[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bpfk] camxes and syllabification in zi'evla

Jorge Llambías, On 26/10/2014 12:52:

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:48 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote:

Here's the theory of morphological syllables in a nutshell.


A very precise specification of the what, but not so clear on the why. Are there rationales other than "Because CLL says so"? And if that is the only rationale, and the rules could be drastically simplified without invalidating any existing lexis, why not simplify the rules? (Given that anyway the CLL rules are plainly not complete and fully specified.)


There are 18 valid (morphological) codas: the 17 consonants and the empty coda.


I guess it's at least 17, because each of the 17 Cs can occur word-medially before another C that it can't occur word-initially before?

Does CLL forbid CC codas? I guess this would be in fu'ivla. So /artsta/ is not a valid fu'ivla, say?


All words (except for cmevla) consist of a sequence of valid syllables.


Is this from CLL?

If the constraints apply only to words of certain classes, then the constraints are almost certainly morphophonological and not phonological in nature.


        Without a buffer vowel, it does make sense to limit the amount of
        consonant clustering that can occur. If there was a buffer vowel,
        the morphophonological syllable could still be onset-nucleus-coda as
        now, but with the coda allowed to contain as many consonants as you
        wanted. That's not how my dialect of lojban works though.


    In what way is it not how your dialect of Lojban works? It would categorize as valid some words that you categorize as invalid? Or would it insert word-boundaries differently? The latter seems more significant an objection than the former.

Just the former. I would not want to categorize "poktpftcu" for
example as a valid word.


But is that for any reason other than habit?


    So anyway, do you advocate abolishing the buffer vowel? An alternative would be to insist that every licit phonological string has both a CV syllabification (with buffer vowels) and a resyllabification without buffer vowels. That alternative strikes me as needlessly complex, but as still preferable to abolishing the buffer vowel.

I don't mind it appearing sporadically at the phonological level, I
just don't want it at the phonemic level because I think it hinders
more than helps.


A distinction between "the phonological level" and "the phonemic level" looks rather spurious to me.

--And.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.