Re: Group Conlang: affix morphology

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 guess that's precisly why most of us prefere A: it's less familliar.  At
> least for me.
I am not so sure that B is any more or less naturalistic.  I may be wrong on
this, but I believe Swahili employs case prefixes for the most part (I know it
uses prefixed noun classes).  It's the screeve that really strikes me as unnatural
in terms of typology.  Could someone post some examples of a screeve as it
is used in Georgian?

> >> >For this, we have two alternatives:
> >> >1. Use (C)V- and add a semivowel glide when a vowel follows.
> >> >Example: pe- + ak- = pejak-;  o- + ak- = owak-
> >> >2. Use (C)VC- and change the last -C- when a consonant follows.
> >> >Example: ut- + pop- = uspop-;  ik- + pop- = 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.
>
> Personnaly I want no glottal stops.  They would look to NGL for me and are
> not part of the phonology most of us seems to agree... of course, there is
> no hard rule on that.  I like the idea of flexional affixes like V(C)-.
Have we already ruled out the possibility of phonemic diphthongs?I don't see why VV
sequences would be difficult, granted that they become
diphthongized.

> >OR, you could simply require prefixes to already conform to the
> >syllable-structure rules, thus ut- would be an impermissible prefix to
> >begin with.
>
> I second this motion for general prefixes (and roots).
The way I get around this in Degaspregos is I have set phonotacticaffixes whose sole
purpose is to legitimize the morphological additions
which words might undergo.  Thus, "wiros" ("man") stands as is, because the
prefix w- ("masculine") works well with the following vowel phonotactically.
But  for something like "waseos", the -a- affix is required.  I think this
makes things much more fluid, and it is entirely predictable from the
phonology.  Thus, any affix can be used with any root, or whatever,
because of the regular rule allowing for liaison of vowels.


=======================================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

"Why should men quarrel here, where all possess /
as much as they can hope for by success?"
 - Quivera, _The Indian Queen_ by Henry Purcell
========================================================