5,467
edits
Vadi: Difference between revisions
m
→Gender
m (→Orthography) |
m (→Gender) |
||
| Line 417: | Line 417: | ||
|- | |- | ||
! Finger | ! Finger | ||
| patáka | | patáka, patári | ||
| pata | | pata | ||
| -- | | -- | ||
| Line 437: | Line 437: | ||
|} | |} | ||
The singulative forms seem to roughly correspond with animacy. The ''-(r)i'' forms seem associated with animate nouns, whereas the ''-ka'' forms | The singulative forms seem to roughly correspond with animacy. The ''-(r)i'' forms seem associated with animate nouns, whereas the ''-ka'' forms appear to have originally descended inananimates. However, exceptions do appear, as in ''uzáka'' instead of expected ''uzap(r)i'' "hand"; others have more than one form, as in the case of ''patáka, patári'', the singulative forms for "finger". The plural forms, consisting of the sole affix ''-a'', shows no animacy distinction. | ||
Unfortunately, these body parts are the only ones attested from the Scriptum. The last two body parts listed were extracted from letters that became especially laced with various vulgar ad hominems between the two litigants. Note also that the two last terms have both the presumptive animate and inanimate forms. The inanimate forms appear to be used as proxy pronouns for the addressee (implying impotence), while the animate forms appear to be proxy pronouns for the addresser, especially in passages threatening physical violence. | Unfortunately, these body parts are the only ones attested from the Scriptum. The last two body parts listed were extracted from letters that became especially laced with various vulgar ad hominems between the two litigants. Note also that the two last terms have both the presumptive animate and inanimate forms. The inanimate forms appear to be used as proxy pronouns for the addressee (implying impotence), while the animate forms appear to be proxy pronouns for the addresser, especially in passages threatening physical violence. | ||