|
|
| Line 245: |
Line 245: |
|
| |
|
| ===Phonotactics=== | | ===Phonotactics=== |
| Before the Kalapái Scriptum was discovered, little was known of Vadi phonotactics. The spelling in the Aħħur texts was consistently CV, with CVn allowed in final syllables. The spelling yielded no discernible evidence of sandhi processes, if anything it suggested that Vadi phonotactics were quite uncomplicated. Once the Kalapái Scriptum was discovered, this viewpoint shifted significantly, creating a rift in the Vadist community which led to its split into the Traditionalist and Šibbūru schools.
| |
|
| |
|
| For the Šibbūru school, the excellent condition of the texts from the Scriptum were a veritable gold mine. It led to a revolutionary reevaluation of Vadi phonology and phonotactics and revealed that Vadi phonotactics were anything but simple. If anything, the Scriptum revealed that just like the knowledge of Vadi phonology was incomplete, its phonotactics were also greatly underestimated.
| |
|
| |
| Iyyaħmi's work led to the discovery of consonantal mutations reminiscent of the Celtic languages, which initially sparked much controversy in the Vadist community. To support his theory, he grouped several of the [[Vadi#Orthographic_Systems |spelling anomalies]] shared by ''both'' litigants into different categories, and via various statistical analyses, he was able to establish frequencies of these anomaly classes which demonstrated that the litigants' spellings were anything but random, but followed discernible patterns that were statistically significant. These patterns led Iyyaħmi to conclude that only underlying sandhi processes could account for these spelling patterns. Indeed, his statistical evidence was so compelling (Iyyaħmi's analyses were significant with a ''p''-value of less than .05) that more Vadists have joined the Šibbūru school, agreeing that mutations and other sandhi processes are indeed a significant feature of the language.
| |
|
| |
| Regardless, the Traditionalists have been vocal about their criticisms towards Iyyaħmi's statistical analyses.[[Vadi#Footnotes |<sup>2</sup>]] In particular, Schumann has argued, and continues to maintain, that the spelling anomalies in the texts simply indicate dialectal differences between the litigants.[[Vadi#Footnotes |<sup>3</sup>]] Iyyaħmi does agree that dialectal differences may account for some of the spelling anomalies. However, this argument alone is too simplistic and is insufficient to explain away the frequencies.
| |
|
| |
|
| ====Mutations==== | | ====Mutations==== |
| According to the Šibbūru school, Vadi mutations fall two broad mutation processes, namely fortition and lenition, which can be further divided into several subtypes:
| |
|
| |
| {| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
| |
| |+ '''Mutation Classification Table'''
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Type || Subtype || Realization || Trigger
| |
| |-
| |
| ! rowspan="4"| Fortition
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Voicing
| |
| | p -> b <br/> t -> d <br/> k -> g
| |
| |
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Defricativization
| |
| | ð -> d<br/> θ -> t<br/> s -> θ<br/> f -> p
| |
| |
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Gemination
| |
| | p -> pp <br/> k -> kk <br/> t -> tt <br/> l -> ll <br/> n, m -> mm <br/> m, n -> nn
| |
| | Etymologically resulted from a preceding nasal consonant /m,n/
| |
| |-
| |
| ! rowspan="3" | Lenition
| |
| ! Spirantization
| |
| | d -> ð<br/> t -> θ<br/> θ -> s <br/> ɫ -> s̺ <br/> p -> f
| |
| |
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Palatalization
| |
| | d -> d͡ʒ <br/> k, t -> t͡ʃ <br/> s -> ʃ <br/> n -> ɲ
| |
| |
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Debuccalization
| |
| | s -> h
| |
| |
| |
| |-
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| For example, the combination of the past tense marker ''-hai-'' plus the genitive triggers voiced fortition and syncope with ''kilay'' "heart, interior" in the phrase (Tashunka's transcription) ''Junyé:ne glai haglev man ukanyen'' "I will enter your house and ruin you", i.e. ''junyé:ne glái << ju-la-<u>nai</u>-<u>na</u> kilay''. Moreover, the affix triggers sandhi processes in the third person affix ''-la-'', namely the simultaneous syncope of the fronting of /a/ to /ɛ:/ and assimilation and nasal palatalization of /l/ to /ɲ/, yielding the final realization of the pronominal affix to /ɲɛ:/ ''-nyé:''.
