Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Group Conlang: affix morphology

From:Herman Miller <hmiller@...>
Date:Wednesday, October 14, 1998, 4:57
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 00:24:32 -0400, Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...> wrote:

>Carlos Thompson wrote: >> >Here's to round up the proposals about affix morphology. >> > >> >We have two affix systems so far: >> >System A: case_tag + root + screeve_tag >> >System B: gender_tag + root + case_tag >> >> Vote for System A > >Am I the only person who wants to vote for B? It's more naturalistic. >Very few (if any) languages have case-prefixes. In fact, the very few >cases of case-prefixes are actually inflected demonstratives that were >fused to the noun, and therefore also incorporate gender.
I must have missed this one when it first came around. In any case, I = might as well vote for B since it was my original suggestion, although I = modified it to swap gender and case.
>> >For this, we have two alternatives: >> >1. Use (C)V- and add a semivowel glide when a vowel follows. >> >Example: pe- + ak- =3D pejak-; o- + ak- =3D owak- >> >2. Use (C)VC- and change the last -C- when a consonant follows. >> >Example: ut- + pop- =3D uspop-; ik- + pop- =3D ikhpop- >> >(i. e. change stop > fricative) >> >Although also, >> >3. Use both systems according to the affix. > >Well, we could also have CV- --> C-, but that would limit the number of >prefixes possible. How about adding nothing. What's wrong with pe- + >ak- --> peak-? If you definitely don't want VV sequences, add a glottal >stop, thus pe?ak- OR have prefixes in the form CV(C)-, where the (C) >indicates a consonant which is only used before vowels, thus, perhaps >pe(t)- + ak- --> petak-, but pe(t)- + pop --> pepop.
The only potential problem with VV sequences as I see it is double = vowels, and adding an unwritten glottal stop would make those easier to = distinguish from single vowels. OTOH, many languages get along just fine with double vowels. I think my preference though would be for #1.