Vadi: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Phonology) |
m (→Footnotes) |
||
| Line 784: | Line 784: | ||
1) A major criticism directed towards Schumann, notably by Dr. Tashunka, is that although Schumann is "competent" in the ''Širkattarnaft'', he lacks a full understanding of its development and evolution, and how it was historically used by other non-Minhast minority speakers, namely the Peshpeg and Ín Duári, to transcribe their respective languages.<br/> | 1) A major criticism directed towards Schumann, notably by Dr. Tashunka, is that although Schumann is "competent" in the ''Širkattarnaft'', he lacks a full understanding of its development and evolution, and how it was historically used by other non-Minhast minority speakers, namely the Peshpeg and Ín Duári, to transcribe their respective languages.<br/> | ||
2) Schumann argues that gemination does not occur in Vadi, as the authors' ''Širkattarnaft'' does not show any gemination. This argument, as Tashunka notes, is problematic in that most Minhast writings, both past and present, rarely indicate gemination. Evidence of gemination in Vadi surfaces in the orthography between morpheme boundaries where the vowel of the syllable preceding the geminate consonant is lengthened, and the following syllable or an inserted "dummy syllable" starts with a voiced consonant to indicate fortition. Schumann argues this is partial reduplication used for derivation, but Iyyaħmi concurs with Tashunka's analysis. | 2) Schumann argues that gemination outside of Minhast loanwords does not occur in Vadi, as the authors' ''Širkattarnaft'' does not show any gemination. This argument, as Tashunka notes, is problematic in that most Minhast writings, both past and present, rarely indicate gemination. Evidence of gemination in Vadi surfaces in the orthography between morpheme boundaries where the vowel of the syllable preceding the geminate consonant is lengthened, and the following syllable or an inserted "dummy syllable" starts with a voiced consonant to indicate fortition. Schumann argues this is partial reduplication used for derivation, but Iyyaħmi concurs with Tashunka's analysis. | ||
3) This particular gloss is an excellent example of how Schumann and Iyyaħmi's analyses diverge due to the ambiguities introduced by the litigants' unorthodox spelling. Unlike Schumann, Iyyaħmi's Ammerkast-derived transcription follows the ''Širkattarnaft'' more closely. | 3) This particular gloss is an excellent example of how Schumann and Iyyaħmi's analyses diverge due to the ambiguities introduced by the litigants' unorthodox spelling. Unlike Schumann, Iyyaħmi's Ammerkast-derived transcription follows the ''Širkattarnaft'' more closely. | ||