| |
|
| |
| If the future marker ''-nai-'' did not appear, the aforementioned sandhi would not be triggered. Instead, the result will be ''Julana <u>ki</u>lai haglev man ukanyen'' "I am entering your house to ruin you."
| |
|
| |
| Gemination[[Vadi#Footnotes |<sup>2</sup>]] occurs among a restricted set of consonants, particularly /k/, /n/, /l/ and /t/. Consonantal mutations occur, with evidence of both lenition and fortition. Metathesis also occurs with certain consonantal combinations, traceable to Minhast influence.
| |
|
| |
| ====Syncope==== | | ====Syncope==== |
|
| |
|
| Line 316: |
Line 267: |
| Unlike the Aħħur materials, the Scriptum is replete by numerous digraphs. | | Unlike the Aħħur materials, the Scriptum is replete by numerous digraphs. |
|
| |
|
| While the Širkattarnaft, an abugida, works quite well for the Minhast language, it has presented a major challenge to Vadists in determining the phonology and phonotactics of Vadi. Several spelling variants and inconsistencies in the earliest dated texts are wildly aberrant from both within the texts and that of later documents. The extreme spelling discrepancies and anomalies, which steadily occurred less frequently in later texts, indicate that the litigants' had started out with a minimal knowledge of the Širkattarnaft (Iyyaħmi, 2015, pp. 72–92). Compelling evidence that the litigants' literacy was acquired late in their lives comes from external sources in the form of contemporaneous notes, diaries, and other records by Minhast translators hired by the litigants. One such account is about the earliest known letter, written by the litigant Sorvin. It is dated to the administration of Prefect Heyaktuman (1856-1861), translated by a Dog Speaker by the name of Uyyur. Prior to delivering the letter to the prefect, Uyyur wrote in his diary: ''"Sapim redad takmišširkatikmampi, šūmim irriyērum addua nuħhasušnirkattirikmaru. Bakran hatā' wam Minhast takistišpintanusillišattarikmuš? Kirimtirakt sukkurgammahan"'', "These men do not know how to write, they even write the same word in several different ways. Why don't they just learn Minhast (instead)? Our language is better (than theirs) anyway." | | While the Širkattarnaft, an abugida, works quite well for the Minhast language, it has presented a major challenge to Vadists in determining the phonology and phonotactics of Vadi. Several spelling variants and inconsistencies in the earliest dated texts are wildly aberrant from both within the texts and that of later documents. |
| | |
| ===Traditionalist Romanized System=== | | ===Traditionalist Romanized System=== |
|
| |
|
| Line 327: |
Line 277: |
| |- | | |- |
| |} | | |} |
|
| |
| ===Illum "Bridge" System===
| |
|
| |
| Within Minhay, Iyyaħmi's publications use the original ''Širkattarnaft'' to maintain Vadi's historical link with the actual system in the Scriptum; the litigants' idiosyncratic use of the ''Širkattarnaft'' is also well known among native Minhast linguists. However, for international publications, Iyyaħmi uses his Romanized system for transcribing Vadi. This transcription system aims to combine the phonemic goals of the ''Ammerkast'' system with that of the ''Širkattarnaft'' <u>as used by the litigants</u>. For these reasons, Iyyaħmi calls this the ''Illum'' (bridge) system.
| |
|
| |
| Iyyaħmi new system was a compromise system of providing a phonetic representation of the ''Širkattarnaft'' where the litigants used it in the orthodox Minhast manner, while at the same time including the digraphs, spelling anomalies and irregularities the litigants used to represent Vadi phonemes not found in the ''Širkattarnaft'', or to represent cues that a mutation has taken place. Iyyaħmi's system was inspired by Assyriologists who use a combination of hybrid system employing characters to provide a phonemic representation of Akkadian glyphs for transcribing phonemes, intermixed with a convention of representing Sumerian ideograms, also using Latin characters.
