Re: GROUPLANG: affix morphology

At 10:06 15/10/98 -0300, you wrote:
>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 =3D kjakyf, would sound ['kjA.k@f]
>>kjak + ve =3D kjaghve, would sund ['kjaG.ve] or
>>kjak + ve =3D 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 =3D 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 =3D yzbal
>bas + -ve =3D basfe
>
>
>The same for stop > fricative change:
>
>ut- + pop =3D uspop
>
>BUT
>
>pop + -ve =3D 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 =3D uspop, then
>pop-ve should be =3D 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 ?
>
        I prefer [1], but [2] seems not to be so difficult. I'll accept what
the others will decide.

>
>--Pablo
>
>
                                                Christophe Grandsire
                                                |Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.

"R=E9sister ou servir"

homepage: http://www.bde.espci.fr/homepage/Christophe.Grandsire/index.html