Dirk:
> >I don't get this. If the stress rules ignore weight in the input,
> >then you can have double VV and CC in the input, and then reduce
> >them to V and C in unstressed syllables.
>
> Yes, but which do you have underlyingly? Input VV implies that vowel
> length is the distinctive opposition, while input CC implies that
> consonant length is the distinctive opposition. Marking both
> introduces redundancy in inputs, since vowel length and consonant
> gemination are in complementary distribution in stressed syllables. I
> don't think that either opposition is basic; hence my introduction of
> syllable contact.
Huh? They're not in complementary distribution: they're contrastive.
nikkra versus niikra. They can't cooccur, but that can be captured
as a constraint on syllable-structure: stressed sylls have bimoraic
rimes and unstressed have unimoraic.
> >(E.g. Livagian phonology must conform to the principles that word
> >boundaries can be derived by rule from phonological strings and
> >that the phonology be analysable as a combinatorial system of
> >phonotactically unconstrained units.)
>
> Hey. That reminds me. You promised me a copy of the description of
> current Livagian phonology ...
Did I? Well I'm halfway through a new improved version, so I'll hold
off until it's done. (My birthday treat to myself was to stay up all
night writing the first half.)
--And.