Linguifex

Vadi: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Vadi (view source)

Revision as of 11:55, 20 November 2022

42,948 bytes added ,  20 November 2022
m
→‎Body Parts
 
(485 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Construction}}


<!--  
<!--  
Line 13: Line 13:
==Introduction==
==Introduction==


Vadi is an extinct language once spoken in Minhay.  A small parchment fragment was discovered in April 2015 in a cave outside of Peħħat, a small township in Sakkeb Prefecture.  Soon larger fragments and then the wonderfully preserved Kalapái Scriptum were discovered in an isolated hut, dated as late as the mid to late 1800's CE.  The Kalapái Scriptum is a collection of letters between two farmers, Éro and Sorvin, who were embroiled in an ongoing feud regarding the property lines between their lands.  The letters were written in Vadi intermixed with words from the unrelated [[Peshpeg]] and [[Minhast]] languages.  A few letters were written entirely in the the extinct Minhast Knife Speaker dialect.  Also found among the letters are legal papers drawn from the Prefect of Dog Speaker Country.  The farmers' letters contained several texts clearly indicating code-switching between Vadi and the Knife Speaker dialect.  The portions containing the intermixed Knife Speaker and Peshpeg words were used to decipher the Vadi texts.  The Dog Speaker papers did not contribute directly to the decipherment of the language, but as an external source it provided a great deal of context of the nature of the feud between the litigants.  This external contextual source clarified the translation of otherwise ambiguous passages.  The Kalapái Scriptum is thus popularly referred to as the "Minhast Rosetta Stone".
Vadi is an extinct language once spoken in Minhay.  The language was discovered when a small parchment fragment was found in April 1963 in a cave outside of Peħħat, a small township in Sakkeb Prefecture.  More fragments were discovered in subsequent years in the vicinity of the cave, named Aħħur, where the first texts were discovered.  Finally, in the late 90's, the wonderfully preserved Kalapái Scriptum were discovered in an isolated hut approximately ten kilometres north of Peħħat.  These texts were dated from the mid to late 1800's CE.  The Kalapái Scriptum is a collection of letters between two farmers, Éro and Sorvin, who were embroiled in an ongoing feud regarding the property lines between their lands.  The letters were written in Vadi intermixed with words from the unrelated [[Peshpeg]], [[Ín_Duári | Ín Duári]], and [[Minhast]] languages.  A few letters were written, albeit with many grammatical and lexical mistakes, entirely in the the extinct Minhast Knife Speaker dialect.  Also found among the letters are legal papers drawn from the Prefect of Dog Speaker Country.  The farmers' letters contained several texts clearly indicating code-switching between Vadi and the Knife Speaker dialect.  The portions containing the intermixed Knife Speaker and Peshpeg words were used to decipher the Vadi texts.  The Dog Speaker papers did not contribute directly to the decipherment of the language, but as an external source it provided a great deal of context of the nature of the feud between the litigants.  This external contextual source clarified the translation of otherwise ambiguous passages.  The Kalapái Scriptum is thus popularly referred to as the "Minhast Rosetta Stone".


Today, two linguists, Dr. J.F. Schumann of Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, and Dr. Iyyaħmi min Ruššur of the University of Aškuan at Nannampuyyi, are the two major contributors to our current knowledge of the Vadi language, although others, such as Dr. Napayshni Tashunka of the University of the Lakota Nation at Three Pipes, has also made significant contributions.
Today, two linguists, Dr. Iyyaħmi min Ruššur of the University of Aškuan, and [[Minhast/Dialectology#The_Tashunka_Model| Dr. Napayshni Tashunka]] of the University of the Lakota Nation at Three Pipes, are the two leading Vadists of the the ''Šibbūru''<sup>1</sup> School.  A third Vadist, Dr. J.F. Schumann of Universidad Autónoma de Madrid<sup>1</sup>, is the pre-eminent leader of the Traditionalist school. The two schools are sharply divided on a single issue, that of  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonant_mutation mutations], whose affects would not be simply restricted to phonology, but would also impact all aspects of Vadi morphology.  The Traditionalists hold that Vadi does not have a mutation system, whereas the ''Šibbūru'' School argue that Vadi has an elaborate mutation system comparable to that of the modern Celtic languages.  


This article incorporates the findings of their work; where the two Vadists significantly diverge, the divergence will be noted and both viewpoints will be presented.
This article presents the findings and analyses of both schools, the ''Šibbūru'' school as represented by Iyyaħmi and Tashunka, as well as the opposing viewpoint of the Traditionalists, as represented by Schumann's.


<!-- Design goals, inspiration, ideas, who speaks it?, when was it created?, where does it come from?, any peculiarities?
<!-- Design goals, inspiration, ideas, who speaks it?, when was it created?, where does it come from?, any peculiarities?
Line 41: Line 41:


-->
-->
The entire corpus of the Scriptum is written in the indigenous Minhast [[Minhast#Orthography|''Širkattarnaft'' script]]. While the ''Širkattarnaft'', an abugida, works quite well for the Minhast language, it has presented a major challenge to Vadists in determining the phonology and phonotactics of Vadi.  There are several spelling variants or inconsistencies, and numerous occurrences of digraphs appear in both litigants' texts.  Many of the digraphs combine one of the few surviving ideographs in the ''Širkattarnaft'' with an ordinary character. These and other unusual usage of the ''Širkattarnaft'' characters in the texts, while not completely regular, do follow recurrent patterns, an indication of phonological differences between Vadi and Minhast, and as demonstrated by Iyyaħmi, evidence of sandhi processes occurring between syllable and word boundaries.  Schumann has argued the texts indicate dialectal differences between the litigants; Iyyaħmi does agree that some of the spelling anomalies in the texts do indicate dialectal differences, but that this argument alone is too simplistic: there are other anomalies that are highly indicative that the writers were trying to indicate sandhi processes not reflected by the standard ''Širkattarnaft'' characters. He statistically backs up this argument by presenting frequency distributions of certain types of spelling anomalies found in ''both'' litigants' texts, differences which can only be explained by morphophonotactics.<sup>1</sup>
The excellent condition of the texts from the Scriptum were a veritable gold mine for understanding Vadi phonology and phonotactics and led to the conclusion that the phonemic inventory was underestimated. The texts from the Scriptum also eventually dispelled earlier views that Vadi phonotactics were simple. Rather, Vadi phonotactics were far more complex than earlier thought.
 
The texts were written entirely in the indigenous Minhast [[Minhast#Orthography|''Širkattarnaft'']]. While the ''Širkattarnaft'', an abugida, works quite well for the Minhast language, it has presented a major challenge to Vadists in determining the phonology and phonotactics of Vadi.  It became immediately apparent that there were several spelling variants and inconsistencies, and numerous occurrences of digraphs appear in both litigants' texts.  Many of the digraphs also utilized some of the few surviving ideograms in the ''Širkattarnaft'' (e.g. the <MIN> ideogram).  
 
Tashunka, who was working on Minhast dialectology at the time of the discovery of the Scriptum, was among the first scholars to examine the texts. He immediately realized, based on the aforementioned anomalies, that there were phonemes not accounted for in previous Vadists' works. Based on these anomalies, he posited additional phonemes in Vadi.  From his analyses, he proposed that either the phoneme /β/ or /v/ was part of the phonemic inventory of Vadi, based on the digraph <bi> + <f> found in the Scriptum's texts.  These digraphs coincided with the alternation of <ba> and <wa> in the Aħħur texts. So while the Aħħur texts' spelling for "Vadi" alternated erratically between <ba> + <di> or <wa> + <di>, the texts from the Scriptum consistently spelled "Vadi" as <bi> + <f> + <'a><di>. Similar correlations of the anomalies the Scriptum with the Aħħur materials led him to conclude there was also a /ð/, and another albeit indeterminate sibilant, perhaps /ɕ/. Several years after Tashunka returned to his work on Minhast dialectology, Iyyaħmi took up where Tashunka left off and determined that the sibilant was the apico-alveolar fricative /s̺/.


Today, most linguists have come to a general consensus of the Vadi phonemic inventory.  The language does appear to be  largely CV, although Iyyaħmi has presented convincing evidence that CVC, initial and final CC syllables can arise due to the application of sandhi processes.
Iyyaħmi, inspired by Tashunka's earlier work, later discovered previously unknown mutations and other sandhi processes in the language.  He developed a new romanization scheme show the complex sandhi processes that were represented by the litigants' unorthodox use of the indigenous Minhast ''Širkattarnaft'' script.


Gemination occurs among a restricted set of consonants, particularly /k/ and /l/.  Consonantal mutations occur, with both evidence of lenition and fortition.  Metathesis also occurs with certain consonantal combinations, traceable to Minhast influence.
Before turning to the actual phonemic inventory and phonotactics of Vadi, a knowledge of the three principal orthographies is essential, as these [[Vadi#Orthography | orthographies]] illustrate how the Vadi mutation system was eventually reconstructed by the Šibbūru school.  Their findings remain a hotly contested issue beyond Vadi's phonological system, as it poses major  implications in other areas of the Vadi language, especially morphology and morphosyntax.


===Consonants===
===Consonants===
*Traditionalist:


{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
|+ '''Vadi Consonantal Inventory'''
|+ '''Vadi Consonantal Inventory'''
|-  
|-  
!  || Bilabial  ||  Alveolar || Palatal || Velar || Uvular || Glottal
!  || Bilabial  ||  Alveolar || Palatal || Velar || Pharyngeal || Glottal
|-
|-
! Nasal  
! Nasal  
|  m  
|  m  
|  n
|  n
|
| 
| 
|
|-
! Plosive
| p b
| t d
| 
| k g
|
| ʔ
|-
! Fricative
| v
| s
| ʃ*
| x*
| ħ*
| h
|-
! Affricates
|
|
| d͡ʒ
|
|
|
|-
! Approximants
|   
|   
|
| j
|
|
|
|-
! Flap
|
| ɾ
|
|   
|   
|  
|  
|
|-
! Lateral
|
| l
|
|
|
|
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>The phonemes /ʃ x ħ/ were not originally part of the native phonology.  They appear mostly in words of Minhast origin, although some texts from the Scriptum suggest that /ʃ/ has replaced /s̺/ in some native Vadi words.
*Šibbūru:
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
|+ '''Vadi Consonantal Inventory'''
|-
!  || Bilabial  ||  Alveolar || Palatal || Velar || Pharyngeal || Glottal
|-
! Nasal
|  m
|  n
| 
|
|
| 
|
|-
|-
! Plosive  
! Plosive  
| p b  
| p b  
| t d  
| t d
|   
|   
| k g
| k g
|  
|
| ʔ
| ʔ
|-
|-
! Fricative  
! Fricative  
|  v  
|  v  
|  s s̺* ɬ*
|  θ* ð* <br/> s s̺*  
|  ʒ*
|  ʃ* ʒ*
|
| x**
|
| ħ**
|h  
|h  
|-
|-
Line 81: Line 151:
|
|
|
|
|d͡ʒ*
|d͡ʒ
|
|  
|
|  
|
|
|-
|-
Line 98: Line 168:
| ɾ
| ɾ
|   
|   
|
|  
|  
|
|  
|  
|-
|-
! Lateral Approximant
! Lateral  
|
|
| l
| l ɬ*
|
|
|
|
Line 111: Line 181:
|}
|}


<nowiki>*</nowiki> Not reflected in Schumann's phonemic inventory.
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Not reflected in Traditionalist phonemic inventory. Additionally, /ʒ/ starts to appear in later texts, sometimes alternating with /ʃ/ in Minhast borrowings, and other times alternating with /s̺/ or even /d͡ʒ/ in apparently native Vadi words.<br/>
<nowiki>**</nowiki> Phonemes restricted to loanwords borrowed directly from Minhast.


