Sound Mutations: The Morphophonology of Chaha

SOUND MUTATIONS This book was originally selected and revised to be included in the World Theses Series (Holland Acad...

Author: Degif Petros Banksira

27 downloads 610 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

SOUND MUTATIONS

This book was originally selected and revised to be included in the World Theses Series (Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague), edited by Lisa L.-S. Cheng.

SOUND MUTATIONS THE MORPHOPHONOLOGY OF CHAHA

DEGIF PETROS BANKSIRA MIT & UQAM

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY PHILADELPHIA/AMSTERDAM

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Degif Petros Banksira. Sound mutations : the morphophonology of Chaha / Degif Petros Banksira p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Chaha dialect--Morphophonemics. I. Title PJ9288.95.C453 2000 492’.8--dc21 ISBN 90 272 2564 8 (Eur.) / 1 55619 859 0 (US) (alk. paper)

00-023619

© 2000 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The Netherlands John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA

To the memories of my mother AxGwji Argaw, my uncle Tekle Haimanot Argaw and Professor Robert Hetzron

Table of Contents

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi Résumé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii C 1 Phonemes, Syllables, and Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Obstruents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 The fricatives and the spirant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.1 The velar nature of x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1.2 Differences between fricatives and x . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 [k] is not an underlying stop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 [b, p] are not underlying stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.4 Ejectives and voiced stops: laryngeal assimilation in verb roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.5 The segmental makeup of /t/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.6 The treatment of borrowed plain voiceless stops ([p, t, k]) 1.2.7 The distribution of phonemes in affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Sonorants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 The bilabials are sonorants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 The liquid /r/ and the nasal /N/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3 The high vocoids /U/ and /I/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.4 Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Feature specification and underspecification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

1 1 4 4 5 5 6 7

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

7 9 10 11 12 15 21 22 22 23

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.5 Syllabification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.1 Syllable structure . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.2 Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.3 Epenthetic vowel . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.4 Treatment of hiatus . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.1 Basic verb stems and verb types . 1.6.2 Stems expanded by affixation . . . 1.6.3 Stems expanded by reduplication 1.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

C 2 Geminate Devoicing and Degemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Devoicing and degemination in verbs without a doubled radical 2.2.1 When the final radical is /r/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 When the final radical is /A/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 When the final radical is a high vocoid (/U/ or /I/) . . . . 2.2.4 When the final radical is a bilabial (/ö/ or /m/) . . . . . . . 2.2.5 When the final radical is an obstruent other than [t] . . . 2.2.6 When the final radical is [t] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.7 Devoicing in the Jussive and Perfective of I-second quadriradicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Devoicing and degemination in verbs with doubled radicals . . . 2.3.1 Voiced geminates in verbs with a doubled final radical . 2.3.2 Voiced geminates in verbs with a doubled medial radical 2.3.3 Voiced geminates in totally reduplicated verbs . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Voiced geminates in verbs with a doubled initial radical 2.4 Devoicing and degemination in nouns and adjectives . . . . . . . . 2.5 Devoicing and degemination in affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Absence of devoicing and degemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Geminate devoicing and underspecification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.1 Absence of laryngeal specification in sonorants . . . . . . 2.7.2 The patterning of /ö/ and /t/ with sonorants . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 2a. On the second-radical vocoid in Amharic . . . . . . . . . Appendix 2b. On Amharic C1C1C2 verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

23 23 24 25 30 32 32 35 37 39

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

41 41 46 46 48 50 51 51 55

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56 61 61 64 66 71 74 74 75 76 76 79 81 83 88

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

C 3 On the Distribution of [x] and [k] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 x and k are not contrastive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The role of a following radical in the strengthening of /x/ . . . . 3.3.1 When the radical following /x/ is a fricative . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 When the radical following /x/ is /A/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 When /x/ and a following fricative/A are separated by a consonant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 When /x/ is followed by radicals other than fricative/A . 3.4 Some apparent problematic cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 When /x/ is followed by an infix -a- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Exceptional precontinuant [x] and nonprecontinuant [k] . 3.5 Realization of a stem-final singleton /x/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Realization of a doubled /x/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 Realization of /x/ in totally reduplicated verbs . . . . . . . 3.6.2 Doubled final /x/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.3 Doubled medial /x/: the frequentative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Realization of a geminated /x/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.1 Penultimate geminates in verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.2 Special final geminates in participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 Strengthening and underspecification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8.1 [] in obstruents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8.2 [] in sonorants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8.3 The sonorant nature of /ö/ with respect to [] . . . . . 3.8.4 Following vs. preceding [+] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

91 91 91 97 97 99

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

101 102 105 105 107 109 110 110 112 113 115 115 116 117 117 118 120 121 122

C 4 Sonorant Alternations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Geminate nasalization and degemination . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Initial nasalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Penultimate coda nasalization () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Interaction of  with epenthesis, /A/ and complex consonants 4.3.1 Interaction of  with epenthetic [G] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Interaction of  with the radical /A/ . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Interaction of  with complex consonants . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

125 125 126 126 128 129 131 131 134 135

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.4 The role of doubling on  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1  in verbs with a doubled medial radical 4.4.2  in verbs with a doubled final radical . . 4.4.3  in verbs with total reduplication . . . . . 4.5 The role of the  on  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6  and borrowings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Alternations of [r] and front vowels . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Liquids and nasals in some problematic stems . . . 4.9 Liquids and /N/ in affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9.1 [r] and [n] in suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9.2 The emergence of [l] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9.3 Absence of liquids in prefixes . . . . . . . . . 4.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

137 138 139 140 142 145 145 150 152 152 153 154 157

C 5 Initial, Geminate and Post-N Strengthening . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Initial strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Occlusivization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Nasalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Geminate strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Occlusivization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Nasalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Lateralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Post-N strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Nasalization of a post-N /r/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Occlusivization of a post-N /ö/ . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Occlusivization of a post-N /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4 Post-N continuant obstruents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Approximant strengthening vs. obstruent strengthening 5.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

159 159 160 160 160 161 161 162 163 165 165 166 168 170 171 173

C 6 On the Articulators of Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Hierarchical organization of the articulators . . . . 6.3 Cluster simplification in totally reduplicated verbs 6.3.1 Labial-coda deletion in a cluster . . . . . . . 6.3.2 No coronal-coda deletion in a cluster . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

175 175 175 176 177 178

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.3.3 Dorsal-coda deletion in a cluster and its absence 6.3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Totally reduplicated verbs containing the liquid /r/ . . . . 6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

C 7 Labialization and Palatalization Triggered by /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Derivational suffixes involving /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Labialization and palatalization in verbal participles . . . . . . 7.2.2 Decomposition of /U/ and /I/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3 Labialization and palatalization in nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.4 Labialization and palatalization in adjectival/nominal participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.5 Adjectival/nominal participles involving reduplication and a suffixal /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.6 Infinitives in Inor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Derivational infix /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 Nonrightmost labialization and stem-internal palatalization . . 7.3.2 Labialization and palatalization in adjectives and/or nouns with -a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.3 Labialization without palatalization in adjectival/nominal participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.4 Nonrightmost labialization in verbal participles . . . . . . . . . 7.3.5 Adjectival/nominal participles involving reduplication and an infix /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Inflectional suffixes involving /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Impersonal labialization and palatalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 Interaction of impersonal labialization and palatalization . . . 7.4.3 Deriving the different lists of palatalizable consonants . . . . . 7.4.4 Raising in the impersonal subject and its absence in the 3  object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.5 Labialization without palatalization: the 3  object . . . 7.4.6 The 3  object suffix in Muher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.7 Masculine plural subject suffix in Inor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Word-initial /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1 Derivational prefixes involving /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2 Root-initial /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.3 Nonfloating /U/ in [−w6t] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

179 180 181 182

. . . . . .

185 185 186 186 188 193

. 195 . . . .

196 198 199 200

. 201 . 203 . 204 . . . . .

205 206 206 208 210

. . . . . . . .

212 213 213 214 216 216 217 218

xii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.6 Roots involving non-initial /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1 Verbs beginning with a round vowel . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2 Medial /U/ between two consonants . . . . . . . . . 7.6.3 Medial /U/ in I-second quadriradicals . . . . . . . . 7.6.4 Final /U/ and a penultimate coronal obstruent . . . 7.6.5 Deriving a subclass of the ‘weak’ glides . . . . . . 7.6.6 Final /U/ preceded by a penultimate /r/ . . . . . . . 7.6.7 Final /U/ preceded by nonlabializable consonants 7.7 U-triggered palatalization in Tigrinya . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.1 U-medial verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.2 U-final verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.3 Forms involving labialization and palatalization . 7.7.4 The numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 On floating vs. nonfloating /U/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 7. Some factual errors concerning labialization . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C 8 Subject Affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Variable vs. invariable subject affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 Q1 as aspect and subject clitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.2 Q2 as subject agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Alternating prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 The 6- vs. N- alternation in the 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 The t- vs. Ø- alternation in the second person . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.3 The yG- vs. y6- alternation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.4 The yG- vs. y6-/Ø- alternation in the impersonal . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Alternating suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1 Readjustments before clitics (-xw/-x, -c(6)/-c and -n6/-ne) . . 8.4.2 Readjustment after the second person /-x6/ (-x6/-x, -o/-u and -6ma/-ma) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 9 Object Clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Distinguishing Case from pronoun . . 9.2.1 The three sets of Case markers

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

219 219 220 221 222 224 225 226 227 227 229 229 231 233 235 237

. . . . . . . . . . . .

241 241 242 245 247 250 251 252 253 254 255 255

. 257 . 258

. . . .

261 261 262 262

xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

9.2.2 [n] as part of the third person object pronouns . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.3 An n-insertion analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.4 -Ø as an accusative/dative suffix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 The clitic nature of object suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Light-Heavy Alternation () of clitics as subject-clitic interaction 9.4.1 A proposal for the  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.2  as simplex vs. geminate alternation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.3  as velarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.4  as [−n] vs. [−y] alternation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.5  in the  clitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.6  as [−n] vs. -Ø alternation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.7  and the 3  object labialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.8 Apparent absence of  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.9 Summary of  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 Supporting evidence for my hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.1 Previous and present hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.2 Clitics following the  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.3 Clitics following the two 2  allomorphs . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.4 Stem-final vs. suffix-final vocoids and the following clitics . 9.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 9. –kft ‘open’ conjugated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

264 264 265 266 268 269 270 274 276 280 282 283 287 289 290 290 291 291 292 293 294

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 Name Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

List of Tables

1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 2.1. 3.1. 6.1. 7.1. 8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 8.5. 8.6. 9.1. 9.2. 9.3.

