Vadi: Difference between revisions

2 bytes added ,  13 December 2020
m
Line 1,006: Line 1,006:
|style="vertical-align:top"|
|style="vertical-align:top"|
#Schumann glosses the past tense marker ''hai'' as a particle.  Compare to Iyyaħmi's gloss.
#Schumann glosses the past tense marker ''hai'' as a particle.  Compare to Iyyaħmi's gloss.
#Schumann's analysis shows no gemination.  Compare his reading of /'niku/ versus Iyyaħmi's /'nɪk:u/.  Even within the Traditionalist school, whether Vadi exhibits gemination is hotly debated.  Although the ''Širkattarnaft'' can show gemination with either a character signifying a coda consonant followed by another character of the same consonant in non-coda position, or by using a special diacritic, in practice gemination is not usually shown, save for official correspondence, ceremonial inscriptions, or other highly formal contexts, such as legal documents.  <br/><br/>Gemination in Vadi is inferred by doublets involving a word with no indication of gemination in some texts, while other texts show instances in which that same word appears with a reduplicated syllable.  The reduplicated forms appear in some of the earlier texts, e.g. ''ni-ku-ku'' (see text KS.2017.08.10-B01.01.03.17.b3), then disappear in later texts altogether, e.g. ''ni-ku'' (see text KS.2017.10.09-A01.01.22.43.b8).  <br/><br/>The Traditionalists argue the instances of reduplication indicate augmentation or intensity, but the Šibbūru School have criticized this conclusion as it fails to explain why the reduplicated ''Širkattarnaft'' characters occur in one period only to disappear entirely at a later period.  
#Schumann's analysis shows no gemination.  Compare his reading of /'nikuku/ versus Iyyaħmi's /'nɪk:u/.  Even within the Traditionalist school, whether Vadi exhibits gemination is hotly debated.  Although the ''Širkattarnaft'' can show gemination with either a character signifying a coda consonant followed by another character of the same consonant in non-coda position, or by using a special diacritic, in practice gemination is not usually shown, save for official correspondence, ceremonial inscriptions, or other highly formal contexts, such as legal documents.  <br/><br/>Gemination in Vadi is inferred by doublets involving a word with no indication of gemination in some texts, while other texts show instances in which that same word appears with a reduplicated syllable.  The reduplicated forms appear in some of the earlier texts, e.g. ''ni-ku-ku'' (see text KS.2017.08.10-B01.01.03.17.b3), then disappear in later texts altogether, e.g. ''ni-ku'' (see text KS.2017.10.09-A01.01.22.43.b8).  <br/><br/>The Traditionalists argue the instances of reduplication indicate augmentation or intensity, but the Šibbūru School have criticized this conclusion as it fails to explain why the reduplicated ''Širkattarnaft'' characters occur in one period only to disappear entirely at a later period.  
|style="vertical-align:top"|
|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.  
#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.  
5,486

edits