Minhast/Dialectology: Difference between revisions

|  

*Locative noun formed using Locative Applicative ''-naħk-'' + verb root <br/>(+ Nominalizer ''-naft'')

*Locative noun formed using verb root + IN ''-tappe-'', e.g. ''gubbattappe'' "battlefield"

|  

*Phonemes  /q, χ/ appear in words of Seal Speaker origin, particularly in the northwestern portion of the ''karak'', now spreading apparently as a sound shift in words of Common and Salmonic origin, e.g. /qaraq/, c.f. Common /karak/ "tribal territory"

*Locative noun formed using verb root + IN ''-tappe-'', e.g. ''gubbattappe'' "battlefield"

*''Asr̥-Z''-type sandhi: word-final  /sr̥/  mutates to /z/, sometimes accompanied by lengthening of previous vowel, e.g. ''kiyuntāz'' "seaweed", c.f. Salmon Speaker ''kiyuntasr''

* Modern Standard Minhast (MSM) is closest, at least in morphology and syntax, to the Dog Speaker dialect.  However, monolingual Dog Speakers consider the national language difficult to understand, because over half of its lexicon is drawn from Lower Minhast sources, and some phonological rules which govern the allomorphs of certain affixes and clitics, such as the ergative ''=de'', can differ significantly between the two dialects.  

* For whatever reason, the Osprey speakers treat ''baktet'' "tattoo" as an animate noun. Gender discordance in all Minhast dialects is common.

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.  Moreover, the ''-we'' form and 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.

In his seminal work, ''Minhast: A Diachronic and Theoretical Study of a North Pacific Paleosiberian Language'', Dr. Tashunka remarked, "The traditional division of the Minhast dialects depicts a simple phylogeny.  With the exception of the Salmonic dialects, which diverged from a common dialect after the Salmon Speaker-Horse Speaker War of 1473, no additional forks extend beyond each of the two main branches: each dialect within each branch is a sibling of each other.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The current classification scheme does not account for the the discrepancies of the Gull Speaker data from that of the of the other Lower Minhast dialects with which it is grouped.  The Horse Speaker data show that the dialect is much more conservative than has been previously thought, in some ways more so than the Salmonic dialects.  Justification for placing the Elk and Seal Speaker dialects under the Upper Minhast branch lacks supporting data; although the Elk and Seal Speaker dialects are said to be more conservative than the dialects grouped under the traditional Lower Minhast dialects, the data indicate if anything that this characterization is at best overstated.  Moreover, the evidence indicates that Classical Minhast, as it shares more in common with the dialects that have been traditionally classified as Upper Minhast, is not the ancestor of the Minhast dialects, but instead is an archaic dialect that diverged from one of the sub-branches of the northern dialects.  Specifically, Classical Minhast shares more features with the Salmonic and Plateau dialects than with the other dialects; extreme conservatism by the Salmonic and Horse Speaker dialects cannot explain why they share these features with the classical language while all the other dialects do not exhibit at any point in time in their written history that they ever had these features.  Only a close relationship, within a shared dialectal grouping, could account for these discrepencies. Rather than attempting to account for both the extinct and new dialects, the traditional classification scheme conveniently ignores them.  Clearly, the evidence indicates a more complex picture of the Minhast dialects, but the current system is based on biased sources ultimately derived from both Minhast literary tradition and historical regional politics: twelve pre-eminent Speakers, thus twelve dialects." ¹ To address these issues, Dr. Tashunka has proposed a new phylogenetic tree ''(dashes indicate conjectural relationships)'':

                                     |label2=''Salmonic''  ²

                             |1=Classical Minhast ³

                       |1=Modern Standard Minhast ⁴

             |1=Stone Speaker ⁵

There are two sources that suggest that a powerful tribe did gain political and military ascendancy in ancient Minhay.  One is from the ''Anyaddaddaram'' (The Epic of Anyar), passed orally from generation to generation before finally being written down in Classical Minhast in the indigenous poetic genre known as the ''seksarambāt''.  With close to 40,000 words, the epic tells of a young man named Anyar who fled the army of an invading empire and convinced all of the Minhast tribes to unite and drive away the invader.  Anyar then gathers a large fleet and sets sail to attack the empire on its own soil.  The poem abruptly ends, ''"Annūyikmammā tamaššuhapmakikman"'', "And they set sail in pursuit of the enemy".  Another source comes from an outside nation, the Rajahnate of Kirmay.  An anonymous court historian wrote ''Dagitoy a Sursurat ti Amianan a Pag'arian'' (The Book of the Northern Kingdom), widely regarded as an ancient treatise about the Empire of Yamato.  However, various passages suggest that the kingdom in question was not Japan, as illustrated by the following passage: ''Dagiti kawes dagiti tatta'u dutdút a nalamúyut gapú ta ti ul'ulida nakalalam'ek, ket ti danúm nagbalbalin kasta ti batú. Ngem nu agawid idiay balbalayda, napudút ta isúda dutdút a nalamúyut met'', "The men wore fur because their homeland was cold, the water becoming hard as stone; but after returning home, their houses were warm, for they too were of fur"⁶.  This passage is especially peculiar: unless the author was referring to Ainu enclaves in the island of Honshu in northern Japan, no native Japanese home is constructed out of animal hides or fur.  Nevertheless, these suggestive passages in both the ''Anyaddaddaram'' and ''Dagitoy a Sursurat ti Amianan a Pag'arian'' are not sufficient to prove that a northern tribe speaking a dialect that would later become Classical Minhast conquered the other Minhast tribes and spread their dialect.