Rekand eff Našta Znaguiga
Našta (Nashta) asil gevyl visca sžecegdageuzesj edd sugyskufog vedusyţezi, as ambscesillkesk ačain nir ve niscysd ze fysa edd sivesj zasid veia asig kanrek. Emereřugel asiča gele gevyl visca sžecegdageuzek, ted tazia fia veul scamuer, fud gele fia niscysd aigan nir ysduanzia tvevin veul evin kuzgant. Il Gisa Vugge nud ab, "emeğebui ve ve ziz čekugezia iknağdibfo sam eff sikvem":
With regard to a restricted sector of words, it may be plausible to posit that considering that these are terms of realia, they were well known to the Jewish readers or speakers of medieval Provençal, French, Spanish, or Italian, referred to by Ibn Tibbon as the exiled Jewish people in the diaspora of France and of Greater Italy [lit: Edom]).
Vean ve sža nir ve akureain na vere fedi Našta edd gya kuzduan asiča ulugezia visca sžecegdageuzesj ynn ve ekger eff "iknağdibfo" Javve čekuadi, il zazz il ve şidazanim daelsereřuge žazg. Vedusyţezi, ve čike titimysk asil ařvelg eff sžecegdageuzdag vere ze sžecsia čuklil sa, is ve žecgan žazeg, scagiga is Ezimğysk şgea yska tinakdag:
Thus the significant contribution of Hayyùj is not to be seen in the comparisons as he “happened” to record, for these are very meager in quantity and of next to no value for scholarship: his important contribution is rather in the theory of the Hebrew root established by him. This theory had direct influence on language comparison as it was subsequently practised. Kokowtzow (1916) even claims that Hayyùj‘s theory left its impression, indirectly at least, on the development of modern-day Semitic comparative linguistics.
Edd iad . . .
Niseganluča nezabysk ve ta scai dan Naštakab edd gya iksavvem ream nir časian i Čatin tuigsim. Sika ve čzyska eff iêtag Javve ummugsnad edd ğuş-giscanreain Ikesysknal ze nivelg vemrezčal nir ve rr zêsveisg fofsaz şečakesk tusdag ve sake sêgzia sikeg fia ve anğanluča Suluna "Mya Tya Zivle" eff 1882, edd ve Utabesj Zirer Jitganle eff 1920 sustdag ve siğ nir tisubbfo fočaz sa zêzg-vi Aizanin Auseğa ummugsnadil, vere ve, Javle.
Isčelt, ve şez žunisk nezabyţe časisğlesatag imtag ve Javve iksavved zil iukeg re aik ens. Ve Zibsa Fustved sgezuesj igidaz ve Čekugevedel, ze žel fikk daresj ekabsaugel is ve Sačasdel, ze is susin zana vuzufuesj il ve fêsgaeveua fia ve sini utainvedel, assckvedel, Sedlkiaber edd Kestdavukel:
By the language comparisons he adopted, Ibn Janà˙ made practical application, of the great discovery that Hayyùj had revealed in the theory of the Hebrew root. Herein lies Ibn Janàh’s unique, fundamental,
and distinctive contribution to Hebrew lexicology. It was solely by means of Hayyùj’s novel discovery that Ibn Janàh was able to check out the comparisons of his predecessors and exclude those that were not compatible with the “tri-literal root” system.
Tita jiug zedd aik ens, ab iğğascek, erğakugezia imug vere fredzdag sa foinisluğ nelabainel is veul evin nezabyţe kimğel. Tazia ta velua reakeg nir jeda gez ve žecsdag edd scefofde-isče-naskan gisêğel: Našta.
J. Barr, “The ancient Semitic languages - The conflict between philology and linguistics”, TPhS 1968, 1969, 37-55.
W.R. Bodine, “Linguistics and philology in the study of ancient Near Eastern languages”, in Fs. Lambdin, p.39-54.
T. Bynon, “The Hamito-Semitic hypothesis and models of language relationship”, in A2CISCS, pp. 21-30.
S. Chaker, “Comparatisme et reconstruction dans le domaine chamito-sémitique: problèmes de méthodes et de limites”, CLAIX 8, 1990, 161-186.
M. Cohen, “Quelques mots sur comparaison et restitution”, in HS, pp. 21-24.
C. Cohen, “The ‘Held method’ for comparative Semitic philology”, JA ES 19, 1989, 9-23.
L.E. Edzard, Polygenesis, convergence, and entropy : an alternative model of linguistic evolution applied to Semitic linguistics, Wiesbaden 1998 [rev.: Diachronica 17, 2000, 445-451 (D.D. Testen); AnL 42/ 2000, 592-595 (D.L. Appleyard); WZKM 93, 2003, 259-260 (G. Khan); OLZ 97, 2002, cols. 5-26 (R. Voigt); Kratylos 47, 2002, 150-153 (R. Stempel)].
C. Ehret, “Language change and the material correlates of language and ethnic shift”, Antiquity 62, 1988, 564-574.
R. Dirven, “The use of languages and langue policies in Africa: goals of the LiCCA program” [LICCA = Languages in Contact & Conflict in Africa], IJSL 100-101, 1993, 179-189.
