Reconstruction talk:Proto-Semitic/kaʔs-

Reconstruction is Wrong
The central problem with reconstructing *kaʔs- 'cup' is that it doesn't fit any of the reflexes except Arabic. Rather, the word should be reconstructed as *kās-, and the page needs to be merged. HebrewBotanist (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong, the reflexes have the expected outcome from this form, as from . Apparently the Eblaite also has a glottal plosive therein, which to express cuneiform was not fit. Fay Freak (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fay Freak: It's true thought that in Akkadian glottal stops would have turned an /a/ into /e/ (like in, so one does wonder why *kaʔs- didn't give "kēsum"... Sartma (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See this Twitter thread for a discussion. https://twitter.com/EphraimAyil/status/1542328260192878592 HebrewBotanist (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, this one is a strong one considering the origin of : ”might have been introduced as a second step into Arabic by analogy with رأس.” I am not confident as Marijn von Putten about the conclusiveness of comparative evidence and esoteric Qurʾān reading arguments though – how often is such a pseudocorrection? Thanks for the link. Fay Freak (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)