Changes

Arabic (classical), as mentioned above does have case endings and so is an example of the ''mixing'' of root language consonental-determinative-for-meaning language, and more of a freedom in word order (syntax)on the "Indo-European" style Example: "Beit" means house. "Beitu"- house is nominative - subject of sentencs. "Beiti" is to or for a house, or indirect object, and "Beita" (or Beitan) is accusative or the direct object of the sentence.  "Ana mawjuud filbeit'''i''' ilkabir'''i'''" - I am in the big house (in the house, the big one) ''indirect'' object. Ana ar'a' albeit'''a''' alkabir'''a''' I see the big house (the house, the big one)- ''direct'' object. The precision that case endings give allow flexibility with full comprehension and style no matter the positioning of the words - The big house I see. I see the big house. I, the house, the big one, see.  Yet, as in Hebrew and Aramaic, the particular meaning of the words is determined by its consonental roots, rather than the vowels.

Arabic (classical), as mentioned above does have case endings and so is an example of the ''mixing'' of root language consonental-determinative-for-meaning language, and more of a freedom in word order (syntax)on the "Indo-European" style Example: "Beit" means house. "Beitu"- house is nominative - subject of sentencs. "Beiti" is to or for a house, or indirect object, and "Beita" (or Beitan) is accusative or the direct object of the sentence.  "Ana mawjuud filbeit'''i''' ilkabir'''i'''" - I am in the big house (in the house, the big one) ''indirect'' object. Ana ar'a' albeit'''a''' alkabir'''a''' I see the big house (the house, the big one)- ''direct'' object. The precision that case endings give allow flexibility with full comprehension and style no matter the positioning of the words - The big house I see. I see the big house. I, the house, the big one, see.  Yet, as in Hebrew and Aramaic, the particular meaning of the words is determined by its consonental roots, rather than the vowels.

Another difference is that, at least in the classical Semitic languages, [[verb]]s were conjugated for [[aspect (grammar)|aspect]] (perfect or imperfect) rather than tense.  By contrast, Indo-European languages are known for verb conjugations that distinguish both aspect and tense.  However, modern Semitic languages have developed ways to distinguish tense as well.  For example, in Modern Hebrew, the old perfect and imperfect aspects are used as past and future tenses, respectively, while the present tense is based on a participle.

Another difference is that, at least in the classical Semitic languages, [[verb]]s were conjugated for [[aspect (grammar)|aspect]] (perfect or imperfect) rather than tense.  By contrast, Indo-European languages are known for verb conjugations that distinguish both aspect and tense.  However, modern Semitic languages have developed ways to distinguish tense as well.  For example, in Modern Hebrew, the old perfect and imperfect aspects are used as past and future tenses, respectively, while the present tense is based on a [[participle]].

==See Also==

==See Also==