===Vowels===
===Vowels===
Line 181: Line 252:
===Prosody===
===Prosody===
====Stress====
====Stress====
Stress is highly variable in Vadi, but it tends to fall on the penultimate syllable.  Schumann's Romanized orthography marks stress with an acute accent, which in turn implies that the vowel is lengthened, although exceptions regarding vowel lengthening abound.  When a penultimate syllable is marked with an acute accent, one can generally assume that vowel lengthening has also occurred, although at times it may be an orthographic relic from a time when the vowel was lengthened in the past, but by late Vadi times had been shortened.
The issue of stress, as in most areas of Vadi phonology and grammar, is another area of contentious dispute between the Traditionalist and Šibbūru school.  The texts discovered at Aħħur showed various marks adjacent to the ''Širkattarnaft'' characters, which early Vadists interpreted as diacritics indicating stress.  This conclusion was based on the observation that a vertical slash would appear either on the ultimate or penultimate syllables, with more than half appearing on the final syllable.  On about five percent of words in the entire Aħħur corpora, both the ultimate and penultimate syllables bore the slash mark.


In contrast, Iyyaħmi uses a macron to indicate simple vowel lengthening, and an acute accent for accented short vowels.  Words containing a single macron and no additional diacritics indicate that the syllable containing the long vowel bears the stress.  Words containing a vowel with an acute accent bear the stress, regardless of the presence of other long vowels.
The corpora of the Kalapái Scriptum, provide evidence that vowel length was also a significant feature of the Vadi phonological system and affected word stress.  Although the writers of the material from the Scriptum used the ''Širkattarnaft'' very differently from those found in Aħħur, the Scriptum provided a richer dataset for researchers to demonstrate that word stress in Vadi was more complex than earlier thought.  Rather than being simply a fixed lexical feature, word stress could shift from various factors, especially when morphophonatactic interactions triggered mutations and word-internal sandhi processes.


====Intonation====
====Intonation====


===Phonotactics===
===Phonotactics===
<!-- Explain the consonant clusters and vowel clusters that are permissible for use in the language. For example, "st" is an allowed consonant cluster in English while onset "ng" isn't. -->
 
 
====Mutations====
The role of mutations has been a topic of contentious ongoing debate between the Traditionalist and Šibbūru Schools, the former arguing that mutations are not a morphophonological phenomenon in Vadi, whilst the latter argues that not only did mutations exist in the language, but they played a prominent role in Vadi grammar.
 
The source of contention centers on the use of two ''Širkattarnaft'' characters, ''yu'' and ''gu''.  Whenever they appear, they appear immediately next to the word they modify.  If spacing between these special characters and the word they modify is any guide, they can appear both before or after the word they modify.  Two other issues surrounding the use of the ''yu'' and ''gu'' characters must also be taken into consideration.  Firstly, the ''yu'' and ''gu'' characters initially appear in one litigant's correspondence, only to be later incorporated into the other litigant's texts.  The period in which the characters appear also plays an important role in the evolution of the litigants' use of the ''Širkattarnaft'' to indicate mutations. 
 
The litigants' correspondence can be divided into three stages: the Early Period (EP), the Middle Period (MP), and the Late Period (LP).  In the Early Period texts, the ''yu'' and ''gu'' characters first appear sporadically in Sorvin's correspondence, albeit with a considerable amount of irregularity.  Subsequent responses from Éro initially start with only the ''yu'' character, and sometimes the words where the character appears coincides with Sorvin's, but there are also many counterexamples.  As the texts progress towards the Middle Period, a considerable amount of convergence in the litigants' usage of these characters becomes evident.  By the Late Period, the use of the characters gradually fall out of use.  Dr. Iyyaħmi observes:
 
<blockquote style="font-style:italic">
The gradual evolution of the litigants' usage of the Širkattarnaft indicate the authors had a conscious meta knowledge  of the grammar of their language.  They were quite aware from the beginning when they began their correspondence that the Minhast script could not reflect the complex phonological changes that occurred when various parts of speech interacted with one another.  Think of Sorvin and Ero's ongoing correspondence as a dance: as new partners learning the steps of a new dance, they start out awkwardly, but with time and practice, their moves synchronize, and without further need to concentrate which steps to repeat and how to strategize the next move, they become a unified pair, their dance now becoming a fluid, effortlessly choreographed visual sensation.
 
Just like the dancers, Sorvin and Éro learn the Širkattarnaft and struggle to fit it with the phonology and morphophonotactics of their language during the Early Period.  As time passes into the Middle Period, the idiosyncratic patterns of each writer gradually merge into a standard, one mutually and implicitly agreed upon.  After all, the  adversaries have learned each other's style, becoming adept and fluent in the other's use of the Širkattarnaft. By the Late Period, the use of the "gu" and "yu" characters gradually diminish, the authors now confident that the other can anticipate when a mutation occurs, and what type.  "Gu" and "yu" become no longer necessary, as Sorvin and Éro have associated clitic, modifier, case, tense, and number with the appropriate mutation. In spite of their enmity, they had, perhaps unbeknownst to them, helped each other, teaching the other how to communicate in a script ill-fitted to their native language.  They cooperated with each other, creating the system we use today for reconstructing the Vadi language.</blockquote>
 
The ''gu'' character, per the Mutationists' stance, indicates fortition, whilst ''yu'' signals lenition.  The types of lenition the Mutationists have identified are presented in the following table:
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
|+ '''Types of Mutations'''
|-
! Initial Phoneme
! Lenition
! Fortition
|-
! d
| y -> d͡ʒ <br/> θ -> ð
| m, p, b -> b
|-
! Eye
| kulúri
| kulun
| --
|-
! Ear
| támika
| taka
| --
|-
! Nose
| --
| uvaz
| uváza
|-
! Heart
| --
| gilay
| gilaya
|-
! Hair
| varláka (Schumann)<br/>vajlák (Tashunka)
| varlat (Schumann)<br/>vajlat (Tashunka)
| --
|-
! Lips
| túnturi
| tuntu
| --
|-
! Tongue
| --
| nipáz
| nipáza
|-
! Finger
| patáka, patári
| pata
| --
|-
! Hand
| uzáka
| uzap
| --
|-
! Testicle
| vúlari/vúluka
| vula
| --
|-
! Penis
| niátari/niátak(a)
| niat
| niata
|}
 
Triggers for lenition and fortition include:
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
|+ '''Types of Mutations'''
|-
! Trigger
! Mutation Type
! Raw Transcription
! Final Realization
! Comments
|-
! Emphatic ''hen'' 
| Lenition
| yu hena [Éro]; hen yu [Sorvin] <!-- hian [Sorvin's original, EP] "yu-yaokan"]; actual pronunciation: hin -->
| heɲ
| During the Middle Period, Éro starts writing the ''yu'' character immediately before ''hena'' in his threat letters [EP] to Sorvin.  Sorvin in turn starts writing the ''yu'' character after ''hen'', not the word preceding it.  Eventually, Éro follows Sorvin's practice during the MP.
|-
! Eye
| kulúri
| kulun
| --
|-
! Ear
| támika
| taka
| --
|-
! Nose
| --
| uvaz
| uváza
|-
! Heart
| --
| gilay
| gilaya
|-
! Hair
| varláka (Schumann)<br/>vajlák (Tashunka)
| varlat (Schumann)<br/>vajlat (Tashunka)
| --
|-
! Lips
| túnturi
| tuntu
| --
|-
! Tongue
| --
| nipáz
| nipáza
|-
! Finger
| patáka, patári
| pata
| --
|-
! Hand
| uzáka
| uzap
| --
|-
! Testicle
| vúlari/vúluka
| vula
| --
|-
! Penis
| niátari/niátak(a)
| niat
| niata
|}
 
====Syncope====
 
====Ablaut====
 
====Metathesis====
 
===Morphophonology===
===Morphophonology===


==Orthography==
==Orthographic Systems==
As mentioned earlier, the Scriptum was entirely written in the ''The Širkattarnaft'', an Indic-derived script containing graphemes of an even older ideographic system:
=== Širkattarnaft - The Native Minhast Orthography ===
 
Like the Aħħur materials, the Scriptum corpora were written entirely in the indigenous Minhast Širkattarnaft.


'''The Širkattarnaft'''
<gallery>
<gallery>
File:Minhast_Script.jpg|
File:Minhast_Script.jpg|
</gallery>
</gallery>


There is strong evidence that the ''Širkattarnaft'' was insufficient in representing Vadi phonology and phonotactics.  Numerous digraphs, spelling anomalies if not irregularities, are found throughout the texts.  Schumann and Iyyaħmi use two different Romanized systems for glossing purposes.  Schumann's is based on Spanish, as it is his native language and moreover, he feels the Spanish orthography represents the phonology of Vadi accurately.  Iyyaħmi's publications inside Minhay utilize the ''Širkattarnaft'' to maintain Vadi's historical link with the actual system in the Scriptum, as well as to make it accessible to native Minhast speakers.  However, for international publications, Iyyaħmi prefers a modified version of the [[Minhast#Orthography|Ammerkast]] system for transcribing Vadi, which he believes maps closer to the ''Širkattarnaft'' and more flexible in showing sandhi and mutations that are not represented in Schumann's system.  Both do employ IPA to represent the actual phonology of the textual material, but even here both Vadists diverge, as the IPA of Iyyaħmi reflects his more recent work on how the ''Širkattarnaft'' was used to represent Vadi phonology and phonotactics, whereas Schumann maintains Iyyaħmi's analyses are problematic.  Today, however, the consensus among Vadists is that Iyyaħmi's analyses are more accurate.
Unlike the Aħħur materials, the Scriptum is replete with numerous digraphs.


Nevertheless, Schumann's system is more widespread as his work on Vadi started in late 1960, whereas Iyyaħmi, although quite prolific, began his work much more recently after finishing his post-doc in 2008.  In this article, Schumann's Romanization will be used for glossing where there is little divergence between his and Iyyaħmi's samples.  However, if there are significant discrepancies, both Romanizations will be represented together with Schumann's appearing first, separated by a slash before Iyyaħmi's.
While the Širkattarnaft, an abugida, works quite well for the Minhast language, it has presented a major challenge to Vadists in determining the phonology and phonotactics of Vadi.  Several spelling variants and inconsistencies in the earliest dated texts are wildly aberrant from both within the texts and that of later documents.
 
===Traditionalist Romanized System===
 
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
|-
! | Traditionalist Romanization System
|-
|  a, á, e, é, i, í, o, ó, u, ú, b, p, f, v, d, t, g, k, j, n, m, l, r, z, s, h, w, y
|-
|}


==Morphology==
==Morphology==
<!-- How do the words in your language look? How do you derive words from others? Do you have cases? Are verbs inflected? Do nouns differ from adjectives? Do adjectives differ from verbs? Etc. -->
<!-- How do the words in your language look? How do you derive words from others? Do you have cases? Are verbs inflected? Do nouns differ from adjectives? Do adjectives differ from verbs? Etc. -->
Vadi is a mildly fusional language with some agglutinative characteristics.  Cliticization is a prominent feature of the language, such that considerable debate has arisen as to whether some affixes should be reclassified as clitics.  Further adding to this debate is the ambiguities arising from the orthography in the texts: a given morpheme may appear as part of a word, and other times may be written as separate and distinct from its target word.  Where the morpheme is written separately from its host, the initial or internal phoneme of the separated morpheme is often represented by a different character from the one usually used when it is attached directly to its host.  This most likely indicates some sort of sandhi process occurred, suggestive of an affixal status, despite being written separately.  Recognizing the clitic-vs-affix debate remains a contested area, this article generally follows Schumann's classification system, although some conventions based on Iyyaħmi's more recent work will be used, as many of his analyses have been have become the prevailing view among Vadists.  Iyyaħmi's conventions, wherever they appear in this article, will be noted.
 