Phonetic inventory of Chaha consonants Phonetic vowel inventory of Chaha Some properties of fricatives, /x/, /ö/ and /r/ Phonemic inventory of Chaha consonants Calculation of expected devoicing and exceptions The contexts for the allophones of /x/ Clusters restrictions in totally reduplicated verbs Summary of contexts with simultaneous labialization and palatalization Absence of alternation in the 3  prefix Alternation in the 1 prefix Alternation in the second person prefix Alternation in the elsewhere prefix The optionality of y6- in the impersonal Subjunctive Present Criteria for distinguishing Q1 from Q2 Light and Heavy clitics of Chaha Q2 subject suffixes and the following clitic Light and Heavy clitics of Chaha (reproduced from Table 9.1)

1 3 20 40 82 97 180 235 251 252 253 253 254 259 262 269 290

Acknowledgments

This book is the result of a long gestation period that started many years ago in Ethiopia. In this note, I would like to acknowledge the people and institutions that helped me realize this tremendous task and the happy ending that followed. Many people have contributed significantly to my formation and to the development of the ideas expressed in the book. It is therefore my pleasure to be able to express my gratitude to them. My interest in the study of Chaha started when I was an undergraduate student at Addis Ababa University in the department of Ethiopian Languages and Literature. I then joined the Ethiopian Languages Academy to do research on the oral tradition of Gurage. My undergraduate professors in the University and my colleagues in the Academy as well as the institutions had tremendous impact in my formation and developing a keen interest in linguistics. They deserve a sincere appreciation. In this regard, I would also like to praise the significance of research done by Professors H. J. Polotsky, Wolf Leslau and Robert Hetzron in introducing us to the intricacies of Chaha and the other Gurage languages. This book is a revised version of a thesis, entitled The Sound System of Chaha, submitted to Université du Québec à Montréal in 1997. I would like to thank the jury of the thesis defense: Anna-Maria Di Sciullo, Jean Lowenstamm, John Lumsden and Jean-François Prunet for their time and patience in reading the thesis and for their pertinent questions and comments, which have contributed to the improvement of this book. In addition to this, Anna-Maria Di Sciullo’s interest on aspect and affixes motivated several lively and illuminating discussions. Jean Lowenstamm’s contributions to this book and to my life have been vital. His support has always surpassed my expectations; he has been and will always be my “Aba” of the Occident. From a linguistics point of view, my interest in most of the problems in this book were inspired by him. We have extensively discussed on a variety of linguistic issues and his ideas have always been extremely helpful. John Lumsden repeatedly read and commented on one of the most complex chapters (subject affixes) and asked significant questions

xviii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

pertaining both to the claims and to the formalism. Jean-François Prunet has set a high standard for clarity of problems and argumentation. This, of course, is time-consuming and Chaha is not that simple. Yet, he has never been tired of offering highly constructive and all-round criticisms. Without his meticulous corrections this book could not have been the same. My other professors, namely Philippe Barbaud, Denis Bouchard, Henrietta Cedergren, Mohamed Guerssel, Claire Lefebvre, Monique Lemieux and Anne Rochette from UQAM and Mark Baker, Glyne Piggott and Lisa Travis for McGill have all largely contributed to my formation and to the betterment of this book. As a postdoctoral researcher at MIT, I have had the great opportunity to present different chapters of the book at Ling-lunch and MIT phonology circle. I would like to express my gratitude to the audience for their comments. Special thanks to Morris Halle, Michael Kenstowicz and Cheryl Zoll for reading chapters of the book and offering valuable comments. Sharon Rose has read the entire book and offered very detailed suggestions in both form and content. Her questions and appreciation towards my claims have always been great incentives. My friend Berhanu Chamora has also been my great consultant in questions pertaining to doubtful conjugations in Chaha as well as in his native language, Inor. The regular discussion sessions we held along with Jean-François served to tackle problems of both Chaha and Inor. Girma Halefom, my undergraduate professor at Addis Ababa University, has read a chapter of the book. He questioned some of my claims and offered invaluable suggestions and encouragement. Besides, his family has always been with me to share celebrations of joy and sadness far away from home. Jessica Payeras has always been there for support and encouragement. Her limitless love and hope were especially indispensable for the writing of this book. Her comments and questions on many chapters were very important as well. I would like to thank Louisette Emirkanian, Lorne H. Bouchard and their children for their friendship and for allowing me to consider their home mine. Special thanks to Chloé, for her drawings, for her flowers … Thanks to my family and friends back home for their support and for showing me that any goal can be achieved through patience and hard work. I also appreciate the support of Mengistu Amberber, Amar Awel, Tadesse Biru, Sinkineh Folla, Tafesse Work Wolde, Aminu Said, Fathi Said and their families. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to an anonymous reviewer whose comments and questions have highly contributed to the betterment of the book. In this respect, I would also want to thank Professor Lisa Cheng for acting as the editor of this book (it was supposed to have been published by Holland

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xix

Academic Graphics in the World Thesis Series) and suggesting improvements. On the financial side, Canadian and Quebec grants have contributed enormously for the preparation of the book. In this regard, I would like to acknowledge the following grants: SSHRCC #410-91-0716 (directed by Jean Lowenstamm and Mohamed Guerssel), #410-94-1062 and #410-97-1335 (directed by Jean-François Prunet), FCAR #95-ER-2305 and #98-ER-2305 (directed by Jean-François Prunet, Carole Paradis and Renée Béland), CAFACC (directed by Jean-François Prunet, Anna-Maria Di Sciullo and Mohamed Guerssel). Thanks also for la Fondation de l’UQAM for awarding me the Judith Mc A’Nulty 1996–1997 scholarship. Finally, the completion of this book was made possible thanks to my postdoctoral fellowship #756-97-0507 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Abbreviations

1 2 3              

first person second person third person accusative/dative Case marker Amharic approximant benefactive Case marker consonantal constricted glottis continuant detriment feminine Geminate Nasalization and Degemination Initial Nasalization intransitive International Phonetic Alphabet masculine

 ()            ()   ()

malefactive/instrumental Case marker noun (phrase) obstruent Obligatory Contour Principle Penultimate Coda Nasalization perfective plural singular sonorant specifier spread glottis light-heavy alternation something tense (phrase) transitive underlying representation verb (phrase)

Résumé

Ce livre examine les mutations consonantiques: le renforcement, les articulations secondaires et la morphologie des affixes sujets et objets en chaha, une langue sémitique éthiopienne. En ce qui concerne le renforcement, il est montré que le dévoisement des consonnes géminées et son absence découlent d’une contrainte qui interdit un trait [voisé] final lié à deux points du squelette. De même, on constate que l’alternance x/k et son absence découlent d’une contrainte qui interdit un [x] précédant un phonème [+continu]. Le dévoisement requiert la sous-spécification des traits laryngaux et l’alternance x/k celle de [continu] dans les sonantes. Il est démontré que la nasalisation de la liquide géminée /rr/ s’applique sans tenir compte des consonnes radicales avoisinantes (donc les traits segmentaux ne conditionnent pas la nasalisation). Il est proposé que l’opposition des trais laryngaux en chaha vaut entre les occlusives [voisé] et [glottalisé] et que /p, k/ ne font pas partie de l’inventaire phonémique. Il est aussi proposé que le [b] du chaha est dérivé par occlusivisation de l’approximante /öœ/. Les mutations sont classées en deux groupes: le renforcement des occlusives (b, d, g/x → p, t, k) et celui des sonantes (U, ö, r → bw, b, N). Le renforcement des occlusives est conditionné par l’interaction de la structure syllabique (par ex. si le phonème est lié à deux syllabes) et des traits avoisinants alors que le renforcement des sonantes est surtout conditionné par la seule structure syllabique. Pour ce qui est des articulations secondaires, ce livre propose que le phonème /U/ déclenche à la fois la labialisation et la palatalisation des consonnes. Cette hypothèse explique de façon unifiée les phénomènes suivants: pourquoi la labialisation entraîne la palatalisation en chaha; pourquoi un seul suffixe déclenche soit la labialisation soit la palatalisation en muher; et pourquoi certain verbes ayant un /U/ non-initial sont ambivalents en tigré et en tigrigna. De plus, cette analyse résout le problème classique des morphèmes discontinus, la labialisation et la palatalisation provenant d’une même source /U/. L’analyse de /U/ et de sa contrepartie palatale /I/ rend compte aussi de l’enrichissement de

xxiv

RÉSUMÉ

l’inventaire consonantique (par l’ajout d’une articulation secondaire) et de la rareté des voyelles non centrales (parce qu’elles seules disparaissent en laissant des articulations secondaires). Enfin, au niveau des affixes d’accord sujet, une classification en deux groupes “variables” et “invariables” est proposée. Les affixes variables sont sensibles à l’aspect; leurs positions et contenus phonologiques varient en fonction du caractère perfectif ou imperfectif du verbe. Les affixes invariables, quant à eux, sont insensibles à l’aspect du verbe; leur position et contenu phonologique sont constants. Plusieurs processus phonologiques affectant le radical et les suffixes objets sont sensibles à ces deux classes d’affixes, lesquelles sont, par ailleurs, utilisées pour une nouvelle analyse des alternances impliquant les suffixes objets “lourds” et “légers.” Mots clés: accords sujets, chaha, clitics objets, dévoisement, Éthiopie, gémination, gouragué, labialisation, langue, sémitique, linguistique, morphologie, nasalisation, occlusivisation, palatalisation, phonologie, redoublement, renforcement

Abstract

The book investigates and attempts to explain sound mutations which are mainly related to strengthening, the rise of secondary articulations and the morphology of subject and object affixes in the Ethiopian Semitic language Chaha. Concerning strengthening, the book shows that geminate devoicing and its absence follow from a constraint prohibiting a doubly linked final [voice]. Similarly, the x/k alternation and its absence are shown to follow from a constraint prohibiting a precontinuant [x]. The analysis of geminate devoicing requires that sonorants be laryngeally unspecified and that of the x/k alternation suggests that approximants lack [+]. It is also shown that geminate nasalization occurs irrespective of surrounding radicals, showing that the features of these segments play no role in conditioning geminate nasalization. It is argued that laryngeal contrasts in Chaha are between [voice] and [constricted glottis] consonants and that /p, k/ are not part of the phonemic inventory. It is also proposed that [b] is an occlusivized allophone of the approximant /öœ/. Two types of strengthening, that of obstruents (b, d, g/x → p, t, k, respectively) and sonorants (U, ö, r → bw, b, N, respectively) are distinguished. It is argued that obstruent strengthening is conditioned by both syllabic structure (e.g. being linked to two syllables) and the features of surrounding phonemes while sonorant strengthening is conditioned mainly by syllabic structure. With respect to the rise of secondary articulations, this book proposes that the phoneme /U/ causes both labialization and palatalization of consonants. This proposal gives a unified account as to why labialization entails palatalization in Chaha, why a single suffix triggers either labialization or palatalization in Muher, and why some verbs containing a noninitial /U/ are ambivalent in Tigre and Tigrinya. This proposal also solves the problem of discontinuous morphemes because labialization and palatalization originate from the same source /U/. The analysis of /U/ and its palatal counterpart /I/ also accounts for the enrichment of the consonant inventory (rise of secondary articulation) at the expense of back and front vowels (which disappear when they become secondary articulations).

xxvi

ABSTRACT

Subject agreement affixes are classified in two groups called variable and invariable. Variable affixes are aspect-sensitive, i.e. their linear order and phonological content varies depending on the aspect of the verb. Invariable ones are insensitive to the aspect of the verb; they are constant in linear order and phonological content. Different phonological processes affecting the stem and object suffixes are shown to be sensitive to these two classes of affixes. It is shown that this distinction can explain naturally the classic problem in Gurage known as ‘light” and “heavy” object suffix alternations. Key words: Chaha, devoicing, Ethiopia, language, gemination, Gurage, labialization, linguistics, morphology, nasalization, object clitics, occlusivization, palatalization, phonology, reduplication, Semitic, sound mutation, subject agreement, strengthening

