Re: NEW LANG: Telek

On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Marcus Smith wrote:

> Sometimes I wonder why I didn't go into phonology.  But then I work on some
> syntax and remember.  :)  (Syntax and morphology coming soon, I hope.)
I get the same feeling after looking at syntax; makes me glad to
be a phonologist! :-)

> At 4/26/00 03:14 PM -0600, you wrote:
>
> >and rank them in that order, the right results should pop out,
> >as the following tableax show (oh no! he's including tableaux!)
>
> I was tempted, but the last time I used OT on a mailing list (Elfling) I got
> some private requests that I not do it again.  I didn't want to alienate
> myself
> here so quickly, but I guess that won't be an issue.
Well, it's the first time I've done it, and I haven't gotten any
nasty-grams yet ... But I promise not to make it a habit.

> >To get cases where both of the final two syllables are heavy, a
> >top-ranked constraint MaxMora will be needed to insure that
> >there is no deletion of underlying moras to satisfy NoLongF (and
> >get stress on the ultima).
>
> I also need Id(Length) positioned immediately above NoLongF, that way
> underlying long finals would remain.  Lengthening of both the ultimate and the
> penult would violate it, but then the correct output would result from
> NoLongF.
I think that MaxMora will do the job you intend Id(length) to
do; that is, insure that underlying weight/length distinctions
are preserved.

> >A functional principle which the OTers have adopted is that
> >preservation of underlying material in the root or stem takes
> >precedence over preservation of underlying material from
> >affixes. That's why I thought this was unusual. There's a
> >corollary which states that affixes will contain "unmarked"
> >segmental material and "marked" segments will be confined to
> >roots and stems.
>
> Now that you mention it, I remember hearing that, but I was not presented any
> evidence for it, so I didn't pay too much attention.  (A professor's
> nightmare!  Make him justify everything!)
Oh. So you're one of *those*. :-) Actually, I have never had to
appeal to this principle in my research, so I'm not sure on the
supporting evidence for it. McCarthy and Prince (1994)
"Emergence of the Unmarked" might have some relevant discussion.
Come to think of it, Jill Beckman's dissertation, _Positional
Faithfulness_, discusses this same idea applied to a variety of
prosodic and morphological categories.

> >> The glottal stop and h don't have a place of articulation in the mouth, so
> >> they
> >> disappear, but the time slot is still present, so the preceding consonant
> >> spreads to fill it.  (Autosegmental thinking.)
> >
> >If timing is represented by moras in Telek, doesn't this amount
> >to the claim that onsets are moraic? This would truly be
> >unusual!
>
> As I learned it, each segment of a word has a timing slot with its
> autosegmental features attached to it, geminates and long vowels are attached
> to two slots.  I didn't mean anything about morae, because I don't  know
> enough
> about them to feel comfortable playing with them.  (Maybe I should have taken
> that seminar on metrics....)  Am I implying that onsets are moraic?  I may
> need
> to change things if so.
If you're talking about timing slots as root nodes then the
gemination presents no problem. But the use of the term 'timing
slot' carries connotations for me of syllabic rhythm and length.
For me root nodes are purely organizational; they have no real
effect on the rhythm, weight, or length of syllables.

Dirk

--
Dirk Elzinga
dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu