Minhast/Dialectology: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| Umbarak, Hayreb, Nanampuyyi, Wattare, Saxtam, Gannasia, Rummak , Iyyay, Hattūmi, Nu'ay, and Xirrim Prefectures; <br/> | | Umbarak, Hayreb, Nanampuyyi, Wattare, Saxtam, Gannasia, Rummak , Iyyay, Hattūmi, Nu'ay, and Xirrim Prefectures; <br/> | ||
Āš-min-Gāl, Ankussūr, Huruk, Nammadīn, Kered, and Kattek (NW Quadrant of NCR, approx 60%) | Āš-min-Gāl, Ankussūr, Huruk, Nammadīn, Kered, and Kattek (NW Quadrant of NCR, approx 60%) | ||
| | | | ||
*Preservation of final /n/ in Transitive terminative affix ''-un'' | |||
*Fossilized affix ''-ūy'' realized as ''-uyyi'' | *Fossilized affix ''-ūy'' realized as ''-uyyi'' | ||
| Line 38: | Line 40: | ||
*Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone | *Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone | ||
*Locative noun formed using Locative Applicative ''-naħk-'' + verb root | *Locative noun formed using Locative Applicative ''-naħk-'' + verb root (+ Nominalizer ''-naft'') | ||
*Pervasive use of the Interrogative-Polarity discourse particle ''ni/nī'' | *Pervasive use of the Interrogative-Polarity discourse particle ''ni/nī'' | ||
| Line 49: | Line 51: | ||
Iyyūmi (Salmon Speaker suburb in NCR, approx 80%) | Iyyūmi (Salmon Speaker suburb in NCR, approx 80%) | ||
| | | | ||
*Preservation of final /n/ in Transitive terminative affix ''-un'' | |||
*Fossilized suffix ''-ūy'' preserved | *Fossilized suffix ''-ūy'' preserved | ||
| Line 55: | Line 59: | ||
*Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone | *Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone | ||
* | *Alternative locative noun formed using verb root + IN ''-tappe-'', e.g. ''gubbattappe'' "battlefield" | ||
*Preponderance of fossilized suffix ''-bāt'' and allomorphs ''-mbāt'', ''-umbāt'' | *Preponderance of fossilized suffix ''-bāt'' and allomorphs ''-mbāt'', ''-umbāt'' | ||
| Line 61: | Line 65: | ||
! Hašlua min Kirmast "Wolf Speaker" | ! Hašlua min Kirmast "Wolf Speaker" | ||
| North Central, and Southern Kilmay Rī Mountains, Ešked, Tayyagur, Raqwar, Tabuk Prefectures; Ehar Township | | North Central, and Southern Kilmay Rī Mountains, Ešked, Tayyagur, Raqwar, Tabuk Prefectures; Ehar Township | ||
| | | | ||
*Preservation of final /n/ in Transitive terminative affix ''-un'' | |||
*Fossilized suffix ''-ūy'' preserved | *Fossilized suffix ''-ūy'' preserved | ||
*Initial /ħ/ preserved when followed /a/ | *Initial /ħ/ preserved when followed /a/ | ||
*Phonemes /q, χ/ | *Phonemes /q, χ/ have developed from both the influence of the Seal Speaker dialect, and a sound shift triggered by regressive consonantal harmony triggered by an adjacent /r/, c.f. Common Minhast /karak/ "tribal territory" vs. Wolf Speaker /qaraq/. The sound shift is particularly noticeable in the northwestern prefectures of the Wolf Speaker ''karak''. | ||
*Locative noun formed using verb root + | *Locative noun formed using verb root + ''-anki'' suffix, e.g. ''gubbatanki'' "battlefield" | ||
*Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone | *Locational/deictic verbal affixes appear in the Terminatives zone | ||
| Line 116: | Line 122: | ||
*Palatization Test is inconclusive due to dialectal mixing with their Dog, Osprey, and Egret Speaker neighbors: some Gull Speaker words fail the test, while others pass | *Palatization Test is inconclusive due to dialectal mixing with their Dog, Osprey, and Egret Speaker neighbors: some Gull Speaker words fail the test, while others pass | ||
*''Asr̥-Z''-type sandhi: word-final /sr̥/ mutates to /z/, sometimes accompanied by lengthening of previous vowel, e.g. '' | *''Asr̥-Z''-type sandhi: word-final /sr̥/ mutates to /z/, sometimes accompanied by lengthening of previous vowel, e.g. ''kuyuntāz'' "seaweed", c.f. Salmon Speaker ''kiyuntasr'' | ||
*Wholesale replacement of /f/ with /x/, e.g. ''puħtanaxt'' vs Common ''puħtanaft'' "the one standing" | *Wholesale replacement of /f/ with /x/, e.g. ''puħtanaxt'' vs Common ''puħtanaft'' "the one standing" | ||
| Line 277: | Line 283: | ||
* The ergative in the examples above also serves as a genitive marker, as in Yup'ik. | * The ergative in the examples above also serves as a genitive marker, as in Yup'ik. | ||
* The Upper Minhast (Salmon, Horse, and Dog Speaker) dialects, as can be seen in this text sample, show the greatest amount of conservatism, and all are mutually intelligible with each other, although the Dog Speaker dialect has diverged enough such that speakers of the other Upper Minhast dialects report difficulties in understanding it. | * The Upper Minhast (Salmon, Horse, and Dog Speaker) dialects, as can be seen in this text sample, show the greatest amount of conservatism, and all are mutually intelligible with each other, although the Dog Speaker dialect has diverged enough such that speakers of the other Upper Minhast dialects report difficulties in understanding it. | ||
* 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. | * Modern Standard Minhast (MSM) is closest, at least in morphology and syntax, to the Dog Speaker dialect<ref>More specifically, the variety as spoken in Tagna Prefecture, as can be seen from the ''-m-'' → ''-n-'' morphophonemic alternation when the pronominal affix combines with the ergative/genitive clitic, which differs from most Dog Speaker dialects.</ref>. 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. | * For whatever reason, the Osprey speakers treat ''baktet'' "tattoo" as an animate noun. Intra-dialectal gender discordance is common. | ||
* The Gull Speaker text shows some features found in the Upper Minhast text, and others in the Osprey Speaker text. Features in the Gull Speaker text not found in the other texts are the underlying form of the polypersonal agreement affix ''-unkem-'', and the surface realization of the Ergative clitic after sandhi processes have been applied. | * The Gull Speaker text shows some features found in the Upper Minhast text, and others in the Osprey Speaker text. Features in the Gull Speaker text not found in the other texts are the underlying form of the polypersonal agreement affix ''-unkem-'', and the surface realization of the Ergative clitic after sandhi processes have been applied. | ||
* The Stone Speaker dialect displays the greatest divergence from the other dialects phonologically, grammatically, and lexically. It was because of these differences that [[Minhast/Dialectology#The Tashunka Model| Dr. Tashunka]] has classified it as a separate language, which has become largely accepted among linguists today. | * The Stone Speaker dialect displays the greatest divergence from the other dialects phonologically, grammatically, and lexically. It was because of these differences that [[Minhast/Dialectology#The Tashunka Model| Dr. Tashunka]] has classified it as a separate language, which has become largely accepted among linguists today. | ||
| Line 323: | Line 329: | ||
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. | ||