Introduction

The material discussed in this book mainly comes from the Ethiopian Semitic language Chaha. Ethiopian Semitic languages are divided into Northern and Southern branches. The Northern branch includes Geäez (now extinct and used only in the liturgy), Tigre and Tigrinya. The Southern branch includes Amharic, Argobba, Gafat, Harari and the “Gurage cluster.” According to Leslau (1979) the Gurage cluster has twelve dialects. These are: Chaha [c6xa], Eža [6Ša], Gyeta [gy6ta], Inor [Gnoor] (also known as Ennemor), Endegenˇ [Gnd6ga\6], Masqan [m6sk’an], Muher [mw6xGr], Gogot, Soddo, Selt’i [sGlt’i], Wolane [w6l6ne] and Zway. The classification of these dialects is controversial. But, so far, everybody agrees that the first six are West Gurage, the last three East Gurage and Soddo North Gurage. There is no agreement whether Muher and Gogot belong to the West or North Gurage branches. In addition, whether West Gurage constitutes one language or a group of languages is a controversial issue. The first chapter of the book introduces the phonetic inventory of Chaha and proposes that some of the sounds presented are absent underlyingly. Many of the proposals to be dealt with in detail in the consecutive chapters are laid out. Sounds are classified and some arguments for this classification are presented. The syllable structure and templates to be used throughout the book are introduced. Chapter 2 discusses an alternation between voice and voiceless penultimate consonants present in many verbs. It is assumed that all verbs with this alternation have an underlying voiced penult. The voiced allophone is used in Nonperfective stems, such as -m6gGr ‘suppurate’, while the voiceless one is used in Perfective stems, such as m6k6r- ‘has suppurated’. (Verb stems in Chaha require at least one affix, so the stems are always bound, as are -m6gGr and m6k6r-, but they will not be hyphenated throughout this book.) There is also another class of verbs with a voiced penult but without the voice-voiceless alternation. These have a voiced consonant in both Nonperfective and Perfective stems, e.g. r6gGd ‘touch’ vs. n6g6d ‘has touched’. This chapter shows that the determining factor for the presence or absence of the voice-voiceless alternation is the root-final

xxviii

INTRODUCTION

radical. It is shown that the alternation is present when the final radical is a sonorant or t and absent when the final radical is an obstruent other than t. It is also argued that this asymmetry follows from a constraint prohibiting a doubly linked final [voice] and the assumption that sonorants and t are unspecified for laryngeal features. So the alternation does not occur when the last radical is laryngeally specified, in which case the laryngeal specification of the penult is not the last one of the stem on the Laryngeal tier. This chapter also shows that all instances of [p] and some instances of [t, k] emerge as a consequence of the constraint on a doubly linked final [voice]. Chapter 3 discusses an alternation between spirant and stop penultimate consonants. In verbs displaying this alternation the spirant is used in Nonperfective stems, such as m6xGr ‘advise’, while the stop is used in Perfective stems, such as m6k6r ‘has advised’. But other verbs do not have the alternation; a stop is used in both Nonperfective and Perfective stems, e.g. r6kGs ‘bite’ and n6k6s ‘has bitten’. This chapter shows that the determining factor for the presence or absence of the spirant-stop alternation is the final radical consonant. If this radical is a sonorant or a stop there will be an alternation in the preceding radical. If the final radical is a fricative there will not be an alternation. It is also proposed that the asymmetry follows from a constraint prohibiting a precontinuant [x] and the assumption that sonorants and stops are unspecified for continuancy. The reasoning is that the constraint prohibiting a precontinuant [x] strengthens all instances of /x/ to [k], in which case there is no x/k alternation. In other words, the x/k alternation occurs only if /x/ is not followed by a [+cont] radical. The spirant-stop alternation exhibited by voiceless velar obstruents has always been analyzed as depending on the position of the phoneme in the word (postvocalic, intervocalic, etc.). My discussion of the distribution of x and k in Chaha will challenge this standard view. In my analysis, the velar spirant surfaces as k in k6t6f ‘has hashed’ due to the final /f/. This k never alternates with x but it is in complementary distribution with x and the two derive from a single phoneme. In contrast to the /f/ in k6t6f, the /r/ in x6t6r ‘has thatched’ does not cause the initial x to strengthen even though both /f/ and /r/ are continuant phonemes. The difference between /f/ and /r/ in triggering strengthening of a preceding /x/ is shown to follow from the assumption that [+cont] is unmarked, hence unspecified, in approximants (like /r/). This chapter also accounts for the limited distribution of k (it is found only when it is doubled or followed by a certain class of radicals) by proposing that it is not an underlying consonant of Chaha (it is rather a devoiced /g/ or a strengthened /x/). The overall distribution of x and k is accounted for by postulating three constraints: No Precontinuant [x], No Geminate [x] and No Different Allophones of /x/ in the Stem.

INTRODUCTION

xxix

Verbs with an alveolar sonorant penult are discussed in Chapter 4. The penult of these verbs alternates between a liquid and a nasal. The liquid is used in Nonperfective stems, such as x6rGm ‘spend the year’, while the nasal is used in Perfective stems, such as x6n6m ‘has spent the year’. Differing from the verbs of Chapters 2 and 3 (where the voice-voiceless and spirant-stop alternations affected some verbs and not others) verbs with an alveolar sonorant penult do not divide into alternating and nonalternating types; they all exhibit the liquidnasal alternation. An account of this alternation as well as other liquid-nasal alternations is offered in this chapter. It is also shown that the nasal allophone is derived from an underlying liquid. The discussions in Chapters 1 to 4 lead to the conclusion that the devoiced, strengthened and nasalized allophones do not correspond to identical underlying phonemes in Chaha. Chapter 5 shows how these allophones are derived. Devoicing (b, d, g → p, t, k) and strengthening (x → k) are analyzed as obstruent strengthening while nasalization (r → N) and occlusivization (U, ö → bw, b) are analyzed as sonorant strengthening. The two types of strengthening are compared. It is concluded that obstruent strengthening affects features like [cont] and [voice] (these are not major class features and they are assumed to be below the Root node) and it is governed by restrictions pertaining to the syllable and subRoot node constraints (such as being followed by a continuant or laryngeally specified radical). On the other hand, sonorant strengthening affects major class features like [approximant] and [sonorant] (these are assumed to constitute the Root node itself), and it is governed mainly by restrictions at or above the Root node (such as being initial or doubly linked). This distinction between obstruent and sonorant strengthening is used to explain why verbs with an alveolar sonorant penult do not have alternating and nonalternating classes (because the features of the final radical cannot condition sonorant strengthening). Chapter 6 investigates the role of place features in consonant deletion. By studying cluster simplification in totally reduplicated verbs, I suggest that Coronal is the least and Labial the most marked articulators. I also propose a dual dependency in which Dorsal is dominated by both Peripheral and Lingual class nodes. Chapter 7 attempts to account for the rise of secondary articulations on consonants. The consonant inventory of most Gurage languages is highly enriched by the creation of nonphonemic sounds such as the labialized labials (pw, f w, bw, mw) and palatalized velars (k’y, ky, gy, ç), which are not found in Proto-Ethio-Semitic. The enrichment of the consonant system does not arise as an independent and accidental process but with a simultaneous impoverishment of the vowel system. In particular, the frequency of the front vowels i, e, 7 (these can cause palatalization and disappear, or surface as a central vowel G) is much lower than that of

xxx

INTRODUCTION

the central vowels a, 6, G (these cannot cause labialization or palatalization). Similarly, the frequency of the back vowels u, o, f (these can cause labialization and disappear, or surface as a central vowel G) is much lower than that of the central vowels but much the same as that of front vowels. For example, in Chaha word entries beginning with d in Leslau’s (1979) dictionary, the ratio of back, central and front vowels is 1: 26: 1.23 (i.e. for 1 back vowel found in those entries there are 26 central and 1.23 front vowels) even though the phonetic inventory has an equal number of back, central and front vowels. This consonant-vowel asymmetry and peripheral vs. central vowel disproportion is accounted for by proposing that the terminal features of /U/ (a phonemic element found in all back vowels) and /I/ (a phonemic element found in all front vowels) always abandon their articulators and float to dock on preceding targets. So /U, I/ are not pronounced independently. In this account, the lower frequency of back and front vowels comes from the fact that they disappear and leave a trace on surrounding consonants in the form of a secondary labial or palatal articulation. This explains why enriching the consonant inventory by adding secondary articulation lowers the frequency of back and front vowels and their disproportional distribution compared to central vowels. It is also argued that /U/ has a feature [round], which triggers labialization, and a feature [high], which triggers palatalization. Accordingly, /U/ alone triggers simultaneous labialization and palatalization. Evidence from different languages is presented to support the claim. A phoneme such as /U/ can also be an affix by itself and manifest itself as a floating affix. For example, the object marker w ‘him, his’ docks on the penultimate labial in k6f6t6mapw6m ‘they () have opened to his detriment’, on the medial labial in k’6n6mw6c6nGm ‘she has insulted him’ and on the initial velar in k’w6t’6r6c6nGm ‘she has killed him’. In other words, w does not have a fixed position. Rather, it starts from a position immediately preceding the final /-m/ and floats leftward till it finds a docking target (i.e. labial or velar consonant). If the word does not contain a labial or velar consonant (other than the final /-m/), w does not appear, as in at’6n6r6c6r6m ‘she has purified it for him’. From a phonetic point of view, this floating w is an affix whose domain of affixation is the entire word. Despite its parasitic nature and the variation in its anchorage, w is a morpheme similar to the invariable English suffix -ly. While changing the linear order of morphemes is illicit in English, cf. *in-differ-ly-ent, it seems to be licit in Chaha. The variability in the linear order of w may appear to support Anderson’s (1992) claim that words have no internal structure and that word formation is attained by a list of ordered rules. On the other hand, Lieber (1992) proposes that affixes have subcategorization. In line with her proposal, this book attributes an underlying fixed position for /U/ and constrains its movement. By

INTRODUCTION

xxxi

doing this, we can explain why the final -m is never labialized. But in an analysis where /U/ does not have a fixed position, it would be problematic to account for why it does not affect the final -m. Based on this and similar observations, it is argued that floating affixes are better analyzed as occupying configurationally organized fixed positions. In Romance languages such as French, subject markers are invariable in that they are suffixes in all tenses, e.g. nous aim-âmes ‘we loved’, nous aim-ons ‘we love’ and nous aim-er-ons ‘we will love’. But, we will see in Chapter 8 that subject markers in Semitic can be either variable or invariable (which is a different issue from that of floating affixes). For example, the 3  subject marker in Chaha is suffixed as -c in k6f6t6-c ‘has opened-3 ’ whereas it is prefixed as tGG- in tGG-k6ft ‘3 -opens’. Not only do the affixes -c and tGinclude different sounds but they are also positioned on opposite sides of the stem even though both express the same concept (she). The choice between the two affixes is determined by aspect (-c is used in the Perfective and tG- in the Nonperfective). Yet, there are also invariable subject suffixes which are not sensitive to a change in the aspect of the verb. For example, the   is -o in the Perfective, k6f6t-o ‘have opened- ’. The suffix -o is used also in the Nonperfective, yGG-k6ft-o ‘3-open- ’, but here it requires the prefix yGG-. The -o is invariable, since it has a constant linear order (with respect to the stem) and phonological content in both the Perfective and Nonperfective aspects. Couched in Distributed Morphology framework, this chapter offers a novel classification of subject suffixes of Ethiopian Semitic languages into the variable and invariable types. It also claims that the distinction between variable and invariable affixes receives a natural account in an analysis where each set is analyzed as holding independent syntactic node. The variable affixes are clitics and the invariable ones are subject agreement, so that -c and -o are categorially different. It will also be shown that the linear order of clitics depends on the aspect of the verb whereas subject agreement markers are suffixal irrespective of aspect. Based on the investigation of the variable affixes it is proposed that they have an underlying fixed linear order and that they comply with word-internal structure. Finally, a very complicated alternation in object suffixes called Light-Heavy alternation is investigated in Chapter 9. It is proposed that the abandoned Dorsal articulator of subject agreement suffixes is responsible for the Light-Heavy alternation. The discussions here provide additional arguments for the claim put forth in Chapter 7 that terminal features abandon their Dorsal articulator. This chapter also supports the variable vs. invariable distinction proposed in Chapter 8. It shows that the variable suffixes are followed by Light object suffixes and the invariable ones by Heavy object suffixes.

C 1 Phonemes, Syllables, and Stems

1.1

Introduction

In this chapter, I present the phonetic inventory of Chaha and argue that some of its sounds are not underlying phonemes. I maintain that some underlying phonemes contain unspecified features which are phonologically inactive. I also offer a brief description of the syllable structure and the formation of stems. Consider the following phonetic inventory of Chaha consonants: Table 1.1. Phonetic inventory of Chaha consonants (1) Stops Voiceless ejective Voiceless Voiced

plain labial

p b

Round labial

w

p bw

alveolar

t’ t d

Affricates Voiceless ejective Voiceless Voiced Fricatives Voiceless Voiced

alveopalatal

plain velar

round velar

k’y ky gy

k’ k g

k’w kw gw

ç

x

xw

\ y

]

c’ c j f

fw

s z

w Š

Spirants Sonorants Nasal Approximant

palatal

m öœ

mw w

n r (l)

^

Part of this book will be an attempt to identify the phonemes underlying this phonetic inventory.

