Re: Group Conlang: affix morphology

De: Pablo Flores <fflores@...>
Fecha: Domingo 11 de Octubre de 1998 10:27


>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

[...]
>It seems we want to have:
>
>prefixes: CV- or V-
>suffixes: -VC or -V
>I see (C)VC- for prefixes could be messy, for it could violate
>our phonetical constraints (no syllable-final stops, for example).
>But then again, (C)V- if the root begins with a vowel is messy
>too.
>
>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.

Vote for 3.  I would like most common afixes would be one letter long,
including most common case prefixes being V-, but if we allow composition of
roots, they will probably be some consonant ending roots.

>The same goes for postposed affixes, except that -CV(C) should
>not be allowed (we don't want to change the root, right?).
I won't complain about changing the root.  I guess I've posted something,
about voice harmony marking that qiv- and qif- would be the same root.

>But both -V and -VC should be allowed, provided -C complies with
>the syllable-final constraint.
>Do we agree or disagree on these points?
I would like -C postfixes and -V postfixes for most common parts of the
screeve, and some unstressed vowels coud be add for our constrains' sake.

qiv+s => qifys
qiv+o => qivo
tru+s => trus
tru+o => truwo

>
>--Pablo Flores
>
-- Carlos Th