Re: GROUPLANG: affix morphology

At 04:16 15/10/98 GMT, you wrote:
>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- =
>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".
>
>
        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).

                                                Christophe Grandsire
                                                |Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.

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