2

SOUND MUTATIONS

The alveo-palatal fricatives [w, Š] are produced by retracting and raising the tongue blade towards the front of the hard palate, narrowing the contact area and creating partial blockage. On the other hand, the affricates [c’, c, j] (IPA [cˇ’, cˇ, ˇj]) are produced by raising the tip and blade of the fully spread tongue (as when it is at rest) towards the alveolar ridge and front of the hard palate. In attaining full blockage [c’, c, j] are like the stops [t’, t, d] but they differ from stops in having wider contact area (between the tongue and extended place of articulation). This has the impact of distributing and diminishing the force exerted during the closure, which also makes the release less abrupt. It should also be noted that [c’, c, j] in Chaha do not have two — stop and fricative — phases. For example, the cluster [tw] in yG-t-w6k6t ‘it gets better’ and the [c] in yGc6kGr ‘he cooks STH’ are not pronounced in the same way. Similarly, [dŠ] in adŠ6p6r6-m (from at-Š6p6r6-m) ‘he made return/reimburse’ and [j] in a-j6g6r6-m ‘he troubled’ are pronounced differently. Given the phonetic occurrence of the plain voiceless stops [p, t, k] in a language, it is more likely that they be phonemic. However, I will show that [p, k] are not underlying phonemes of Chaha and that the phoneme /t/ does not function like the other obstruents. My argument for this claim is that the oral bilabials [ö] ( [öœ], but I use the usual transcription ö), [b] and [p] derive from a bilabial voiced approximant /öœ/. So [b, p] are not underlying stops. Similarly, [k] is not an underlying phoneme but is instead a strengthened allophone of either /x/ or /g/. So [k] is not an underlying voiceless stop. Moreover, /t/ is the default consonant and has no specification for laryngeal features. It will also be shown that sonorants have no laryngeal specifications. Due to this, /t/ patterns with sonorants for processes involving laryngeal features. There is no laryngeal contrast in the labial series. The contrast in bilabials is between the approximant /ö/ and the nasal /m/. I will also suggest that the feature values [−] in obstruents and [+] in sonorants are unmarked. Unmarked features are unspecified (or inactive), which entails that obstruent stops and approximants are [0]. I concur with Prunet and Petros (1996) in assuming that labialized and palatalized segments (round consonants, and the alveopalatal and palatal obstruents of table (1)) are, for the most part, biphonemic, i.e. [f w] results from the fusion of /f/ and /U/ (representing [u] and [w]), [c’] is the fusion of /t’/ and /I/ (representing [i] and [y]), [k’y] is the fusion of /k’/ and /I/, and so on (see Lowenstamm 1996a and Rose 1997 for similar, but not identical, claims). Hence, labialized and palatalized consonants are not underlying phonemes. Notice that, phonetically, the palatalized velar obstruents [k’y, ky, gy, ç] (IPA [c’, c, j, ç]) and coronal sonorants [\, y] have the same palatal point of articulation, as shown in the phonetic inventory above.

PHONEMES, SYLLABLES, AND STEMS

3

Let us now turn to the following phonetic vowel inventory of Chaha: Table 1.2. Phonetic vowel inventory of Chaha (2) Front Central

Close Close-mid Open-mid Open

i e 7

Back

G

u

6

o f

a

There is no glide vs. vowel contrast, so [i] and [y] represent /I/ while [u] and [w] represent /U/. In most cases, the mid peripheral vowels [o, e, f, 7] are biphonemic, i.e. [o] is the fusion of /6/ and /U/, [e] of /6/ and /I/, [f] of /a/ and /U/ and [7] of /a/ and /I/. It is, however, impossible to derive all instances of [i] from /I/ and [e] from /6I/. For instance, in y-a-k’it’ ‘let him trade’ and y-a-k’et’ ‘he trades’ the vowels [i] and [e] should be analyzed as underlying. Had they been derived from /I/ they should have palatalized either the initial velar or the final alveolar. The same observation holds for the back vowels [u] and [o] in words such as fat’ura ‘tall’ and goga ‘skin’. Accordingly, we will accept all the vowels of (2) save [G], which is epenthetic, to exist also in the . As mentioned in the introduction the frequency of front, central and back vowels in a given number of words is not proportional; central vowels are numerous while front and back vowels are relatively rare. The advantages of my analysis in accounting for the distribution and cooccurrence restrictions of phonemes will become clear as we proceed. Each class of phonemes and the processes that characterize it will be discussed in detail in the forthcoming chapters. The present chapter is only a brief outline of the phonemes, syllables and stems. In §1.2 I discuss obstruent segments. I motivate a distinction between fricatives and spirants. I show some phenomena in which /t/ functions like a sonorant and I account for this by proposing that /t/ and sonorants have no laryngeal specification. Sonorants are discussed in §1.3. It is claimed that they include the bilabial approximant /ö/, the bilabial nasal /m/, the liquid /r/ and the placeless nasal /N/, the vocoids /U, I, A/ and the vowels of (2). My assumptions about feature specification and underspecification are presented in §1.4. I discuss syllabification in §1.5 and stem formation in §1.6. I summarize the chapter in §1.7.

4 1.2

SOUND MUTATIONS

Obstruents

This class includes the derived stops [b, p, k], the ejective stops /t’, k’/, the voiced stops /d, g/, the fricatives /f, s, z/, the spirant /x/ and the default consonant /t/, as well as their labialized or palatalized allophones. I will give arguments showing that ejectives, voiced obstruents and fricatives are phonemes with an underlying laryngeal specification while the derived stops and /t/ lack such specification. I also argue that the laryngeal specification of ejectives is [constricted glottis], that of voiced obstruents is [voice] (or Halle and Stevens’ 1971 [slack vocal cords]) and that of voiceless fricatives is [spread glottis]. (See also Vaux 1998 for analyzing voiceless fricatives as [+spread glottis].) The view that the laryngeal specification of voiceless fricatives is [spread glottis] can account for why their debuccalization cross linguistically results in [h], a sound commonly characterized as [spread glottis]. In line with Lombardi (1991) I assume that laryngeal features are single-valued, which explains why I do not write [±] before them. I extend the assumption also for the consonantal place features and the feature [nasal]. 1.2.1 The fricatives and the spirant Following Martinet (1981), I distinguish the fricatives /f, s, z/ from the spirant /x/, two classes of phonemes whose differences will be the subject of this subsection. But I differ from him in not classing Chaha ö with spirants because these in my view are continuant obstruents while ö is a sonorant (see §1.3.1 for discussion). The voiced fricative /z/ can be devoiced to [s] when geminated, e.g. zGr6zz6r → zGr6s6r ‘has cut meat into strips’ (see Chapter 2). The velar spirant /x/ strengthens to [k] either when it is geminated, e.g. m6xx6r → m6k6r ‘has advised’, or when it is followed in the root by a [+] radical, e.g. x6ff6r → k6f6r ‘has separated’ (see Chapter 3). I follow Hetzron’s (1977: 51) opinion that when z alternates with s, and x alternates with k, the first term in each is the underlying form. In this account, the alternation is a result of losing either of the marked features [voice] or [+] of obstruents. In the present analysis, the spirant [x] and the stop [k] are both derived from /x/ irrespective of the presence or absence of x/k alternation. The fact that x and k are in complementary distribution, hence noncontrastive, is a crucial point for this claim. I will establish their complementarity and add a few arguments to show that /x/ is not a fricative on a par with /f, s, z/ and that /k/ is not an underlying phoneme. See Leslau (1978: 176ff.) and McCarthy (1986a: 222) for analyses that view [x] as deriving from an original /k/ and Petros (1995: 431–2) for the view that some [k]’s derive from /x/. I start by commenting on the velar nature of x.


5

1.2.1.1 The velar nature of x In Hetzron (1971: 196) and his subsequent studies, [x] is transcribed as a laryngeal [h]. There are, however, arguments to the effect that the spirant allophone of [k] is [x] (as assumed everywhere by Leslau and Polotsky) and not [h]. First, even though it seems phonetically laryngeal in fast speech between vowels, it normally is a velar. Second, x patterns with velars (and only with them) in being able to labialize and palatalize, e.g. fGr6x-U → fGr6xw ‘let one tolerate!’ and fGr6x-I → fGr6ç ‘tolerate ( )!’ Sonorants in Chaha (i.e. ö, r, n and m, see §1.3.1 for arguments that ö is a sonorant) cannot be the second member of a final cluster, e.g. yG-s6rGö ‘he spins’, yG-s6öGr ‘he breaks’, y6-sGn ‘of teeth’ and yG-f6rGm ‘he slices sth’. But obstruents can be the second member of a final cluster, e.g. yG-s6rf ‘he fears’, yG-t’6ös ‘he roasts sth’ and yG-g6rz ‘he ages’. But x can be the second member of a final cluster, e.g. yG-f6rx ‘he tolerates’, yG-s6öx ‘he preaches’, yG-t6mx ‘he dips out’ and yG-mes(G)x ‘he chews’. It then follows that x patterns with obstruents and not with sonorants. Furthermore, roots in Chaha do not contain two velars, and x is not found in the presence of another velar in a root. This restriction on root structure suggests that x is a velar. If we interpret this as one of the familiar Semitic constraints on homorganicity in roots (see e.g. Cantineau 1946 and Greenberg 1950) it refutes the claim that the weak allophone of k is h. 1.2.1.2 Differences between fricatives and x Here, let us establish that x is a spirant and not a fricative. Fricatives do not strengthen when doubled. For instance, the underlying medial geminate (CiCi) fricatives of (3a) are not strengthened. In addition, the final copied (CiVCi#) fricatives of (3a′) are not strengthened. But x is not found as a medial geminate (3b) or as a final copy, (3b′). (3)

/z, s, f/ vs. /x/ as medial geminates a. g6sa < /g6zz6A/ k’6s6r < /k’6ss6r/ k6f6t < /x6ff6t/ b. n6k6ö < /r6xx6ö/ /z, s, f/ vs. /x/ as final copies a′. yG-r6zGz < /yG-r6zGz/ y-asGs < /yG-A6sGs/ yG-k’6fGf < /yG-k’6fGf/ b′. y-akGk < /yG-A6xGx/

‘has ‘has ‘has ‘has

owned’ erected’ opened’ found’

‘He ‘He ‘He ‘He

dreams’ sweeps’ cuts nails’ scratches’

6

SOUND MUTATIONS

That x is not found either as a medial geminate (cf. *n6x6ö) or as a final copy (cf. *y-axGx) remains a distributional gap if we analyze it as a fricative since doubled fricatives /z, s, f/ are found in both contexts. But if we analyze it as a spirant its deviation from fricatives follows from the difference between fricatives and spirants. See Petros (1995: 431–2) for a similar explanation. In addition, [s, f, z] can be found before another fricative, (4a), while [x] cannot, (4b). (4)

a.

b.

s6f6r yG-r6f(G)s y6-z6(f)zGf k6f6t/*x6f6t yG-r6k(G)s/*yG-r6x(G)s y6-k6skGs/*y6-x6sxGs

‘has measured’ ‘It winds’ ‘Let him soak sth!’ ‘has opened’ ‘He bites’ ‘Let him smash!’

It appears then that /x/ in (4b) is strengthened to [k] due to a following fricative. That a fricative, but not x, may be followed by a fricative shows that x does not pattern with fricatives. Even though an apparent prefricative x is found in sGx6s6x ‘has pestled sth slightly’, it should be noted that this x is the final radical of a reduplicated –sx. The differences between x and other fricatives also show that f functions like the sibilants s and z — and not like x. In addition, the grouping of f with sibilants forces us to identify a feature (or groups of features) common to f, s, z but not x. This can be achieved by attributing [+strident] only to f, s, z, as in Chomsky and Halle (1968: 329) and Harris (1994: 126), in which case x alone will be [−strident]. However, see Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 180) for a different opinion on this. So, we can assume that x alone is [+, −strident]. In this account, strengthening, be it due to doubling (3b, b′) or a following [+] (4b), applies only to x, a class by itself which can be characterized as [+, −strident]. 1.2.2 [k] is not an underlying stop Underlying stops are found in a stem irrespective of the continuancy specification of a following radical whereas a simplex [k] is found only when followed by a [+] radical. For instance, [g] need not be followed by a fricative; it can be either followed by a nonfricative or be found at the end of the stem, (5a). But [k] is not found in the same context, (5b). The comparison between (4b) and (5b) shows that [x] and [k] are in complementary distribution, i.e. [k] is found before a fricative as in (4b) whereas [x] is found elsewhere as in (5b).