| |
|
| |
| {| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! colspan="3" | Iyyaħmi's ''Illum'' Transcription System
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Type
| |
| ! Phonemes <br/>([[Minhast#Orthography|Ammerkast-Derived]])
| |
| ! Romanized <br/> Širkattarnaft <br/> Digraphs
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Vowels
| |
| | a, ā <br/> e, ē <br/> i, ī <br/> u, ū
| |
| | (none)
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Vowel <br/> Digraphs
| |
| | á, â <br/> é, ê <br/> í, î <br/> o, ō <br/> ó, ô, <br/> ú, ū
| |
| | <MIN><'a>, <MIN><'ā> <br/> <MIN><'e>, <MIN><'ē> <br/> <MIN><'i>, <MIN><'ī> <br/> <SUT><'o>, < SUT ><'ō> <br/> <MIN><'o>, <MIN><'ō> <br/><MIN><'u>, <MIN><'ū>
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Consonants
| |
| | b, p, f <br/> d, t <br/> g, k <br/> n, m <br/> l, r <br/> z, s, š <br/> h, w, y
| |
| | (none)
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Consonants <br/> Digraphs
| |
| | v <br/> d͡ʒ <br/> ð <br/> θ <br/> ɲ <br/> ɬ <br/> s̺
| |
| | <bif> <br/> <diy> <br/> <difš>, <dift> <br/> <fiħy> <br/> <niħy> <br/> <fisl> <br/> <'isš>
| |
| |-
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Iyyaħmi's system also contains stand-alone graphemes that are used to signify where mutations have taken place:
| |
| {| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
| |
| |+ '''Mutation Signs Table'''
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Mutation Type || Subtype || Grapheme || Affected phonemes
| |
| |-
| |
| ! rowspan="4"| Fortition
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Voicing
| |
| | <gu>
| |
| | /p/: <gu> ~ <nowiki><p></nowiki> -> /b/ <br/> /t/: <gu> ~ <t> -> /d/ <br/> /k/: <gu> ~ <k> -> /g/
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Defricativization
| |
| | <du>
| |
| | /ð/: <du> ~ <difš>, <dift> -> /d/<br/> θ -> t<br/> s -> θ<br/> f -> p
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Gemination
| |
| | <gu>
| |
| | p -> pp <br/> k -> kk <br/> t -> tt <br/> l -> ll <br/> n, m -> mm <br/> m, n -> nn
| |
| |-
| |
| ! rowspan="3" | Lenition
| |
| ! Spirantization
| |
| | <fu>
| |
| | d -> ð<br/> t -> θ<br/> θ -> s <br/> ɫ -> s̺ <br/> p -> f <br/> b -> v
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Palatalization
| |
| | <yu>
| |
| | d -> d͡ʒ <br/> t -> t͡ʃ <br/> s ->ʃ
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Debuccalization
| |
| | <hi>
| |
| |
| |
| |-
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
| ===Tashunka System===
| |
| Tashunka incorporated Iyyaħmi new findings on Vadi phonology and phonotactics to an alternate orthography focused on the actual phonetic realization <u>after</u> sandhi processes were applied. Tashunka's system has become very popular within the Šibbūru school, and has become prevalent due to its simplicity and focus on the final phonetic realization in a format familiar to many linguists who utilize the Americanist system.
| |
|
| |
| The Tashunka system indicates stress with an acute accent, and vowel length by a colon, e.g. ''ta:dévi'' "encroachment". The complete Tashunka system is represented in the following table:
| |
|
| |
| {| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! | Tashunka's Romanization
| |
| |-
| |
| | a, ã, á, e, é, i, í, í, o, ó, u, ú, b, p, f, v, d, ð, t, θ, dj [d͡ʒ], g, k, n, m, l, ɬ, r, z, s, s̺, š, j [ʒ] h, w, y
| |
| |-
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| One phoneme represented in Tashunka's system that is absent in Iyyaħmi's system is /ã/. In some texts, a certain ideograph, the <MIN> ideogram appears twice in a row followed by the ''Širkattarnaft'' character <'ā> representing the glottal stop followed by a long vowel. In other texts this ideograph is absent, even though the words have the same meaning. So whether the phoneme /ã/ exists in Vadi phonology remains conjectural.
| |
|
| |
| Because of the litigants' usage of the Širkattarnaft, and the controversy surrounding mutations in Vadi phonotactics, significant differences in the IPA representation among Vadists. The IPA of Iyyaħmi reflects his more recent work on how the ''Širkattarnaft'' was used to represent Vadi phonology and phonotactics, and for the most part Tashunka's IPA is mostly concordant with that of Iyyaħmi. The Traditionalist system Schumann uses is the main source of discordant IPA renditions of the same text. These divergences can impact other areas of reconstructing the Vadi language, as the IPA rendition in one system may yield separate words or morphemes that are lacking in the other system.