Vadi is a mildly fusional language with some agglutinative characteristics.  Cliticization is a prominent feature of the language.


===Nouns===
===Nouns===


====Gender====
====Gender====
Vadi nouns for the most part do not mark for gender, but there appear to be remnants of gender marking on special [[Vadi#Number| singulative ]] forms, interestingly confined to body parts which also demonstrate an interesting split on the [[Vadi#Number| number system]]:
The issue of gender marking in Vadi is a topic of heated debate between the schools.  The Traditionalists believe that Vadi lacks gender as there is no apparent gender-marking morphology.  The Šibbūru argue that the mutation system (a feature the Traditionalists deny existing) does indeed indicate gender. 
 
=====Body Parts=====
At least in the case of body parts, there does appear to be some sort of gender marking on special [[Vadi#Number| singulative ]] forms, ''-ri'' and ''-ka'' for the singulative, and ''-(h)a'' on plural forms.  These nouns also demonstrate an interesting split on the [[Vadi#Number| number system]], since Vadi, which otherwise exhibits no plural pattern in other nouns, has an explicit plural for body parts that normally are singular e.g. the head, nose, mouth, etc.  It is believed that in Vadi's prehistory, the ''-ri'' forms indicated animate nouns, whilst the ''-ka'' forms indicated inanimate nouns.  However, both the Aħħur and Kalapái texts show that syncretism had taken place.
 
The Šibbūru School believes these divergent forms belong to a distinct noun classes, whereas the Traditionalists believe Vadi had lost its gender or noun class system in its prehistory, and these differentiated forms are simply fossil remnants of that system.  The Traditionalist view is problematic, though, because at least in the case of body parts, certain nouns select ''kaidon'' while others select ''kaira''.  The exact meaning of these two particles is unclear; in some contexts they appear to mean "which", in others they appear to serve as a definite article, and yet in others their function is simply unknown. 


{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
The selection of ''kaidon'' versus ''kaira'' appears to be influenced by the interaction of two factors: the animacy of the noun and whether the marked form of the noun is the singulative or the plural.  ''Kaira'' tends to appear more often with animate nouns where the singulative is the marked form, e.g. ''kulúri/kulun'' "eye", or when the noun is inanimate and the marked form is the plural, e.g. ''uvaz/uváza'' "nose".  ''Kaidon'' has a higher occurrence when the noun is inanimate and its marked number is singulative, or when the noun is animate and its marked number form is plural, e.g. ''gilay/gilaya''.  Note that ''niat'', although it takes both singulative and plural marking, it selects explicitly for ''kaidon''.  However, it is important to note that because of the small sample size, it is premature to conclude that the ''kaidon/kaira'' opposition definitively indicates a noun class distinction in this semantic category exists.
 
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg sortable"
|+ '''Gender-Number Marking on Body Part Nouns'''
|+ '''Gender-Number Marking on Body Part Nouns'''
|-
|-
Line 219: Line 468:
! Unmarked
! Unmarked
! Plural
! Plural
! ''Kaidon/Kaira'' Selection
|-
|-
! Head
! Head
Line 224: Line 474:
| jidár
| jidár
| jidárha
| jidárha
| kaidon
|-
|-
! Eye
! Eye
Line 229: Line 480:
| kulun
| kulun
| --
| --
| kaira
|-
|-
! Ear
! Ear
Line 234: Line 486:
| taka
| taka
| --
| --
| kaidon
|-
|-
! Nose
! Nose
Line 239: Line 492:
| uvaz
| uvaz
| uváza
| uváza
| kaira
|-
|-
! Heart
! Heart
| --
| --
| rilai
| gilay
| rilaia
| gilaya
| kaidon
|-
|-
! Hair
! Hair
| varláka
| varláka (Schumann)<br/>vajlák (Iyyaħmi)
| varlat
| varlat (Schumann)<br/>vajlat (Iyyaħmi)
| --
| --
| kaidon
|-
|-
! Lips
! Lips
Line 254: Line 510:
| tuntu
| tuntu
| --
| --
| kaira
|-
|-
! Tongue
! Tongue
Line 259: Line 516:
| nipáz
| nipáz
| nipáza
| nipáza
| kaira
|-
|-
! Finger
! Finger
| patáka
| patáka, patári
| pata
| pata
| --
| --
| kaira
|-
|-
! Hand
! Hand
Line 269: Line 528:
| uzap
| uzap
| --
| --
| kaira
|-
|-
! Testicle
! Testicle
Line 274: Line 534:
| vula
| vula
| --
| --
| kaidon
|-
|-
! Penis
! Penis
Line 279: Line 540:
| niat
| niat
| niata
| niata
| kaidon
|}
|}


The singulative forms seem to roughly correspond with animacy.  The ''-(r)i'' forms seem associated with animate nouns, whereas the ''-ka'' forms correspond largely with inananimates. However, exceptions do appear, as in ''uzáka'' instead of expected ''uzap(r)i'' "hand".  The plural forms, consisting of the sole affix ''-a'', shows no animacy distinction.
 
Body parts that usually come in pairs (e.g. hands), mass/collective (e.g. hair), or multiple instances (e.g. fingers) follow the singulative/non-singulative distinction.  Those that (usually) occur as a single instance on the human body, such as the head, tongue, and nose follow a singular/plural distinction, with the singular being the unmarked condition.  The last body part in the table follows a singulative-plural-unmarked distinction, a highly divergent pattern combined with possessing both an animate/inanimate distinction in the singulative form.  How these forms arose remains speculative, but if the texts between the litigants is any guide, the form chosen was employed to intensify some of their more vitriolic correspondence, the animate singulative or plural form serving as the proxy noun of the speech transmitter, and the inanimate singulative or simple unmarked form serving as the proxy noun of the speech recipient. 
 
The singulative determiner ''ha/han'' (Traditionalist) or ''ha=/han='' (Šibbūru) does not surface before a singular body part noun; double-marking is barred. The singulative forms ''-ri'' and ''-ka'' seem to roughly correspond with animacy.  The ''-(r)i'' forms seem associated with animate nouns, whereas the ''-ka'' forms appear to have originally descended inananimates. However, exceptions do appear, as in ''uzáka'' instead of expected ''uzap(r)i'' "hand"; others have more than one form, as in the case of ''patáka, patári'', the singulative forms for "finger".  The plural forms, consisting of the sole affix ''-a'', shows no animacy distinction.


Unfortunately, these body parts are the only ones attested from the Scriptum.  The last two body parts listed were extracted from letters that became especially laced with various vulgar ad hominems between the two litigants.  Note also that the two last terms have both the presumptive animate and inanimate forms.  The inanimate forms appear to be used as proxy pronouns for the addressee (implying impotence), while the animate forms appear to be proxy pronouns for the addresser, especially in passages threatening physical violence.
Unfortunately, these body parts are the only ones attested from the Scriptum.  The last two body parts listed were extracted from letters that became especially laced with various vulgar ad hominems between the two litigants.  Note also that the two last terms have both the presumptive animate and inanimate forms.  The inanimate forms appear to be used as proxy pronouns for the addressee (implying impotence), while the animate forms appear to be proxy pronouns for the addresser, especially in passages threatening physical violence.
=====Other Nouns=====
Evidence that Vadi has a more elaborate gender system can be observed by the effects of mutations triggered by nominal and verbal inflections, according to the Šibbūru School, based on the co-occurrence of the ''gu'' and ''yu'' characters.  Case suffixes may trigger lenition or fortition, depending on the target noun.  The ''kaidon/kaira'' opposition with body part nouns, is not seen in the majority of non-body part nouns; instead they appear to be simple alternates for the other.  A few exceptions exist, though, principally with liquids, and abstract nouns, both of which tend to favour ''kaidon''; these nouns are for the most part mass or collective nouns and thus have neither a singulative or plural form.  Based on Dr. Iyyaħmi's analyses, ''kaidon'' triggers fortition, as the ''gu'' character appears either before or after the modifier in the Middle and early Late Period texts, especially in Sorvin's correspondence, before leveling off and disappearing from the middle of the Late Period texts onwards.
Another smaller set of nouns where the ''kaidon/kaira'' opposition appears is primarily among nouns denoting farming implements: ''kaira'' is the form most often selected, regardless of whether the noun is singulative or non-singulative.  ''Kaira'' triggers lenition of its head noun per the Šibbūru School, based on the ''yu'' character often found before the head noun; this character appears more often in Éro's correspondence than Sorvin's, although the frequency differentials of ''yu'' level off by the close of the Middle Period texts and like all documents in the Late Period, the character disappears altogether.


====Number====
====Number====
Number exhibits a two-way distinction in nouns: singular and non-singular.  Singular number, or more accurately the  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singulative_number Singulative], is explicitly marked with the determiner ''han/ha'' (the latter considered by Iyyaħmi as either a prefixe or clitic), while plural and collectives are unmarked.  Nouns beginning with a vowel are preceded by the allomorph ''han'', while ''ha'' appears before nouns beginning with a consonant.   
Number exhibits a two-way distinction in nouns: singular and non-singular.  Singular number, or more accurately the  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singulative_number Singulative], is explicitly marked with the determiner ''han/ha'' (Traditionalist view) or ''han=/ha='' (Šibbūru view). Plural and collective number are unmarked.  Singular nouns beginning with a vowel are preceded by ''han/han='', while ''ha/ha='' appears before nouns beginning with a consonant.   


Sometimes the singulative is represented by inflection, particularly [[Vadi#Gender| body parts]].  Number distinction in body part nouns displays an unusual split, one being the typical singulative-unmarked distinction, and the other being a plural-unmarked distinction.  Body parts that usually come in pairs (e.g. hands), mass/collective (e.g. hair), or multiple instances (e.g. fingers) follow the singulative/non-singulative distinction.  Those that occur (usually) as a single instance on the human body, such as the head, tongue, and nose follow a singular/plural distinction, with the singular being the unmarked condition.  The last body part in the table follows a singulative-plural-unmarked distinction, a highly divergent pattern combined with possessing both an animate/inanimate distinction in the singulative form.  How these forms arose remains speculative, but if the texts between the litigants is any guide, the form chosen was employed to intensify some of their more vitriolic correspondence, the animate singulative or plural form serving as the proxy noun of the speech transmitter, and the inanimate singulative or simple unmarked form serving as the proxy noun of the speech recipient.  Regardless, the usual singulative determiner ''han/ha'' does not co-occur with singular body part nouns in any of the texts of the Scriptum, suggesting that double-marking with the determiner is ungrammatical.