(5)

a.

b.

y6-gdGr y6-mg6r y6-mGrg y6-xdGr/*y6-kdGr y6-mxGr/*y6-mkGr y6-marx/*y6-mark

‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let

7

him put to sleep!’ it suppurate!’ him plaster!’ him thatch!’ him advise!’ him capture!’

The fact that stops, but not [k], may be found before a nonfricative or at the end of the stem suggests that [k] is not an underlying stop. Note also that the velar stops /g, k’/ do not spirantize in Chaha, and that [k] is the only obstruent to alternate with a spirant, e.g. m6k6r ‘has advised’ vs. y6-mxGr ‘let him advise!’ In this respect, too, [k] does not pattern with velar (or any other) stops, which leads me to propose that it is derived from the spirant /x/ (see Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion on the strengthening of /x/). 1.2.3 [b, p] are not underlying stops The sound [p] is found neither stem-initially nor stem-finally. It is found only stem-medially as in s6p6r ‘has broken’ or as a suffix, e.g. yG-k6ft-o-p-a ‘they open it to her detriment’. In both cases, [p] is an underlying geminate, as it alternates with ö, e.g. y6-söGr ‘let him break!’ vs. s6p6r and yG-k6ft-ö-a ‘he opens it to her detriment’ vs. yG-k6ft-o-p-a. So [p], as in s6p6r and yG-k6ft-o-p-a, is a devoiced and degeminated /öö/ and not an underlying /p/. Similarly, a singleton [b] is not found in postvocalic nor in postconsonantal positions unless the consonant is a nasal. There are some exceptions such as b6t’bGt’ ‘stir violently!’ where the medial [b] is a stop, but see §6.3.2 (note 3) for a possible explanation. Even though [b] is found intervocalically, as in z6b6k’ ‘has daubed’, it is an underlying geminate. In this account, both [p] and [b] are derived allophones of /ö/, and not an underlying voiceless and voiced stop respectively. The rules that derive them will be discussed in §1.3.1 and Chapter 5. 1.2.4 Ejectives and voiced stops: laryngeal assimilation in verb roots Chaha has two ejective stops /t’, k’/ and two voiced stops /d, g/. The coronals /t’, d/ can be palatalized respectively to [c’, j] ( [tw ’, dŠ]), e.g. t’I6k’k’6m → c’6k’6m ‘has bickered’ and dI6gg6m → j6k6m ‘has bashed’. The velars /k’, g/ can be palatalized respectively to [k’y, gy], e.g. k’I6öö6r → k’y6p6r ‘has helped’ and gI6tt6m → gy6t6m ‘has lent’. Besides having a secondary articulation, palatalized velars are phonetically palatal, cf. (1). Velars can also be labialized to [k’w, gw],

8

SOUND MUTATIONS

e.g. k’U6mm6r → k’w6m6r ‘has grown up’ and gU6rr6r → gw6n6r ‘has cut’. In contrast to palatalized velars, labialized velars do not change their velar point of articulation. The voiced stops /d, g/ may devoice when geminated, e.g. g6dd6r → g6t6r ‘has put to sleep’ and m6gg6r → m6k6r ‘has suppurated’ whereas /t’, k’/ remain unaffected, e.g. n6t’t’6r → n6t’6r ‘has melted’ and n6k’k’6r → n6k’6r ‘has uprooted’. In my analysis, the true laryngeal contrast in Chaha stops is the one between ejectives and voiced stops, i.e. /t’/ vs. /d/ and /k’/ vs. /g/. Laryngeal contrast is found only in nonlabials, as there is no underlying /b/ or /p’/. In addition, final /t’, k’/ differ from a final /t/ in licensing a doubly linked voiced penult, as in z6öö6k’ → z6b6k’ ‘has daubed’ vs. zA6öö6t → zap6t ‘has lost the way’. Assuming that a geminate voiced penult remains voiced only when the last radical has laryngeal specification (to be justified in Chapter 2), I propose that ejectives are specified [constricted glottis] while voiced obstruents are specified [voice]. Adjacent stops in a root may not differ in laryngeal specification. For instance, adjacent ejective stops are found in a root and so are adjacent voiced stops. This is shown in (6a, b). See also Leslau (1992: 91–92) on laryngeal assimilation in Gurage. (6)

Laryngeal Assimilation of adjacent stops in the root a. t’Gk’Gr ‘Hide!’ nGt’(G)k’ ‘Snatch!’ k’Gt’Gr ‘Kill!’ nGk’(G)t’ ‘Kick!’ b. dGg(G)s ‘Give a feast!’ 6d(G)g ‘Make fall!’ gGdGr ‘Put to sleep!’ 6g(G)d ‘Tie!’

No native root contains an ejective-voiced or voiced-ejective stop sequence, as in hypothetical *k’GdGr, *dGk’Gr, *nGt’Gg or *nGgGt’. The ejective-voiced and voicedejective sequences in words such as dak’ ‘laugh!’, a-c’ig ‘make sure!’ and t6c’fd ‘chat!’ are only apparent since these verbs include a medial radical /A/, /I/ and /U/ respectively. The fact that ejective-voiced or voiced-ejective stop sequences are prohibited in a root shows that if two adjacent consonants are stops they must have the same laryngeal specification. A comparison of the following Amharic and Chaha cognates shows that this generalization is correct.1

1. Comparable generalizations hold also with Geäez, cf. Geäez k’6t6l ‘killed’ vs. Chaha k’6t’6r. Rarely, nonadjacent stops also assimilate. For example, Amharic d6rr6k’ ‘dried’ is t’6n6k’ in Chaha.


(7) a.

b.

Amharic k’Gda k’Gd6d mGt’ad t’6gur dGk’6k’ Grg6t’ magt’ wGd6k’

Chaha gGda gGdGd mGdad dGg6r t’Gk’6k’ nGk’(G)t’ mwak’(G)t’ wGt’6k’

9

‘Draw liquid!’ ‘Tear!’ ‘griddle’ ‘hair’ ‘Be crushed, grounded!’ ‘Kick!’ ‘Be spoiled!’ ‘Fall!’

According to the etymologies given in Leslau (1979: vol. III) Amharic represents the older form. As can be observed from the comparison, an Amharic ejectivevoiced sequence of (7a) (as in k’Gda) becomes a voiced-voiced sequence in Chaha (as in gGda) whereas the Amharic voiced-ejective sequence of (7b) (as in Grg6t’) becomes an ejective-ejective sequence in Chaha (as in nGk’(G)t’). In other words, the laryngeal specification of the second term of the Amharic sequence is maintained for both terms in the Chaha sequence. Even though [b] in t’6b6s ‘has roasted ()’ and [m] in k’6m6s ‘has tasted ()’ are phonetically voiced they do not trigger voicing of the initial ejective. Given that adjacent stops agree in laryngeal specification it follows that the underlying form of the oral stop [b] (as well as the nasal stop [m]) does not include the phonological feature [voice]. 1.2.5 The segmental makeup of /t/ Despite the fact that /t/ is a typical obstruent, it differs in many ways from other obstruents and patterns like sonorants, as we will see in this section and throughout this book. There are also other aspects which differentiate it from sonorants. That means that it functions like a [−] phoneme in some respects and like a [+] in others. I believe that its dual nature originates from the fact that it is the default consonant. I also assume that its dual nature can be expressed naturally if /t/ is characterized as a segment unspecified for laryngeal features. The assumption that sonorants and /t/ lack laryngeal specification puts them in a natural class concerning processes sensitive to laryngeal features. /t/ also shares [0] with approximants and the other obstruent stops. In this subsection, I present the optionality of [t] to support the argument that [t] is the default segment of Chaha. [tG] or [t] is inserted between vowel-final subject pronouns and the verb ‘to be’, [tG] is inserted before CC and [t] before CV, as shown in (8). (See also Ford 1991: 250.) [t(G)] cannot be inserted after the consonant-final pronouns xwGt-u ‘it

10

SOUND MUTATIONS

is him’ and çGtG-nya ‘it is her’. Even though we have an inserted [tG] after [ç] in [açtGnç], below, it should be known that [ç] in my analysis is /xI/, which is vowel-final. (8)

Insertion of [t(G)] between some subject pronouns and ‘to be’ → GyyatGnxw ‘It is me’ Gyya-n-xw yGna-n-d6 → yGnatGnd6 ‘It is us’ aç-n-ç → açtGnç ‘It is you ( )’ ax6-n-x6 → ax6tGnx6 ‘It is you ( )’ axma-n-xGma → axmatGnxGma ‘It is you ( )’ axu-n-xu → axutGnxu ‘It is you ( )’ xGn6ma-r-6ma → xGn6matr6ma ‘It is them ()’ xGno-r-o → xGnotro ‘It is them ()’ Subject+be+object (lit., we are us, she is her, but subject+be+subject in Gyya-n-xw.)

Both sounds of the inserted [t(G)] are epenthetic which fill a segmentally empty syllable position. They are null segments and have no underlying specification. 1.2.6 The treatment of borrowed plain voiceless stops ([p, t, k]) I have claimed that the sounds [k] and [p] are allophones of /x, g/ and /ö/ respectively whereas [t] lacks specification for laryngeal features. The treatment of plain voiceless stops in borrowed words shows that they are uncommon. For instance, in most cases, a voiceless stop [p] found in a loan either spirantizes as in [p] → [f] or becomes voiced as in [p] → [b]. This is exemplified in (9a). Spirantization or voicing applies as in (9a) when there is no indigenous ejective in the series, i.e. [p] → [b/f] because Chaha has no [p’]. (9)

Treatment of [p, t, k] in loans a. [p] → [b/f] [p]ound [b]aund [p]etros [b]et’ros [p]olice [f]olis [p]ascal [f]asiga b. [t] → [t’] [t]rumpet [t’]Grumba Pe[t]ros be[t’]ros S[t]ephanos Gs[t’]ifanos An[t]onius Gn[t’]onyos


c.

[k] → [k’] So[k]rates Lu[k]as Mar[k]os Ja[k]ob

11

so[k’]rat’Gs lu[k’]as mar[k’w]6s ya[k’w]6ö

In a series where there is an indigenous ejective (i.e. coronals and dorsals) a borrowed voiceless stop usually becomes an ejective ([t] → [t’] and [k] → [k’]) as exemplified in (9b, c). (There are some loans such as Michael → [mGk7r] (not *[mGk’7r]) and Thomas → [tomas] (not *[t’omas]) where the voiceless stop does not become an ejective, possibly due to a presence of aspiration or the neighboring nasal.) Given that the sounds [t, k] are present in the phonetic inventory the fact that borrowed [t, k] become [t’, k’] shows that plain voiceless segments are disfavored. 1.2.7 The distribution of phonemes in affixes Not every Chaha phoneme can appear in prefixes. Notably, obstruents other than t are not found in prefixes. However, /t-/ alone is found in six different prefixes, (10). (The obstruents b is found in prefixes, e.g. b6-öet ‘on/in the house’ but I will show in §1.3.1 that this comes from an underlying approximant /ö/. Accordingly, the only obstruents found in prefixes is the default /t/ and this is the only underlying obstruent without a laryngeal specification.2 See, among others, Calabrese (1995), McCarthy and Prince (1995) and Steriade (1995) on such positional neutralizations. (10)

Prefixes containing [t] a. Durative t-i-ö6r-o (while-3-eat- ) ‘while they () eat’ b. Conjunctive t6-g6r6d (with-girl) ‘with a girl’ c. Conditional t6-ö6na (if-eat) ‘if he had eaten’ d. 2nd person sub. a-t-ö6r-o ( n o t - 2 - e a t -       ) ‘ y o u ( ) do not eat’ e. 3  subject tG-t-ö6ra (while-she-eat) ‘while she eats’ f. Reflexive nG-t-ö6ra (1-reflexive-eat) ‘let me be sick/eaten by sickness’

2. As for the demonstrative zG(x) ‘this, these’, it is an independent word, cf. zG(x) mGs ‘this man’ vs. zG(x) fat’ura g6m6ya ‘these tall men’.

