Vadi: Difference between revisions

Line 941:

===Verbs===

According to the Traditionalists, Vadi verbs for the most part contain no grammatical inflection. They do not mark for person, number, tense, or aspect. Instead, particles marking tense appear after the verb, the future marker ''nai'', and the past marker ''hai''. Again, the ''Šibbūru'' School argues that a surface reading of the ''Širkattarnaft'' conceals the morphophonotactic processes that indicate these particles, when they appear after the verb root, are actually bound morphemes. The mutations that occur between the verb root and the morphemes marking tense make a case for wordhood, i.e. that verbs do indeed take tense-aspect marking. The clitics can also attach to pronouns, and undergo the same mutations that occur when they attach to a verb root.

The differences between the Traditionalist and the ''Šibbūru'' schools is best exemplified by the opposing viewpoints of Schumann and Iyyaħmi. These differences between the two Vadists can be seen in the underlined portions of text in the table below:

{| class="bluetable lightbluebg mw-collapsible"

Line 966:

Line 968:

}}

|-

| ~~ ~~Schumann's analysis shows no gemination. Even within the Traditionalist school, whether Vadi has exhibits gemination is hotly debated. Although the ''Širkattarnaft'' can show gemination with either a character signifying a coda consonant followed by another character of the same consonant in non-coda position, or by using a special diacritic, in practice gemination is not usually shown, save for official correspondence, ceremonial inscriptions, or other highly formal contexts, such as legal documents. Gemination in Vadi is inferred by doublets involving a single character, or instances of that same word with a reduplicated syllable indicating no apparent grammatical function. The reduplicated forms appear in some of the earlier texts, then disappear in later texts altogether. Why the Vadi correspondents chose not to use the traditional Minhast methods for showing gemination remain yet unknown.

|

| Iyyaħmi'~~s analysis shows several differences~~, ~~as indicated by~~ the ~~underlined portions~~, ~~from~~ that ~~of Schumann~~'s.

#Schumann glosses the past tense marker ''hai'' as a particle. Compare to Iyyaħmi's gloss.

Iyyaħmi's ''nye'' ~~derives~~ from his observation that the apparent ''Širkattarnaft'' text, ''u-la-di-yi-na'' freqently alternates with ''u-la-di-yi-ni-ya'' in earlier documents, with Sorvin preferring the former and Éro preferring the latter. Later texts of both authors start showing a higher frequency of ''u-la-d-yi in-ye''. The Traditionalists have analyzed ''in-ye'' as a particle ''inye'' that serves as a durative marker, which is what is found in the Aħħum texts. Either interpretation so far cannot be determined precisely. The Aħħum texts are rather fragmentary, and analyzing ''in-ye'' in the context it appears in cannot definitively rule out a durative reading.

#Schumann's analysis shows no gemination. Even within the Traditionalist school, whether Vadi has exhibits gemination is hotly debated. Although the ''Širkattarnaft'' can show gemination with either a character signifying a coda consonant followed by another character of the same consonant in non-coda position, or by using a special diacritic, in practice gemination is not usually shown, save for official correspondence, ceremonial inscriptions, or other highly formal contexts, such as legal documents. Gemination in Vadi is inferred by doublets involving a single character, or instances of that same word with a reduplicated syllable indicating no apparent grammatical function. The reduplicated forms appear in some of the earlier texts, then disappear in later texts altogether. Why the Vadi correspondents chose not to use the traditional Minhast methods for showing gemination remain yet unknown.

|

#Iyyaħmi argues the past tense marker ''hai'' as an affix, based on irregularities in the ''Širkattarnaft'' that indicates the marker triggers lenition. He notes that no text has been found where adjuncts can intervene between the marker and its host, an observation that the result, /u:'lad͡ʒɲɛ/, qualifies for wordhood.

#Continuing from Iyyaħmi's conclusion of the morpheme ''-hai-'' as a suffix as opposed to a particle or clitic, his derivation of ''nye'' comes from his observation that the apparent ''Širkattarnaft'' text, ''u-la-di-yi-na'' freqently alternates with ''u-la-di-yi-ni-ya'' in earlier documents, with Sorvin preferring the former and Éro preferring the latter. Later texts of both authors start showing a higher frequency of ''u-la-d-yi in-ye''. The Traditionalists have analyzed ''in-ye'' as a particle ''inye'' that serves as a durative marker, which is what is found in the Aħħum texts. Either interpretation so far cannot be determined precisely. The Aħħum texts are rather fragmentary, and analyzing ''in-ye'' in the context it appears in cannot definitively rule out a durative reading.

