly triliteral. Thus, while Proto-Semitic did have agricultural terms, its ancestor, which was maybe spoken in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Period (PPNB), did not. Consequently, the same can be said about Proto-Afro-Asiatic, especially considering the most reliably Afro-Asiatic reconstructions (i.e., with a high likelihood of cognates in other branches) in Semitic do not include agricultural terms. [30]With the steady increase in the number of biliteral roots going back to the Epipaleolithic, which wouldn’t be characterized by agricultural words, that means that Proto-Afro-Asiatic was not a language of agriculturalists (or adept ones, at the very least). This is mirrored in the apparent lack of agricultural vocabulary that can be shown to go beyond the proto-stages of other Afro-Asiatic branches. Additionally, the evolution of triliteral roots from biliteral roots can be seen in other Afro-Asiatic branches, but not to the same degree or manner as with Semitic. [31]With what can be gleaned based on the information above, it indicates that Semitic, while an obvious descendant of Proto-Afro-Asiatic and important to the understanding of Afro-Asiatic at large, is, like its relatives, a very distant descendant of Proto-Afro-Asiatic. Even with the information that Semitic provides, there isn’t a great deal known about Proto-Afro-Asiatic beyond its pronouns, many of its morphological characteristics/paradigms, and some words (far less than one would expect). Additionally, Semitic is not seen as any more conservative than other Afro-Asiatic branches. So, one way of looking at it is that instead of being, say, the grandchild of Proto-Afro-Asiatic, it is more like a great-grandchild.Footnotes[1] Semitic languages - Wikipedia[2] https://www.hf.uio.no/iln/english/about/organization/text-laboratory/projects/Ethiopia/addis-10.03.14.pdf[3] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Outi_Bat-El/publication/290164978_Semitic_templates/links/56bb577e08ae2d6f2013a9ee/Semitic-templates.pdf[4] س ل م - Wiktionary[5] ك ت ب - Wiktionary[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jjEawqaMkE&t=583s[7] Amharic[8] https://www.hf.uio.no/iln/english/about/organization/text-laboratory/projects/Ethiopia/addis-10.03.14.pdf[9] http:// Initia Amharica - Page 215 - Google Books Resultbooks.google.com.ng › books[10] Colloquial Amharic[11] Colloquial Amharic[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPByou0EIb4&t=180s[13] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227266875_Ancient_Egyptian_verbal_reduplication_Typology_diachrony_and_the_morphology-syntax_interface[14] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42938548.pdf[15] https://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/semroot.pdf[16] Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/kalb- - Wiktionary[17] zꜣb - Wiktionary[18] Semitic Languages[19] User:Chrysophylax/Golden Afroasiatic[20] Appendix II - Semitic Roots[21] Historical Phonology and Morphology[22] Semitic Languages[23] Historical Phonology and Morphology[24] Semitic Languages[25] http://vintage.fh.huji.ac.il/~agmon/Fullpaper/AALL_002_online_23-79.pdf[26] http://vintage.fh.huji.ac.il/~agmon/Fullpaper/AALL_002_online_23-79.pdf[27] Statistics of Language Morphology Change: From Biconsonantal Hunters to Triconsonantal Farmers[28] Statistics of Language Morphology Change: From Biconsonantal Hunters to Triconsonantal Farmers[29] Statistics of Language Morphology Change: From Biconsonantal Hunters to Triconsonantal Farmers[30] https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/3066/heckerb18583.pdf[31] http://archive.sfl.cnrs.fr/sites/sfl/IMG/pdf/On_the_Internal_Structure_of_Tashlhiyt_Berber_roots_LI.pdf