Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Double-segmentation (Was: brz, or Plan B revisited)

From:Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>
Date:Monday, September 26, 2005, 13:24
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote, in reply to Patrick Littell:

> > On 9/22/05, Jrg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > There are many ways to achieve self-segregation. Jeff's solution > > > is elegant and original, but far from the only one. A simple > > > self-segregation system I once came up with has morphemes of the > > > following structures: > > > > > > C > > > CVC > > > CVCVC > > > CVCVCVC > > > > > > etc., i.e. alternating consonants and vowels beginning and ending > > > with a consonant. In this system, all morpheme boundaries are > > > marked by consonant clusters, and every consonant cluster marks > > > a morpheme boundary. For example, _blaraktalmin_ can only be > > > segmented as b-larak-tal-min. If every word has to begin with > > > two consonants in a row (i.e., with a C morpheme), word-level > > > self-segregation is also achieved. > > > > Quite clever! Self-segmentation is pretty easy, but a good method of > > double-segmentation (morpheme and word) like this takes some thought. > > Yes. > > > This would also require, of course, that C morphemes could only occur > > word-initially and word-finally. Internal C morphemes would lead to > > word-level ambiguity. > > C morphemes would have to be restricted to *one* end of the word, > *either* initial *or* final. Otherwise, a single C between two > other morphemes would be ambiguous as for to which word it belongs. > Unless, of course, each word is required to have one C morpheme > on *both* ends. > > But I'd now say that C morphemes should not exist, because they > lead to awkward consonant clusters. I'd propose something else: > > 1. The language is exclusively suffixing. Nothing (except another > root followed by /a/, see 5.) may precede the root. > > 2. Roots are alternating consonant-vowel sequences, beginning end > ending with a consonant, with at minimum one vowel, i.e. CVC, > CVCVC, CVCVCVC, etc. > > 3. Suffixes are alternating consonant-vowel sequences, beginning > with a vowel and ending with a consonant, with at minimum one > vowel, i.e. VC, VCVC, etc. > > 4. All vowels in a morpheme are the same, and only /e/, /i/, /o/ > and /u/ occur. Each suffix has two allomorphs, one with the > vowel /i/ and one with the vowel /u/. The /i/ allomorph is > used after a morpheme with a back vowel; the /u/ allomorph is > used after a morpheme with a front vowel. > > 5. In compounds, a vowel is inserted between the two roots that > occurs neither in roots nor in suffixes: /a/. > > If I haven't made a mistake, this should be self-segregating at > both morpheme level and word level. A change of vowel indicates > a morpheme boundary before it (with the exception of /a/, which > marks a boundary between two roots); two consonants without a > vowel in between mark a word boundary. > > > I would picture some grammatical category like person or number that > > could occur on nouns, verbs, etc., marked obligatorily with a C > > morpheme prefix. (Or as a suffix, of course.) Say, person is marked > > on nouns for either the inherent person features of a noun or those of > > its possessor, and on verbs for the subject. (Object could be marked, > > too, 'cuz there's space for one more C morpheme word-finally.) > > Nothing particularly unnatural about this. > > That's also what I was thinking of when I proposed C morphemes > at word boundaries. > > > Also possible, although weird, is a requirement that the C morpheme > > must be the 2nd morpheme in the word, or second-to-last, or etc. > > > > -------------- > > > > A couple other methods of naturalistically self-segmenting these on > > the word level: > > > > 1) The final consonant of a morpheme must be a stop, and word-internal > > sandhi rules cause them to fricativize: > > > > kotuk-qap-t-mit => kotuhqafsmit > > An interesting idea. But the consonant clusters /hq/ and /fsm/ > in your example are hideous. > > > 2) The final consonant of a morpheme must not be a stop, and all words > > undergo a word-final stop mutation. > > > > kotun-qam-s-min => kotunqamsmit > > > > And, of course, the many variations of these using different consonant > > series, word- and morpheme-initial mutations rather than final ones, > > etc. > > Or encode morpheme boundaries in vowels, as I did above. > > > Any more ideas? > > See above. > > Greetings, > Jrg.
Hi Jörg, I'd say your scheme was both logical and ingenious. BTW, I disagree that the consonant clusters arising from the other scheme (Patrick's, if I remember correctly), are hideous - they do seem to be quite pronounceable, and to respect the kind of sonority hierarchy shown at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonority_hierarchy. I rather like the sound of "kotuhqafsmit" - sure beats trying to pronounce Nuxálk (Bella Coola)! But back on-topic - what kinds of schemes occur in natlangs, and with what kinds of frequency, for both morpheme- and word-level segregation? And if such data is available, are there any plausible theories to account for them? Regards, Yahya -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/9/05

Reply

Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>