At 11:02 11/10/98 -0300, you 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
> >
>
A.
>
> >Screeve = a combination of aspect, tense, gender or whatever
> >besides case. (We should borrow the word into our language!)
> >
> >We're voting to decide which one we choose.
> >
> >
> >No matter the result, some ideas have been proposed in general.
> >(Ignore my made-up examples).
> >
> >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.
> >
>
1 please : -y- and -w- intervowels are exactly what I use in my own languages, Pablo.
> >I'm in for 3. Let's try not to create troublesome affixes; but
> >let's leave ourselves some room for doing it if we want to.
> >
> >
> >The same goes for postposed affixes, except that -CV(C) should
> >not be allowed (we don't want to change the root, right?).
> >
> >But both -V and -VC should be allowed, provided -C complies with
> >the syllable-final constraint.
> >
>
Yes.
>
> >Do we agree or disagree on these points?
> >
> >
> >--Pablo Flores
> >
Mathias
-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=17182
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/