5,486
edits
Minhast/Dialectology: Difference between revisions
m
→Intelligibility
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 277: | Line 277: | ||
* The ergative in the examples above also serves as a genitive marker, as in Yup'ik. | * The ergative in the examples above also serves as a genitive marker, as in Yup'ik. | ||
* The Upper Minhast (Salmon, Horse, and Dog Speaker) dialects, as can be seen in this text sample, show the greatest amount of conservatism, and all are mutually intelligible with each other, although the Dog Speaker dialect has diverged enough such that speakers of the other Upper Minhast dialects report difficulties in understanding it. | * The Upper Minhast (Salmon, Horse, and Dog Speaker) dialects, as can be seen in this text sample, show the greatest amount of conservatism, and all are mutually intelligible with each other, although the Dog Speaker dialect has diverged enough such that speakers of the other Upper Minhast dialects report difficulties in understanding it. | ||
* Modern Standard Minhast (MSM) is closest, at least in morphology and syntax, to the Dog Speaker dialect. However, monolingual Dog Speakers consider the national language difficult to understand, because over half of its lexicon is drawn from Lower Minhast sources, and some phonological rules which govern the allomorphs of certain affixes and clitics, such as the ergative ''=de'', can differ significantly between the two dialects. | * Modern Standard Minhast (MSM) is closest, at least in morphology and syntax, to the Dog Speaker dialect<ref>More specifically, the variety as spoken in Tagna Prefecture, as can be seen from the ''-m-'' → ''-n-'' morphophonemic alternation when the pronominal affix combines with the ergative/genitive clitic, which differs from most Dog Speaker dialects.</ref>. However, monolingual Dog Speakers consider the national language difficult to understand, because over half of its lexicon is drawn from Lower Minhast sources, and some phonological rules which govern the allomorphs of certain affixes and clitics, such as the ergative ''=de'', can differ significantly between the two dialects. | ||
* For whatever reason, the Osprey speakers treat ''baktet'' "tattoo" as an animate noun. | * For whatever reason, the Osprey speakers treat ''baktet'' "tattoo" as an animate noun. Intra-dialectal gender discordance is common. | ||
* The Gull Speaker text shows some features found in the Upper Minhast text, and others in the Osprey Speaker text. Features in the Gull Speaker text not found in the other texts are the underlying form of the polypersonal agreement affix ''-unkem-'', and the surface realization of the Ergative clitic after sandhi processes have been applied. | * The Gull Speaker text shows some features found in the Upper Minhast text, and others in the Osprey Speaker text. Features in the Gull Speaker text not found in the other texts are the underlying form of the polypersonal agreement affix ''-unkem-'', and the surface realization of the Ergative clitic after sandhi processes have been applied. | ||
* The Stone Speaker dialect displays the greatest divergence from the other dialects phonologically, grammatically, and lexically. It was because of these differences that [[Minhast/Dialectology#The Tashunka Model| Dr. Tashunka]] has classified it as a separate language, which has become largely accepted among linguists today. | * The Stone Speaker dialect displays the greatest divergence from the other dialects phonologically, grammatically, and lexically. It was because of these differences that [[Minhast/Dialectology#The Tashunka Model| Dr. Tashunka]] has classified it as a separate language, which has become largely accepted among linguists today. | ||