| |
|
| |
| The existence of the Aħħur texts have only served to add confusion, as the spelling in some of the fragments of the textual material is consistent and regular, suggesting the Vadi phonemic inventory is even smaller than that of Minhast. A compromise solution has been advanced by a minority of Vadists, that the Aħħur texts represent an even later form of Vadi increasingly influenced by the dominant Minhast language. However, the evidence for this alternative hypothesis has thus far remained inconclusive, as there are other texts in the Aħħur collection that contain spelling anomalies of their own, albeit different from those of the Scriptum. Alternative non-linguistic tests for this hypothesis have been proposed, the most recent one being carbon dating of the Aħħur and Kalapái parchments. Unfortunately, carbon dating analysis of the texts cannot provide support for that hypothesis as both corpora have been already contaminated by the number of hands that have handled the material.
| |
|
| |
| In this article, the Tashunka transcription system will be used for transcribing texts according to the Šibbūru model, while Schumann's will be used for the Traditionalist model. Where mutation information is important, Iyyaħmi's system will be employed.
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Morphology== | | ==Morphology== |
| <!-- How do the words in your language look? How do you derive words from others? Do you have cases? Are verbs inflected? Do nouns differ from adjectives? Do adjectives differ from verbs? Etc. --> | | <!-- How do the words in your language look? How do you derive words from others? Do you have cases? Are verbs inflected? Do nouns differ from adjectives? Do adjectives differ from verbs? Etc. --> |
| Vadi is a mildly fusional language with some agglutinative characteristics. Cliticization is a prominent feature of the language, such that considerable debate has arisen as to whether some affixes should be reclassified as clitics. Further adding to this debate is the ambiguities arising from the orthography in the texts: a given morpheme may appear as part of a word, and other times may be written as separate and distinct from its target word. Where the morpheme is written separately from its host, the initial or internal phoneme of the separated morpheme is often represented by a different character from the one usually used when it is attached directly to its host. This most likely indicates some sort of sandhi process occurred, suggestive of an affixal status, despite being written separately. Recognizing the clitic-vs-affix debate remains a contested area, this article will again represent the Traditionalist and Šibbūru models. | | |
| | Vadi is a mildly fusional language with some agglutinative characteristics. Cliticization is a prominent feature of the language. |
|
| |
|
| ===Nouns=== | | ===Nouns=== |
| Line 500: |
Line 361: |
| | niata | | | niata |
| |} | | |} |
| | |
| | |
| | Number distinction in body part nouns displays an unusual split, one being the typical singulative-unmarked distinction, and the other being a plural-unmarked distinction. Body parts that usually come in pairs (e.g. hands), mass/collective (e.g. hair), or multiple instances (e.g. fingers) follow the singulative/non-singulative distinction. Those that occur (usually) as a single instance on the human body, such as the head, tongue, and nose follow a singular/plural distinction, with the singular being the unmarked condition. The last body part in the table follows a singulative-plural-unmarked distinction, a highly divergent pattern combined with possessing both an animate/inanimate distinction in the singulative form. How these forms arose remains speculative, but if the texts between the litigants is any guide, the form chosen was employed to intensify some of their more vitriolic correspondence, the animate singulative or plural form serving as the proxy noun of the speech transmitter, and the inanimate singulative or simple unmarked form serving as the proxy noun of the speech recipient. Regardless, the usual singulative determiner ''han/ha'' does not co-occur with singular body part nouns in any of the texts of the Scriptum, suggesting that double-marking with the determiner is ungrammatical. |
| | |
|
| |
|
| The singulative determiner ''ha/han'' (Traditionalist) or ''ha=/han='' (Šibbūru) does not surface before a singular body part noun; double-marking is barred. The singulative forms of body parts 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. | | The singulative determiner ''ha/han'' (Traditionalist) or ''ha=/han='' (Šibbūru) does not surface before a singular body part noun; double-marking is barred. The singulative forms of body parts 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. |
