Vadi: Difference between revisions

Line 966:

}}

|-

| s-

| 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.

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-~~dyi~~ 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.

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.

|-

|}

@@ Line 966: / Line 966: @@
 }}
 |-
-| s-
+| <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.
-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-dyi 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.
+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.
 |-
 |}