Re: Lïzxvööse Verbs I: Active Tri-Consonantals
|From:||SMITH,MARCUS ANTHONY <smithma@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, August 12, 2001, 6:22|
On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> The lengthening here is very normal when there is loss of some
> kind. However, geminate consonants are basically defined by
> a break in syllables lying between them.
This is not true. There are languages in this world that have word final
geminates, which hardly spans a syllable break. Pima does this eg, hott
'send' (in Papago this is hotsh). There is also the word hottk 'swift';
And I have dim recollections of being told Estonian does as well, though
I'm not so sure about this one. I would be rather surprised to see a word
medial geminate that does not span a syllable boundary, but I suppose it
is not completely impossible.
That means that (if I
> understand your data aright) syllable breakdown would have to
> be something like
> tatrzcaa [tAttDA:]: tAt.tDA:
> tatrzcö [tAttDo]: tAt.tDo
> tatrzcözxa [tAttDoZA]: tAt.tDo.ZA
If [tD] sequences are not permissible onsets, then the proper
syllabification will be: tAtt.dA:, tAtt.Do, and tatt.Do.ZA. Given what I
just said above, this is a fair feature in a conlang, and I wouldn't bet a
fortune that it would never occur in a natlang.