5,466
edits
Vadi: Difference between revisions
→Footnotes
m (→Case) |
|||
| Line 832: | Line 832: | ||
2) Schumann argues that gemination outside of Minhast loanwords 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 indicate gemination. 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 outside of Minhast loanwords 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 indicate gemination. 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 | 3) This particular gloss is an excellent example of how the divergence between Schumann and Iyyaħmi's orthographic systems can lead to different conclusions of the underlying grammatical structure. | ||
In the original ''Širkattarnaft'', | In the original ''Širkattarnaft'' of this sample, Iyyaħmi has indicated, per his system employing tildes, the mutations that occurred between the standalone characters and the word in which they trigger sandhi changes. In this case, the word ''Dyiney'' triggers ''kusarʌ'' to undergo voicing of the initial consonant as indicated by the tilde in ''gu~'' joined to ''kusarʌ''. Syncope also cooccurs with the elision of the /i/ of ''kilay''. Iyyaħmi's gloss yields the actual phonemic realization /gzarʌ/. | ||
In | In contrast, Schumann has glossed the original ''Širkattarnaft'' grapheme <gu> as a word, which has led his final morphemic gloss of <gu> as a word or particle with as-of-yet unknown meaning. Iyyaħmi's representation however 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 and avoids Schumann's erroneous conclusion of the <gu> grapheme as a separate morpheme. | ||
4) Iyyaħmi's reconstruction of ''erva yulka'' is based on a sentence from one of Éro's texts: | 4) Iyyaħmi's reconstruction of ''erva yulka'' is based on a sentence from one of Éro's texts: | ||