| Line 506: |
Line 371: |
|
| |
|
| =====Other Nouns===== | | =====Other Nouns===== |
| Evidence that Vadi has a more elaborate gender system can be observed by the effects of mutations triggered by nominal and verbal inflections, according to the Šibbūru School. Case suffixes may trigger lenition or fortition, depending on the target noun. Although at first glance it may seem that the type of mutation on a given noun is a lexical feature, Iyyaħmi's frequency analyses indicate that certain mutations cluster with nouns having certain sentience, animacy, and other features. These clusters appear in the most basal lexical items, such as family members, natural features, common animals, and basic tools like pottery. | | Evidence that Vadi has a more elaborate gender system can be observed by the effects of mutations triggered by nominal and verbal inflections, according to the Šibbūru School. Case suffixes may trigger lenition or fortition, depending on the target noun. |
| | |
| | |
| {| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
| |
| |+ '''Noun Classes'''
| |
| |-
| |
| ! colspan="2"| Trigger
| |
| ! colspan="6"|Class I
| |
| ! Class II
| |
| ! Class III
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Morpheme Type
| |
| ! Marker
| |
| ! Mutation Type
| |
| ! Mutation Target
| |
| ! Širkattarnaft <br/>Sign
| |
| ! Sign Position
| |
| ! Examples <br/> With Transformations
| |
| ! Meaning
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Genitive
| |
| | =na
| |
| | Fortition
| |
| | Follows genitive marker, precedes initial consonant of nominal roots
| |
| | gu
| |
| | Precedes nominal root
| |
| |
| |
| * -na ''gu'' kil → [NP]-na kil
| |
| | of the house, belonging to the house; within
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Singulative
| |
| | ha <br/> ha=
| |
| | Fortition
| |
| | Initial consonant of nominal roots
| |
| | gu
| |
| | Precedes singulative marker
| |
| |
| |
| * ''gu'' ha kil → hagil
| |
| | a/the house
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Past Tense
| |
| | hai
| |
| |
| |
| | []
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Future Tense
| |
| | nai
| |
| | []
| |
| | rilaia
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Hair
| |
| | varláka
| |
| | varlat
| |
| | --
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Lips
| |
| | túnturi
| |
| | tuntu
| |
| | --
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Tongue
| |
| | --
| |
| | nipáz
| |
| | nipáza
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Finger
| |
| | patáka
| |
| | pata
| |
| | --
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Hand
| |
| | uzáka
| |
| | uzap
| |
| | --
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Testicle
| |
| | vúlari
| |
| | vula
| |
| | --
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Penis
| |
| | niátari
| |
| | niat
| |
| | niata
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| ka-hai-na korzi ha=bulet odjo. (His dog seized the fox)
| |
| Kenyé: korzi havulet odjo
| |
| | |
| vs mutation:
| |
| | |
| Junyé:na glay (ji-ula-nai-na kilái)
| |
| | |
| Ji-na ha=korzi
| |
| | |
| Various suffixes, such as the past tense suffix ''-hai'' triggers mutation in many nouns, although the type of mutation that surfaces depends on neighbouring or even long-distance morphemes (e.g. when the allomorph ''hai'' co-occurs as a particle in sentence-final position), which part of a constituent phrase the noun occupies (i.e. head or non-head), among others. In the first example, ''korzi'' does not undergo mutation after the genitive ''-na'', whereas ''kilái'' undergoes voiced fortition.
| |
| | |
| Some nouns exhibit no mutation, particularly those denoting human beings.
| |
| | |
| | |
| {| class="bluetable lightbluebg mw-collapsible"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! rowspan="3" | Type
| |
| ! rowspan="3" style="padding:5px" | Affix/Clitic
| |
| ! colspan="6" | Noun Class
| |
| |-
| |
| ! colspan="3" | Class 1
| |
| ! colspan="3" | Class 2
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Position
| |
| ! Mutation Type
| |
| ! Example
| |
| ! Position
| |
| ! Mutation Type
| |
| ! Example
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Genitive
| |
| | -na
| |
| |
| |
| | rowspan="2" | Fortition
| |
| |
| |
| * Sample with gloss:
| |
| {{Gloss
| |
| |phrase = Jina<span style="color:red">g</span>orzi bikta bijiɬ <br/> di-yi-na <span style="color:red">gu</span> ku-wa-r-zi ha-b-fi-k-ta bi-d-yi-l ye he-n
| |
| | IPA =
| |
| | morphemes = Ji-na-∅-korzi bikta bijil-∅=hen
| |
| | gloss = 1S-GEN-CL1-dog.PL antler.PL flee-CL2=EMPH
| |
| | translation = My dogs dodge (the deer's) antlers.
