this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2025
25 points (93.1% liked)

Linguistics

683 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!

Everyone is welcome here: from laypeople to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.

Rules:

  1. Instance rules apply.
  2. Be reasonable, constructive, and conductive to discussion.
  3. Stay on-topic, specially for more divisive subjects. And avoid unnecessary mentioning topics and individuals prone to derail the discussion.
  4. Post sources when reasonable to do so. And when sharing links to paywalled content, provide either a short summary of the content or a freely accessible archive link.
  5. Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
  6. Have fun!

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If there's any mistake please correct me (especially in the hebrew parts, i am only native in arabic and know basic hebrew)

explanation for roots and templates (i forgot to completely explain them lol): Words in semitic languages, unlike indo-european languages are conjugated with a system of roots and templates.

Roots are three (or even four) letter words, that are not meant to be used by themselves since they are equivalent to the infinitive in IE languages. So K-T-B would be "to write" and nothing else. No tense, no gender, etc etc.

Templates fill these in, by applying the root to a template. They specify the tense, gender, x-person etc.

So K-T-B (to write) + _A_A_TU (I did this thing in the past) = KATABTU

tl;dr: roots are verbs and templates are context for them

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A British-Israeli linguist, Guy Deutscher, wrote a book a decade or so ago titled The Unfolding Of Language, where he explained this with a made-up Aramaic root, S-N-G, meaning in this example “to snog”. Using the grammar of Aramaic, he derived words that any speaker whom knew this root would understand as meaning things like “one who snogs” and “I was made to snog myself”

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the first would be "Snagaag" but not sure about the latter. He was right though, lmao

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It may or may not have been “musnig”, if “Muslim” can be read as “I was made to be at peace with myself”.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

That makes more sense. Snagaag might only work in common speech, but مسنغ makes more sense anywhere else

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I see a single mistake: it is unclear what the fuck I am looking at.

But maybe it's a me issue.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Words in semitic languages, unlike indo-european languages are conjugated with a system of roots and templates.

Roots are three (or even four) letter words, that are not meant to be used by themselves since they are equivalent to the infinitive in IE languages. So K-T-B would be "to write" and nothing else. No tense, no gender, etc etc.

Templates fill these in, by applying the root to a template. They specify the tense, gender, x-person etc.

So K-T-B (to write) + _A_A_TU (I did this thing in the past) = KATABTU

tl;dr: roots are verbs and templates are context for them

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Thank you! Cool stuff!

I guess the image need a bit more clarity...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

i swear i could remember writing an explanation for roots/templates in the image... i'll put it in the post body, thank you :)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Think for a moment in English.

  • I sing /sɪŋ/
  • I sang /sæŋ/
  • I sung /sʌŋ/
  • a song /sɒŋ/

Note what's happening here: the basic meaning of the word is dictated by the consonants, that stay the same across multiple words. Then you change the vowel to convey further meaning: present vs. past vs. participle vs. noun.

In English this is a bit of an exception, but your typical Semitic language (as Arabic and Hebrew) does this all the time, typically following certain patterns. For example, extending OP's example:

Arabic English translation
كِتَاب / kitāb book
كُتُب / kutub books
كَتَبْتُ / katabtu I wrote
كَتَبَ / kataba he wrote
اُكْتُبْ / uktub write! (masculine)

You do see some affixes here and there, like that -tu in katabtu. But the workhorse of the morphology are those vowel changes.

And since this system was already present in Proto-Semitic, you can even find cognates across Semitic words, and they'll conjugate? decline? in similar-ish ways.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I attempted to learn Arabic for a bit and this logic based root system was part of the appeal, it's so interesting and a refreshing change of pace compared to Latin or Germanic languages.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's a beautiful language but overwhelming. Even i as a native speaker still find it hard to read books in it (tbf i don't use it much for reading and writing, i do most of that in english lol)

The writing system's also cool. Hebrew is also a pretty language imo but the pronunciation is... let me put it this way: It's the danish of the middle east lmao.

Interestingly enough i can understand a pretty good amount of hebrew despite never really learning it except just to read the script itself. In tiberian pronunciation it has many similarities. Hell, i can even kind of understand the torah.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I appreciate that they're using consonants for the roots.

Isn't it the same in most european languages? What's mostly preserved of the roots is the consonants. Easily visible in the roots KRTS and STRK.

German examples:

  • Kreuz
  • Christ
  • Greis
  • Hirte
  • Herde
  • Horde
  • Herz
  • Herd
  • Kruste
  • kratzen
  • hart
  • Harz
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

Proto-Indo-European had a similar-ish system, that was used far more extensively than in modern IE languages. What you see in German and English are leftovers of that system.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Proto-Indo-European had a similar-ish system, that was used far more extensively than in modern IE languages. What you see in German and English are leftovers of that system.

As he said, but i'd like to add: semitic languages are much more preserved than IE languages. for example, i myself can understand ~40% of maltese and basic hebrew, despite never trying to learn either of those languages. Ablauts are an old system so german/english etc have split far off and the words, while having a lot of resemblance might not be almost identical like Shams and Shemesh (sun in arabic and hebrew) But roots are still alive any well in semitic languages.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

lol i just threw a name, that's how i save my files. i didn't know imgbb showed them but i was too lazy lmao

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

My sides! Just now I've noticed it.

At least it's more creative than mine - got a folder full of files that boil down to "unsaved document $number", "drawing asfgsa.svg", "screenshot $date.png". Then ~once a month I review them to delete the unnecessary ones, and to rename+move the ones to store in the long run.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

I use proper words, just not proper sentences lmao. "abjadshit" "testwhatever"