Re: Question Re: Reduplication

David Peterson wrote:
> If you had a language with a pretty standard intervocalic voicing rule
(let's say, /s/ > [z] / V_V), yet you had reduplication, how would that
affect the voicing rule?
>
> I realize that it's simply a matter of rule-ordering and cyclicity,...
That pretty much answers the question: it depends. :-)

To prevent intervoc.voicing, your rule would have to include morpheme
boundaries-- s > z / #..V_V..# --which would prevent voicing with either
prefixes or suffixes.  OTOH there's the tendency for phonological rules to
generalize (eliminating some or all of the environment), so that over time
the rule might well change to s > z /..V_V.., which would not prevent
voicing.

It might also happen that there'd be fossilized forms-- old reduplications
that have become lexicalized-- and you could have doublets:  /so/+/sopo/
[sosopo] (morphemic redup, rule does not apply; vs. /sosopo/ [sozopo]
(perhaps a deriv., or semantic variant, originally a redup., but no longer
felt to be one)

Unfortunately I don't know of any natlang examples....(IIRC Sanskrit redup.
involving initial /k,g/, or is it /c, j/?-- might be relevant)
>
> Here's an example:
>
> Phonemically: /sopo/ > /sosopo/
> Phonetically: [sopo] > [sosopo] or [sozopo]?
>
Wouldn't it want to be /sopo/ [sobo]?  (While it could certainly happen that
only certain sounds-- fricatives in this case?-- would undergo IV voicing---
it seems a little unusual.)