Minhast: Difference between revisions
| Line 225: | Line 225: | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
|label2 = Classical Minhast | |label2 = Classical Minhast <sup>1</sup> | ||
|2={{clade | |2={{clade | ||
|1 = {{clade | |1 = {{clade | ||
| Line 241: | Line 241: | ||
|3={{clade | |3={{clade | ||
|1 = {{clade | |1 = {{clade | ||
|1=Modern Standard Minhast | |1=Modern Standard Minhast <sup>2</sup> | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 301: | Line 301: | ||
}} | }} | ||
<small><sup>1</sup> The reclassification of Classical Minhast has received especially scathing criticism from native Minhast grammarians and linguists. | <small><sup>1</sup> The reclassification of Classical Minhast has received especially scathing criticism from native Minhast grammarians and linguists.</small> | ||
<small><sup>2</sup> Modern Standard Minhast, although created as a "compromise" dialect with elements from both Upper and Lower Minhast dialects, nevertheless has a grammar that is mostly from Upper Minhast sources.</small> | |||
<small><sup> ‡</sup>Dr. Tashunka notes, ''"Limited attestation hinders the classification of the Knife Speaker dialect. However, based on what texts we do have, we can determine which branches the Knife Speaker dialect does ''not'' belong to. The presence of Golahat words rules it out as a member of the Northern and Western Branches; the absence of ''-we-'' after application of the ''uyyi min kirim''-test rules it out as a member of the Gullic branch. Dialectal mixing between the Heron Speakers and Stone Speakers is absent, but a few Stone Speaker words crop up in the Knife Speaker texts; this provides evidence that the Knife Speaker dialect should not be considered a member of the Insular Branch. This leaves only two other candidates, the Coastal and Montaigne groups, which the Knife Speaker dialect may grouped under, or it may even constitute a separate branch."'' </small> | <small><sup> ‡</sup>Dr. Tashunka notes, ''"Limited attestation hinders the classification of the Knife Speaker dialect. However, based on what texts we do have, we can determine which branches the Knife Speaker dialect does ''not'' belong to. The presence of Golahat words rules it out as a member of the Northern and Western Branches; the absence of ''-we-'' after application of the ''uyyi min kirim''-test rules it out as a member of the Gullic branch. Dialectal mixing between the Heron Speakers and Stone Speakers is absent, but a few Stone Speaker words crop up in the Knife Speaker texts; this provides evidence that the Knife Speaker dialect should not be considered a member of the Insular Branch. This leaves only two other candidates, the Coastal and Montaigne groups, which the Knife Speaker dialect may grouped under, or it may even constitute a separate branch."'' </small> | ||