|-

|}

@@ Line 941: / Line 941: @@
 ===Verbs===
 According to the Traditionalists, Vadi verbs for the most part contain no grammatical inflection.  They do not mark for person, number, tense, or aspect. Instead, particles marking tense appear after the verb, the future marker ''nai'', and the past marker ''hai''.  Again, the ''Šibbūru'' School argues that a surface reading of the ''Širkattarnaft'' conceals the morphophonotactic processes that indicate these particles, when they appear after the verb root, are actually bound morphemes.  The mutations that occur between the verb root and the morphemes marking tense make a case for wordhood, i.e. that verbs do indeed take tense-aspect marking.  The clitics can also attach to pronouns, and undergo the same mutations that occur when they attach to a verb root.
+The differences between the Traditionalist and the ''Šibbūru'' schools is best exemplified by the opposing viewpoints of Schumann and Iyyaħmi. These differences between the two Vadists can be seen in the underlined portions of text in the table below:
 {| class="bluetable lightbluebg mw-collapsible"
@@ Line 966: / Line 968: @@
 }}
 |-
-| <br/>Schumann's analysis shows no gemination.  Even within the Traditionalist school, whether Vadi has exhibits gemination is hotly debated.  Although the ''Širkattarnaft'' can show gemination with either a character signifying a coda consonant followed by another character of the same consonant in non-coda position, or by using a special diacritic, in practice gemination is not usually shown, save for official correspondence, ceremonial inscriptions, or other highly formal contexts, such as legal documents.  Gemination in Vadi is inferred by doublets involving a single character, or instances of that same word with a reduplicated syllable indicating no apparent grammatical function.  The reduplicated forms appear in some of the earlier texts, then disappear in later texts altogether.  Why the Vadi correspondents chose not to use the traditional Minhast methods for showing gemination remain yet unknown.
+|
-| Iyyaħmi's analysis shows several differences, as indicated by the underlined portions, from that of Schumann's.
+#Schumann glosses the past tense marker ''hai'' as a particle.  Compare to Iyyaħmi's gloss.
-Iyyaħmi's ''<u>nye</u>'' derives from his observation that the apparent ''Širkattarnaft'' text, ''u-la-di-yi-na'' freqently alternates with ''u-la-di-yi-ni-ya'' in earlier documents, with Sorvin preferring the former and Éro preferring the latter. Later texts of both authors start showing a higher frequency of ''u-la-d-yi in-ye''.  The Traditionalists have analyzed ''in-ye'' as a particle ''inye'' that serves as a durative marker, which is what is found in the Aħħum texts.  Either interpretation so far cannot be determined precisely.  The Aħħum texts are rather fragmentary, and analyzing ''in-ye'' in the context it appears in cannot definitively rule out a durative reading.
+#Schumann's analysis shows no gemination.  Even within the Traditionalist school, whether Vadi has exhibits gemination is hotly debated.  Although the ''Širkattarnaft'' can show gemination with either a character signifying a coda consonant followed by another character of the same consonant in non-coda position, or by using a special diacritic, in practice gemination is not usually shown, save for official correspondence, ceremonial inscriptions, or other highly formal contexts, such as legal documents.  Gemination in Vadi is inferred by doublets involving a single character, or instances of that same word with a reduplicated syllable indicating no apparent grammatical function.  The reduplicated forms appear in some of the earlier texts, then disappear in later texts altogether.  Why the Vadi correspondents chose not to use the traditional Minhast methods for showing gemination remain yet unknown.
+|
+#Iyyaħmi argues the past tense marker ''hai'' as an affix, based on irregularities in the ''Širkattarnaft'' that indicates the marker triggers lenition.  He notes that no text has been found where adjuncts can intervene between the marker and its host, an observation that the result, /u:'lad͡ʒɲɛ/, qualifies for wordhood.
+#Continuing from Iyyaħmi's conclusion of the morpheme ''-hai-'' as a suffix as opposed to a particle or clitic,  his derivation of ''<u>nye</u>'' comes from his observation that the apparent ''Širkattarnaft'' text, ''u-la-di-yi-na'' freqently alternates with ''u-la-di-yi-ni-ya'' in earlier documents, with Sorvin preferring the former and Éro preferring the latter. Later texts of both authors start showing a higher frequency of ''u-la-d-yi in-ye''.  The Traditionalists have analyzed ''in-ye'' as a particle ''inye'' that serves as a durative marker, which is what is found in the Aħħum texts.  Either interpretation so far cannot be determined precisely.  The Aħħum texts are rather fragmentary, and analyzing ''in-ye'' in the context it appears in cannot definitively rule out a durative reading.
 |-
 |}