Vadi: Difference between revisions

Vadi (view source)

Revision as of 17:35, 1 January 2021

377 bytes removed , 1 January 2021

m

→‎Body Parts

Anyar

5,466

edits

@@ Line 363: / Line 363: @@
-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.
+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 (usually) occur 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.
+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 ''-ri'' and ''-ka'' 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.
 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.