Minhast: Difference between revisions

Line 109:

|}

Mutual intelligibility between speakers ~~are~~ affected by ~~different~~ 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 nautical terminology reflective of their 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~~, with trivial exceptions~~, can communicate with the Dog Speakers, who belong to the Upper Minhast branch. This is because both Speakers share ~~the same~~ border and have long had extensive trade contacts with each other, which has leveled lexical differences. The Osprey Speakers find the Stone Speakers almost totally unintelligible even though both belong to the Lower Minhast branch; in fact Osprey Speakers report that they can converse much more easily with the Wolf Speakers, an Upper Minhast dialect, even though the Wolf Speaker is as conservative as the Salmon Speaker dialect. Bilingualism is common, and diglossia from usage of the prestige language, Classical Minhast, also complicates the linguistic landscape.

Mutual intelligibility between speakers 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 nautical terminology reflective of their 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 has leveled lexical differences. The Osprey Speakers find the Stone Speakers almost totally unintelligible even though both belong to the Lower Minhast branch; in fact Osprey Speakers report that they can converse much more easily with the Wolf Speakers, an Upper Minhast dialect, even though the Wolf Speaker is as conservative as the Salmon Speaker dialect. Bilingualism is common, and diglossia from usage of the prestige language, Classical Minhast, also complicates the linguistic landscape.

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 proponents being Professor Han Xu of Nanjing University, and Dr. Napayshni 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 due to dialectal mixing, primarily due to their Salmon Speaker and Dog Speaker neighbors.

@@ Line 109: / Line 109: @@
 |}
-Mutual intelligibility between speakers are affected by different 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 nautical terminology reflective of their 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, with trivial exceptions, can communicate with the Dog Speakers, who belong to the Upper Minhast branch.  This is because both Speakers share the same border and have long had extensive trade contacts with each other, which has leveled lexical differences.  The Osprey Speakers find the Stone Speakers almost totally unintelligible even though both belong to the Lower Minhast branch; in fact Osprey Speakers report that they can converse much more easily with the Wolf Speakers, an Upper Minhast dialect, even though the Wolf Speaker is as conservative as the Salmon Speaker dialect.  Bilingualism is common, and diglossia from usage of the prestige language, Classical Minhast, also complicates the linguistic landscape.
+Mutual intelligibility between speakers 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 nautical terminology reflective of their 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 has leveled lexical differences.  The Osprey Speakers find the Stone Speakers almost totally unintelligible even though both belong to the Lower Minhast branch; in fact Osprey Speakers report that they can converse much more easily with the Wolf Speakers, an Upper Minhast dialect, even though the Wolf Speaker is as conservative as the Salmon Speaker dialect.  Bilingualism is common, and diglossia from usage of the prestige language, Classical Minhast, also complicates the linguistic landscape.
 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 proponents being Professor Han Xu of Nanjing University, and Dr. Napayshni 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 due to dialectal mixing, primarily due to their Salmon Speaker and Dog Speaker neighbors.