====Case====
====Case====
Six postpositional morphemes have been identified.  They were originally classified by Schumann as clitics, whereas Iyyaħmi has convincingly argued for their status as affixes, based on statistical frequencies of certain anomalies in the litigants' use of the Minhast orthography.  This article follows Iyyaħmi's classification, as this has now become the prevailing position of Vadists today:
Six case morphemes have been identified.  These have been classified by Schumann as postpositional clitics, whereas Iyyaħmi has vigorously argued for their status as affixes, based on his work on Vadi mutations.  Nevertheless, whether they are clitics or affixes, most Vadists agree the shape of the actual markers follow the basic forms listed in the table below:


{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
|+ '''Postpositional Affixes'''
|+ '''Case Markers'''
|-
|-
! Case
! Case
! Postposition
! Clitic or Affix
|-
|-
! Genitive
! Genitive
Line 312: Line 581:
|-
|-
! Instrumental
! Instrumental
| -eta
| -eta  
|-
|-
! Comitative
! Comitative
Line 320: Line 589:
Body part nouns may precede a head noun already marked with one of the case clitics to add more locational, directional, or positional precision.  The singulative determiner does not surface before a singular body part noun, as would be expected.  The following example illustrates this type of structure.  Here, the noun ''kilái'' "heart", often combines with a noun marked with the locative clitic ''-eva'' to convey an inessive sense.
Body part nouns may precede a head noun already marked with one of the case clitics to add more locational, directional, or positional precision.  The singulative determiner does not surface before a singular body part noun, as would be expected.  The following example illustrates this type of structure.  Here, the noun ''kilái'' "heart", often combines with a noun marked with the locative clitic ''-eva'' to convey an inessive sense.


{{Gloss
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
|phrase = Julanáina kilái ha kileva mana, ukan hen!/Dyulnheyne klay hakleb-fe man ukan hen
|-
| IPA = /d͡zula'naɪna kɪ'laɪ ha kɪlɛva mana 'ukan hɛn/ -- /d͡zunɲ̩eɪnɛ klaɪ 'haklɛv man u'kãɲɛn/
!
| morphemes = ji-úla-nai-na ha kilái kil-eva mana ukan hen / ji-ula-nai-na ha=kilái kil-eva mana ukan-hen  
! Schumann
| gloss = 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT-GEN heart SGV house-LOC still go wreak.havok EMPH
! Iyyaħmi
|-
! Raw Transcription
| colspan="2" |Julanāina gu kilāi ha gu kilebfa mana, ukan hen
|-
! Analyses
| {{Gloss
|phrase = Julanáina gu <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold">kilái</span> ha gu kil<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold">éva</span> mana, ukan hen  
| IPA = /ha.'ta:ʔ/
| morphemes = ji-úla-nai-na gu <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold">kilái</span> ha gu kil-<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold">éva</span> mana ukan hen
| gloss = 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT-GEN soon <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold">heart</span> SGV still house-<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold">LOC</span> go.wreak.havok EMPH  
| translation = I will enter your house and still ruin you!
| translation = I will enter your house and still ruin you!
}}
}}
| {{Gloss
|phrase = Junyé:na <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold">glay</span> hagl<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold">ev</span> man ukɑ̃ny
| IPA = /ha.'ta:ʔ/
| morphemes = ji-úla-nai-na gu <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold">klái</span> ha gu kil-<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold">éva</span> mana ukan hen
| gloss = 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT-GEN soon <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold">heart</span> SGV still house-<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold">LOC</span> go.wreak.havok EMPH
| translation = I will soon enter your house and still ruin you!
}}
|-
|}


With the exception of the portmanteau pronouns, core arguments take no marking in transitive clauses. When an explicit noun appears in transitive clauses, strict SOV order is followed:
With the exception of the portmanteau pronouns, core arguments take no marking in transitive clauses. When an explicit noun appears in transitive clauses, strict SOV order is followed:


{{Gloss
{{Gloss
|phrase = 1) Jinái kusara yaviti/Dyiney ksarea yabfitsš
|phrase = 1) Jiné: gzare yafts̺ / Jinái gu kusare a yaviti (Schumann)[[Vadi#Footnotes |<sup>3</sup>]]
| IPA = /d͡zɪ'naɪ: kusara 'javɪti/ -- /d͡zɪ'neɪ: gzarʌ 'jaft͡ɕ
| IPA = /d͡zɪ'neɪ: gzarʌ jafts̺/ (Tashunka, Iyyaħmi), /d͡zɪ'naɪ: gu kusare a 'javɪti/ (Schumann)
| morphemes = ji-nai kusara yaviti
| morphemes = ji-nai gzare yafts̺ (Tashunka, Iyyaħmi), ji-nai gu kusare a yaviti (Schumann)
| gloss = 1S-FUT meat buy
| gloss = 1S-FUT meat buy (Tashunka, Iyyaħmi), 1S-FUT soon meat soon buy (Schumann)
| translation = I shall buy meat.
| translation = I shall buy meat. (Tashunka, Iyyaħmi),  I shall buy meat very soon. (Schumann) 
}}
}}


Line 341: Line 629:


*{{Gloss
*{{Gloss
|phrase = 2a) Ávaron ji vasáli hai/Ávron dyivslei
|phrase = 2a) Ávaron jiɬe / Ávaron ji vasáli hai
| IPA = /'avaɾon d͡ʒi va'sali haɪ/--/'avɾon d͡ʒi fɬɛɪ/
| IPA = /'avaɾon 'd͡ʒɪɬɛɪ/ (Tashunka, Iyyaħmi) /'avaɾon d͡ʒi va'sali haɪ/ (Schumann)
| morphemes = ávaron ji vasáli hai / ávaron ji vasáli=hai
| morphemes = ávaron ji-vasáli=hai / ávaron ji vasáli hai  
| gloss = PN 1S visited PST
| gloss = PN 1S-visit=PST / PN 1S visit PST /
| translation = Ávaron has visited me.
| translation = Ávaron has visited me.
}}
}}


*{{Gloss
*{{Gloss
|phrase = 2b) Ávaron jai vasáli.
|phrase = 2b) Ávaron jai vasáɫ / Ávaron jai vasáli
| IPA = 'avaron d͡ʒaɪ va'sali  
| IPA = 'avaron d͡ʒaɪ va'saɬ / 'avaron d͡ʒaɪ va'sali
| morphemes = ávaron ji-hai vasáli
| morphemes = ávaron ji-hai vasáɫ /ávaron ji-hai vasáli  
| gloss = PN 1S.DO-PST visit  
| gloss = PN 1S.DO-PST visit  
| translation = Ávaron has visited me.
| translation = Ávaron has visited me.
Line 357: Line 645:


*{{Gloss
*{{Gloss
|phrase = 2c) Jai Ávaron vasáli.
|phrase = 2c) Jai Ávaron vasáɫ/ Jai Ávaron vasáli
| IPA = d͡ʒaɪ 'avaron va'sali
| IPA = d͡ʒaɪ 'avaron va'saɫ / d͡ʒaɪ 'avaron va'sali
| morphemes = ji-hai ávaron vasáli
| morphemes = ji-hai ávaron vasáɫ / ji-hai ávaron vasáli
| gloss = 1S.DO-PST PN visit
| gloss = 1S.DO-PST PN visit
| translation = Ávaron has visited me.
| translation = Ávaron has visited me.
Line 367: Line 655:


{{Gloss
{{Gloss
|phrase = Kusara ipan, ji yaviti nai.
|phrase = Ku-sa-r fi-s-li pa-n, ya-b-fi-ti si-š nai (Iyyaħmi) / Kusara visil ipán, ji yaviti nai (Schumann)<br/>Kusar iɫpan, yavitš nai / [NA]
| IPA =  
| IPA = kusar ɪɬ'pan jafts̺ naɪ (Iyyaħmi) / kusara visil i:'pan d͡ʒi ja'vi:ti siš naɪ (Schumann)
| morphemes = kusara ipan ji yaviti nai.
| morphemes = kusar iɬpan yafts̺ nai (Iyyaħmi) / kusara visil ipán ji yaviti siš nai (Schumann)
| gloss = meat TOP 1S buy
| gloss = meat TOP 1S buy FUT (Iyyaħmi) / meat PART TOP 1S buy soon FUT (Schumann)
| translation = Meat, I shall buy (some).
| translation = Meat, I shall buy (some) / Meat [?], I will buy (some) soon.
}}
}}


=====Clitic/Affix Chaining=====
=====Case Chaining=====
A phenomenon seen in Vadi nouns is ''clitic chaining'' or ''affix chaining'', whereby two or more clitics or affixes become conjoined to each other to convey more granular syntactic information of the host noun.  This is seen most often in possessive phrases, whereby the possessor noun undergoes clitic/affix chaining to specify the semantic role of its head, and sometimes to indicate tense, as in the third sentence:
A specific form of agglugination seen in Vadi nouns is ''case chaining'', whereby two or more markers become conjoined to each other.  This process is used to convey more granular theta-role information of the host noun.  This is seen most often in possessive phrases, whereby the possessor noun undergoes clitic/affix chaining to specify the semantic role of its head, and oftentimes to indicate tense, as in the third sentence:


{{Gloss
{{Gloss
|phrase = Jinali valin pela udahadi hai, jutavarana iskuvan.
|phrase = Jilina valin bi pela udiyahadi en hai, jutavárana gu iskuvana (Schumann)<br/>Jinne val ippela ujãdé, jutavárana zguvan (Tashunka)<br/> di-yi-l-ne bi-f fa-l-in<span style="font-weight:normal">[sic]</span> bi pe-la u-d-yi-ya-ha-di ʔe-n hai, di-yu-ta-b-fā-ra-na gu i-s-ku-b-fa-na <br/> → Jinne val ippela ujáde, jutavárana zguvan (Iyyaħmi)
| IPA =  
| IPA =  
| morphemes = ji-na-li valin pela udahadi hai jutavara=na iskuvan
| morphemes = ji-li-na valin bi pela ujiyahadi en hai jutavara-na gu iskuvan (Schumann) <br/>ji-li-na val ippela ujãdi=hai jutavara=na zguvan (Tashunka)
| gloss = 1S-GEN-DAT family cloth buy PST winter.clothing=GEN purpose
| gloss = 1S-DAT-GEN family [bi-PART] cloth buy [en-PART] PST winter.clothing-GEN recently PURP (Schumann)
| translation = For my family I bought cloth to make winter clothing.
| translation = For my family I recently bought cloth to make winter clothing (Schumann).
}}
}}


{{Gloss
{{Gloss
|phrase = Jinevata kilái han odorim hesa hai, kuniri-ahalin ajul.
|phrase = di-yi-bi-f-da-n gu ki-la-y ha-n-du-wa-ri-m ʔē-sa-y, ku-ni-ri-ʔa-ha-li-n ʔa-di-yu-l <HAMBIN>i-su-ku-bi-fi-b-ʔa-n (Iyyaħmi)  / Jevdan glai handorim essai, kun<u>d</u>iri-ahalin ajul skuvan (Tashunka) / Jinaevata kilái han odorim hesa hai, kuniri-ahalin ajul [?] isúkuvan (Schumann)
| IPA =  
| IPA =  
| morphemes = ji-na-eva-ta kilái han odorim hesa hai kuniri-ahalin ajul iskuvan
| morphemes = ji-eva-ta-na kilái han=odorim hesa=hai kuniri-ahalin ajul iskuvan  
| gloss = 1S-GEN-ABL-LOC heart SGV house coin.PL bring PST disk-payment iron purpose
| gloss = 1S-ABL-LOC-GEN heart SGV house coin.PL bring=PST disk-payment iron PURP
| translation = From inside my house I brought out money to pay for the iron ingot.
}}
 
{{Gloss
|phrase = Jainevata kilái han odorim hes, kuniri-ahalin ajul.
| IPA =
| morphemes = ji-hai-na-eva-ta kilái han odorim hesa kuniri-ahalin ajul iskuvan
| gloss = 1S-PST-GEN-ABL-LOC heart SGV house coin.PL bring PST disk-payment iron purpose
| translation = From inside my house I brought out money to pay for the iron ingot.
| translation = From inside my house I brought out money to pay for the iron ingot.
}}
}}
Line 404: Line 684:
Vadi pronouns do not mark for gender.  Case marking on core arguments for transitive clauses do exhibit a nominative-accusative distinction, but only when both arguments are singular in number.
Vadi pronouns do not mark for gender.  Case marking on core arguments for transitive clauses do exhibit a nominative-accusative distinction, but only when both arguments are singular in number.


