Group Conlang: affix morphology
|From:||Pablo Flores <fflores@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, October 11, 1998, 14:02|
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
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
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)
3. Use both systems according to the affix.
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.
Do we agree or disagree on these points?