5,486
edits
Minhast/Dialectology: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Criticisms
m (→Criticisms) |
|||
| Line 323: | Line 323: | ||
Academics criticize grouping the dialects under two branches as problematic. The most obvious problem is that of the Stone Speaker dialect, which not only has a large number of loans from Golahat and Peshpeg that far exceed those in the rest of the Lower Minhast dialects, but appears to be in the early stages of developing from a canonical SOV language into a non-configurational one. Arguments for classifying the Stone Speaker dialect as a separate language have been gaining momentum, the most vocal and convincing proponent being Dr. Napayshni Tashunka of the University of the Lakota Nation at Three Pipes. A new branch has been proposed for the Elk and Seal Speaker dialects, which realize ''-ūy'' with the voiced labio-velar approximant /w/, as in ''-ūwe'' and ''-ūwi'' respectively, in contrast with the voiced palatal consonant /j/ found in the rest of the Upper Minhast dialects. | Academics criticize grouping the dialects under two branches as problematic. The most obvious problem is that of the Stone Speaker dialect, which not only has a large number of loans from Golahat and Peshpeg that far exceed those in the rest of the Lower Minhast dialects, but appears to be in the early stages of developing from a canonical SOV language into a non-configurational one. Arguments for classifying the Stone Speaker dialect as a separate language have been gaining momentum, the most vocal and convincing proponent being Dr. Napayshni Tashunka of the University of the Lakota Nation at Three Pipes. A new branch has been proposed for the Elk and Seal Speaker dialects, which realize ''-ūy'' with the voiced labio-velar approximant /w/, as in ''-ūwe'' and ''-ūwi'' respectively, in contrast with the voiced palatal consonant /j/ found in the rest of the Upper Minhast dialects. | ||
The Gull Speaker dialect presents its own problems, and they are several. When the ''uyyi min kirim'' test is applied, the results are inconclusive: the dialect can be classified as a member of either the Upper or Lower Minhast branches, as both ''-we'' and ''-ia'' are found. | The Gull Speaker dialect presents its own problems, and they are several. When the ''uyyi min kirim'' test is applied, the results are inconclusive: the dialect can be classified as a member of either the Upper or Lower Minhast branches, as both ''-we'' and ''-ia'' are found. Along with the ''-we'' form, other features point towards a relationship with the Elk and Seal Speakers, which are grouped with the Upper Minhast dialects, yet the Gull Speakers do not share a contiguous border with them, so dialectal mixing has been ruled out at this point. The Palatization Test is also inconclusive, primarily due to dialect mixing with their Salmon Speaker and Dog Speaker neighbors, which belong to the northern dialects, and their Osprey Speaker and Egret Speaker neighbors, which belong to the southern dialects. Perhaps the most jarring feature of the Gull Speaker dialect is the placement of its verbal [[Minhast#Preverb_2_Locational_Affixes | deictic affixes]], which appear after the root in the Terminatives slot. Only the Salmonic and Horse Speaker dialects, as well as Classical Minhast, share this feature, whereas the rest of the Minhast dialects place the deictic affixes in the Preverb 2 slot. But using this feature to argue for an affiliation with Upper Minhast is problematic, as the forms of the Gull Speaker affixes are different from the aforementioned dialects. | ||
Additionally, the distinctive City Speaker dialect remains outside the Upper and Lower branch classification system. The language is a koine that developed from the Horse Speaker, Stone Speaker, and Gull Speaker dialects, with borrowings from Western sources. The dialect has also developed unique innovations of its own. This dialect thus provides yet another argument against the traditional two-branch dialectal division. | Additionally, the distinctive City Speaker dialect remains outside the Upper and Lower branch classification system. The language is a koine that developed from the Horse Speaker, Stone Speaker, and Gull Speaker dialects, with borrowings from Western sources. The dialect has also developed unique innovations of its own. This dialect thus provides yet another argument against the traditional two-branch dialectal division. | ||