Both languages mark focus the same way using third person possessive suffixes, but in numerous instances, Zyrian prefers the second person where Permian uses the third. So far, our observations include the following: Permian seems to prefer adpositions in some constructions where Zyrian uses only the illative. “When Friday brought the lantern, he started to ask Robinson not to go to the beach, but Robinson said: “I will go, what you are afraid of? Permian: Kәr Pecɲitɕa vajis ponarsə, pondis Robinzonəs kornɨ, medbɨ ez pɨr peʃoraas, a Robinzon ʃuis: "Pɨra, mɨjiɕ te polan?" (Tolstoi 1934b: 29) Zyrian: Kor Pekɲitɕa vajis pənar, kutis kevmɨɕnɨ Robinzonlɨɕ, medɨm sijә ez pɨr peʃtʃəraə, a Robinzon ʃuə: "Pɨrala, mɨjɨɕ te polan?" (Tolstoi 1934a: 35) Morphological differences are bolded, while word order differences are underlined. The examples below illustrate our corpus material.
We are mainly interested in word order, tense, focus marking and verb derivation. We attempt to fill this gap using parallel materials published in the 1930s. Bartens 2000) and lexical differences are well documented, not much attention has been paid to differences in the use of elements common to both varieties, nor have the structual differences been studied using a corpus. Although their similarities have been widely studied (i.e. These languages are mutually intelligible and form a dialect continuum.
This paper investigates structural differences between the two written standards of Komi: Zyrian and Permian. Structural differences in Komi varieties: a corpus-based investigation
0 kommentar(er)
