GROUPLANG: affix morphology

Nik Taylor wrote:
>
>My point was that you *wouldn't* have kjak- as a root, because that's an
>impermissible syllable-structure, so that you'd never have that
>problem.  The root could only be kjakh- to begin with, or perhaps
>kjaka-, but in any case, kjak- couldn't be a root.  I think that roots
>should have to be able to stand on their own.
>
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.


--Pablo Flores