5,466
edits
Vadi: Difference between revisions
m
→Footnotes
m (→Phonotactics) |
m (→Footnotes) |
||
| Line 975: | Line 975: | ||
2) Much of Schumann's objections to Iyyaħmi's findings is that the spelling anomaly categories the latter assembled were based on conjecture and that Iyyaħmi fitted his conclusions to the sample. A major counter-criticism to Schumann's objections, notably from Dr. Tashunka, is that although Schumann is "competent" in the ''Širkattarnaft'', he lacks a full understanding of its development and evolution, and how it was historically used by other non-Minhast minority speakers, namely the Peshpeg and Ín Duári, to transcribe their respective languages; the ''Širkattarnaft'' in the two speech communities also show the use of digraphs, unorthodox usage of the characters, and other anomalies in spelling. It has been argued that Schumann remains committed to the traditional model of Vadi phonology and phonotactics, and that he has failed to provide an alternate model that would explain the discrepancies more effectively than Iyyaħmi. While it can be argued that Schumann has an interest in maintaining the traditional model because an alternative model would invalidate his previous work, it must also be recognized that Iyyaħmi studied under Tashunka, who would understandably side with his prodigy.<br/> | 2) Much of Schumann's objections to Iyyaħmi's findings is that the spelling anomaly categories the latter assembled were based on conjecture and that Iyyaħmi fitted his conclusions to the sample. A major counter-criticism to Schumann's objections, notably from Dr. Tashunka, is that although Schumann is "competent" in the ''Širkattarnaft'', he lacks a full understanding of its development and evolution, and how it was historically used by other non-Minhast minority speakers, namely the Peshpeg and Ín Duári, to transcribe their respective languages; the ''Širkattarnaft'' in the two speech communities also show the use of digraphs, unorthodox usage of the characters, and other anomalies in spelling. It has been argued that Schumann remains committed to the traditional model of Vadi phonology and phonotactics, and that he has failed to provide an alternate model that would explain the discrepancies more effectively than Iyyaħmi. While it can be argued that Schumann has an interest in maintaining the traditional model because an alternative model would invalidate his previous work, it must also be recognized that Iyyaħmi studied under Tashunka, who would understandably side with his prodigy.<br/> | ||
3) Schumann argues that gemination outside of Minhast loanwords does not occur in Vadi, as the authors' ''Širkattarnaft'' does not show any gemination. This argument, as Tashunka notes, is problematic in that most Minhast writings, both past and present, rarely indicate gemination. Evidence of gemination in Vadi surfaces in the orthography between morpheme boundaries where the vowel of the syllable preceding the geminate consonant is lengthened, and the following syllable or an inserted "dummy syllable" starts with a voiced consonant to indicate fortition. Schumann argues this is partial reduplication used for derivation, but Iyyaħmi concurs with Tashunka's analysis. | |||
3) This particular gloss is an excellent example of how the divergence between Schumann and Iyyaħmi's orthographic systems can lead to different conclusions of the underlying grammatical structure. | 3) This particular gloss is an excellent example of how the divergence between Schumann and Iyyaħmi's orthographic systems can lead to different conclusions of the underlying grammatical structure. | ||