Plurality in the independent pronouns are indicated by the suffix ''-ta''.  This contrasts with number marking on nouns, where plurals are unmarked but singulars are preceded by the determiner ''han/ha''.
 
====Personal Pronouns====
Plurality in the independent personal pronouns are indicated by the suffix ''-ta''.  This contrasts with number marking on nouns, where plurals are unmarked but singulars are preceded by the determiner ''han/ha''.


{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
Line 426: Line 708:
|}
|}


The nominative-accusative distinction occurs in the portmanteau forms, which are etymologically transparent.  The first segment of the portmanteau affix marks the nominative argument, while the second marks the accusative argument:
The nominative-accusative distinction occurs in the portmanteau forms, which are etymologically transparent.  The first segment of the portmanteau affix marks the nominative argument, while the second marks the accusative argument.  Note the irregular forms ''kat<u>á</u>'' and ''katáta<u>na</u>''.


{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
Line 469: Line 751:
| katáji
| katáji
| kulta
| kulta
| katá
| kat<span style="color:blue; font-weight:bold">''á''</span>
|-
|-
! rowspan="4"| Plural
! rowspan="4"| Plural
Line 492: Line 774:
| kataji
| kataji
| katúla
| katúla
| katáta
| katáta<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold">''na''</span>
| katajta
| katajta
| katulta
| katulta
Line 499: Line 781:
|}
|}


====Affix Chaining====
Affix/clitic chaining can occur with all pronominal forms, as in one of the sample sentences in the previous section, demonstrated again in the next table.  The affix chain is highlighted in the normalized transcriptions, morphemic breakdowns, and glosses:
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg"
|-
!
! Schumann
! Iyyaħmi
! Tashunka
|-
! Denormalized Širkattarnaft - <br/><br/> Kalapái Texts
| [EP] Di-yu-la-na-y-na gu ki-la-y ha gu ki-le-b-fa ma-na u-ka-n hen
| colspan="2"|
#[EP; 22%]:<br/> Di-yu-la-na-y-na <GU> ki-la-y ha <GU> ki-le-b-fa ma-na u-ka-n hen
#[MP; 31%]:<br/> Di-yu-l-n-ye-yi-ne <GU> ki-la-y ha <GU> i-k-le-b-fe ma-n u-ka-n he-n <YU>
#[LP; 47%]:<br/> Di-yu-n-ye-n <YU> <GU> ki-la-y ha <GU> i-k-le-b-fe ma-n u-ka-n he-n <YU><YU>
|-
! Denormalized Širkattarnaft - <br/><br/> Aħħur Text Word Correspondences
| colspan="3"|
* [X]-y[u?]-n-ye-n-[y?]
* gi-la-ya-ha
* ge-l-wa
* man
* uk-[X]
* he-i-ni-yi
|-
! Normalized Transcription
| <span style="color:blue">Julanáina</span> gu kilái ha gu kileva mana, ukan hen
| colspan = "2" | <span style="color:blue">Junyé:na</span> glay haglev man ukɑ̃ny
|-
! IPA
| /d͡zula'naɪna gu kɪ'laɪ ha gu kɪlɛva mana 'ukan hɛn/
| colspan="2" | /d͡zu'ɲeɪnɛ glaɪ 'haglɛv man u'kãɲ/
|-
! Morphemes
| <span style="color:blue">ji-úla-nai-na</span> gu kilái ha gu kil-eva mana ukan hen
| colspan="2" | <span style="color:blue">ji-ula-nai-na</span> kilái ha=kil-evá man ukan-hen
|-
! Gloss
| <span style="color:blue">1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT-GEN</span> soon heart SGV still house-LOC go.wreak.havok EMPH 
| colspan="2" | <span style="color:blue">1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT-GEN</span> heart SGV=house-LOC still go wreak.havok-EMPH
|-
! Translation
| I will soon enter your house and still ruin you!
| colspan="2" | I will enter your house and still ruin you!
|-
|}
====Interrogative Pronouns====
The interrogative pronouns consist of the interrogative affix ''-rín'' which is attached to a nominal root:
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg mw-collapsible"
|-
! rowspan="2"|Root
! colspan="2"|Interrogative <br/> Form
! rowspan="2"|Meaning
! rowspan="2"|* Mutation Information
|-
! Schumann
! Iyyaħmi
|-
! pa-
<!-- parin -->
<!-- | style="text-align:center"|thing -->
| style="text-align:center"|parín
| style="text-align:center"|parín<br/>barín<br/>harin
| style="text-align:center"|who
| 1) basic <br/> 2)''gu''-fortition <br/> 3) ''yu''-lenition
|-
|-
! ki-
<!-- kini -->
<!-- | style="text-align:center"|thing -->
| style="text-align:center"|kirín
| style="text-align:center"|what
|-
! ai-
<!-- | style="text-align:center"|daytime -->
| style="text-align:center"|airín
| style="text-align:center"|when
|-
! ko-
<!-- kon -->
<!-- | style="text-align:center"|place -->
| style="text-align:center"|korín
| style="text-align:center"|where
|-
! to-
<!-- toji -->
<!-- | style="text-align:center"|reason, cause -->
| style="text-align:center"|torín
| style="text-align:center"|why
|-
!kai-
| style="text-align:center"|kaido <br/> kaika
| style="text-align:center"|which
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Mutationist School
Nouns formed from the same roots include ''<u>pa</u>van'' "person", ''<u>ki</u>ni'' "thing", ''<u>ai</u>'' "daytime", ''<u>ko</u>n'' "place", and ''<u>to</u>ji'' "source".
Interrogatives appear at the end of the sentence and do not exhibit WH-movement.  When the emphatic ''hen'' co-occurs, it cliticizes to the interrogative and triggers palatalization its final consonant:
{{Gloss
|phrase = Mek ulájne vinári mek, airinye?
| IPA = /mek u'lad͡ʒnɛ vɪ'na:ɾi mɛk aɪɾɪɲɛ
| morphemes = mek ulá-ji-nai vinári mek, airin=hen
| gloss = HON 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT help HON when=EMPH
| translation = Please my lord, when will you give me aid?
}}
The independent form of the interrogative suffix, ''rin'', is used to form yes-no questions.  Again, it undergoes palatalization before ''hen'', which itself is deleted, as demonstrated by the next two examples provided by Tashunka:


Affix/clitic chaining can occur with all pronominal forms, as in one of the sample sentences in the previous section, demonstrated again here:
{{Gloss
|phrase = Úla pe:θan gaθran rin? 
| IPA = 'u:la 'pe:θan 'gaθran rɪn
| morphemes = úla pe:θan gaθran rin
| gloss = 2S.NOM think prevail Q
| translation = Do you think you will prevail?
}}


{{Gloss
{{Gloss
|phrase = Julanáina kilái ha kileva mana, ukan hen!
|phrase = Úla pe:θan gaθran riny?
| IPA = /d͡zul'neɪnɛ kɪ'laɪ haklɛv man ukan hen/
| IPA = 'u:la 'pe:θan 'gaθran rɪɲ
| morphemes = ji-úla-nai-na ha kilái kil-eva mana ukan hen
| morphemes = úla pe:θan gaθran rin=hen
| gloss = 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT-GEN heart SGV house-LOC still go wreak.havok EMPH
| gloss = 2S.NOM think prevail Q=EMPH
| translation = I will enter your house and still ruin you!
| translation = Do you ''really'' think you will prevail?
}}
 
The verb ''útani'' "to choose" also has a suffixal form, ''-tani'', which can attach to either a noun or a verb, deriving the meaning "which/whichever":
 
{{Gloss
|phrase = Rantani pelak odan pelak nyen
| IPA = 'ɾantani 'pɛlak 'odan 'pɛlak 'ɲɛ:n
| morphemes = ran-tani pelak odan pelak nai=hen
| gloss = man-choose lose utterly lose FUT=EMPH
| translation = Whichever man loses shall lose everything.
}}
}}
===Numbers===
Language contact with Minhast has drastically changed the original Vadi number system.  Of the original cardinal numbers, only the numbers for the three through nine retained their original forms; the numbers one, two, and ten are whole-scale borrowings from Minhast.  The original ordinal numbers were better preserved, with only the ordinals for eight and ten replaced by Minhast-derived numerals.  From eleven through nineteen for both cardinals and ordinals, a hybrid Minhast-Vadi system evolved.  For some numbers, ''tazem'' became truncated to a prefix ''taz''- joined to the unit number and triggers various sandhi processes.
The Vadi system was originally a base-ten system, as can be seen from numbers 1-20.  Numbers beyond twenty have been replaced by the [[Minhast#Cardinals_and_Ordinals | Minhast system ]] in its entirety; it transformed into a base-20 system, and the original Minhast phonemes, such as /x/, have also been preserved.
One important observation about the Vadi number system bears mentioning.  Vadi numbers are ''never'' used with Minhast measurements involving currency, distance or other officially recognized legal units.
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg mw-collapsible"
|-
! Number
! Cardinal
! Ordinal
! Comments
|-
! One
| šūmi
| anúri / annyú:ri <br/> va-
| ''Šūmi'' is a borrowing from Minhast. <br/><br/>The ordinals ''anúri / annyú:ri'' are the most often used forms <br/><br/> ''Va-'' is prefixed to roots, e.g. ''Vadi'' "First Language", and ''Varan'' "First People"
|-
! Two
| šānī
| velá
|
|-
! Three
| ðirna
| ðirnaya / ðirny
|
|-
! Four
| valí / vaɫɫi
| valíya / vaɫ
|
|-
! Five
| koron
| korona / korony
|
|-
! Six
| θera
| θera / θeɫ
|
|-
! Seven
| nivái / nivé:h
| niváya / nivaɫ
|
|-
! Eight
| nivési
| munás
| Ordinal ''munás'' borrowed from Minhast ''munāx''
|-
! Nine
| nivéna
| nivénaya / niveny
|
|-
! Ten
| tazem
| tazmás
| Ordinal ''tazmás'' borrowed from Minhast ''tazmāx''
|-
! Eleven
| tazem vaní
| tazem vaníri / tavyuri
|
|-
! Twelve
| tazem ré:ði / tazen je:di
| tazem re:ðíri / tanði
|
|-
! Thirteen
| tazem ðirnia / tazen dirné:
| tazem ðirniari / tandiɫni
|
|-
! Fourteen
| tazem valí / tazennaɫɫi
|
|
|-
! Fifteen
| tazem koron / tazgoron
|
|
|-
! Sixteen
| tazem θéra / tazdera
|
|
|-
! Seventeen
| tazem nivái / tazem mivé:h
| tazem niváya / taznivaɫ
|
|-
! Eighteen
| tazem nivési / taznivési
|
|
|-
! Nineteen
| tazem nivéna / tazmivén
|
|
|-
! Twenty
| šentāz
| šentāz-u-manāx
|
|-
|}