| |
| }}
| |
| * Fortition of Class 1 nouns occurs when immediately preceded by the genitive suffix.
| |
| * The Širkattarnaft character <gu> signifies fortition of the first consonant of the next word.
| |
| * The character <wa> in ''ku-wa-r-zi'' signifies that <ku> should be pronounced /ko/. The litigants' representation of /o/ alternates wildly, so other possible renditions are ''ku-<span style="font-weight:bold;text-decoration:underline">'u-wa</span>-r-zi'', ''k<span style="font-weight:bold;text-decoration:underline">a-wa-'u</span>-r-zi'', or adding the character <'a> to the preceding word followed by <ku>, e.g. ''gu-<span style="font-weight:bold;text-decoration:underline">'a</span> ku-r-zi'', or even combining the former strategy with the insertion of the <wa> character, e.g. ''gu-<span style="font-weight:bold;text-decoration:underline">'a</span> ku-<span style="font-weight:bold;text-decoration:underline">wa</span>-r-zi''.
| |
| |
| |
| | Prenominal
| |
| | kilái -> glay "heart"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Past
| |
| | -hai
| |
| | Preverbal
| |
| |
| |
| * Sample with gloss:
| |
| {{Gloss
| |
| |phrase = Jinai<span style="color:red">g</span>orzi bikta bijiɬ <br/> di-yi-na-y <span style="color:red">gu</span> ku-wa-r-zi ha-b-fi-k-ta bi-d-yi-l ye he-n
| |
| | IPA =
| |
| | morphemes = Ji-na-hai-∅-korzi ∅-bikta bijil-∅=hen
| |
| | gloss = 1S-GEN-PST-CL1-dog.PL CL2-antler.PL flee-CL1=EMPH
| |
| | translation = My dogs dodged (the deer's) antlers.
| |
| }}
| |
| * Fortition of Class 1 nouns occurs with tense markers.
| |
| | Postverbal
| |
| | Lenition
| |
| | ukan hen -> ukany /ukaɲ/ "enter"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Emphatic
| |
| | =hen
| |
| | Postverbal
| |
| | Lenition
| |
| |
| |
| * Palatal Lenition by emphatic clitic ''=hen'', when preceded by a verb of motion, encodes motion towards semantic goal NPs, although exceptions exist.
| |
| {{Gloss
| |
| |phrase = Jinaigorzi bikta biji<span style="color:red">ɬ</span> <br/> di-yi-na-y-ha-y gu ku-wa-r-zi ha-b-fi-k-ta bi-d-yi-l <span style="color:red">ye</span> he-n
| |
| | IPA =
| |
| | morphemes = Ji-na-hai-ha=∅-korzi ∅-bikta bijou-∅=hen
| |
| | gloss = 1S-GEN-PST=SGV=CL1-dog CL2-antler flee-CL1=EMPH
| |
| | translation = My dog dodged (the deer's) antlers.
| |
| }}
| |
| | Postverbal
| |
| | Lenition
| |
| | ukan hen -> ukany /ukaɲ/ "enter"
| |
| |-
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
|
| ====Number==== | | ====Number==== |
| Number exhibits a two-way distinction in nouns: singular and non-singular. Singular number, or more accurately the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singulative_number Singulative], is explicitly marked with the determiner ''han/ha'' (Traditionalist view) or ''han=/ha='' (Šibbūru view). Plural and collective number are unmarked. Singular nouns beginning with a vowel are preceded by ''han/han='', while ''ha/ha='' appears before nouns beginning with a consonant. | | Number exhibits a two-way distinction in nouns: singular and non-singular. Singular number, or more accurately the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singulative_number Singulative], is explicitly marked with the determiner ''han/ha'' (Traditionalist view) or ''han=/ha='' (Šibbūru view). Plural and collective number are unmarked. Singular nouns beginning with a vowel are preceded by ''han/han='', while ''ha/ha='' appears before nouns beginning with a consonant. |
|
| |
|
| Sometimes the singulative is represented by inflection, as mentioned earlier for [[Vadi#Gender| body parts]]. Number distinction in body part nouns displays an unusual split, one being the typical singulative-unmarked distinction, and the other being a plural-unmarked distinction. Body parts that usually come in pairs (e.g. hands), mass/collective (e.g. hair), or multiple instances (e.g. fingers) follow the singulative/non-singulative distinction. Those that occur (usually) as a single instance on the human body, such as the head, tongue, and nose follow a singular/plural distinction, with the singular being the unmarked condition. The last body part in the table follows a singulative-plural-unmarked distinction, a highly divergent pattern combined with possessing both an animate/inanimate distinction in the singulative form. How these forms arose remains speculative, but if the texts between the litigants is any guide, the form chosen was employed to intensify some of their more vitriolic correspondence, the animate singulative or plural form serving as the proxy noun of the speech transmitter, and the inanimate singulative or simple unmarked form serving as the proxy noun of the speech recipient. Regardless, the usual singulative determiner ''han/ha'' does not co-occur with singular body part nouns in any of the texts of the Scriptum, suggesting that double-marking with the determiner is ungrammatical.
