Re: On Phonological Constraints: The Long Vowel Rule

Nicolas Walker wrote:
>
> The rule states that a long vowel (marked by an acute accent) cannot occur
> immediately after a consonant which is proceeded by a long vowel.
So there are no base (underlying) forms of the sort ..V:CV:.. ? (In effect,
only one long vowel per morpheme?)  A perfectly reasonable Morpheme
Structure rule. Such rules are often the result of historical developments,
or can be holdovers from quite ancient stages of the language. Have you
worked on this aspect of your language? Something to think about: what is
the source of long vowels? Original vowel sequences? Vowel coalescence? A
lost consonant? Could there be some abstract element present that causes
vowel length (like the IE laryngeals)?

That is
> to say, that the combination 'LV + C + LV' is deemed unacceptable. The
> rough reason for this infernal rule is due to the (regular) stress falling
> on the first long vowel of a word. Two stressed, long vowels are
> considered unweildy and undesirable.
>
> The second part of the rule therefore proposes that should the combination
> LV + C + LV occur (as a result of affixation, declension or whatever),
> that the first vowel be shortened, causing the sequence SV + C + SV.
Also quite reasonable; in effect, the old rule still operates.

To
> give an example, u:r (=ear) would become uri:r in the plural genitive.
> Furthermore, the shift to a short 'o' changes the quality of the vowel -
> e.g. ano:r in the locative case is rendered anaro:r.
Are there different declensions? we need to know more about the various
endings.
>
> It was only after enacting the rule that I came accross an infinate number
> of little problems, such as consonantal combinations, the length of the
> vowel changing word meaning (i.e. how to differentiate a:va (you) and a:va
> (sea),
Generally speaking, homophonous forms tend to occur in such different
grammatical environments that there's little problem. In this case, I could
foresee a problem with: "We saw the sea :: We saw you".."The sea is calm ::
you are calm" etc.  Again, what are the case endings if any? Do verbs agree
with their subjects? Perhaps "you" could be declined differently than
"sea"??


and what to do when a 'long prefix' is attached to an inflected
> noun...and so on.
I see no problem with it > short-- it might carry a secondary stress.