Re: GROUPLANG: affix morphology

Carlos wrote:
>De: Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>
>Fecha: Jueves 15 de Octubre de 1998 03:15
>
>
>>Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>>>         I like the idea. What should we use as a neutral vowel. Do we use
>>> /i/, /u/ or /y/, or should we add a schwa (its occurence wouldn't be so
>>> important, so I think this addition can be done without problems).
>>
>>Indeed, it wouldn't even need an orthographic symbol.  Kjak would be
>>pronounced /kjak@/, since /k/ can't be in syllable-final position.
>>Incidentally, is that rule still up for debate?  I personally don't mind
>>using stops in syllable-final position.
>
>In my proposed phonology/orthography unstressed vowels have a different
>value than stressed in open or close syllabes.  Thus:
>kjak + f/v = kjakyf, would sound ['kjA.k@f]
>kjak + ve = kjaghve, would sund ['kjaG.ve] or
>kjak + ve = kjagyve, would sund ['kja.g@.ve]
>with an untensed [e].
>(Note the marked voice agreement)

I agree about having a difference between vowels according to
stress and position in the syllable, but I think it should only
be made by tenseness and perhaps proximity like [a], [A], [&].
But having the schwa as a "universal variant" in unstressed
syllables looks a bit too much like English. I'd like to have
vowels clearly pronounced within certain limits. My tendency
in particular would be to pronounce /@/ for medial unstressed
unrounded vowels in open syllables, such as the second /a/
in _kjakave_ (kjak + -ve = kjakave to me ['kja.k@.ve])

We have two possibilities here:

[1]
The root should keep unchanged. Voice harmony would apply
only to affixes, when two consonants get in touch, not violating
the syllable structure rules, as in

ys- + bal = yzbal
bas + -ve = basfe


The same for stop > fricative change:

ut- + pop = uspop

BUT

pop + -ve = popave, not poffe --


[2]

-- unless we decide to let the roots change. I'd agree with that
in principle... In theory, sound change affects everything,
no matter the grammar functions, so if ut-pop = uspop, then
pop-ve should be = poffe; the rule is phonetic, not grammatical.

But in this case, let's not have too many -CV(C) suffixes,
please! <:)


So, [1] unchangeable root + [schwa if necessary] +  suffix,
 or [2] changeable root + suffix ?


--Pablo