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.
Linguistics
Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!
Everyone is welcome here: from laymen to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.
Rules:
- Stay on-topic. Specially for more divisive subjects.
- Post sources whenever reasonable to do so.
- Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
- Have fun!
Related communities:
It's a beautiful language but overwhelming. Even i as a native speaker still find it hard to read books in it (tbf i don't use it much for reading and writing, i do most of that in english lol)
The writing system's also cool. Hebrew is also a pretty language imo but the pronunciation is... let me put it this way: It's the danish of the middle east lmao.
Interestingly enough i can understand a pretty good amount of hebrew despite never really learning it except just to read the script itself. In tiberian pronunciation it has many similarities. Hell, i can even kind of understand the torah.
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”
I think the first would be "Snagaag" but not sure about the latter. He was right though, lmao
I see a single mistake: it is unclear what the fuck I am looking at.
But maybe it's a me issue.
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.
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
Thank you! Cool stuff!
I guess the image need a bit more clarity...
i swear i could remember writing an explanation for roots/templates in the image... i'll put it in the post body, thank you :)