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
>
I vote for system A (maybe with modifications, I'll think of it).
>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.
>
I prefer the first one.
>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.
>
Okay.
>Do we agree or disagree on these points?
>
>
>--Pablo Flores
>
>
Christophe Grandsire
|Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.
homepage: http://www.bde.espci.fr/homepage/Christophe.Grandsire/index.html