Thursday, June 3, 2010

Interesting Quirk With "kul" in Galilean Aramaic

In looking over the use of kul in Galilean Aramaic, I noticed an interesting quirk of spelling:

It is generally not plene, but plene when it takes on pronominal suffixes.

For example we see in 1025 of the 1075 examples of kul (as a noun) in the Galilean corpus of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon:

[kl] => 587 
[bkl] => 122
[wkl] => 76
[dkl] => 45
[lkl] => 21
[mkl] => 7
[wbkl] => 4
[dbkl] => 3
[kl`mh] => 2
[wlkl] => 4 
[kl@)ymt] => 2
(The above format is [form] => attested number of times. There are a handful of examples not listed here.)

But then we see:
[kwlhwN] => 40
[kwlh] => 32 
[kwl)] => 19
[kwlyh] => 8
[kwly] => 8
[dkwl)] => 7
[kwlhN] => 6
[wkwlh] => 5
[wkwlhwN] => 5
[kwlkwN] => 4
[dkwlyh] => 3

Although there are a few exceptions, but as you can see, these are strictly in the minority:
[klhwN] => 6
[klh] => 4
I wonder if anyone else has noticed the same? Time to hit the books.

Peace,
-Steve
at

1 comment:

There are several rules about commenting here:

1) All unsigned/anonymous comments will be temp-deleted. I would like the actual names of the people who comment here.

2) SPAM will be deleted outright and permanently.

3) If someone is obnoxious, I will temp-delete their comments until they become more civil.

4) By commenting here, you release the copyrights of your comments to me.

Other than that, have fun. :-)