Reconstruction talk:Proto-Semitic/baʕl-

Shehri "ʔɔʕź"
This is supposed to be a descendant? I mean the b- could have been lost somehow, the "l" could have turned into "ź" (however that is pronounced). But it does look odd, so please double-check and explain. 2.202.159.64 01:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is listed under the root bʿl in Thomas Muir Johnstone’s Jibbali Lexicon p. 22, already there with cf. ʾl, hence Genealogical Classification of Semitic p. 180 fn. 503 Kogan puts it alternatively to *baʕl- instead of, then in Additions and Corrections he compares to only baʕl-. Discounting possible influence by , only *baʕl- is correct:  dedicates a chapter to “the loss of b”: As an operative rule, b is lost intervocalically in favour lengthening the second vowel, as also here the case after a preformative; the female equivalent is specifically provided as āʿlét < *ɛbaʿlét. p. 26: ź is  and an allophone of l. You know nothing about MSAL. Fay Freak (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)