Re: THEORY: the Obligatory Contour Principle [was Re: Tallefkeul: tones and whatnot]

Quoting David Peterson <DigitalScream@...>:

> In a message dated 08/30/02 12:45:37 AM, trwier@UCHICAGO.EDU writes:
>
> << Actually, to my knowledge (and I'm no expert on Arabic morphology),
> that's usually considered a case of postlexical spreading. >>
>
>     Yes, I heard this theory in my morphology class.  However, it does hold
> that there are no identical adjacent *initial* consonantal roots.  So, you
> could have KTK, KTT, but not *KKT.  No?
That makes perfect sense within the theory, though:  if the
spreading is directional, from left to right, and assigns a
consonant until it has no more from the underlying representation
to assign, then not having initial doubles will fall out
automatically as an epiphenomenon of the spreading mechanism.

 =========================================================================
Thomas Wier
Dept. of Linguistics  "Nihil magis praestandum est quam ne pecorum ritu
University of Chicago sequamur antecedentium gregem, pergentes non qua
1010 E. 59th Street   eundum est, sed qua itur." -- Seneca
Chicago, IL 60637