5,466
edits
Vadi: Difference between revisions
m
→Body Parts
(Added introductory narrative) |
m (→Body Parts) |
||
| Line 383: | Line 383: | ||
At least in the case of body parts, there does appear to be some sort of gender marking on special [[Vadi#Number| singulative ]] forms, ''-ri'' and ''-ka'' for the singulative, and ''-(h)a'' on plural forms. These nouns also demonstrate an interesting split on the [[Vadi#Number| number system]], since Vadi, which otherwise exhibits no plural pattern in other nouns, has an explicit plural for body parts that normally are singular e.g. the head, nose, mouth, etc. It is believed that in Vadi's prehistory, the ''-ri'' forms indicated animate nouns, whilst the ''-ka'' forms indicated inanimate nouns. However, both the Aħħur and Kalapái texts show that syncretism had taken place. | At least in the case of body parts, there does appear to be some sort of gender marking on special [[Vadi#Number| singulative ]] forms, ''-ri'' and ''-ka'' for the singulative, and ''-(h)a'' on plural forms. These nouns also demonstrate an interesting split on the [[Vadi#Number| number system]], since Vadi, which otherwise exhibits no plural pattern in other nouns, has an explicit plural for body parts that normally are singular e.g. the head, nose, mouth, etc. It is believed that in Vadi's prehistory, the ''-ri'' forms indicated animate nouns, whilst the ''-ka'' forms indicated inanimate nouns. However, both the Aħħur and Kalapái texts show that syncretism had taken place. | ||
The Šibbūru School believes these divergent forms belong to a distinct noun classes, whereas the Traditionalists believe Vadi had lost its gender or noun class system in its prehistory, and these differentiated forms are simply fossil remnants of that system. The Traditionalist view is problematic, though, because at least in the case of body parts, certain nouns select ''kaidon'' while others select ''kaira'' | The Šibbūru School believes these divergent forms belong to a distinct noun classes, whereas the Traditionalists believe Vadi had lost its gender or noun class system in its prehistory, and these differentiated forms are simply fossil remnants of that system. The Traditionalist view is problematic, though, because at least in the case of body parts, certain nouns select ''kaidon'' while others select ''kaira''. The exact meaning of these two particles is unclear; in some contexts they appear to mean "which", in others they appear to serve as a definite article, and yet in others their function is simply unknown. | ||
The selection of ''kaidon'' versus ''kaira'' appears to be influenced by the interaction of two factors: the animacy of the noun and whether the marked form of the noun is the singulative or the plural. ''Kaira'' appears with animate nouns where the singulative is the marked form, e.g. ''kulúri/kulun'' "eye", or when the noun is inanimate and the marked form is the plural, e.g. ''uvaz/uváza'' "nose". ''Kaidon'' appears when the noun is inanimate and its marked number is singulative, or when the noun is animate and its marked number form is plural, e.g. ''gaily/gilaya''. Note that ''niat'', although it takes both singulative and plural marking, it selects explicitly for ''kaidon''. However, it is important to note that because of the small sample size, it is premature to conclude that the ''kaidon/kaira'' opposition definitively indicates a noun class distinction in this semantic category exists. | The selection of ''kaidon'' versus ''kaira'' appears to be influenced by the interaction of two factors: the animacy of the noun and whether the marked form of the noun is the singulative or the plural. ''Kaira'' appears with animate nouns where the singulative is the marked form, e.g. ''kulúri/kulun'' "eye", or when the noun is inanimate and the marked form is the plural, e.g. ''uvaz/uváza'' "nose". ''Kaidon'' appears when the noun is inanimate and its marked number is singulative, or when the noun is animate and its marked number form is plural, e.g. ''gaily/gilaya''. Note that ''niat'', although it takes both singulative and plural marking, it selects explicitly for ''kaidon''. However, it is important to note that because of the small sample size, it is premature to conclude that the ''kaidon/kaira'' opposition definitively indicates a noun class distinction in this semantic category exists. | ||