5,467
edits
Vadi: Difference between revisions
m
→Phonology
m (→Stress) |
m (→Phonology) |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
--> | --> | ||
The entire corpus of the Scriptum is written in the indigenous Minhast [[Minhast#Orthography|''Širkattarnaft'' script]]. 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. There are several spelling variants or inconsistencies, and numerous occurrences of digraphs appear in both litigants' texts. Many of the digraphs combine one of the few surviving ideographs in the ''Širkattarnaft'' with an ordinary character. These and other unusual usage of the ''Širkattarnaft'' characters in the texts, while not completely regular, do follow recurrent patterns, an indication of phonological differences between Vadi and Minhast, and as demonstrated by Iyyaħmi, evidence of sandhi processes occurring between word boundaries. Schumann has argued the texts indicate dialectal differences between the litigants; Iyyaħmi also supports this position, but cautions of the difficulties determining whether the spelling inconsistencies reflect dialectal differences, sandhi processes, or Vadi phonemes not represented by the standard ''Širkattarnaft'' characters. | The entire corpus of the Scriptum is written in the indigenous Minhast [[Minhast#Orthography|''Širkattarnaft'' script]]. 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. There are several spelling variants or inconsistencies, and numerous occurrences of digraphs appear in both litigants' texts. Many of the digraphs combine one of the few surviving ideographs in the ''Širkattarnaft'' with an ordinary character. These and other unusual usage of the ''Širkattarnaft'' characters in the texts, while not completely regular, do follow recurrent patterns, an indication of phonological differences between Vadi and Minhast, and as demonstrated by Iyyaħmi, evidence of sandhi processes occurring between syllable and word boundaries. Schumann has argued the texts indicate dialectal differences between the litigants; Iyyaħmi also supports this position, but cautions of the difficulties determining whether the spelling inconsistencies reflect dialectal differences, sandhi processes, or Vadi phonemes not represented by the standard ''Širkattarnaft'' characters. | ||
However, most linguists have come to a general consensus of the Vadi phonemic inventory. The language is largely CV, although Iyyaħmi has presented convincing evidence that CVC, initial and final CC syllables can arise due to the application of sandhi processes. | However, most linguists have come to a general consensus of the Vadi phonemic inventory. The language is largely CV, although Iyyaħmi has presented convincing evidence that CVC, initial and final CC syllables can arise due to the application of sandhi processes. | ||