Talk:Derived stem

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Who said that "many verbs, however, don't conform to this pattern, though the etymology of some may point to conformance historically"? Can you please name one verb that doesn't?Eddau (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, Hebrew D-B-R, pi`el form, isn't semantically intensive or causative, and there's no qal form for it to be the intensive or causative of, correct? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, bad example, the implication is "creating of words". But now that I'm home and can reference Barron's 501 Arabic Verbs. Form III "sometimes involves an element of reciprocity" [emphasis mine]. "Some verbs in Form V have a reflexive element .... But no consistent meaning is attached to this form." "Form VIII ... often serves as a reflexive for verbs that are transitive in Form I ... [b]ut there is no reliable element of meaning associated with Form VIII." "Form X ... is often associated with asking for a thing implied by the root, .... It can also imply an attitude toward something designated by the root, .... It is sometimes reflexive ..." [emphasis mine].

Is the modern relationship between وَالَى and تَوَلَّى readily apparent? Or حَدَثَ and تَحَدَّثَ? Is there a reflexive connotation in modern إجْتَهَدَ?

A similar point is made about Hebrew here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to make some edits and additions to this page in the coming days. First among these, I would like to present the verb stems organized in a clearer table format, and give not only the Arabic and corresponding Hebrew forms, but also add Akkadian, Syriac, Ge'ez, Jibballi/Shehri, as well as reconstructed proto-Semitic forms, drawing from Patrick Bennett's 1998 "Comparative Semitic Linguistics: A Manual". Kkassam (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]