Orientation (Linguistique / Syntaxe)

Chaker, Salem

doi:10.4000/encyclopedieberbere.2828

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within Berber studies, comparing the Imperfective to the Semitic forms is even less accepted, and the communis opinio is that it is an ancient derived form that has become integrated into the verbal system at a late stage (Galand 1977, 2010: 204; Chaker 1995: 231) 4 . The main internal linguistic reason for this is that there are two ways of constructing the Imperfective.…”

Section: Yv-parras/y-əfărrăsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other writers (e.g. Chaker 1995: 63–82) have taken issue with this analysis and point to the fact that, according to native speakers’ intuitions, the stative uses of the Perfective do not have a resultative connotation. The analysis as a resultative would be an analytical tool to reach a unified description of the Perfective rather than a semantic description of its uses.…”

Section: Yv-pras/y-əfrăsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A reconstruction of the system of verb aspects in proto-Berbero-Semitic

Kossmann

Suchard

2018

Bull. Sch. Orient. Afr. stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several verbal forms reconstructed for proto-Semitic strongly resemble reconstructed forms in proto-Berber: compare Semitic yV-PaRRaS to Berber y-əFăRRăS, Semitic yV-PRaS to Berber y-əFRăS, and Semitic yV-PRuS and yV-PRiS to Berber y-ăFRəS. We suggest that these forms are historically related and sketch a line of development from the reconstructed meanings to their attested uses. yVPaRRaS, originally imperfective, retains that value in both Berber and Semitic. yVPRas, originally stative, gained a perfective meaning in Berber and Semitic; the stative meaning is retained in Berber, but was largely lost in Semitic. yVPRus/yVPRiS, originally perfective, retained that meaning in Semitic, merging with the newly perfective yVPRas forms; in Berber, yVPRaS completely replaced perfective yVPRuS/yVPRiS, relegating the latter to non-aspectual uses. We conclude by considering the quality of the first vowel; the alternation seen in Berber y-əFRăS and y-ăFRəS supports reconstructions as yiPRaS and yaPRuS/yaPRiS, conforming to the Barth–Ginsberg Law of Semitic.

show abstract

Section: Yv-parras/y-əfărrăsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Yv-pras/y-əfrăsmentioning

confidence: 99%