Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Compensatory Lengthening

From:Roger Mills <rfmilly@...>
Date:Thursday, January 19, 2006, 17:19
Rob Haden wrote:
> Thanks for your replies so far, guys. > > One question I have is, how likely would the following processes be? > > VCV: > V:CV > VCC > V:C > > Could those be considered compensatory lengthening? >
Your VCC > V:C, definitely. As Andreas Johansson pointed out in his reply-- "I thought compensatory lengthening was by _definition_ due to the loss of a segment." Andreas also gave an example: VCV > V:C ("presumably to perserve prosodic length/mora count"). So that seems to leave your first ex. up in the air-- no segment is lost, length/mora count remains the same. "Displacement" (to coin a term?) might apply, particularly if the case was -VCV:#-- (perh. the result of adding a -V suffix to a final V) and the language had a rule forbidding V: in word final position.