===Adjectives===
===Adjectives===
Modifiers in Vadi typically precede their heads, and this observation holds for adjectives.  In terms of morphology, there are no special affixes that distinguish them from either nouns or verbs.  Iyyaħmi believes they may trigger mutation, but admits that further analysis is needed. 
===Verbs===
===Verbs===
Vadi has several deverbal affixes to derive instrumental, location, and occupational nouns.  Other deverbal affixes derive abstract nouns, or infinitives.  Examples with the verb ''kora'' "to cut" and the most common deverbals include:
*''-vir'': instrumental deverbal, e.g. ''kora-vir'' "knife"
*''-ðai'': locational deverbal, e.g. ''kor-ðai'' "butcher shop"
*''-ji'': occupational deverbal, e.g. ''kor-ji'' "butcher"
<!--
Other derivational affixes, both prefixes and suffixes, are more common, some appear to be highly productive and suggest they can be spontaneously generated:
* ''-kai'': a deverbal for creating place nouns, e.g. ''iavati-kai'' "a place for buying", i.e. marketplace.
* ''-pallái'': another deverbal for creating place nouns, e.g. ''tukin-pallái'' "a place for sitting", i.e. hearth, dining room.
* ''-kattá'': a deverbal affix deriving agent nouns, e.g. ''iavati-kattá'' "one who buys, a buyer"
Some affixes may be chained, as in ''tukimpallaikattá'' < ''tukin-pallai-kattá'' "a place for sitting ones", i.e. "dinner guests, diners".  However, affix chaining is rather uncommon.
-->
The language has a variety of converbs which appear after their head.  These converbs encode modality, aspect, manner, and various adverbial meanings.  The converbs may be separated from their head by other elements, such as illocutionary particles, discourse markers, etc.  Common converbs include:
* ''sutu, sútu, -sut'' : "and; additionally; to add"; <br/> a direct loan from Minhast ''suttu'' "and"
* ''hen''
* ''ura'', -ra : "again; to repeat"
* ''jor-''
*''koni'': "to start, begin"
*''kila'': "to stop, cease"
*''helas'': "to attempt, to try to do something"
*''ila'': "immediately; to do quickly"
*''ókapi'': "suspiciously; to do with malfeasence; to be deceptive"
*''kitál'': assertive particle, usually translated as "You did do it!"
*''yoawíka/yawikâ'' /jo'ka:ʔ/ (Iyyaħmi): presentational particle, usually translated as "Look here (at the evidence I present you)"; possibly a loan from Minhast ''wahēk'' "behold; thus; and then"
* ''oan'': evidential, lit. "It is said", but what the speaker really means is "He (the other litigant) falsely claims"
*''peliár'': "to be wrong"; used for repudiation, disputation, e.g. "What he (the other litigant) says is a lie/falsehood"
*''oni'': "to be empty", in the context of the lawsuit, "There is no evidence that..."
*''neko'': "to continue; still", in the context of the lawsuit, re-establishes a statement the litigant said that has been agreed by the Prefect to be true, setting up support for the next statement the litigant is going to say next, e.g. ''Neko Ápan jibái Yéso jibáitane!'', i.e. "Just as was established (by the Prefect earlier) that Ápan is mine, so is Yéso!"
*''penór'': privative, "to undo; to wash away", e.g. ''Penór ójokan'' "to dismiss, disregard" (lit. "to un-hear"); in the context of the lawsuit, "to dismiss the charges (against me)", e.g. ''Neko hino jikátahai sonda, Ikúni mek Sorvinna penór mek piláhi!'', i.e. "Just as this lowly one has presented thee evidence and thou dost agree, I beseech thee, Lord, that thou dismissest Sorvin's accusations (against me)!"  ''Piláhi'' means "to accuse", so in this sentence, the litigant Éro is literally saying, "...<u>'''un'''</u>-accuse me!"   
In most instances, converbs can stand alone as bona-fide verbs, e.g. ''Úla ókapi hai hen!'' "You did lie!"
 
As the language's canonical word order is SOV, the verb occupies the final position of the clause.
===Particles===
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg mw-collapsible"
|-
! rowspan="2" |
! rowspan="2" width="10%"|Disputed Item
! rowspan="2" width="40%"|Source Text Transcriptions with Translation
! colspan="2" |Traditionalist
! colspan="2" |Šibbūru
|-
! width="10%" | Meaning
! Supporting Arguments
! width="10%" |Mutation Type
! Supporting Arguments
|-
! 1
| gu
|
* [Traditionalist]:
{{Gloss
|phrase = Julanáina <span style="color:red">gu</span> kilái ha kileva mana, ukan hen!
| IPA = /d͡zula'naɪna gu kɪ'laɪ ha kɪlɛva mana 'ukan hɛn/
| morphemes = ji-úla-nai-na gu kilái ha kil-eva mana ukan hen
| gloss = 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT-GEN soon heart SGV house-LOC still go wreak.havok EMPH
| translation = I will enter your soon house and still ruin you!
}}
* [Šibbūru]:
* {{Gloss
|phrase = Junyé:na <span style="color:red">g</span>lay ha<span style="color:red">g</span>léva man ukɑ̃ny!
| IPA = /d͡zu'ɲ:eɪnɛ glaɪ 'haglɛva mana u'kãɲ/
| morphemes = ji-ula-nai-na-∅ kilái ha-∅=kil-éva man ukan-hen
| gloss = 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT-GEN-NEUT heart SGV-NEUT=house-LOC go-EMPH
| translation = I will enter your house and still ruin you!
}}
| Durative marker
| Gloss: ji-úla-nai-na gu kilái ha kil-eva mana ukan hen
| Fortition + Syncope
|
<!-- * Denormalized ''Širkattarnaft'' (Illum System): <di-yi>-ula-<niħ-ye>-eyne <gu> ha kilay ha <gu> kile-<bi-fe> man ukan <yi> hen -->
An underlying morpheme -∅- suffixed to the genitive triggers fortition of the initial consonant of neuter nouns. 
|-
! 2
| diyi
| 2
| 2
| 2
| Lenition
| 2
|-
|}
[Particles with consensus btw Traditionalist and Šibbūru schools]
*''hai'': past tense particle
*''nai'': future tense particle
*''hen'': emphatic particle
*''ipan'': topic particle
*''ani'': "yes"
*''yal'': "no"
*''ka'': "if"
*''ki'': "well then, so"
*''mi'': hortative particle
*''bia'': "behold"
*''kunet'': interrogative particle
*''vali'': conjecture particle, "perhaps"
*''puni'': resultative particle, "therefore"
*''imu'': "until"
*''korlí'' (Traditionalist), ''gorlí'' (Šibbūru): possibly "unless", based on the fact that 80% of occurrences precede ultimatums
*''mek'' : "please; my lord" (borrowed from Minhast ''mek'', a particle that softens not just commands, but statements, or simply to convey deference)


===Derivation===
===Derivation===
Line 518: Line 1,149:
Causative ''pesa-'':
Causative ''pesa-'':
{{Gloss
{{Gloss
|phrase = Anu úla pesadíka, hen.  
|phrase = Anu úla pesadíka nai, hen. /Annu úla pesátkanen.  
| IPA =  
| IPA =  
| morphemes = Anu úla pesa-díka nai hen
| morphemes = Anu úla pesa-díka nai hen
Line 527: Line 1,158:
Intensive ''pesa-'':
Intensive ''pesa-'':
{{Gloss
{{Gloss
|phrase = Ji pesakúna, kaman uláta, ji nokan pesakúdi.  
|phrase = Ji pesakúna, kaman uláta, ji nokan pesakúdi. / Ji pesakúna, kamallúta, jonkan peskúd.
| IPA =  
| IPA =  
| morphemes = ji pesa-kúna nai, kaman uláta ji nokan pesa-akúdi.
| morphemes = ji pesa-kúna nai, kaman uláta ji nokan pesa-akúdi.
Line 552: Line 1,183:
| translation = I don't plan on throwing you off your land, and I'm not planning on throwing him off his land.  You two pests should leave each other alone!
| translation = I don't plan on throwing you off your land, and I'm not planning on throwing him off his land.  You two pests should leave each other alone!
}}
}}
Other derivational affixes, both prefixes and suffixes, are more common, some appear to be highly productive and suggest they can be spontaneously generated:
* ''-kai'': a deverbal for creating place nouns, e.g. ''iavati-kai'' "a place for buying", i.e. marketplace.
* ''-pallái'': another deverbal for creating place nouns, e.g. ''tukin-pallái'' "a place for sitting", i.e. hearth, dining room.
* ''-kattá'': a deverbal affix deriving agent nouns, e.g. ''iavati-kattá'' "one who buys, a buyer"
Some affixes may be chained, as in ''tukimpallaikattá'' < ''tukin-pallai-kattá'' "a place for sitting ones", i.e. "dinner guests, diners".  However, affix chaining is rather uncommon.


<!-- Here are some example subcategories:
<!-- Here are some example subcategories:
Line 586: Line 1,210:
-->
-->


==Example texts==
== Texts ==
<!-- An example of a translated or unique text written in your language. Again, it is recommended that you make sure that the phonology, constraints, phonotactics and grammar are more or less finished before writing. -->
Vadists analyses of texts are typically presented in a [[Vadi#Ad-Hominems and Other Insults| standardized tabular format]] to convey additional information not usually found in conventional glosses.  These tables typically contain the following:
#A header containing the text id.  The text id starts with an alphabetic code indicating the geographical location of the text, "K" for Kalapái and "A" for Aħħur, followed by another code indicating the author, "S" for Sorvin, and "E" for Éro.  Next is the date the document was found in "YYYY.MM.DD" format. A dash followed by another code, "S" for Sorvin and "E" for Éro, indicates the recipient. A series of four two-digit numbers indicate the volume of the compendium, correspondence id, chapter, and sub-chapter or section. The final two character alphanumeric code is a sequence number indicating the paragraph the text was located.
#Column headers containing the name of the Vadist analyzing the text. They always consist of at least one source from the Traditionalist school, and another from the Šibbūru School;
#A row containing the denormalized transcription.  For the Šibbūru School, the denormalized text is preceded by meta data in brackets, usually consisting of three items.  One item indicates which of the three periods ("EP" for Early Period, "MP" for Middle Period, and "LP" for the Late Period). Šibbūru data always provides a representation of each period, one containing the original text, and the other periods by an equivalent representation of the original text known to that period. Also presented within the brackets are frequencies of certain feature classes (see Iyyaħmi's "Period-based Feature Classes of Vadi Texts from the Kalapái Scriptum").  Finally, an asterisk marks the Period meta item which contains the original text;
#A row containing the analysts's normalized transcription;
#Rows containing the standard glosses of IPA, morphemic breakdowns, glosses, and translations of each analyst;
#A final row comparing the analyses of each Vadist.
#Supplemental rows may be added as is necessary.  A common one presents corresponding words found in the Aħħur texts.
 