12

SOUND MUTATIONS

On the other hand, sonorants can appear in prefixes, e.g. w6-]kGs ‘to bite’, y6-]kGs ‘let him bite’, m6-]k6s ‘stomachache (lit. ‘bite’)’, nG-]kGs ‘let me bite’. However, notice that the prefixes include only either a vocoid or a nasal, i.e. I have not found the approximant consonants [ö, r] in prefixes. (There is a prefix /ö-/, as in b-i-r6k(G)s ‘as he bit’, but it is always word initial — hence occlusive.) In being a prefix, /t/ patterns with sonorants and not with obstruents. In my view, obstruents are absent in prefixes because prefixes do not license laryngeal specifications. We will see next that sonorants (and /t/) have no laryngeal specification. These segments can be found in prefixes whereas none of the phonemes that are shown to have laryngeal specification are found there.3

1.3

Sonorants

The underlying sonorants of Chaha include the bilabial approximant /ö/, the bilabial nasal /m/, the liquid /r/, the placeless nasal /N/, the labiodorsal vocoid /U/, the palatal vocoid /I/ and the vowels. There is also the radical /A/, representing original laryngeals and pharyngeals (as in /gGfGA/ → [gGfa] ‘push sth!’), which I categorize with both fricatives and sonorants due to its dual characteristics. In my analysis, sonorants are unspecified for laryngeal features, i.e. [voice] in them (in contrast with [voice] in obstruents) is unmarked, which, accordingly, is inactive in phonological processes. (See Itô, Mester and Padgett and the references therein for inertness of [voice] in sonorants.) The first justification for proposing that sonorants are unspecified for laryngeal features was based on their distribution in prefixes. The second argument for the proposal was based on Laryngeal Assimilation of adjacent stops in the root (see §1.2.4). The third argument is based on whether the prefix /t/ (see (10) for its different meanings) assimilates to a following stem-initial radical (C1) or not. Even though the different /t/ prefixes of (10) assimilate I will take the reflexive prefix /t/ to demonstrate the assimilation and show how this supports the claim that sonorants are unspecified for laryngeal features.

3. Unlike in prefixes, we find different types of obstruents in suffixes. For instance, a fricative is found as in the auxiliary -w6 ‘can, may, will’ (see Petros 1996a: 148) and the focus -w, e.g. Gyya-w 6kkwa 6röat a-m-b6ra ‘I-focus today dinner neg.-I-eat’ ‘I will not eat dinner today’. (The -w can be attached to every word of the sentence.) We also have -w in words like x6da-w ‘please ( )’, x6d-o-w ‘please ( )’ etc. The voiced stop [d] is found in the 1pl. object tG-k6ft-Gn-d6 ‘you ( ) open (it for) us’. However, no ejective is not found in suffixes.


13

When a prefix /t/ and C1 of a stem are adjacent, the former often totally or partially assimilates to the latter.4 (The assimilated two consonants have a single ejective or fricated release.) Total Assimilation obligatorily applies when C1 is a coronal stop, (11a). Partial (i.e. Laryngeal) Assimilation applies optionally (there is no assimilation in slow speech) when C1 is a peripheral (labial or dorsal) stop or a coronal fricative, (11b). But no assimilation occurs if C1 is /r/, /U/, /ö/ or /m/, (11c). In other words, /t/ assimilates to C1 but only if C1 is an obstruent. (11)

The reflexive prefix in noninitial position a. Obligatory Total Assimilation when C1 is a coronal stop yG-t’-t’aö6t’ not *yG-t-t’aö6t’ ‘hold each other’ yG-d-d6m6d not *yG-t-d6m6d ‘join ()’ yG-c’-c’ab6k’ not *yG-t-c’ab6k’ ‘press each other’ yG-j-j6n6g not *yG-t-j6n6g ‘stuck in the throat’ yG-c-caf6r not *yG-t-caf6r ‘give a mouthful to each other’ b. Optional Laryngeal Assimilation (in fast speech) when C1 is any other obstruent yG-t’-k’an6m or yG-t-k’an6m ‘insult ()’ yG-d-g6m6s or yG-t-g6m6s ‘cut off into chunks ()’ yG-d-z6m6d or yG-t-z6m6d ‘stretch ()’ yG-d-Š6p6r or yG-t-Š6p6r ‘return ()’ c. No assimilation when C1 is a sonorant yG-t-r6k’6r not *yG-d-r6k’6r ‘be uprooted’ yG-t-w6t6r not *yG-d-w6t6r ‘be drawn tight’ yG-t-ö6n6s not *yG-d-ö6n6s ‘topple ()’ yG-t-man6x not *yG-d-man6x ‘give up, be captured’

If t- and C1 share the same values for [] and Place they must also share laryngeal features, which triggers obligatory Total Assimilation, (11a). So the Total Assimilation in (11a) can be viewed as spreading of the Root node of C1 to t- whereas Laryngeal Assimilation in (11b) may be expressed as an optional spreading of the Laryngeal node. The fact that /ö/ in (11c) cannot trigger voicing of /t/ shows that /ö/ patterns with the sonorants (/r/, /U/ and /m/). Note that the stem-initial voiced obstruents

4. The reflexive /t-/ and C1 are not adjacent in initial position. They are separated by /6/, e.g. t6t’6b6s ‘has roasted ()’. Here, no assimilation occurs between /t/ and /t’/ due to lack of adjacency. But no vowel intervenes in medial positions (where laryngeal assimilation occurs), e.g. yG-t-t’6b6s → yG-t’-t’6b6s ‘it roasts’.

14

SOUND MUTATIONS

in (11b) can trigger voicing of /t/, and in this respect /ö/ does not pattern with them. On the other hand, /t/ does not assimilate with a stem-initial radical in continuancy, cf. *yG-z-z6m6d. Similarly, /t/ does not assimilate in Place with dorsal stops, cf. yG-d-g6m6s (not *yG-g-g6m6s), from (11b). (Such assimilation occurs in Amharic, e.g. yG-b-b6dd6r-al ‘he borrows’ and yG-g-g6dd6l-al ‘he will be killed’.) That /t/ in Chaha does not assimilate in [] and Place suggests that it is specified for these features. The fact that stem-initial voiced obstruents, but not sonorants, trigger voicing of the reflexive /t-/ receives a straightforward account if we assume that sonorants have no laryngeal specification, and that Laryngeal Assimilation occurs when the trigger is specified. This distinguishes sonorants from voiced obstruents. In cases where the prefix does not share a laryngeal feature with the initial radical, as in (11c), I assume that it has no laryngeal specification, i.e. /t/ has no Laryngeal node. The unspecified nature of /t/ also implies that we spread the Laryngeal node from an initial radical to /t/ without having to delink it. This assimilation is consequently feature-building, not feature-changing. The fourth argument for proposing that sonorants are unspecified for laryngeal features is based on the penult voicing difference between m6gg6r → m6k6r ‘has suppurated’ (from –mgr) and n6gg6d → n6g6d ‘has touched sth’ (from This will be discussed in detail only in Chapter 2. For now, I will only mention that the final sonorant r of m6k6r does not license the preceding underlying geminate voiced obstruent (/gg/) to remain voiced so penult devoicing and degemination occur in m6k6r. But the final obstruent d of n6g6d licenses the preceding /gg/ to remain voiced so penult degemination occurs without devoicing in n6g6d. The difference between stem-final sonorants and obstruents also follows if we assume that sonorants are unspecified for laryngeal features whereas obstruents, whether they are contrastive for [voice] or not, are laryngeally specified. The fifth argument is also related to geminate devoicing cases such as m6gg6r → m6k6r ‘has suppurated’. Here, the doubly linked [voice] of gg is unlicensed and therefore delinks. This results in the devoicing of g to k. Now, consider the verb gI6mm6r → gy6m6r ‘has trimmed a basket with hide’. If m is [voice] it cannot retain this feature when geminated since a doubly linked [voice] in a similar context is unlicensed. So we will expect a devoiced nasal m® . But, such devoicing does not happen, showing that m in gy6m6r, as well as elsewhere, is not specified for[voice]. However, as we will see next and in §5.3.1, an occlusivized /ö/, i.e. [b], is [voice] and loses this feature in a context of devoicing. When /ö/ is realized as [−] it becomes [voice], as in /ö/ → [b], which explains why /ö/ devoices in a devoicing context. –rgd).


15

The sonorants of Chaha differ from obstruents also in regard to the feature []. For instance, approximants do not function like fricatives and spirants. In contrast with obstruents, vocoids do not trigger the strengthening of a preceding /x/, cf. yG-ö6xGI → yG-ö6ç ‘he cries’ vs. yG-r6xGs → yG-r6kGs ‘he bites’ nor can they trigger vocalization of a preceding nasal, cf. a-N-x6t6r → ãx6t6r ‘he has not thatched a house’ vs. a-N-U6t6r → ambw6t6r ‘has not drawn tight’ (see §5.4). The difference between approximants and continuant obstruents can be expressed naturally if we assume that [+] in sonorants is the unmarked value and is unspecified in them (see §3.8). 1.3.1 The bilabials are sonorants I propose that [ö], [b] and [p] are in complementary distribution and that they all derive from a bilabial approximant /ö/. So, there is no underlying bilabial obstruent. The only bilabial phoneme with which /ö/ enters in opposition is /m/, as /U/ and /f/ are not bilabials. This opposition persists in all contexts, as shown in (12). /m/ is also the only underlying nasal found in both stems and affixes (as no /N/ is found in verb stems). Note that /ö/ and /m/ can be rounded to [w, bw, pw] and [mw] respectively. (12)

Opposition between /ö/ and /m/ a. b6k6r ‘has lacked’ yG-ö6xGr ‘he lacks’ k’6p6r ‘has planted’ bGt’6b6t’ ‘has stirred’ gy6t6ö ‘has placed diagonally’ b. m6k6r ‘has advised’ yG-m6xGr ‘he advises’ k’6m6r ‘has killed louse’ mGt’6m6t’ ‘has rotten’ gy6t6m ‘has lent’

In my analysis, the contrast between the two is expressed by the feature [nasal], i.e. /m/ is [nasal] while /ö/ is not. Even though /ö/ is voiced and continuant it differs from voiced fricatives such as /z/ in not functioning as a [voice] phoneme. Similarly, /m/ is voiced and stop. However, it differs from voiced stops such as /d/ and /g/ in that it does not function as a [voice] phoneme. The feature [voice] is phonologically inactive in /ö/ and /m/ due to the fact that they are sonorants. Hetzron (1977: 37–8) states: “ö is phonemic in Chaha, Gura, Gyeto and Ennemor only … both b and ö may occur intervocalically (e.g. in the verb

16

SOUND MUTATIONS

t’6b6t’6- ‘he seized/held’ vs. yGs6öGr ‘he breaks’) which makes the opposition b/ö phonemic.” This view is accepted by Johnson (1975: 27, note 3). In my view, the fact that two sounds can be found intervocalically at the surface is not a sufficient argument to claim that they are in opposition. In fact, as we will see in §2.7.2, b in t’6b6s is a simplified geminate which does not devoice because the final radical is an obstruent other than t whereas ö in yG-s6öGr is not a geminate. So, b in t’6b6s is a voiced stop because it is a simplified geminate. The /ö/ in t’6ö6t’ is also a simplified geminate which remains [ö] as the only exception to occlusivization (/öö/ → [b], see Chapter 5). While the distribution of [b] and [ö] is predictable in all instances, one exception (which does not even form a minimal pair) is insufficient to claim that the two sounds are in opposition. Because /ö, m/ are sonorants, the feature [voice] is inactive in them and this feature is not needed to express the contrast between the two. One assumes that /z/ must be [voice] because this value is needed to express the phonological contrast between /z/ and /s/. So, the phonology requires that /z/ contains the feature [voice]. Similarly, /t’/ must be [constricted glottis] because this feature expresses the phonological contrast between /t’/ and /t/. However, no such contrast exists between /ö/ and /m/ (the only bilabials), so the phonology does not require that they be [voice]. What is contrastive in them is whether they are approximant or nasal and the phonology is required to make this distinction, which can be achieved by the feature [nasal]. Accordingly, there is no reason for /ö/ and /m/ to be specified for [voice]. That /m/ is [nasal] is not a controversial issue. Therefore, I will concentrate on the [0voice] nature of /ö/. ([0voice] can be seen as the absence of the Laryngeal node.) I have claimed that /ö/ as well as its elsewhere allophone [ö] is a bilabial approximant and not a fricative or a spirant whereas [b] and [p] are its occlusivized allophones. As an approximant, /ö/ is voiced but its feature [voice] is redundant and phonologically inactive. So, [voice] is absent when it is a [+] segment, as shown in (13a). An occlusivization rule changes the [+, +, Labial] phoneme /ö/ to the [−, voice] sound [b] (see Chapter 5 for details). Here, [voice] is active due to [−], as in (13b), but [voice] delinks in (13c), resulting in a voiceless stop. Such delinking applies to any voiced obstruent when the context for devoicing is satisfied. (13)

The allophones of /ö/ a. Root [+] = [ö] b. Root [−] = [b] | [voice]


c.

