Duketown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Manu Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Martin, I have a question I don't know where else
> > to put.
> >
> > The early German scholars believed Egyptian is a
> > semitic language and basically approached it with
> > that mind-set, correct me please if I am wrong.
> >
> > The one criterion I am interested is the stative
> > verb-form. It give a certain sense of realism to a
> > story. When I use it instead of the preterite, I
> > make the account more real. It is a dramatizing
> > effect. So I am familiar with how it feels to use
> > the stative in spoken language but an English
> > speaker may not. Is the stative a tell-all
> > characteristic of semitic languages or is there
> > another criterion you think is more important.
> > Also, why might Egyptian not be a semitic
> > language?
>
> Let me answer this since Stower already proved he
> doesn't understand this:
> It doesn't matter how you label the original
> sound. It's the sound itself that represents
> language. Whether you call it abracadabra or
> semetic, the sounds remain the same.

No, what you’ve just done is prove that you don’t understand it.

M.