Re: Group Conlang: affix morphology

De: Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>
Fecha: Lunes 12 de Octubre de 1998 23:32


>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.

>> >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)-.

About V-V compositions.  No body has objected this far about the proposed
CSV(V)F syllabe structure where S is /w/, /j/ or /r/ and F is /w/, /j/, /l/
any nasal or fricative.  It means a syllabe coud have two vowels, and if we
join two roots, one ending in vowel and the other begining in vowel, they
would become one syllabe from two original syllabes.

>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 same goes for postposed affixes, except that -CV(C) should
>> >not be allowed (we don't want to change the root, right?).
>
>Well, why would you need to change the root?  If the root had a
>permissible syllable-structure, it wouldn't matter what the affix was.
I second this motion too.

>> 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.
>
>Suffixes, they're called.
Okay!

>  If we were to add unstressed vowels, perhaps
>we should have a single vowel to always add, perhaps schwa, or maybe
>/a/, thus
>
>> qiv+s => qifys
>For this, _qivas_ or _qivza_/_qifsa_
>
>> tru+o => truwo
>Going back to my earlier comments on prefixes, tru?o.
>
>--
>"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father
>was hanged." - Irish proverb
>http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
>ICQ: 18656696
>AOL: NikTailor
** Carlos Th