Vadi: Difference between revisions

Line 244:

|}

The singulative forms seem to roughly correspond with animacy, ~~although~~ exceptions appear, as in ''uzáka'' instead of expected ''uzap(r)i'' "hand".

The singulative forms seem to roughly correspond with animacy. The ''-(r)i'' forms seem associated with animate nouns, whereas the ''-ka'' forms correspond largely with inananimates. However, exceptions do appear, as in ''uzáka'' instead of expected ''uzap(r)i'' "hand".

Unfortunately, these body parts are the only ones attested from the Scriptum. The last two body parts listed were extracted from letters that became especially laced with various vulgar ad hominems between the two litigants. Note also that the two last terms have both the presumptive animate and inanimate forms. The inanimate forms appear to be used as proxy pronouns for the addressee (implying impotence), while the animate forms appear to be proxy pronouns for the addresser, especially in passages threatening physical violence.

@@ Line 244: / Line 244: @@
 |}
-The singulative forms seem to roughly correspond with animacy, although exceptions appear, as in ''uzáka'' instead of expected ''uzap(r)i'' "hand".
+The singulative forms seem to roughly correspond with animacy.  The ''-(r)i'' forms seem associated with animate nouns, whereas the ''-ka'' forms correspond largely with inananimates. However, exceptions do appear, as in ''uzáka'' instead of expected ''uzap(r)i'' "hand".
 Unfortunately, these body parts are the only ones attested from the Scriptum.  The last two body parts listed were extracted from letters that became especially laced with various vulgar ad hominems between the two litigants.  Note also that the two last terms have both the presumptive animate and inanimate forms.  The inanimate forms appear to be used as proxy pronouns for the addressee (implying impotence), while the animate forms appear to be proxy pronouns for the addresser, especially in passages threatening physical violence.