| |
|
| |
|
| ====Case==== | | ====Case==== |
| Line 798: |
Line 490: |
| }} | | }} |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| ????????
| |
| {{Gloss
| |
| |phrase = di-yi-u-l-ni-ħ-ye-y-ne gu kilay ha he ki-le-bi-f-e ma-n ʔu-ka-n yi he-n! (Iyyaħmi) / Junyé:na glay hailéva man ukɑ̃ny! (Tashunka) / Julanáina gu kilái ha he kileva mana, ukan yi hen! (Schumann)
| |
| | IPA = /d͡zu'ɲ:eɪnɛ glaɪ 'haɪlɛva mana u'kãɲ/ (Iyyaħmi, Tashunka) /d͡zula'naɪna gu kɪ'laɪ ha he kɪlɛva mana 'ukan ji hɛn/
| |
| | morphemes = ji-ula-nai-na kilái ha=kil-éva man ukan-hen / ji-úla-nai-na gu kilái ha he kil-eva mana ukan yi hen
| |
| | gloss = 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT-GEN house SGV=house-LOC go-EMPH / 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT-GEN soon heart SGV [he-PART] house-LOC still go wreak.havok [yi-PART] EMPH
| |
| | translation = I will enter your house and definitely ruin you! / I will soon enter your house and definitely ruin you!
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Pronouns=== | | ===Pronouns=== |
| Vadi pronouns do not mark for gender. Case marking on core arguments for transitive clauses do exhibit a nominative-accusative distinction, but only when both arguments are singular in number. | | Vadi pronouns do not mark for gender. Case marking on core arguments for transitive clauses do exhibit a nominative-accusative distinction, but only when both arguments are singular in number. |
|
| |
|
| The Sibbūru School has determined that Vadi pronouns also mark for tense, a rather uncommon feature cross-linguistically. These affixes trigger mutation on the pronoun. The Traditionalists however dispute this finding.
| |
|
| |
|
| ====Personal Pronouns==== | | ====Personal Pronouns==== |
| Line 833: |
Line 515: |
| | ka | | | ka |
| | kata | | | kata |
| |-
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Fortitioned forms:
| |
| {| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
| |
| |-
| |
| !
| |
| ! Singular
| |
| ! Plural
| |
| |-
| |
| ! First
| |
| | di
| |
| | dida
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Second
| |
| | yúlla
| |
| | yulda
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Third
| |
| | ga
| |
| | gada
| |
| |-
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
| Lenited forms:
| |
| {| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
| |
| |-
| |
| !
