Minhast: Difference between revisions
| Line 294: | Line 294: | ||
|label5=''Montaigne'' | |label5=''Montaigne'' | ||
|5={{clade | |5={{clade | ||
|1=Stone Speaker | |1=Stone Speaker <sup>3</sup> | ||
|2=Knife Speaker ''(extinct)'' <sup> ‡</sup> |state2=dashed | |2=Knife Speaker ''(extinct)'' <sup> ‡</sup> |state2=dashed | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 309: | Line 309: | ||
<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>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>3</sup> Many Minhastic linguists, including Dr. Tashunka, argue that the Stone Speaker dialect should be reclassified as an independent language, based on how divergent it is from the other dialects. See discussion above. | |||
</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> | ||