5,466
edits
Vadi: Difference between revisions
→Ad-Hominems and Other Insults
| Line 1,194: | Line 1,194: | ||
! Analysis | ! Analysis | ||
| | | | ||
#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 /'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 most native Minhast speakers do not usually indicate gemination, 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 word forms occur in one period only to disappear entirely at a later period. | |||
|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. | |||
#Continuing from Iyyaħmi's conclusion of the morpheme ''-hai-'' as a suffix as opposed to a particle or clitic, his derivation of ''<u>nye</u>'' comes from his observation that the apparent ''Širkattarnaft'' text, ''u-la-di-yi-na'' freqently alternates with ''u-la-di-yi-ni-ya'' in earlier documents, with Sorvin preferring the former and Éro preferring the latter. <br/><br/>Traditionalists argue this provides evidence of dialectal differences between the two litigants. However, Iyyaħmi shows that the later texts of both authors start showing a higher frequency of ''u-la-d-yi in-ye''. The Traditionalists have analyzed ''in-ye'' as a particle ''inye'' that serves as a durative marker, which is what is found in the Aħħum texts. Either interpretation so far cannot be determined precisely. The Aħħum texts are rather fragmentary and thus have been unable to provide additional data on the matter, and analyzing ''in-ye'' in the context as it appears within the Scriptum cannot definitively rule out a durative reading, although the results of Iyyaħmi's frequency analysis suggests against a durative reading. | |||
# The reading ''osar'' versus ''usar'' is argued for by the spelling variants ''ū-sa-r'', ''ū-wa-sa-r'', ''ā-wu-sa-r'', ''a'-u'-sa-r'', ''wa-'u-sa-r'' among several others. Most Traditionalists now support this conclusion. | |||
# Iyyaħmi's transcription ''ulátane'' versus Schumann's ''úla tane'' stems from the fact that the ''Širkattarnaft'' is written ''u-lā-'a-ta-ne'' which contains the medial glottal stop, rather than the expected ''ū-la ta-ne''. Traditionalists ask why the word was not written as ''u-lā-ta-ne'' instead. The Šibbūru School does point out this spelling also exists in other texts, suggesting that the morpheme is actually a clitic, ''=tane'', which cliticizes to either the main verb or a coverb. The ''Širkattarnaft'' suggests some instances where it undergoes mutation, but no indication that it triggers mutation itself has been found. | |||
* [stub] | * [stub] | ||
| colspan="2" | | | colspan="2" | | ||