| |
| ! Singular
| |
| ! Plural
| |
| |-
| |
| ! First
| |
| | yi
| |
| | yiθa / yisa
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Second
| |
| | úza
| |
| | úθa / úsa
| |
| |-
| |
| ! Third
| |
| | ha
| |
| | haθa / hasa
| |
| |- | | |- |
| |} | | |} |
| Line 1,045: |
Line 684: |
| }} | | }} |
|
| |
|
| {{Gloss
| |
| |phrase = [insert example VERB with gloss here]
| |
| | IPA =
| |
| | morphemes = whatevs
| |
| | gloss = INTERROG-evs-NUMB
| |
| | translation = Whatever
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Numbers=== | | ===Numbers=== |
| Line 1,170: |
Line 802: |
|
| |
|
| ===Adjectives=== | | ===Adjectives=== |
| Modifiers in Vadi typically precede their heads, and this observation holds for adjectives. In terms of morphology, there are no special affixes that distinguish them from either nouns or verbs. Iyyaħmi believes they may trigger mutation, but admits that further analysis is needed. Interestingly, and unfortunately, the Scriptum contain far fewer adjectives than one would expect in such a significant corpora, and the ones that do occur are mostly in the forms of insults found in the [[Vadi#Ad-Hominems and Other Insults|''Waškixrapmakirimērumbustikmaban'']]. Unfortunately, even the texts in the ''Waškixrapmakirimērumbustikmaban'' contain relatively few adjectives, not enough for Iyyaħmi to determine whether a mutation has occurred or not. A major source of this difficulty is that the adjectives are found occur in phonemic environments that are unlikely to trigger sound changes. One such example from the corpora, cited by Iyyaħmi, follows: | | Modifiers in Vadi typically precede their heads, and this observation holds for adjectives. In terms of morphology, there are no special affixes that distinguish them from either nouns or verbs. Iyyaħmi believes they may trigger mutation, but admits that further analysis is needed. |
| | |
| {{Gloss
| |
| |phrase = Úla erva vúluka ran
| |
| | IPA = /'u:la erva 'vu:luka ran/
| |
| | morphemes = úla erva vúlu-ka ran
| |
| | gloss = 2S small testicle-INAN.SGV man
| |
| | translation = You have no ba**s! (lit. "You are a small one-testicled man")
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| The adjective ''erva'' "small" both begins and ends with a vowel, as seen from the Ammerkast and the original ''Širkattarnaft'' text. No mutation, vowel syncope, or other sandhi of ''úla'' "you" is indicated. While vowels usually lenite a stop to a fricative, they usually have no effect on a pre-existing fricative in the following word, unless the word has the determiner ''ha='' cliticized to it; such a case would trigger either palatalization and possibly syncope as in *''erva yulka''[[Vadi#Footnotes |<sup>4</sup>]] << ''erva ha=vûluka''.
| |
| | |
| Vadi has no copula. To express the copula, the adjective is placed at the end of the clause, preceding any tense markers that may be present. The next example, also from Iyyaħmi, demonstrates this:
| |
| | |
| {{Gloss
| |
| |phrase = Danar kúda hai imu Sorvin ga~kamatkamat.
| |
| | IPA = /'danar 'ku:da haɪ 'imu 'sorvin 'gamatkamat/
| |
| | morphemes = danar kúda hai, imu sorvin gamat-kamat
| |
| | gloss = place.name beautiful PST until PN burn-burn
| |
| | translation = Danar was a beautiful place until Sorvin utterly torched it.
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| Again, neither the ''Širkattarnaft'' or the Ammerkast transcriptions indicate that the adjective ''kuda'' "beautiful" has undergone or triggered any phonological changes. The phonemes /ɾ/ + /k/ do not undergo any changes when adjacent to each other, and ''kuda'' does not lenite to /'kud͡ʒɛɪ/ even though the past tense clitic ''hai'' appears after it, since a final /a/ prevents lenition if it was etymologically derived from /aʔ/ or /aɦ/, as it appears to be the case with ''kúda'' << */'ku:dðaʔ/
| |
| | |
| ===Verbs=== | | ===Verbs=== |
| According to the Traditionalists, Vadi verbs for the most part contain no grammatical inflection. They do not mark for person, number, tense, or aspect. Instead, particles marking tense appear after the verb, the future marker ''nai'', and the past marker ''hai''.
| |
|
| |
| Again, the Šibbūru School argues that a surface reading of the ''Širkattarnaft'' conceals the morphophonotactic processes that indicate these particles, when they appear after the verb root, are actually bound morphemes. While they agree that verbs most likely do not take tense or aspect markers, they do express other affixes, particularly emphatic, deictic, and mirative markers. These markers also trigger mutations on the verb. The Traditionalists, however, disagree with these assessments as well.
| |
|
| |
| The differences between the Traditionalist and the Šibbūru schools are best exemplified by the opposing viewpoints of Schumann and Iyyaħmi. These differences between the two Vadists can be seen in the underlined portions of text in the table below:
| |
|
| |
|
| {| class="bluetable lightbluebg mw-collapsible" | | {| class="bluetable lightbluebg mw-collapsible" |