5,464
edits
Vadi: Difference between revisions
m
→Body Parts
Tag: Undo |
m (→Body Parts) |
||
| (29 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
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 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. 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 262: | Line 262: | ||
====Mutations==== | ====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" | {| class="bluetable lightbluebg" | ||
|+ '''Types of Mutations''' | |+ '''Types of Mutations''' | ||
| Line 273: | Line 284: | ||
| y -> d͡ʒ <br/> θ -> ð | | y -> d͡ʒ <br/> θ -> ð | ||
| m, p, b -> b | | 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 | ! Eye | ||
| Line 347: | Line 430: | ||
</gallery> | </gallery> | ||
Unlike the Aħħur materials, the Scriptum is replete | Unlike the Aħħur materials, the Scriptum is replete with numerous digraphs. | ||
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=== | ===Traditionalist Romanized System=== | ||
| Line 373: | Line 457: | ||
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. | 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 '' | 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 382: | Line 468: | ||
! Unmarked | ! Unmarked | ||
! Plural | ! Plural | ||
! ''Kaidon/Kaira'' Selection | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Head | ! Head | ||
| Line 387: | Line 474: | ||
| jidár | | jidár | ||
| jidárha | | jidárha | ||
| kaidon | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Eye | ! Eye | ||
| Line 392: | Line 480: | ||
| kulun | | kulun | ||
| -- | | -- | ||
| kaira | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Ear | ! Ear | ||
| Line 397: | Line 486: | ||
| taka | | taka | ||
| -- | | -- | ||
| kaidon | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Nose | ! Nose | ||
| Line 402: | Line 492: | ||
| uvaz | | uvaz | ||
| uváza | | uváza | ||
| kaira | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Heart | ! Heart | ||
| -- | | -- | ||
| gilay | | gilay | ||
| gilaya | | gilaya | ||
| kaidon | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Hair | ! Hair | ||
| varláka (Schumann)<br/>vajlák ( | | varláka (Schumann)<br/>vajlák (Iyyaħmi) | ||
| varlat (Schumann)<br/>vajlat ( | | varlat (Schumann)<br/>vajlat (Iyyaħmi) | ||
| -- | | -- | ||
| kaidon | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Lips | ! Lips | ||
| Line 417: | Line 510: | ||
| tuntu | | tuntu | ||
| -- | | -- | ||
| kaira | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Tongue | ! Tongue | ||
| Line 422: | Line 516: | ||
| nipáz | | nipáz | ||
| nipáza | | nipáza | ||
| kaira | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Finger | ! Finger | ||
| Line 427: | Line 522: | ||
| pata | | pata | ||
| -- | | -- | ||
| kaira | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Hand | ! Hand | ||
| Line 432: | Line 528: | ||
| uzap | | uzap | ||
| -- | | -- | ||
| kaira | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Testicle | ! Testicle | ||
| Line 437: | Line 534: | ||
| vula | | vula | ||
| -- | | -- | ||
| kaidon | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Penis | ! Penis | ||
| Line 442: | Line 540: | ||
| niat | | niat | ||
| niata | | niata | ||
| kaidon | |||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 452: | Line 551: | ||
=====Other Nouns===== | =====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. Case suffixes may trigger lenition or fortition, depending on the target noun. | 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==== | ||
| Line 459: | Line 560: | ||
====Case==== | ====Case==== | ||
Six case morphemes have been identified. | 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" | ||
| Line 493: | Line 594: | ||
! Schumann | ! Schumann | ||
! Iyyaħmi | ! 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! | ||
| | }} | ||
| {{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! | |||
}} | |||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 731: | Line 834: | ||
{| class="bluetable lightbluebg mw-collapsible" | {| class="bluetable lightbluebg mw-collapsible" | ||
|- | |- | ||
! Root | ! rowspan="2"|Root | ||
! colspan="2"|Interrogative <br/> Form | |||
! rowspan="2"|Meaning | |||
- | ! rowspan="2"|* Mutation Information | ||
! | |- | ||
! | ! Schumann | ||
! Iyyaħmi | |||
|- | |- | ||
! pa- | ! pa- | ||
<!-- | <!-- parin --> | ||
<!-- | style="text-align:center"| | <!-- | style="text-align:center"|thing --> | ||
| style="text-align:center"|parín | | style="text-align:center"|parín | ||
| style="text-align:center"|parín<br/>barín<br/>harin | |||
| style="text-align:center"|who | | style="text-align:center"|who | ||
| 1) basic <br/> 2)''gu''-fortition <br/> 3) ''yu''-lenition | |||
|- | |||
|- | |- | ||
! ki- | ! ki- | ||
| Line 772: | Line 879: | ||
|} | |} | ||
Nouns formed from the same roots include '' | <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: | 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: | ||
| Line 1,399: | Line 1,508: | ||
6) The ''Šibbūru'' School argue that ''gu'' triggers fortition and should not be analyzed as a word. | 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 --> | ||