Re: THEORY: Tepa prosody [was: Estonian Quantity]
|From:||And Rosta <a.rosta@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, November 11, 2001, 20:17|
[excuse the massive quoting]
> What follows is best viewed in a monowidth font. It's also rather long.
> At 3:50 AM +0000 11/09/01, And Rosta wrote:
> >> F F
> >> / \ / \
> >> F m F m
> >> | | | |
> >> s | s |
> >> /|\ | /|\ | ...
> >> / m m | / m m |
> >> | \|/ | | \|/ |
> >> s a [saa:] l a k e [lak:ke]
> >> That is, a foot consisting of a monosyllabic bimoraic trochee with an
> >> adjoined mora. This conception of the foot and its role in stem
> >> gradation has (indirectly) inspired some changes in Tepa prosody,
> > > though I don't have overlong segments.
> >What are the changes to Tepa prosody it has inspired?
> I'm glad you asked. The changes in Tepa prosody are the result of the
> introduction of exhaustive foot parsing and the restriction of some
> phonological processes to foot-medial position.
> The exhaustivity requirement of Tepa foot parsing means that all
> syllables within a Tepa stem must belong to a prosodic foot; that is,
> syllables may not adjoin directly to the prosodic word (this
> restriction doesn't apply to clitics). There are three kinds of legal
> foot shapes in Tepa:
> 1) the canonical moraic trochee
> foot F F
> | / \
> syllable s s s
> /|\ /| /|
> mora / m m / m / m
> | | | | | | |
> segment c v x c v c v
> (x = vowel or consonant)
> 2) the trochee with resolution
> / \
> s s
> /| /|\
> / m / m m
> | | | | |
> c v c v x
> 3) the augmented foot
> / \
> F \
> / \ \
> s s s
> /| /| /|
> / m / m / m
> | | | | | |
> c v c v c v
What role does the syllable node play? Is it simply there to
host onsets in representations, or are some phonological
phenomena sensitive to syllables? Apparently so -- e,g, the
rule for unbound phase.
> Insuring that a CV string is exhaustively parsed into licit feet
> requires several kinds of adjustment: 1) suffixation of _-ka_ (this
> is morphologically restricted), 2) final-vowel lengthening, 3)
> light-syllable adjunction.
Is (1) a variety of (3)?
> In Early Tepa, bound phase was marked by a final long vowel. In
> Modern Tepa, unbound phase is marked by an initial heavy syllable
> (moraic trochee).
"Early" and "Modern" in the extrafictional history? Or in the
internally-reconstructed intrafictional history?
> This heavy syllable is usually the result of
> geminating the medial consonant, but may also be from a lengthened
> vowel (voiceless fricatives and glides don't geminate). This prosodic
> marker is accompanied by suffixation of _-ka_ in case parsing the
> initial heavy syllable would leave behind a light syllable; _-ka_
> suffixation thus fills out a prosodic foot:
> tukana 'thrush:BOUND'
= [tuGa naa] (2 feet) or [tuGana] (1 foot)?
> tukkana 'thrush:UNBOUND'
= [tuk kana] (2 feet)
> pite 'see:BOUND'
[piDe] (1 foot)
> pitteka 'see:UNBOUND'
[pit teGa] (2 feet)
Are the geminates phonetically long? Or are they normal-length
segments that resist lenition due to being ambisyllabic?
> Secondly, the renewed emphasis on the prosodic foot has restricted
> application of gradation, now properly seen as lenition. In Early
> Tepa, voiceless stops alternated with voiced fricatives
> intervocalically; in the modern language, lenition only applies
> within the foot; it may not occur across foot boundaries (somewhat
> like American English flapping):
> tapatapa [taBataBa] 'black widow:DIST'
> pitepite [piD1piD1] 'see:DIST'
> tipukankan [tiBukaNgan] 'sage hen:DIST'
> In these forms, distributive number is marked by suffixal
> reduplication of the final moraic trochee. The resulting form only
> shows lenition between vowels when those vowels belong to the same
> F F
> / \ / \
> s s s s
> /| /| /| /|
> / m / m / m / m
> | | | | | | | |
> t a p a t a p a = [taBataBa]
> F F F
> / \ | |
> s s s s
> /| /| /|\ /|\
> / m / m / m m / m m
> | | | | | | | | | |
> t i p u k a n k a n = [tiBukaNgan]
> (In the form [tiBukaNgan] 'sage hen', the voicing of /k/ to [g] is
> not the result of lenition, but is due instead to a separate process
> of post-nasal voicing; post-nasal voicing is not restricted to
> foot-medial position.)
> When a form has an odd number of light syllables, one of two things
> may happen: 1) the final vowel may lengthen, coercing a final moraic
> trochee; or 2) the final light syllable may be adjoined to the
> preceding foot to create a foot consisting of three light syllables.
> Both options are illustrated with the form _hipite_ 'moon':
> / \
> F F F \
> / \ | / \ \
> s s s s s s
> /| /| /|\ /| /| /|
> / m / m / m m / m / m / m
> | | | | | |/ | | | | | |
> h i p i t e = [hiBit1:] h i p i t e = [hiBiD1]
> In the first form, the final long vowel creates a monosyllabic moraic
> trochee. There are two feet, thus lenition will not apply to /t/,
> since it is not between vowels belonging to the same foot. In the
> second form, the final light syllable is simply adjoined to an
> existing foot to form a single augmented foot; since the /t/ is
> between vowels belonging to the same foot, it is lenited.
> As far as I can tell, both realizations are in free variation.
It's very satisfying to see Tepa evolving, and to see its soul,
its tepanicity, evolving. There is something about the [hiBit1:]
~ [hiBiD1] alternation that feels to me in my guts deeply Right.
OTOH, my guts haven't quite apprehended the gemination pattern.
/hitte/ feels like an augmented foot, which is right, but /hittete/
would be two feet, and it feels to me like a kind of stress clash
between adjacent syllables, and I feel I want to parse it as
necessarily containing augmented foot /hitte/.
> >Where is up-to-date info on Tepa? It must be six or seven years since
> >I last read the full description of Tepa.
> Right now it's on my hard drive; Jeffrey Hennings has some stuff on
> his Langmaker.com pages, but for some reason the inflectional
> morphology of nouns and verbs never made it there. I'm still working
> out some changes to the derivational morphology. Once they are done,
> I'm planning on writing up the phonology and morphology and posting
> it here. I'm still thinking about where to get web space; I don't get
> any from BYU for personal pages. I'll probably have to go with a free
We ought to have some collective space at conlang.org or suchlike,
a default place for assembling conlang materials and links.