Vadi: Difference between revisions

Line 940:

===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~~.

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. While they agree that there is little affixation in verbs, and that they most likely do not take tense or aspect markers, tense affixes are present in Vadi, marked on the pronoun rather than the verb. These affixes trigger mutation on the pronoun. The Traditionalists, however, disagree with that assessment as well.

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:

@@ Line 940: / Line 940: @@
 ===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.
+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.  While they agree that there is little affixation in verbs, and that they most likely do not take tense or aspect markers, tense affixes are present in Vadi, marked on the pronoun rather than the verb.  These affixes trigger mutation on the pronoun.  The Traditionalists, however, disagree with that assessment as well.
 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: