5,467
edits
Minhast: Difference between revisions
m
→Introduction
m (→Footnotes) |
m (→Introduction) |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
For these reasons, Minhast had long been classified as a language isolate. However, in a breakthrough study by Ming Wei and Jaeng Tae-Moon at the Department of Linguistics in Beijing Imperial University discovered shared features between Minhast, the Northwest Pacific language [[Nankôre]], and the Native American language [[Nahónda]], the latter two languages also having been classified as language isolates. These languages have thus been grouped together into a language family called Nahenic, from the reconstructed form ''*nāhen'', meaning "people". Fossilized verbalizer morphemes affixed to body parts, the relatively intact preservation of the form of the Causative affix and its relative position in each language's verbal template, and cognate sets and sound change correspondences demonstrated these far-flung languages as having a common ancestry. A major impediment to discovering Minhast's relationship to other languages was hampered by the paucity of literature on Nankôre; it was through the extensive documentation of this language by Brian Mills, from the Department of Indian Anthropology and Linguistics at the University of North Carolina that provided the material needed to link Minhast with Nankôre and Nahónda. Dialectal analysis conducted by Napayshni Tashunka of the University of the Lakota Nation has further contributed to the reconstruction of the Nahenic language family, particularly with data gathered from the Stone Speaker dialect, a divergent dialect which he argues should be classified as a separate language under a larger grouping, the Minhastic branch. | For these reasons, Minhast had long been classified as a language isolate. However, in a breakthrough study by Ming Wei and Jaeng Tae-Moon at the Department of Linguistics in Beijing Imperial University discovered shared features between Minhast, the Northwest Pacific language [[Nankôre]], and the Native American language [[Nahónda]], the latter two languages also having been classified as language isolates. These languages have thus been grouped together into a language family called Nahenic, from the reconstructed form ''*nāhen'', meaning "people". Fossilized verbalizer morphemes affixed to body parts, the relatively intact preservation of the form of the Causative affix and its relative position in each language's verbal template, and cognate sets and sound change correspondences demonstrated these far-flung languages as having a common ancestry. A major impediment to discovering Minhast's relationship to other languages was hampered by the paucity of literature on Nankôre; it was through the extensive documentation of this language by Brian Mills, from the Department of Indian Anthropology and Linguistics at the University of North Carolina that provided the material needed to link Minhast with Nankôre and Nahónda. Dialectal analysis conducted by Napayshni Tashunka of the University of the Lakota Nation has further contributed to the reconstruction of the Nahenic language family, particularly with data gathered from the Stone Speaker dialect, a divergent dialect which he argues should be classified as a separate language under a larger grouping, the Minhastic branch. | ||
Typologically, Minhast is an ergative, polysynthetic language. Verbal morphology is highly aggluginative and performs noun incorporation and other complex valence operations. Unmarked word order is SOV. Ergativity surfaces both at the morphologic and syntactic levels. Both its ergative<ref> | Typologically, Minhast is an ergative, polysynthetic language. Verbal morphology is highly aggluginative and performs noun incorporation and other complex valence operations. Unmarked word order is SOV. Ergativity surfaces both at the morphologic and syntactic levels. Both its ergative<ref>The overwhelming majority of ergative languages display some nominative-accusative characteristics. This feature is called split ergativity. Minhast is unusual from a morphological standpoint in that the split seems to be absent throughout its grammar, save for a split appearing in the third person inaniminate pronominal affixes in transitive verbs, and in possessive constructions. However, looking more closely at the rest of the pronominal agreement affixes, the segment corresponding to agents/possessors shows no difference with that of the absolutive pronominal affixes for intransitive verbs. This provides evidence that Minhast does possess split ergativity, the split manifesting in the pronominal agreement affixes. Splits in ergative languages are language-specific: some languages display nominative-accusative alignment based on tense-aspect features, others in the semantics of the NP (particularly along animacy lines), and others in pronominal agreement markers, as in the case of Minhast. | ||
Classical Minhast provides the most conclusive evidence that split ergativity was prevalent in the pronominal agreement markers; a submorpheme -i- is consistently found in the agent segment of the portmanteau affixes throughout the majority of first and second persons, with a couple exhibiting tripartite alignment. This submorpheme originally occurred in the patient segment in Old Minhast inscriptions, but this submorpheme migrated to the agent segment due to various sound changes, transforming the formerly unmarked agent segment into a marked nominative. The marked nominative form also occurred in intransitive verbs, thus split ergativity in Minhast can be ultimately traced to the agreement affixes, even though the submorpheme was lost due to further phonological reductions by the end of Early Modern Period.</ref> and polysynthetic characteristics have generated much academic research in comparative and theoretical linguistics. | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||