5,467
edits
Vadi: Difference between revisions
→Footnotes
m (→Footnotes) |
|||
| Line 718: | Line 718: | ||
2) Schumann argues that gemination does not occur in Vadi, as the authors' ''Širkattarnaft'' does not show any gemination. This argument, as Tashunka notes, is problematic in that most Minhast writings, both past and present, rarely use the gemination diacritic. Evidence of gemination in Vadi surfaces in the orthography between morpheme boundaries where the vowel of the syllable preceding the geminate consonant is lengthened, and the following syllable or an inserted "dummy syllable" starts with a voiced consonant to indicate fortition. Schumann argues this is partial reduplication used for derivation, but Iyyaħmi concurs with Tashunka's analysis. | 2) Schumann argues that gemination does not occur in Vadi, as the authors' ''Širkattarnaft'' does not show any gemination. This argument, as Tashunka notes, is problematic in that most Minhast writings, both past and present, rarely use the gemination diacritic. Evidence of gemination in Vadi surfaces in the orthography between morpheme boundaries where the vowel of the syllable preceding the geminate consonant is lengthened, and the following syllable or an inserted "dummy syllable" starts with a voiced consonant to indicate fortition. Schumann argues this is partial reduplication used for derivation, but Iyyaħmi concurs with Tashunka's analysis. | ||
3) This particular gloss is an excellent example of how Schumann and Iyyaħmi's analyses diverge due to the ambiguities introduced by the litigants' unorthodox spelling. Unlike Schumann, Iyyaħmi's Ammerkast-derived transcription follows the ''Širkattarnaft'' more closely. Some segments are joined by a dash: this is Iyyaħmi's method of indicating that the author is trying to represent some sort of sandhi. In this case, the preceding word ''Dyiney'' triggers ''kusarʌ'' to undergo voicing of the initial consonant coupled with syncope, yielding /gzarʌ/. Iyyaħmi's transcription | 3) This particular gloss is an excellent example of how Schumann and Iyyaħmi's analyses diverge due to the ambiguities introduced by the litigants' unorthodox spelling. Unlike Schumann, Iyyaħmi's Ammerkast-derived transcription follows the ''Širkattarnaft'' more closely. Some segments are joined by a dash: this is Iyyaħmi's method of indicating that the author is trying to represent some sort of sandhi, who has written a single character preceding the word whose initial phone has undergone some sandhi process.. In this case, the preceding word ''Dyiney'' triggers ''kusarʌ'' to undergo voicing of the initial consonant coupled with syncope, yielding /gzarʌ/. The character for ''gu'' appears separately, which may lead to some readers concluding the character as a separate word. In fact, Schumann has glossed this separate character as a word, which he glosses in morphemic gloss as a word or particle with unknown meaning. Iyyaħmi's representation conveys the sandhi process ''kusarʌ'' undergoes. As a result, Iyyaħmi's transcription yields two fewer words than Schumann's, the very two that Schumann has glossed as independent words. Iyyaħmi's gloss ultimately shows there are no unknown, independent words in the ligigant's text. | ||
<!-- Template area --> | <!-- Template area --> | ||