5,467
edits
Vadi: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Footnotes
m (→Footnotes) |
m (→Footnotes) |
||
| Line 977: | Line 977: | ||
3) Schumann argues that gemination outside of Minhast loanwords does not occur in Vadi, as the authors' ''Širkattarnaft'' does not show any gemination. This argument, as Tashunka notes, is problematic in that most Minhast writings, both past and present, rarely indicate gemination. Evidence of gemination in Vadi surfaces in the orthography between morpheme boundaries where the vowel of the syllable preceding the geminate consonant is lengthened, and the following syllable or an inserted "dummy syllable" starts with a voiced consonant to indicate fortition. Schumann argues this is partial reduplication used for derivation, but Iyyaħmi concurs with Tashunka's analysis. | 3) Schumann argues that gemination outside of Minhast loanwords does not occur in Vadi, as the authors' ''Širkattarnaft'' does not show any gemination. This argument, as Tashunka notes, is problematic in that most Minhast writings, both past and present, rarely indicate gemination. Evidence of gemination in Vadi surfaces in the orthography between morpheme boundaries where the vowel of the syllable preceding the geminate consonant is lengthened, and the following syllable or an inserted "dummy syllable" starts with a voiced consonant to indicate fortition. Schumann argues this is partial reduplication used for derivation, but Iyyaħmi concurs with Tashunka's analysis. | ||
4) This particular gloss is an excellent example of how the divergence between Schumann and Iyyaħmi's orthographic systems can lead to different conclusions of the underlying grammatical structure. | |||
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 ''Dyiney'' 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 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 ''Dyiney'' 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/. | ||
| Line 985: | Line 985: | ||
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. | 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 | {{Gloss | ||
| Line 995: | Line 995: | ||
}} | }} | ||
Here, the singulative clitic ''ha='' triggers palatalization of the noun ''vita'' to ''yita'' "paper" (from '' | Here, the singulative clitic ''ha='' triggers palatalization of the noun ''vita'' to ''yita'' "paper" (from ''<yu> ~ <bfit>a''). It is from this example that Iyyaħmi extrapolates the mutation of the [[Vadi#Adjectives |adjective phrase (AP)]]. | ||
<!-- Template area --> | <!-- Template area --> | ||