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

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    6·
    5 months ago

    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”

  • dwindling7373@feddit.itEnglish
    5·
    5 months ago

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

    But maybe it’s a me issue.

    • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyzM
      4·
      5 months 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.

  • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
    4·
    5 months ago

    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.

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    2·
    5 months ago

    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