17

Root [−] = [p] =|= [voice]

While [ö] (as well as /ö/) is [+] the stops [b, p] are [−]. Accordingly, [b] and [p] form a class ([−]) that excludes [ö] whereas [ö] and [b], although both are voiced phonetically, do not form a class that excludes [p] since [ö] is an approximant and does not contain [voice]. That [b] and [p] are [−] and that [b], but not [p], includes [voice] is a standard position. This is why I will give only arguments for the claim that [ö] is [+]. (This is in addition to the arguments discussed so far.) All voiced obstruents of Chaha have a laryngeally contrastive counterpart, as in d/t’, g/k’ and z/s whereas /ö/ does not have one. Instead, it has a contrastive nasal counterpart /m/, cf. (12). When there is no laryngeal contrast in a series of obstruents, we normally expect to find only the voiceless ones. For instance, Chaha has /f, x/, but not /v, >/. This is in conformity with the markedness restrictions in which the presence of a segment with the marked feature [voice] implies the presence of a segment without this feature whereas the inverse relation does not hold. However, if we analyze ö as a voiced obstruent, it alone will be without a laryngeal contrast. This would be in contradiction with the markedness restrictions. If we analyze it as a sonorant, on the other hand, it will enjoy the characteristic common to sonorants of having a nasal counterpart, and not having a voiceless one. This pairing groups it with sonorants, which are laryngeally unspecified. The other argument that ö is a sonorant comes from the sonority scale, in which ö is more sonorous than any obstruent. (Hayward 1988: 161 equates it with z but does so without justification). For instance, continuant obstruents, (14a), but not sonorants, (14b), can be the second member of a final cluster (right column). Note that concerning the sonority scale the spirant x does not pattern with ö but with fricatives. (14)

Continuant obstruents vs. sonorants as a second member of a wordfinal cluster a. yG-r6gGf or yG-r6gf ‘It falls down’ y-agGz or y-agz ‘He helps’ yG-r6kGs or yG-r6ks ‘He bites’ yG-ö6tGx or yG-ö6tx ‘He uproots’ b. yG-g6dGr not *yG-g6dr ‘He puts to sleep’ yG-s6dGö not *yG-s6dö ‘He curses’ yG-f6t’Gm not *yG-f6t’m ‘He closes’

18

SOUND MUTATIONS

By not appearing as the second member of a word-final cluster, ö patterns with the sonorants r and m, and not with continuant obstruents. Furthermore, r can be the first member of a final sonorant-obstruent cluster, e.g. yG-g6rz ‘he ages’, but it must be separated by the epenthetic vowel G from a final sonorant, e.g. yGk’6rGm ‘he insults’, not *yG-k’6rm, and yG-t’6rGr ‘it clarifies’, not *yG-t’6rr. In this respect too, ö functions like the sonorant m, and not like the voiced fricative z, e.g. yG-s6rGö ‘he spins’, not *yG-s6rö. Conversely, two final fricatives may be separated by G, (15a), while a sonorant-fricative cluster cannot, (15b). (15)

Fricatives vs. sonorants a. yG-r6fGs or yG-mesGx or yG-w6zGf or b. *yG-g6rGz but *yG-t’6öGs but *yG-g6mGs but

as a first yG-r6fs yG-mesx yG-w6zf yG-g6rz yG-t’6ös yG-g6ms

member of a word-final cluster ‘It winds’ ‘He chews’ ‘He procrastinates’ (< ) ‘He gets old’ ‘He roasts sth’ ‘He breaks off in chunks’

The data in (15a) show that a final obstruent-obstruent cluster can be syllabified as CGC or CC whereas the final sonorant-obstruent cluster in (15b) can only be syllabified as CC (CGC in the left column of (15b) is illicit). Here, too, ö patterns with sonorants because it cannot be separated from a final continuant obstruent by G. We have seen, cf. (4b) vs. (5b), that the spirant x strengthens when followed by a [+] radical. Had ö been a spirant on a par with x, we would have observed the same type of root structure constraint. For instance, ö should have strengthened before a fricative and it should have remained a spirant elsewhere. But this is not what happens, ö can be a continuant before a fricative, e.g. yG-d6ös ‘it enlarges’ and it can be a stop before a nonfricative, e.g. b6t6r ‘has become first’. In this respect, ö parallels the sonorant r, to be discussed below, and not the obstruent x. This also lends support to the claim that ö is a sonorant and not a spirant. But see Petros (1995: 429) for an earlier, different, opinion on this. Another argument that ö is a sonorant comes from a class of verbs with a doubled final radical (C16C2C3GC3 in the Jussive), exemplified in (16) below. The common characteristic of these verbs is that their C2 is, and must be, a sonorant: r in (16a), m in (16b) and ö in (16c). (16)

Some verbs with C16C2C3GC3 Jussive pattern a. d6rzGz ‘Be very blunt!’ s6rtGt ‘Feel ill at ease always!’ g6rdGd ‘Cut in big logs!’


b.

c.

t’6msGs x6mtGt k’6mt’Gt’ G]-k6örGr g6özGz k’6özGz

19

‘Make hop dough!’ ‘Be physically underdeveloped!’ ‘Wrinkle!’ ‘Roll!’ ‘Become numb!’ ‘Be inert, blind!’

The verbs listed here show that every sonorant consonant can appear in C2 of the C16C2C3GC3 pattern whereas no hypothetical verb such as *s6xt’Gt’ in which C2 is an obstruent is found. See also Prunet and Petros (1996), examples (5a), (11b), (13b) and (16b) for an exhaustive list of 23 local-movement verbs with a similar pattern, in which there is no verb with an obstruent in C2. (The apparent counterexamples such as (GN-)wGfarGr ‘roll up!’ is derived from w6f6r ‘has covered’, which in my view derives from –sIfr.) This matching of ö with sonorants in templatic positions again supports my claim that ö is a sonorant. That ö is [+] is also supported by verbs with an Imperfective C1GC2GC2 Jussive pattern such as sGkGk ‘drive a peg!’ Here, the underlying [+] of the spirant /x/ delinks and that explains its strengthening. However, ö does not strengthen in similar contexts, e.g. k’GöGö ‘shaves!’, not *k’GbGb. In this respect, ö parallels the approximant r, e.g. gGrGr ‘extract cheese!’, not *gGnGn. Moreover, x strengthens neither in word-initial position, e.g. x6p6ö ‘has encircled’, nor in post-N position, e.g. y6-]x6ö ‘let him find!’ whereas ö strengthens in both positions, e.g. b6ta ‘has taken’ and y6-mba ‘let him split!’, in which case it parallels r, e.g. n6pa ‘has split’ and a-n-n6pa ‘has not split’. These facts show that ö is an approximant like r and not a spirant like x. Two tokens of /r/ can be nonidentical in a stem. For instance, [r] in k’Gr6n6f ‘has struck many things down’ is a nonnasal because it is simplex whereas [n] is a nasal because it is an underlying geminate. On the contrary, two tokens of /x/ must be identical in a stem, e.g. y6-tG-mxax6r-o ‘let them take each other’s advice!’ and t6-mkak6r-o-m ‘they have taken each other’s advice’. The expected output from the latter example is *t6-mxak6r-o-m since the first [k] is simplex. But this is not what we obtain. We can observe that the approximant /r/ does not preserve its identity in a stem whereas the obstruent /x/ does. Now, consider the functioning of /ö/ in this regard. In t’Gö6b6s ‘has stir-fried sth’, the first token of /ö/ is an approximant because it is simplex whereas its second token is a stop because it is an underlying geminate. This shows that, in preserving identity for continuancy, /ö/ patterns with the approximant /r/, and not with the obstruent /x/. The labials /U/ and /ö/, and only them, become occlusives after /N/, e.g. a-N-U6t6r → ambw6t6r ‘has not drawn tight’ and a-N-ö6t6r → amb6t6r ‘has not

20

SOUND MUTATIONS

become first’ (see §5.4). The patterning of /ö/ with /U/ indicates that /ö/ is not a fricative. Moreover, /ö/ alternates with /U/ in many contexts. When labialized, /ö/ always becomes [w], e.g. yG-s6wr-k6 ‘one breaks you ( )’ and y6-swGr-k6 ‘let one break you ( )!’ from –sör whereas neither /f/ nor /x/ alternates with [w]. That /ö/ alternates with [w] also parallels the alternation between /r/ and [y] and supports the claim that /ö/ is a sonorant. In addition, Hetzron and Habte Mariam (1966: 21) show that, like sonorants and unlike obstruents, /ö/ does not block the movement of nasalization in the closely related Gurage language Inor. For instance, in words like y˜-ı˜-r˜6˜ö˜ -ı˜r˜ ‘he lives’, nasalization starts from the stem-initial /r˜/ and nasalizes every sonorant segment of the word. /ö/ is nasalized even though continuant obstruents block nasalization the way /x/ does in y˜-ı˜-r˜6˜xGö ‘he finds’. Some of the properties of fricatives, /x/, /ö/ and /r/ are summarized below for comparison ( = no, – = yes). Table 1.3. Some properties of fricatives, /x/, /ö/ and /r/ (17) I. Strengthen when geminated (CiCi) II. Strengthen when doubled (CiVCi#) III. Strengthen before a fricative IV. Have dissimilar allophones in a stem V. Strengthen a preceding /x/ VI. Be Cj in a cluster CiCj# VII. Be separated by G from a final obstruent VIII.Have laryngeal specification IX. Undergo initial strengthening (#C) X. Undergo post-N strengthening XI. Be C2 of C16C2C3GC3 (cf. (16)) XII Vocalize ([w/u, y/i]) XIII.Nasalize (Inor [ö˜ , r˜]) XIV.Found in prefixes

Fricatives

/x/

/ö/

/r/

– – – – –

– – – – – – –

– – – – – – –

– – – – – – –

Fricatives and /x/ differ in the first four properties (/ö/ and /r/ are either similar to fricatives or /x/ in this regard). Based on this, I distinguished fricatives and /x/. But fricatives and /x/ share the remaining ten properties and differ from /ö/ and /r/ in this regard. Due to this I categorized them in the class of continuant obstruents. On the other hand, /ö/ and /r/ share all the properties listed above and each differs in eleven (out of fourteen) properties from fricatives and in twelve properties from /x/. These, among others (to be added as we proceed), lead me to put /ö/ and /r/ together in one class — approximant consonants.


