Minhast/Dialectology: Difference between revisions

m
Line 421: Line 421:
</small>
</small>


<small><sup> &Dagger;</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 Petric groups, which the Knife Speaker dialect may grouped under, or it may even constitute a separate branch."'' </small>
<small><sup> &Dagger;</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 and Western branches.  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 Petric groups, which the Knife Speaker dialect may grouped under, or it may even constitute a separate branch."'' </small>
5,464

edits