Vadi: Difference between revisions

Line 975:

|style="vertical-align:top"|

#Iyyaħmi argues the past tense marker ''hai'' as an affix, based on irregularities in the ''Širkattarnaft'' that indicates the marker triggers lenition. He notes that no text has been found where adjuncts can intervene between the marker and its host, an observation that the result, /u:'lad͡ʒɲɛ/, qualifies for wordhood.

#Continuing from Iyyaħmi's conclusion of the morpheme ''-hai-'' as a suffix as opposed to a particle or clitic, his derivation of ''<u>nye</u>'' comes from his observation that the apparent ''Širkattarnaft'' text, ''u-la-di-yi-na'' freqently alternates with ''u-la-di-yi-ni-ya'' in earlier documents, with Sorvin preferring the former and Éro preferring the latter. Traditionalists argue this provides evidence of dialectal differences between the two litigants. However, Iyyaħmi shows that the later texts of both authors start showing a higher frequency of ''u-la-d-yi in-ye''. The Traditionalists have analyzed ''in-ye'' as a particle ''inye'' that serves as a durative marker, which is what is found in the Aħħum texts. Either interpretation so far cannot be determined precisely. The Aħħum texts are rather fragmentary, and analyzing ''in-ye'' in the context as it appears within the Scriptum cannot definitively rule out a durative reading.

#Continuing from Iyyaħmi's conclusion of the morpheme ''-hai-'' as a suffix as opposed to a particle or clitic, his derivation of ''<u>nye</u>'' comes from his observation that the apparent ''Širkattarnaft'' text, ''u-la-di-yi-na'' freqently alternates with ''u-la-di-yi-ni-ya'' in earlier documents, with Sorvin preferring the former and Éro preferring the latter. Traditionalists argue this provides evidence of dialectal differences between the two litigants. However, Iyyaħmi shows that the later texts of both authors start showing a higher frequency of ''u-la-d-yi in-ye''. The Traditionalists have analyzed ''in-ye'' as a particle ''inye'' that serves as a durative marker, which is what is found in the Aħħum texts. Either interpretation so far cannot be determined precisely. The Aħħum texts are rather fragmentary, and analyzing ''in-ye'' in the context as it appears within the Scriptum cannot definitively rule out a durative reading, although the results of Iyyaħmi's frequency analysis suggests against a durative reading.

|-

|}

@@ Line 975: / Line 975: @@
 |style="vertical-align:top"|
 #Iyyaħmi argues the past tense marker ''hai'' as an affix, based on irregularities in the ''Širkattarnaft'' that indicates the marker triggers lenition.  He notes that no text has been found where adjuncts can intervene between the marker and its host, an observation that the result, /u:'lad͡ʒɲɛ/, qualifies for wordhood.
-#Continuing from Iyyaħmi's conclusion of the morpheme ''-hai-'' as a suffix as opposed to a particle or clitic,  his derivation of ''<u>nye</u>'' comes from his observation that the apparent ''Širkattarnaft'' text, ''u-la-di-yi-na'' freqently alternates with ''u-la-di-yi-ni-ya'' in earlier documents, with Sorvin preferring the former and Éro preferring the latter. Traditionalists argue this provides evidence of dialectal differences between the two litigants.  However, Iyyaħmi shows that the later texts of both authors start showing a higher frequency of ''u-la-d-yi in-ye''.  The Traditionalists have analyzed ''in-ye'' as a particle ''inye'' that serves as a durative marker, which is what is found in the Aħħum texts.  Either interpretation so far cannot be determined precisely.  The Aħħum texts are rather fragmentary, and analyzing ''in-ye'' in the context as it appears within the Scriptum cannot definitively rule out a durative reading.
+#Continuing from Iyyaħmi's conclusion of the morpheme ''-hai-'' as a suffix as opposed to a particle or clitic,  his derivation of ''<u>nye</u>'' comes from his observation that the apparent ''Širkattarnaft'' text, ''u-la-di-yi-na'' freqently alternates with ''u-la-di-yi-ni-ya'' in earlier documents, with Sorvin preferring the former and Éro preferring the latter. Traditionalists argue this provides evidence of dialectal differences between the two litigants.  However, Iyyaħmi shows that the later texts of both authors start showing a higher frequency of ''u-la-d-yi in-ye''.  The Traditionalists have analyzed ''in-ye'' as a particle ''inye'' that serves as a durative marker, which is what is found in the Aħħum texts.  Either interpretation so far cannot be determined precisely.  The Aħħum texts are rather fragmentary, and analyzing ''in-ye'' in the context as it appears within the Scriptum cannot definitively rule out a durative reading, although the results of Iyyaħmi's frequency analysis suggests against a durative reading.
 |-
 |}