Re: GROUPLANG: affix morphology

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:37:10 -0300, Pablo Flores
<fflores@...> wrote:

>I disagree on both. I don't think a root should have to comply with
>the syllable structure. I see a root as something that has an ideal
>existence, outside the phonetic realization of the language; it only
>may be modified by its rules. This is also why I don't think a root
>should have to be able to stand on its own -- in this case we should
>speak of a root plus a null inflection.
>
>I'd rather have the syllable structure rules relaxed a bit to allow
>a stop as the last sound of a *word*, so the root could stand alone.
I especially like "kjak-" for "bite". Having to soften it to "kjax" would
be less appealing, IMHO.

So I agree with allowing roots that contain partial syllables (kjak- =3D
kja-kV, with the V supplied by the suffix). I don't think we need ot =
change
the phonology, though; if the need to use a bare root arises in a
conversation, we can agree on a neutral vowel to represent the "null
inflection".