Changes

Ge'ez was a [[Semitic language]] spoken in Ethiopia, which used an alphabet based on the alphabets of the Semitic peoples.<ref name="a">http://www.ethiopianhistory.com/Ge'ez</ref> It was the language of the [[Kingdom of Aksum]], which is located in present-day [[Ethiopia]].<ref name="a"/> It has been compared to [[Latin]], by some, in that the three languages spoken in Ethiopia are derived from it, similar to how [[Latin]] developed into [[Italian]], [[Spanish]], [[French]] and other languages.

Ge'ez was a [[Semitic language]] spoken in Ethiopia, which used an alphabet based on the alphabets of the Semitic peoples.<ref name="a">http://www.ethiopianhistory.com/Ge'ez</ref> It was the language of the [[Kingdom of Aksum]], which is located in present-day [[Ethiopia]].<ref name="a"/> It has been compared to [[Latin]], by some, in that the three languages spoken in Ethiopia are derived from it, similar to how [[Latin]] developed into [[Italian]], [[Spanish]], [[French]] and other languages.

==Differences between Semitic and Indo-European language structure==

==Differences between Semitic and [[Indo-European language]] structure==

Unlike Greek, which has an ample vocabulary, and case ending to determine which words are to be read with which words, what parts of speech (subject, object etc.), Semitic languages are contextual language - that is, relatively few words but each word having a variety of meanings. This requires knowledge of the literature, and literatures - that is, knowledge of the context to determine the precise meaning  This general rule is somewhat modified with respect to the Arabic language which does have case endings and does have a more replete vocabulary than Hebrew. (There is evidence that Hebrew and Aramaic once did case endings but they had dropped off in time.)  

Unlike Greek, which has an ample vocabulary, and case endings to determine which words are to be read with which words, what parts of speech (subject, object etc.), Semitic languages are contextual languages - that is, having relatively few words but each word having a variety of meanings. This requires knowledge of the literature, and of literatures - that is, knowledge of the context to determine the precise meaning. This general rule is somewhat modified with respect to the Arabic language which does have case endings and does have a more replete vocabulary than Hebrew. (There is evidence that Hebrew and Aramaic once did have case endings but they had dropped off in time.)  

Here are examples from Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic showing how case ending help tell which is subject, which is object, etc. thereby leaving the order of the words with respect to each other (syntax) more flexible, and how the lack of case endings require a more precise word order  

Here are examples from Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic showing how case ending helps tell which is subject, which is object, etc. thereby leaving the order of the words with respect to each other ([[syntax]]) more flexible, and how the lack of case endings requires a more precise word order.

Hebrew: "Eesh Elohim" may mean " man is God (a man is God)" or "man of God". (To mean either one, "Eesh" must be placed before "Elohim", already reducing flexibility in syntax). There is nothing at the end of these words to indicate what part of speech they are. So we must look outside to the context to determine whether the meaning is, or probably is, "man is God" or "man of God"  The context decides for us that 'man is God' is highly unlikely and that "man of God"is highly probable.  

Hebrew: "Eesh Elohim" may mean " man is God (a man is God)" or "man of God". (To mean either one, "Eesh" must be placed before "Elohim", already reducing flexibility in syntax). There is nothing at the end of these words to indicate what part of speech they are. So we must look outside to the context to determine whether the meaning is, or probably is, "man is God" or "man of God"  The context decides for us that 'man is God' is highly unlikely and that "man of God"is highly probable.  

[[Greek]]: "anthropos" (man) has "os" attached to the root "anthrop". This "os" tell us that this word is nominative and the subject of the sentence. Theou (of God) has "ou", meaning "of" attached to the root of "The" meaning God.  So there is no mistaking the meaning of "man of God" whether we have the word order of "anthropos theou" or "theou anthropos", or even separate the words by other modifying or qualifying words (Example: "What is this new being spoken by you teaching?" Acts 17:19 - bad English but good Greek). This allows for a variety of syntactical relations in Greek, and the general context is less determinative for meaning as it is in the Semitic group of languages. In addition, either one, "theou anthropos" or "anthropos theou" is stylisticly correct, or, at least, if not equally correct, it is for reasons other than being considered now.   

[[Greek]]: "anthropos" (man) has "os" attached to the root "anthrop". This "os" tells us that this word is nominative and the subject of the sentence. Theou (of God) has "ou", meaning "of", attached to the root of "The", meaning God.  So there is no mistaking the meaning of "man of God", whether we have the word order of "anthropos theou" or "theou anthropos", or even separate the words by other modifying or qualifying words (Example: "What is this new being spoken by you teaching?" Acts 17:19 - bad English but good Greek). This allows for a variety of syntactical relations in Greek, and the general context is less determinative for meaning, as it is in the Semitic group of languages. In addition, either one, "theou anthropos" or "anthropos theou", is stylisticly correct, or, at least, if not equally correct, it is for reasons other than being considered now.   

English : Though an Indo-European lannguage, words can be somewhat flexible and precise in meaning (but nevertheless stylistic stiff), by changing word order and insertion, in this case, of the word "of". Example. "the man of God"  and " of God, the man" means the same thing but the latter is stilted. "man" and "God" have nothing to indicate which is subject, object, etc.  

English: Though an Indo-European language, English words can be somewhat flexible and precise in meaning (but nevertheless stylistically stiff), by changing word order and insertion, in this case, of the word "of". Example. "the man of God"  and " of God, the man" means the same thing but the latter is stilted: "man" and "God" have nothing to indicate which is subject, object, etc.  

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 and consonantal-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 sentences. "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 allows 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]].