Minhast/Dialectology: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Mutual intelligibility between dialectal groups is affected by several factors. As a whole, the Upper Minhast group is more grammatically conservative compared to the Lower Minhast group, but even within each group there may be great differences in the lexicon arising oftentimes from differences in environment and lifestyle that may affect intelligibility. For example, the extremely conservative Salmon Speaker dialect has nevertheless developed a specialized vocabulary for terminology reflective of their riverine and coastal environment, while the Horse Speakers lack such terminology for the simple reason that their homeland is landlocked. Moreover, dialectal mixing is the norm, not the exception. The Gull Speakers, although grouped as a Lower Minhast dialect, can communicate with the Dog Speakers, who belong to the Upper Minhast branch, with little difficulty. This is because both Speakers share a common border and have long had extensive trade contacts with each other which have leveled lexical differences. The Osprey Speakers find the Stone Speakers almost totally unintelligible even though both are grouped under the Lower Minhast branch; in fact Osprey Speakers report they can converse much more easily with the Wolf Speakers, an Upper Minhast dialect, despite the Wolf Speaker dialect's conservative features and affiliation with the Upper Minhast branch. The Osprey Speakers territories border Salmon Speaker Country; they too have had extensive trade relations with the Salmon Speakers and as a consequence both groups can understand each other despite belonging to two different branches. Bilingualism is common, and diglossia from usage of the prestige language, Classical Minhast, also complicates the linguistic landscape. | Mutual intelligibility between dialectal groups is affected by several factors. As a whole, the Upper Minhast group is more grammatically conservative compared to the Lower Minhast group, but even within each group there may be great differences in the lexicon arising oftentimes from differences in environment and lifestyle that may affect intelligibility. For example, the extremely conservative Salmon Speaker dialect has nevertheless developed a specialized vocabulary for terminology reflective of their riverine and coastal environment, while the Horse Speakers lack such terminology for the simple reason that their homeland is landlocked. Moreover, dialectal mixing is the norm, not the exception. The Gull Speakers, although grouped as a Lower Minhast dialect, can communicate with the Dog Speakers, who belong to the Upper Minhast branch, with little difficulty. This is because both Speakers share a common border and have long had extensive trade contacts with each other which have leveled lexical differences. The Osprey Speakers find the Stone Speakers almost totally unintelligible even though both are grouped under the Lower Minhast branch; in fact Osprey Speakers report they can converse much more easily with the Wolf Speakers, an Upper Minhast dialect, despite the Wolf Speaker dialect's conservative features and affiliation with the Upper Minhast branch. The Osprey Speakers territories border Salmon Speaker Country; they too have had extensive trade relations with the Salmon Speakers and as a consequence both groups can understand each other despite belonging to two different branches. Bilingualism is common, and diglossia from usage of the prestige language, Classical Minhast, also complicates the linguistic landscape. | ||
== Traditional | == Traditional Model == | ||
'''Traditional Phylogenetic Tree of the Minhast Dialects''' | '''Traditional Phylogenetic Tree of the Minhast Dialects''' | ||
| Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
=== Criticisms === | === Criticisms === | ||
Academics criticize grouping the dialects under two branches as problematic. The most obvious problem is that of the Stone Speaker dialect, which not only has a large number of loans from Golahat and Peshpeg that far exceed those in the rest of the Lower Minhast dialects, but appears to be in the early stages of developing from a canonical SOV language into a non-configurational one. Arguments for classifying the Stone Speaker dialect as a separate language have been gaining momentum, the most vocal and convincing proponent being Dr. Napayshni Tashunka of the University of the Lakota Nation at Three Pipes. A new branch has been proposed for the Elk and Seal Speaker dialects, which realize ''-ūy'' with the voiced labio-velar approximant /w/, as in ''-ūwe'' and ''-ūwi'' respectively, in contrast with the voiced palatal consonant /j/ found in the rest of the Upper Minhast dialects. The Gull Speaker dialect presents its own problems. When the ''uyyi min kirim'' test is applied, the results are inconclusive: the dialect can be classified as a member of either the Upper or Lower Minhast branches, as both ''-we'' and ''-ia'' are found. Moreover, the ''-we'' form and other features point towards a relationship with the Elk and Seal Speakers, which are grouped with the Upper Minhast dialects, yet the Gull Speakers do not share a contiguous border with them, so dialectal mixing has been ruled out at this point. The Palatization Test is also inconclusive, primarily due to dialect mixing with their Salmon Speaker and Dog Speaker neighbors, which belong to the northern dialects, and their Osprey Speaker and Egret Speaker neighbors, which belong to the southern dialects. | Academics criticize grouping the dialects under two branches as problematic. The most obvious problem is that of the Stone Speaker dialect, which not only has a large number of loans from Golahat and Peshpeg that far exceed those in the rest of the Lower Minhast dialects, but appears to be in the early stages of developing from a canonical SOV language into a non-configurational one. Arguments for classifying the Stone Speaker dialect as a separate language have been gaining momentum, the most vocal and convincing proponent being Dr. Napayshni Tashunka of the University of the Lakota Nation at Three Pipes. A new branch has been proposed for the Elk and Seal Speaker dialects, which realize ''-ūy'' with the voiced labio-velar approximant /w/, as in ''-ūwe'' and ''-ūwi'' respectively, in contrast with the voiced palatal consonant /j/ found in the rest of the Upper Minhast dialects. The Gull Speaker dialect presents its own problems. When the ''uyyi min kirim'' test is applied, the results are inconclusive: the dialect can be classified as a member of either the Upper or Lower Minhast branches, as both ''-we'' and ''-ia'' are found. Moreover, the ''-we'' form and other features point towards a relationship with the Elk and Seal Speakers, which are grouped with the Upper Minhast dialects, yet the Gull Speakers do not share a contiguous border with them, so dialectal mixing has been ruled out at this point. The Palatization Test is also inconclusive, primarily due to dialect mixing with their Salmon Speaker and Dog Speaker neighbors, which belong to the northern dialects, and their Osprey Speaker and Egret Speaker neighbors, which belong to the southern dialects. | ||
== Shortcomings of the Traditional Model == | == Shortcomings of the Traditional Model == | ||