<!-- Joryash nikku pala hai, Golahát makán taitai ilá-->


=== Ad-Hominems and Other Insults ===
=== Ad-Hominems and Other Insults ===


The majority of the materials found in the Scriptum are known as the ''Waškixrapmakirimērumbustikmaban'' lit. "All they do is insult each other incessantly", a Minhast term that describes the nature of these letters accurately, i.e. correspondence containing mostly ad-hominems, threats, taunts, and other insults.  Many descend to the level of childishness, but this characteristic is probably the most valuable part of the collection, as the style appears to be in vernacular Vadi, with fewer intrusions from the dominant Minhast language found in the [[Vadi#Legal Claims|legal correspondence]].
The majority of the materials found in the Scriptum are known as the ''Waškixrapmakirimērumbustikmaban'' lit. "All they do is insult each other incessantly", a Minhast term that describes the nature of these letters accurately, i.e. correspondence containing mostly ad-hominems, threats, taunts, and other insults.  Many descend to the level of childishness, but this characteristic is probably the most valuable part of the collection, as the style appears to be in vernacular Vadi, with fewer intrusions from the dominant Minhast language found in the [[Vadi#Legal Claims|legal correspondence]].
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg mw-collapsible"
|-
! colspan="4" | Text Id: KS.2015.08.10-E03.12.05.04.b3
|-
! width="10%"|Source:
! width="30%"| Schumann
! Iyyaħmi
! Tashunka
|-
! Denormalized Širkattarnaft
| [EP] Di-yu-la-na-y-na gu ki-la-y ha gu ki-le-b-fa ma-na u-ka-n hen
| colspan="2"|
[MP*]:<br/> Di-yu-l-n-ye-yi-ne <GU> ki-la-y ha <GU> i-k-le-b-fe ma-n u-ka-n he-n <YU>
*di-yu-l-n-ye-yi-ne (25%)
*<GU> ki-la-y (30%)
*ha <GU> i-k-le-b-fe (21%)
*ma-n
*u-ka-n (20%)
*he-n <YU> (20%)
[LP]:
*di-yu-n-ye-n <YU>
*<GU> ki-la-y
*ha <GU> i-k-le-b-fe
*ma-n
*u-ka <YU>
*niy-he-n <YU>
[EP]:
*di-yu-la-na-y-na (15%)
*<GU> ki-la-ya (17%)
*ha <GU> ki-le-b-fa (22%)
*ma-na (19%)
*u-ka-n (20%)
*hen (15%)
|-
! Aħħur Word Correspondences
| colspan="3"|
* [X]-y[u?]-n-ye-n-[y?]
* gi-la-ya-ha
* ge-l-wa
* man
* uk-[X]-a-n[X]
* he-i-ni-yi
|-
! Normalized Transcription
| Julanáina gu kilái ha gu kileva mana ukan hen
| Junyé:na glay haglev man ukaž
| Juñé:na glay haglev man ukɑ̃ñ
|-
! IPA
| /d͡zula'naɪna gu kɪ'laɪ ha gu kɪlɛva mana 'ukan hɛn/
| /d͡zu'ɲeɪnɛ glaɪ 'haglɛv man u'kaʒ/
| /d͡zu'ɲeɪnɛ glaɪ 'haglɛv man u'kãɲ/
|-
! Morphemes
| ji-úla-nai-na gu kilái ha gu kil-eva mana ukan hen
| colspan="2" | ji-ula-nai-na kilái ha=kil-evá man ukan-hen
|-
! Gloss
| 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT-GEN soon heart SGV still house-LOC go.wreak.havok EMPH 
| colspan="2" | 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT-GEN heart SGV=house-LOC still go wreak.havok-EMPH
|-
! Translation
| I will soon enter your house and still ruin you!
| colspan="2" | I will enter your house and still ruin you!
|-
! Analysis
|
*Schumann's glossed text originates from Emil Matsunaga's "Vadi: An Introduction to a North Pacific Indo-European Language".  Aside from the now discredited theory of Indo-European origins, the text Matsunaga provides is a reconstruction of what the original text would be in the Early Period.  However, the original is dated to the Middle Period.
| colspan="2" |
|}
<br/><br/>
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg mw-collapsible"
|-
! colspan="4" | Text Id: KS.2015.08.10-S01.02.03.04.a1
|-
! width="10%"|Source:
! width="30%"| Schumann
! Iyyaħmi
! Tashunka
|-
! Denormalized Širkattarnaft
| [EP] U-la-di-yi-na hay ta-bi-la ni-ku-ku u-sa-r, pe-ta ula tane
| colspan="2"|
[MP*]:<br/>
[stub - orig. text]
*[stub]
[LP]:
*[stub]
[EP]:
*[stub]
|-
! Aħħur Word Correspondences
| colspan="3"|
* [stub]
|-
! Normalized Transcription
| Ulájina hai tábila nikuku usar, peta úla tane
| Ulájnye tábila nikku osar, petta ulátane
| Ulájñe tábila nikku osar, petta ulátane
|-
! IPA
| /u:'lad͡ʒina haɪ 'ta:bɪla 'ni:kuku usar 'peta 'ula tane/
| colspan="2" | /u:'lad͡ʒɲɛ 'ta:bɪla nɪk:u osaɾ pet:a u'la:tane/
|-
! Morphemes
| úlaji-na hai tábila nikuku usar peta úla tane
| colspan="2" | úla-ji-na-hai tábila nikku osar petta úla-tane
|-
! Gloss
| 2S.NOM-1S.ACC-GEN PST land.PL seize try, thief 2S EMPH
| colspan="2" | 2S.NOM-1S.ACC-GEN-PST land.PL seize try, thief 2S-EMPH
|-
! Translation
| colspan="3" | You tried to seize my lands, you are a thief indeed!
|-
! 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.
|colspan="2" 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.
|}
The following samples come primarily from Schumann.  Texts from Simon, another Traditionalist, are immediately identifiable by the <ş> grapheme to represent /s̺/ which he concedes is likely a member of the Vadi phonemic inventory.  The last text comes from Tashunka, whose gloss indicates where mutation and assimilation has occurred with the cliticization of ''=hen'' to the the interrogative clitic ''=rin''; Iyyaħmi has provided the denormalized transcription for Tashunka's gloss.


{{Gloss
{{Gloss
|phrase = Ulájinai tábila nikku osar, petta ulátane
|phrase = Ka mai naha úlajnaina tábila nikku é, júlanai puni mérkeva!
| IPA = /u:'lad͡ʒnaɪ 'ta:bɪla nɪk:u osaɾ pet:a u'la:tane/
| IPA = /ka  maɪ 'naha 'u:lad͡ʒnaɪna 'ta:bɪla nikku e 'd͡ʒu:lanaɪ 'pu:ni 'mɛɾkɛva/
| morphemes = úla-ji-na-hai tábila nikku osar petta úla-tane
| morphemes = ka mai naha úla-ji=nai-na tábila nikku é ji-úla-nai puni mérkeva
| gloss = 2S.NOM-1S.ACC-GEN-PST land.PL seize try, thief 2S-EMP
| gloss = if come here 2S.NOM-1S.ACC=FUT-GEN land.PL seize SJV 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT RSLT kill
| translation = You tried to seize my lands, you are a thief indeed!
| translation = If you come here to seize my land, I will kill you! (lit. If come here you-me-my-land to seize it, I-you will kill)
}}
}}


Line 609: Line 1,371:
| gloss = if come here 2S.NOM-1S.ACC=FUT-GEN land.PL seize SJV, 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT RSLT kill
| gloss = if come here 2S.NOM-1S.ACC=FUT-GEN land.PL seize SJV, 1S.NOM-2S.ACC-FUT RSLT kill
| translation = If you come here to seize my land, I will kill you! (lit. If come here you-me-my-land to seize it, I-you will kill)
| translation = If you come here to seize my land, I will kill you! (lit. If come here you-me-my-land to seize it, I-you will kill)
}}
{{Gloss
|phrase = Júla nánani.
| IPA = /d͡ʒ'u:la 'na:nani/
| morphemes = ji-ula na~nani
| gloss = 1S.NOM-2S.ACC RV~disgust
| translation = You truly disgust me.
}}
}}


Line 646: Line 1,400:
|phrase = Éro, úla peho te.  Júlanai kanarídi.  Ikkúni jili Súnagun parati nai.
|phrase = Éro, úla peho te.  Júlanai kanarídi.  Ikkúni jili Súnagun parati nai.
| IPA = /'e:ɾo 'u:la pɛho te 'd͡ʒu:lanaɪ kana'ɾidi ɪ'k:u:ni 'd͡ʒili 'sunagun pa'rati naɪ/
| IPA = /'e:ɾo 'u:la pɛho te 'd͡ʒu:lanaɪ kana'ɾidi ɪ'k:u:ni 'd͡ʒili 'sunagun pa'rati naɪ/
| morphemes = éro úla peho te júlanai kanarídi ikkúni ji-li Súnagun parati nai
| morphemes = éro úla peho te ji-úla-nai kanarídi ikkúni ji-li Súnagun parati nai
| gloss = PN 2S fool truth 1S.NOM-2S.ACC win FUT prefect 1S=DAT place.name reward FUT
| gloss = PN 2S fool truth 1S.NOM-2S.ACC win FUT prefect 1S=DAT place.name reward FUT
| translation = Éro, you indeed are a fool.  I will prevail over you.  The Prefect shall award me Súnagun.
| translation = Éro, you indeed are a fool.  I will prevail over you.  The Prefect shall award me Súnagun.
Line 652: Line 1,406:


{{Gloss
{{Gloss
|phrase = Óşi jínai kanárato bihók şilmá.
|phrase = Óşi jínai kanárato bihók şilmá. (Simon)
| IPA = /'o:s̺i 'd͡ʒɪnaɪ kana:ɾato bɪhok 's̺ɪl'ma/
| IPA = /'o:s̺i 'd͡ʒɪnaɪ kana:ɾato bɪhok 's̺ɪl'ma/
| morphemes = Ósi jí-nai kanárato bihók şilmá
| morphemes = Ósi jí-nai kanárato bihók şilmá
Line 660: Line 1,414:


{{Gloss
{{Gloss
|phrase = Manetór ki pida dáşelek mi, mánjate nihálave yal.
|phrase = Manetór ki pida dáşelek mi, mánjate nihálave yal. (Simon)
| IPA = /manɛ'toɾ ki 'pida 'das̺ɛlɛk mi 'mand͡ʒate ni'halavɛ yal/
| IPA = /manɛ'toɾ ki 'pida 'das̺ɛlɛk mi 'mand͡ʒate ni'halavɛ yal/
| morphemes = manetór ki pida dáşelek mi mánjate nihálave yal
| morphemes = manetór ki pida dáşelek mi mánjate nihálave yal
Line 673: Line 1,427:
| gloss = choose COND call.upon well.then fist 1S-INST 1S.NOM-2S.ACC thwart 2S-FUT win NEG
| gloss = choose COND call.upon well.then fist 1S-INST 1S.NOM-2S.ACC thwart 2S-FUT win NEG
| translation = If you choose to call up (the townspeople) against me as I expect you will, I will stop you.  You will fail.
| translation = If you choose to call up (the townspeople) against me as I expect you will, I will stop you.  You will fail.
}}
{{Gloss
|phrase = Sorvin, vúluka korín? (Tashunka) <br/><span style="font-weight:normal">su-wa-r-bi-fi-n, bi-fi-luka ku-wa-rin (Iyyaħmi)</span>
| IPA = /'sorvin 'vuluka ko'riɲ/
| morphemes = sorvin vúluka ko=rin=hen
| gloss = PN testicle.SGV location=Q=EMPH
| translation = Do you have the ba***, Sorvin? (lit. Sorvin, where indeed is your single testicle?)
}}
}}


Line 681: Line 1,443:
It is believed that each litigant wrote these letters carefully in order to have them translated to the Prefect, the surveyors, or to ingratiate themselves to other Dog Speakers who could serve as witnesses in the lawsuit.  In at least one case one of the litigants even tried to petition the powerful Salmon Speaker Prefect, Nattaxxawan.
It is believed that each litigant wrote these letters carefully in order to have them translated to the Prefect, the surveyors, or to ingratiate themselves to other Dog Speakers who could serve as witnesses in the lawsuit.  In at least one case one of the litigants even tried to petition the powerful Salmon Speaker Prefect, Nattaxxawan.