G. Garbini, “Problemi di metodo relativo alla comparazione lingüística semitica: cento anni dopo”, AIO 37, 1977, 113-124.
R.Garr, “The Comparartive Method in Semitic Lingusitics”, AuOr 23, 2005, 17-21.
G. Goldenberg, “The contribution of semitic languages to linguistic thinking”, JEOL 30, 1987, 107-115.
G. Goldenberg, “Congruence and comitative and a problem of linguistic typology”, in A2CILCS, pp. 133-147.
G. Goldenberg, “Semitic linguistics andgeneral linguistics”, in IOS XX, pp. 21-41.
R. Hetzron, “Where the grammar fails”, Language 51, 1975, 859-872.
J.H. Hosper, ed., General linguistics and the teaching of dead Hamito-Semitic languages. Proceedings of the Symposium held in Groningen, 7th-8th ovember, 1975 on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Semitic Studies and ear Eastern Archaeology of the State University at Groningen (StSLL 9), Leiden 1978 [rev.: JAOS 104, 1984, 383-384 (J.L. Malone)].
J. Huehnergard, “New Directions in the Study of Semitic Languages”, in SA E, pp. 251-272.
P.M. Kožin, “Society and culture (Palaeosociology in archaeology and liguistics) (Russ.), in LRDSV 1989/1, pp.55-67.
S.A. Kaufman, “Semitics: Directions and Re-Directions”, in SA E, pp. 273-282.
S.V. Kullanda, “Where does liguistics end and where does history begin?”, in LRDSV 1989/1, pp. 68-74.
S. Levin, “What does cognate mean?”, GL 36, 1996, 257-269 [In reply to A. Kaye and other reviewers of Semitic and Indo-European].
S. Levin, “Lexical methods in Afroasiatic or Hamito-Semitic”, GL 37, 1997, 157-181 [rev. art. on Orel-Stolvoba and Ehret’s works].
J.L. Malone, “Rules of synchronic analogy: A proposal based on evidence from three Semitic languages”, FL 5, 1969, 534-559 [Tiberian Hebrew, Classic Mandaic, Classic Ethiopic].
A. Manaster Ramer, P.A. Michalove, “Methodologies in long-range comparison and the reconstruction of Nostratic”, Linguistics 35, 1997, 589-596 [rev. art. on Bomhard-Kerns, The ostratic Macrofamily]
M.L. Mayer, “Ricerche sul problema dei rapporti fra lingue indouropee e lingue semitiche”, Acme 13, 1960, 77-100.
G.F. Meier, “Wortprobleme in asiatischen Sprachen”, ZPhon 34, 1981, 51-58, 279-284.
A. Meillet, La méthode comparative en linguistique historique, Paris 1925 (repr. 1966; Eng. ver. 1967).
A. Murtonen, Outline of a general theory of linguistics, Melbourne 1969 [rev.: Linguistique 6, 1970/2, 134-137 (C. Levy)].
A. Murtonen, “Brief Outline of Linguistic Analysis on an Empirical Basis”, in Fs. Petrá…ek, pp. 393-414.
H.-P. Müller, “Zur Theorie der historisch vergleichenden Grammatik dargestellt am sprachgeschitlichen Kontext des Althebräischen”, Fs. Leslau 1991 II, pp. 1100-1118.
C. Rabin, “Problems of inter-branch comparison”, in StChAL, pp. 65-77.
F. Rundgren, “Principia linguistica Semitica”, OS 29, 1980 (1981), 32-102 [(0. Introd.). 1.The permutati on xlq. 2. Principia linguistica. 3. The ideomorpheme xlq in some verbal forms. 4. The text as a network].
Gr. Savà, M. Tosco, “La mort es langues en domaine chamito-sémitique”, in LChSAA 2, pp. 279-290.
R. H. Schmidt, “Historische Sprachvergleichung und ihre typologische Ergänzung”, ZDMG 116, 1966, 8-22.
J. Shimron, ed., Language processing and acquisition in languages of Semitic, root-based-morphology (Language acquisition & language disorders, 28), Amsterdam 2003.
S.A. Starostin, “Historico-comparative linguistics and lexicography” (Russ.), in LRDSV 1989/1, pp. 3-39.
O. Szemerényi, Trends and Tasks in Comparative Philology, London 1960.
B. Turchetta, “Politica linguistica e identitá etnica in contesto rnultilingue”, in ECL, pp. 495-505.
G. W. Tzereteli, “Zur Frage der Beziehungen zwischen den semitischen und hamitischen Sprachen”, MIO 16 (1970) 271-280.
R.Voigt, “Rekonstruktion oder Konvergenz? Zur Methodik in der semitischen Sprachwissenschaft”, OLZ 97, 2002, cols. 5-26.
V.V. Struve-M.A. Korostovcek, “Semitologija kak otrasl’ vostokovedenija” (Semitology as a branch of Oriental Studies), in SJMP, pp. 33-40.
An. Zaborski, “Ethnos, language communities and language shift: some problems and examples in case of Afroasiatic languages” - [187], 169-179. 1998.
