5,466
edits
Vadi: Difference between revisions
m
→Footnotes
m (→Introduction) |
m (→Footnotes) |
||
| Line 1,089: | Line 1,089: | ||
1) ''Šibbūru'' is an Irish Gaelic borrowing into Minhast, derived from Irish ''séimhiú'' "lenition", and ''urú'' "eclipsis". This loanword was imported by Minhast Vadists to represent their view that mutations were a major feature of Vadi affecting both phonology and morphology. This is in diametrical opposition of the Traditionalist school, which maintains that Vadi phonology and phonotactics do not exhibit "exotic pseudo-Celtic" characteristics. | 1) ''Šibbūru'' is an Irish Gaelic borrowing into Minhast, derived from Irish ''séimhiú'' "lenition", and ''urú'' "eclipsis". This loanword was imported by Minhast Vadists to represent their view that mutations were a major feature of Vadi affecting both phonology and morphology. This is in diametrical opposition of the Traditionalist school, which maintains that Vadi phonology and phonotactics do not exhibit "exotic pseudo-Celtic" characteristics. | ||
An alternative name to ''Šibbūru'', also used often, is the indigenous Upper Minhast term, '' | An alternative name to ''Šibbūru'', also used often, is the indigenous Upper Minhast term, ''Saxtakyattīluan Saxtidammaftīluan'', lit. "The tongue becomes both hard and soft", i.e. fortition and lenition. | ||
2) Much of Schumann's objections to Iyyaħmi's findings is that the spelling anomaly categories the latter assembled were based on conjecture and that Iyyaħmi fitted his conclusions to the sample. A major counter-criticism to Schumann's objections, notably from Dr. Tashunka, is that although Schumann is "competent" in the ''Širkattarnaft'', he lacks a full understanding of its development and evolution, and how it was historically used by other non-Minhast minority speakers, namely the Peshpeg and Ín Duári, to transcribe their respective languages; the ''Širkattarnaft'' in the two speech communities also show the use of digraphs, unorthodox usage of the characters, and other anomalies in spelling. It has been argued that Schumann remains committed to the traditional model of Vadi phonology and phonotactics, and that he has failed to provide an alternate model that would explain the discrepancies more effectively than Iyyaħmi. While it can be argued that Schumann has an interest in maintaining the traditional model because an alternative model would invalidate his previous work, it must also be recognized that Iyyaħmi studied under Tashunka, who would understandably side with his prodigy.<br/> | 2) Much of Schumann's objections to Iyyaħmi's findings is that the spelling anomaly categories the latter assembled were based on conjecture and that Iyyaħmi fitted his conclusions to the sample. A major counter-criticism to Schumann's objections, notably from Dr. Tashunka, is that although Schumann is "competent" in the ''Širkattarnaft'', he lacks a full understanding of its development and evolution, and how it was historically used by other non-Minhast minority speakers, namely the Peshpeg and Ín Duári, to transcribe their respective languages; the ''Širkattarnaft'' in the two speech communities also show the use of digraphs, unorthodox usage of the characters, and other anomalies in spelling. It has been argued that Schumann remains committed to the traditional model of Vadi phonology and phonotactics, and that he has failed to provide an alternate model that would explain the discrepancies more effectively than Iyyaħmi. While it can be argued that Schumann has an interest in maintaining the traditional model because an alternative model would invalidate his previous work, it must also be recognized that Iyyaħmi studied under Tashunka, who would understandably side with his prodigy.<br/> | ||