*From Éro to Wasiškila for translating to Ruxparan min Ayyurmi, the headman of Niyyurpi Township:
*From Éro to Wasiškila for translating to Ruxparan min Ayyurmi, the headman of Niyyurpi Township (Schumann):


{{Gloss
{{Gloss
|phrase = Mek wa Ruxparan-behet širkattartahannamā: Úla hano temáka jilaikandá. Anuna beiólika pisap hai. Hano talta han Karbaratana kalaví Íkavalina menehim sentum ohira julór, hiya han sítturum Sarpaheyeva oroani duxtim sentum julór.  Kon, ha bihata jóri, ha Pikuévana kippi kaħtam min sentum avóro alok nad.  Bari, han Ikkúni han jina pétetaiti hai ha tábila lavák hai, han jina tirosi umukál hai.
|phrase = Mek wa Ruxparan-behet širkattartahannamā: Ulá: hano tšmáka jileykandá. Anuna beiólika pisap ey. Hano tšalt han Garbaratana kalaví Íkavalina menehim sentum ohira julór, ja han zitturum Sarpahé:va rwani duxtim sentum julór.  Kon, havvá:ta jóri, ha Bikuévana kippi kaħtam min sentum avóro alo ngad.  Bari, han Ikúni hajjina pétetaité: hadábla laváké:, hajjina tširosi umukálé:.
| IPA =  
| IPA =  
| morphemes = {Mek wa Ruxparan-behet širkattartahannamā} úla han-o temáka jilái-kanda Anu-na beiólika pisap hai han-o talta ha Karbara-ta-na kalaví han Íkava-li-na menehim sentum ohira julór, hi-ya han sítturum Sarpahei-eva oroani duxtim sentum julór kon ha bihata jóri ha Piku-éva-na kippi kaħtam min sentum alo-k nad bari han Ikkúni han ji-na pétetaiti hai ha tábila lavák hai han jina tirosi umukál hai
| morphemes = {Mek wa Ruxparan-behet širkattartahannamā} úla han-o temáka jilái-kanda Anu-na beiólika pisap hai han-o talta ha Karbara-ta-na kalaví han Íkava-li-na menehim sentum ohira julór, hi-ya han síturum Sarpahei-eva oroani duxtim sentum julór kon ha bihata jóri ha Piku-éva-na kippi kaħtam min sentum alo-k nad bari han Ikkúni han ji-na pétetaiti hai ha tábila lavák hai han jina tirosi umukál hai
| gloss = {Embedded Minhast text: [deferential.particle CONN=PN=title.of.respect write to him thus]} 2S SGV-PROX map look-IMP PN-GEN surveyor.PL draw PST SGV-PROX line SGV place.name-ABL-GEN rock-GEN river.name-ALL-GEN shore 4 sentum stretch then-EPEN SGV beaver.dam place.name-LOC 3 sentum cross.over stretch from.that.place.there SGV ridge climb 5 sentum again SGV PN-ABL-GEN farmhouse burn-DVB NMZ thus SGV prefect SGV 1S-GEN viewpoint SGV agree PS SGV land recognize SGV 1S-GEN control give PST
| gloss = {Embedded Minhast text: [deferential.particle CONN=PN=title.of.respect write to him thus]} 2S SGV-PROX map look-IMP PN-GEN surveyor.PL draw PST SGV-PROX line SGV place.name-ABL-GEN rock-GEN river.name-ALL-GEN shore 4 sentum stretch then-EPEN SGV beaver.dam place.name-LOC 3 sentum cross.over stretch from.that.place.there SGV ridge climb 5 sentum again SGV PN-ABL-GEN farmhouse burn-DVB NMZ thus SGV prefect SGV 1S-GEN viewpoint SGV agree PS SGV land recognize SGV 1S-GEN control give PST
| translation = Please write to Wise Elder Ruxparan thus: Look at this map.  This is what Prefect Annu's surveyors have drawn.  This line from Karbaram Rock stretches to the shoreline of River Íkava for 4 sentum (~6 miles), then extends across the old beaver dam at Sarpahey Spring for another 3 sentum (~5 miles).  Thence it curves upwards for another 5 sentum (~9 miles) along the ridge where old Piku's farmhouse was before it burnt down.  Thus the Prefect has recognized my territorial claim as the sole legitimate one.  
| translation = Please write to Wise Elder Ruxparan thus: Look at this map.  This is what Prefect Annu's surveyors have drawn.  This line from Karbaram Rock stretches to the shoreline of River Íkava for 4 sentum (~6 miles), then extends across the old beaver dam at Sarpahey Spring for another 3 sentum (~5 miles).  Thence it curves upwards for another 5 sentum (~9 miles) along the ridge where old Piku's farmhouse was before it burnt down.  Thus the Prefect has recognized my territorial claim as the sole legitimate one.  
Line 709: Line 1,471:


OSV
OSV
===Other Texts===
In addition to the legal correspondence and ad-hominem texts, both Éro and Sorvin wrote diaries pertaining to ordinary life.  These texts span their earliest writings from the Early Period to their final days in the Late Period.  They provide a fascinating portrait of life among sedentary farmers in late 19th century Minhay.  Perhaps even more importantly, they give a glimpse into ancient times when the Varan peoples flourished before the arrival of Minhast- speaking peoples.


==Other resources==
==Other resources==
Line 714: Line 1,479:


==Footnotes==
==Footnotes==
1) A major criticism directed towards Schumann, notably by 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.
1) ''Šibbūru'' is an Irish Gaelic borrowing into Minhast, derived from Irish ''séimhiú'' "lenition", and ''urú'' "eclipsis".  This loanword was imported by Minhast Vadists to represent their view that mutations were a major feature of Vadi affecting both phonology and morphology.  This is in diametrical opposition of the Traditionalist school, which maintains that Vadi phonology and phonotactics do not exhibit "exotic pseudo-Celtic" characteristics.
 
An alternative name to ''Šibbūru'', also used often, is the indigenous Upper Minhast term, ''Saxtakyattīluan Saxtidammaftīluan'', lit. "The tongue becomes both hard and soft", i.e. fortition and lenition.   
 
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, both past and present, rarely indicate gemination in their writings.  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.
 
4) This particular gloss is an excellent example of how the divergence between the Traditionalist and ''Sibbūru'' orthographic systems can lead to different conclusions of underlying grammatical structures.
 
In the original ''Širkattarnaft'' of this sample, Iyyaħmi has indicated, per his system employing tildes, the mutations that occurred between the standalone characters and the word in which they trigger sandhi changes.  In this case, the word ''<diy>ney'' triggers ''kusarʌ'' to undergo voicing of the initial consonant as indicated by the tilde in ''gu~'' joined to ''kusarʌ''. Syncope also cooccurs with the elision of the /i/ of ''kilay''.  Iyyaħmi's gloss yields the actual phonemic realization /gzarʌ/. 
 
In contrast, Schumann has glossed the original ''Širkattarnaft'' grapheme <gu> as a bona fide word, which has led his final morphemic gloss of <gu> as ''gu'', a particle whose meaning is not entirely clear, translated as "soon", "still", "lest", or "later".  Iyyaħmi's representation however conveys the sandhi process ''kusarʌ'' undergoes.  As a result,  Iyyaħmi's transcription  yields two fewer words than Schumann's, the very two that Schumann has glossed as independent words. Iyyaħmi's gloss ultimately avoids the problematic translation issues that an independent ''gu'' particle would involve.
 
As expected, the first line of Tashunka's gloss indicates none of the underlying mutations, only the pronunciation of the final textual realization.  Mutations and other sandhi changes can be gleaned only via his morphemic breakdowns, which again closely follow Iyyaħmi's analysis.
 
5) Iyyaħmi's reconstruction of ''erva yulka'' is based on a sentence from one of Éro's texts:
 
{{Gloss
|phrase = Ikúni behet mek, yawikâ ha <yu> ~ <bif>ita mek hen
| IPA = /i'ku:ni bɛhɛt mɛk jo'ka: ha'jita mɛkjɛn/
| morphemes = Ikúni behet mek, yawikâ ha=yita mek hen
| gloss = lord VOC.DEFR please here SGV paper please EMPH
| translation = My lord, I beseech thee, behold the (legal) documents (in my hand).
}}
 
Here, the singulative clitic ''ha='' triggers palatalization of the noun ''vita'' to ''yita'' "paper" (from ''<yu> ~ <bif>ita'').  It is from this example that Iyyaħmi extrapolates the mutation of the [[Vadi#Adjectives |adjective phrase (AP)]].
 
6) The ''Šibbūru'' School argue that ''gu'' triggers fortition and should not be analyzed as a word.
 
 
<!-- Secrets
1) Éro and Sorvin's use of the Širkattarnaft was partly used as edit marks to indicate spelling corrections
 
-- 1.a: Sorvin uses ''yu'' to signal that the previous word has a mistake in the middle.  The mistaken characters in the previous word are to be removed.  Hence, "beynaga yu" means to remove something from "beynaga", in this case the medial character <na>.  This results in "beyga".  Additionally, the "yu" character means to palatize the consonant immediately before that, in this case following the pattern /g/ -> /d͡ʒ/.  This resulting pronunciation becomes /bɛd͡ʒ/ (due to removal of the <na> character and palatalization of the /g/ -> /d͡ʒ/.
 
This process is called "yaokan" /'jaokan/ "to reach inside (the previous word) and remove extraneous characters leading to the misspelling.
 
-- 1.b.1 Éro uses ''yu'' to signal the word immediately following it requires that one (or possibly more characters) have to be changed in order for the word to make sense. What the spelling is changed to depends on context.  For example, the word ''melvat'' (orifice) should have been written as "melvadh" (property).  Éro calls this use of ''yu'' as a shorthand for ''yoesa'' /jo'ɛza/ "to change something (in the following word)", in this case the misspelled character(s) to make sense in the context in which the word was written.
 
-- 1.b.2 Éro also uses the ''yu'' character as an abbreviation for "vanáy" /va'naɪ/ "it is correct" (rendered by Éro in the Širkattarnaft as <bi-b0-fā-na-y0>).  This was a passive-aggressive use by Éro to Sorvin because Sorvin would often misspell a word; Éro used the "vanay" symbol to signal that his writing of the word was correct and that Sorvin should in the future write it correctly.  The bilingual Dog Speaker prefectural employee, Mašpat, pointed out that the ''yu'' character couldn't be used as an abbreviation for "vanáy" because "vanáy" started with /v/, but Éro retorted that you still need the ''yu'' character to spell "vanáy".
 
The problem with this dual usage, of course, is one doesn't know if the ''yu'' signals a correction or to indicate that a misspelled word should be read with the correct meaning, derived from context.
 
-- 2.a Sorvin uses the ''gu'' character to signal that the character of the next word was accidentally written with an extra dash.  In dentals, a dash turns the consonant of the base character, from voiced to devoiced, stop to fricative, etc.  It is easy to mistakenly write an extra dash, so the ''gu'' character (from "gundžak", to ignore), means to ignore extra dash(es).
 
Eró does NOT follow this practice, continuing to use the ''yu'' character to signify that the next word should be read with the correct spelling.  Unfortunately, linguists conclude that the word experiences both fortition and lenition, adducing this by looking at the word class of a previous or following word.  The Traditionalists conclusion that ''yu'' and ''gu'' are particles are totally wrong, so the Mutationist school is at least on the right track that something is going on with a discrepancy between the spelling.  The problem is that corrections to spelling mistakes are signs that a mutation has taken place.
 
-->


 
<!-- Template area -->
<!-- Template area -->
[[Category:Vadi]]
[[Category:Vadi]]
[[Category:Languages]]
[[Category:Languages]]
[[Category:Conlangs]]
[[Category:Conlangs]]
Anyar
5,464

edits

Retrieved from "https://linguifex.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/203034...291834"