Conlang: Re: Amman-Iar stress & gemination (And Rosta, Mar 5 '00, 10:22)

From:	And Rosta <a.rosta@...>
Date:	Sunday, March 5, 2000, 10:22

David:

> > From: And Rosta > > I would say that it is the stress that diagnoses syllabification. You > > may intuit the chunking you describe, but you are perhaps describing > > morphological units rather than phonological ones. > > > > Hence _er'inis_ would phonologically chunk as _e-ri-nis. Matt was asking > > about your native speaker intuitions about this, and taking them to be > > decisive, but while your intuitions are valid, your intuitions about > > what they are intuitions of (i.e. phonology versu morphology) are not > > (I declare, speaking as a linguist). > > Well, unfortunately, I cannot speak as a linguist, but I disagree with you > about my intuitions. Matt, I believe, also felt that this MUST be the case, > but it simply does not square with the rather distinct way that I find > myself pronouncing amman iar. I have carefully read and reread numerous > translations and the syllabification seems clear to me, quite despite the > linguistic universals that it seems to violate. I wonder if my intimate > awareness of the morphology has perhaps influenced the phonology in ways > that simply would not occur to a natlang speaker uninvolved with the > morphological creation? Perhaps that awareness has caused me to speak > "morphologically" rather than "phonologically", overcompensating for the > forms that I know to exist beneath the surface?

I think we have to consider what linguistic diagnostics there are for syllable structure in Amman-Iar. Basically our evidence seems to comprise nothing more than knowledge of segmental content and stress. Hence I conclude that the 'correct' syllable structure is that which best accounts for the patterns of segmental content and stress. If your intuitions run counter to this 'correct' syllable structure, then I would contend that you are intuiting something other than syllable structure. Morphological structure, perhaps. After all, English speakers who are very familiar with standard hyphenation practises will tend to place syllable boundaries differently from phonologists. This really means that their respective notions of 'syllable' are not commensurable. What would help would be some linguistic data of some sort to back up your intuitions. For example, in my analysis of Livagian phonology I have to resort to data from rhyme and metre to find linguistic evidence to substantiate my native speaker intuitions.

> > > How about this: Inflected words in Amman Iar are initially > > > syllabified in accordance with NoCoda and other constraints > > > which enforce an unmarked syllable structure. Stress > > > assignment and gemination then operate on the basis of > > > that representation. Finally, a "syllable-boundary > > > readjustment" rule (SBRR) is applied, which reassigns > > > certain onset consonants to coda position, in accordance > > > with a constraint which enforces congruence between > > > morpheme and syllable boundaries. A sample derivation > > > would look like this: > > > > > > Take a noun like "adhan" = "man": > > > > > > 'a.dhan > > > > > [1] > > > Adding the ergative suffix "-e" triggers a stress shift > > > to the right, together with resyllabification: > > > > > > a.'dha.ne > > > > > [2] > > > Because of a constraint against stressed penultimate > > > syllables being light, gemination takes place: > > > > > > a.'dhan.ne > > > > > [3] > > > Finally, the SBRR is applied, yielding the correct surface > > > form: > > > a.'dhann.e > > > > > > Something like this might work, yes? > > > > I don't believe [3] is necessary, because there is no linguistic > > evidence for it. > > There is "no linguistic evidence", only if you ignore the intuitions of a > "native speaker" of the language.

I do ignore native speakers' intuitions about structure, though not their intuitions about well-formedness (which in fact constitute the only valid form of data, for me).

> > My objection to Matt's analysis [1-2] is that it must be *stipulated* > > that it is gemination that resolves the conflict between the > > stress on the penult in "a.'dha.ne" and its lightness. This is > > because there are other ways the conflict could be resolved, such > > as by inserting some other consonant, by lengthening or > > diphthongizing the vowel, or by reversing the stress shift. > > You thus need two stipulations: (a) "-e" triggers stress shift; (b) > > resolve conflict by gemination. > > > > A version of David's original formulation is in fact simpler and more > > explanatory. That is, there is a single stipulation: (a) "-e" triggers > > gemination. The stress shift follows from (a) without stipulation. > > I'm not convinced that is it quite that simple. One would in this case have > to "stipulate" that case endings do not trigger gemination when the stem > ends in a consonant cluster. Back to the same stipulation count and Occam > is indifferent between them.

No, but read on a sec. The actual rule is given next:

> > > I suggest that the actual rule is: > > > > Case endings must follow a branching rime. [= a heavy syllable]

This means that it is not necessary to stipulate that clusters block gemination, since clusters already yield a branching rime/heavy syllable.

> > > > The suffix "-e" is therefore specified thus: > >

[1]

> > R O + R > > / \ | | > > X X X X > > | > > e > > > > where R = rhime, O = onset, + = morpheme boundary. I assume that > > codas are possible only before onsets. > > This is, of course, the very assumption that my intuitions seem to violate. > > > "Adhan" is thus: > >

[2]

[3]

[4]

> > R O R O + R > > | | / \ | | > > X X X X X X > > | | | \| | > > a dh a n e = a.dhan.ne > > > > Stress by the general rule would fall on the penult. > > > > For bases where the final rime was already branching (i.e. ending in > > diphthong or cons cluster), there would be no empty position following > > attachment of the affix, and hence no need for geminate-creating > > spreading. > > Hmmm, I'm afraid you've soared above my limited understanding in this area. > Not only am I no linguist, but I am even less of a phonologist. While the > "patterns" seem to make sense to me, I, unfortunately, have no understanding > of the theory behind them. I guess I'll have to study more phonology.

Take [2] as a default structure. The structure of "adhan" must include the structure and segmental content given in [2], and will by default contain no additional structure, though it may contain additional structure. [1] is a well-formedness constraint on forms containing the -e suffix. To combine "adhan" and "-e", you take [2], and elaborate it until it satisfies constraint [1]. The result is [3]. Assume that structural positions ("X") with no segmental content are illicit. This means the fourth X slot along in [3]. Assume also that any position that would otherwise be empty may share the segmental content of the immediately neighbouring position. There are two ways this can happen. First, it can share the content of the following position, i.e. "N". This gives gemination. Second, it could share the content of the preceding position, i.e. "A", as in [5]: [5] R O R O + R | | / \ | | X X X X X X | | | / | | a dh a n e = a.dhaa.ne This gives you a long monophthong. My understanding is that long monophthongs are not licensed in Amman-Iar, so [5] is impermissible and hence no further stipulation is required in order to ensure that [4] is the only possible outcome. If you really really object to the syllable structures I propose, you could probably reformulate it in terms of C & V instead of R/O/X, so long as the second part of a diphthong counts as a C. You could then have any syllable structure you liked, and it would make no difference to the phonology, which would be defined purely in terms of V (syllable peaks) and C (non syllable peaks). [1'] V C C C | e [2'] V C V C | | | | a dh a n [3'] V C V C C V | | | | | a dh a n e [4'] V C V C C V | | | \| | a dh a n e = adhanne --And.