Talk:Canaanite shift

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.

Ancient Near East

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Dates[edit]

It is not mentioned in the article about when is it thought that the shift took place. The approx. years of the shift should also clear up the last section that explains about dating of old texts based on the shift. Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all rather uncertain, beyond probably being completed by the 1500 BC to 1000 BC timeframe... AnonMoos (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a piece of information that can be included in the article, IMHO. I doubt there are many certain dates in historical linguistics at all, so usually an estimation (if there is a reference to the source) would be a good idea. Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I forgot (or never properly assimilated) that there's some evidence for it in the Amarna letters of the middle years of the 1300's B.C. See the article "Canaanite Dialects" by Dennis Pardee in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages edited by Roger D. Woodard (2004) ISBN 0-521-56256-2. Of course, this doesn't necesarily mean that the change had affected all long "a" vowels in all Canaanite dialects at that time. AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did this shift take place in Hebrew? And were all dialects effected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.46.205.190 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was almost certainly fully completed before the use of Matres lectionis had started to develop significantly, so that the pre-shift Hebrew vowel system has no real influence on the Biblical text... AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the "Amarna Letters" article, and it doesn't mention the vowel shift. Anyway, I was looking for specific examples which demonstrate this vowel shift taking place, and at that time period. In additions to giving examples of later Arabic differences, please add the original examples which demonstrate this vowel shift occurring, and at the specified time period (2nd millennium BC). .Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Amarna letters article seems not to cover technical linguistic aspects of the subject at all, but nevertheless the reference I gave above is still valid. It's very unlikely that any ancient text would show us the sound change actually in progress (something which is often difficult to pin down in much more recent and well-documented eras), just whether the change has taken place or not in specific cases. One specific case give by Pardee is the syllabic cuneiform writing zu-ru-uḫ which seems to correspond to Hebrew זרוע. Pardee seems to think that the shift had generally occurred by 1400 B.C. in Canaanite dialects... AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Example of Rhotacism in Latin[edit]

"A parallel may be found in the pre-classical history of Latin, where a phenomenon called rhotacism affected all instances of intervocalic /s/ turning them into /r/. Thus rus (countryside,) for example, took the oblique form ruri from *rusi. The phenomenon, naturally, failed to affect instances of intervocalic /s/ formed after it had become productive. Thus essus was not rhotacized because, as a leveling of *ed-tus, it did not have an /s/ to be transformed at the time of the rhotic phenomenon."

The applicability of this example is dubious, as geminate "s" is not considered intervocalic and thus does not regularly undergo rhotacism in Latin, regardless of when the shift to "ss" occurs relative to the production of rhotacism. Perhaps a better example could be found. -- 01:45, 25 July 2014 2620:117:c080:520:5e26:aff:fefe:814c

Maybe caesum "cut" and esum "eaten" from *caed-tum and *ed-tum? AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the form with double "s" on the article is an archaic form, which normally had a single "s" in Classical Latin. Otherwise, I can't tell which verb it's supposed to belong to. Odd. AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenician[edit]

Phoenician has basically zero matres lectiones (until a very late period in North Africa), so there's limited evidence for the shift in that language (typical/traditional spellings in the original homeland are no evidence at all). The word "suffetes" comes from a Semitic present participle (cognate to the Hebrew word for "judge"), and so is one piece of valid evidence... AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]