Talk:emmen

@Fenakhay This verb is listed at root w-m-n, to which I agree, but Gabra does not seem to follow clear rules. My idea is the following:

If a root historically has /w/ or /j/, it should be given as such (unless there were a form that clearly contradicts this analysis).
If a root historically has /ʔ/, but has developed forms with a semivowel, it should be given with /w/ or /j/. The fact that there are individual forms without semivowel (like emmen here) does not contradict that approach, because semivowels can be lost even in Arabic.
A root should only be analysed with initial "apostrophe" under the following two conditions:
- It does not have any forms with a semivowel AND
- It has historically /ʔ/ (like '-d-n in stieden) or it's a new root from reanalysis (like '-ż-j in iżża).
Words that historically belong to a root, but are no longer part of it because their consonants have entirely changed (like wiċċ from w-ġ-ħ, lsir from j-s-r) should be listed as "related terms", but not under the root.

Navigation menu