21

Phonetically, ö is an approximant. It is produced by approximating the lips (as when blowing slowly with no puffing sound) but without bringing them into contact to create friction (see Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 232 for a discussion of such sounds). A similar remark about ö in Amharic is made in Cohen (1970: 31) “souvent, surtout entre deux voyelles, le relâchement est tel qu’il ne se produit pas d’occlusion; on entends alors la spirante bilabiale sonore b¯ [my ö]” but questioned in Leslau (1992: 625) who says this is “to be reexamined.” My claim extends Cohen’s proposal in that [ö] is always produced without friction. In addition, a phonetic experiment is conducted to see the similarities and difference that ö shows with other approximants and continuant obstruents. The Spectrograms clearly showed that ö is much more similar to the approximant w than to the labiodental fricative f, the voiced fricative z or the spirant x. The approximation of the lips and the [Labial] specification of /ö/ make it a bilabial approximant. That it is phonetically continuant and voiced follows from the fact that it is an approximant and therefore need not be specified. This may explain why [voice] in ö is absent, as it does not license a preceding doubly linked [voice], e.g. s6dd6ö → s6t6ö (not *s6d6ö) ‘has cursed’ vs. agg6d → ag6d (not *ak6d) ‘has tied’. It does not trigger voicing assimilation either, e.g. yG-tö6n6s (not *yG-d-ö6n6s) ‘it is being toppled’. So far, I have established that ö in Chaha is a sonorant — more precisely, an approximant. 1.3.2 The liquid /r/ and the nasal /N/ The liquid vs. nasal contrast is neutralized in stems in favor of the liquid /r/, which nasalizes when it is word-initial, doubly linked or a penultimate coda (see Chapter 4). Even though there are some stems with surface minimal pairs it will be shown in §4.8 that their contrast can be analyzed as one of length. A surface minimal pair of [r] and [n] is also found in suffixes, e.g. yG-k6ftG-r-a ‘he opens it for her’ vs. yG-k6ftG-n-a ‘he opens (the door for) her’. However, I will argue in §9.4.4 that [n] in the second example is a nasalized and simplified /rr/. If my arguments are correct it follows that the above contrast is one of length and is not phonemic. In addition, I have not found a prefix containing an [r]. This also suggests that r and n are not contrastive but the phoneme found in prefixes is an /N/, instead of the /r/ found in stems and suffixes. The nasal in the prefixes function as a geminate in some respects so it is possible to see it as a geminate nasal or liquid (see §4.9.3). However, I will postulate an /N/ with a limited distribution, i.e. only in prefixes (and in its geminated form) and a handful of nouns discussed in §4.8, as a remnant of the Proto Ethio-Semitic alveolar nasal.

22

SOUND MUTATIONS

When a stem-final /r/ is followed by a suffix-initial /r/ they yield the third allophone [ll] of /r/. The sound r behaves like an approximant both phonetically and phonologically. For instance, it can be palatalized as in sGöGr-I → sGöGy → sGöi ‘break ( )!’ Nasalized allophones of /r/ agree in place with the following obstruent, resulting in [m/X/n/^/\/]]. The nasal absorbs I, a trigger of palatalization, but it does not become palatal phonetically, t’6n-I → t’6n (not *t’6^) ‘give birth ( )!’ In my view, like all other sonorants, /r/ and /N/ are unspecified for [voice]. 1.3.3 The high vocoids /U/ and /I/ Chaha has two glides/vowels /U/ and /I/. These are very rarely realized as [w/u] and [y/i]. Mostly, /U/ floats leftward to labialize the leftmost labializable consonant (labial or velar) and to palatalize an adjacent coronal obstruent (see §7.2.2 and Petros 1996b: 170–1). Because /U/ is labiodorsal, its labial part labializes whereas its dorsal part palatalizes, e.g. f6s6U → f w6w6 ‘he has farted’. Furthermore, a post-N /U/ surfaces as an obstruent [bw], e.g. a-N-U6t’a → ambw6t’a ‘he has not gone out’ (§5.4.3). Noninitial independent [w]’s can also be found as in yG-s6ör-U-k6 → yG-s6wr-k6 ‘one breaks you ( )’, but they are derived from ö(…)U → öw → w. When immediately preceded by the vowels [G], [6] or [a], an independent [w] may fuse with them to form the back round vowels [u], [o] and [f] respectively. An independent [y] is found only in word-initial affixes such as yG-s6ör-6ma (3-break- ) ‘they () break’. Normally, /I/ floats leftward to palatalize an immediately preceding coronal or a leftmost velar. But when an initial radical is not palatalizable, a second-radical /I/ floats rightward to palatalize a third-radical velar, e.g. mI6gg6r → m6ky6r ‘has burnt sth’. Noninitial independent [y]’s are found, e.g. yG-sy6 ‘he buys’ and tG-k6ft-o-y-6ma ‘you () open (the door) for them ()’, but they are derived from r(…)I → ry → y. When immediately preceded by the vowels [G], [6] or [a], an independent [y] may fuse with them to form the front vowels [i], [e] and [7] respectively. 1.3.4 Vowels The vowels /G/, /6/ and /a/ are central. They are basic vowels which, combined with /U/ and /I/, can produce the back and the front vowels (see Polotsky 1951: 18). They may serve as a trace of an etymological radical, Gsat ‘fire’ from –‘st, 6rGö ‘milk!’ and an6ö ‘has milked’, from –h» lb. The close central [G] is epenthetic whereas the mid central [6] is underlying. While [a] is central phoneti-


23

cally it sometimes behaves as if it includes /I/. I know of two such cases. The first is that it alternates with palatalization, e.g. xar ‘has known’ vs. yG-çGr ‘he knows’ (see §3.4.1 for a discussion). Second, it alternates with [y6], e.g. ag6d ‘has tied’ vs. at-y6g6d ‘has caused to be tied’. Due to these, I place it with both front and central vowels, in the vowel chart given in (2). This can also be interpreted as saying that there are two underlying sources for [a].

1.4

Feature specification and underspecification

In this book I will assume Radical Underspecification in which the unmarked feature value of a class of segments is phonologically unspecified. Crucially, I will accept that laryngeal features are monovalent and that sonorants and plain voiceless stops have no laryngeal specification. The following redundancy rules assign features for segments that lack laryngeal specification. (18)

[−] → [stiff vocal cords] [+] → [voice]

In addition, approximants and plain voiceless stops are unspecified for continuancy. The following redundancy rules assign features for segments that lack continuancy specification. Notice, however, that [+] in obstruents and [−] in sonorants are marked values so they are specified in . (19)

[−] → [−] [+] → [+]

These redundancy rules are used for phonetic interpretation only, i.e. none of the features introduced by these rules are mentioned in the phonology of Chaha.

1.5

Syllabification

1.5.1 Syllable structure Phonetically, Chaha has light (CV), heavy (CVC) and super heavy (CVCC) syllables, exemplified in (20a–c), respectively. There is no CV vs. CVV contrast for the same vowel but vowels normally shorten as we go from a to i/u. A super heavy syllable can be found only word-finally. A syllable without onset can be found word-initially, e.g. 6rc ‘boy’. Most word-initial vowels are central (G, 6, a) and no word begins with i or u. (Leslau 1992: 120 cites ur6m but according to

24

SOUND MUTATIONS

me this should be wGr6m ‘truth’.) Onsetless syllable can also be found suffixinitially if the suffix begins with a central vowel, e.g. t’7-6na ‘my sheep’, see §1.7. (But see Ford 1991 for a different view.) (20)

a. b. c.

xi gGöa mac s6mbGt z6\gy marx

‘Dig a hole!’ (  from –xrI) ‘Enter!’ (  from –göA) ‘Get mad!’ (  from –mAtI) ‘Sojourn!’ (  from –sröt) ‘Speak!’ (  from –zrgI) ‘Capture!’ (  from –mArx)

The Imperatives of (20a) derive from triradical roots whereas those of (20b, c) derive from quadriradical roots. Yet, the Imperatives in (20a) as well as those in (20b, c) do not have a uniform syllable structure. This shows that, as argued for in Prunet (1996a), the surface syllable structure does not really tell us much about the underlying content of Gurage words, their minimal and maximal weight, and so on. These and other similar problems have in fact led some specialists of Ethiopian Semitic languages to analyze /A/ as a consonant (e.g. Prunet 1996b), peripheral vowels as long underlyingly (e.g. Lowenstamm 1991) and consonants with secondary articulation as biphonemic (e.g. Prunet and Petros 1996). Due to these discrepancies in the surface syllable structure, I will base my analysis mainly on the root segments rather than their surface syllable structure. 1.5.2 Stress Main stress in Chaha falls on the penultimate syllable. Whether this syllable is closed, (21a), or open, (21b), makes no difference. Similarly, the weight of the final syllable does not matter. (21)

The site of main stress a. y6¢öd6r ‘Let him be first’ néçni ‘(You ( )) come for me’ tF¢- söGr ‘Let her break sth’ b. y6ts6¢ö6r ‘Let him/it break’ y6ts6ö6¢ro ‘Let them () break’ y6ts6ö6r6¢ma ‘Let them () break’

The main diagnosis to identify the stressed nucleus is to try to lengthen (with exaggeration — as in singing) just one vowel from the word.


25

1.5.3 Epenthetic vowel The epenthetic vowel in Chaha is [G]. In general, it is used to separate an initial cluster of two distinct consonants (or glides), a final cluster of two consonants when the second member is a sonorant and a cluster of three or more consonants in any position. (See Rose 1997 for detailed discussion of epenthesis in Chaha and other Ethiopian Semitic languages.) The data in (22) exemplify initial clusters separated by [G]. In fast speech, especially before sonorants, the [G] is hardly audible. This led some researchers (see e.g. Leslau 1992: 120) to accept initial Cr clusters, which I do not accept. (22)

wGy6 / yGw6d6r6 nGw6r-i / wGr6j-i nGm6d / mGra fGta / tGfa t’Gk’Gr / k’Gt’Gr

‘honey / mat (to preserve and eat food) ‘Let one live! / Descend!’ ‘Love! / Fill!’ ‘Untie! / Slap!’ ‘Hide! / Kill!’

A medial cluster of any two adjacent consonants or glides (including the mirror image) is allowed. Thus, no [G] is inserted to break the medial clusters in (23). (23)

t6-wy6 / wayw6t yG-s6rö-o / yG-s6ör-o yG-f6rd-o / yG-g6dr-o yG-k6ft-o / yG-k6tf-o yG-r6t’k’-o / yG-r6k’t’-o

‘with honey / name of a female deity’ ‘They () spin / break’ ‘They () judge / put to sleep’ ‘They () open / hash’ ‘They () snatch / kick’

On the other hand, medial clusters of two consonants are separated by [G] if they are not adjacent in the , as the second column in (24) shows.5 (24)

a. b.

6m6r wGr6d nG-m6r nG-r6d

a-tG-m6r (not *atm6r) a-tG-r6d (not *atr6d) a-nG-m6r (not *amm6r) a-nG-r6d (not *ann6d)

‘(Don’t) believe!’ ‘(Don’t) descend!’ ‘Let me (not) believe!’ ‘Let me (not) descend!’

5. Notice that the stems -m6r and -r6d derive from –Amr and –wrd, respectively, i.e. m and r are not the initial segments of the respective stem in . Normally, (i.e. when these segments are stem initial in ), the second person /t-/ forms a cluster with a right-adjacent onset /m/, e.g. a-t-mec’ (negation2-wash) ‘you ( ) do not wash’. On the other hand, the first person /N-/ forms a geminate with a right-adjacent onset /m/ and /r/, as shown by the respective examples a-m-mec’ (negation-1-wash) ‘I do not wash’ and a-n-n6c’ (negation-1-snatch out) ‘I do not snatch out’.

26

SOUND MUTATIONS

These data also show that the C1 position remains even when the segment associated with it deletes. Note also that the w of –wrd does not delete when followed by a vowel, as in wGr6d ‘descend!’ and yG-w6rd ‘he descends’. This shows that [G] in (24) precedes the deleted stem-initial segment (if not, w would not delete). See §7.5.2 on w-deletion. Word-final clusters of two distinct consonants are allowed as long as the second member is an obstruent, as in the first column of (25a, b). Word-final clusters are broken when the two members are the same, (25c), or the second member is a sonorant, (25d). The contrast between the second column in (25a) and (25b) shows that a final cosonant-obstruent cluster can also be separated, (25a), unless the first member is more sonorous than the second member, as in (25b), in the sonority scale where sonorants > continuant obstruents > stops. (25)

Word-final clusters a. y-afs yG-k6tf yG-z6gd b. yG-k6ft yG-f6rd yG-g6rz c. *yG-g6dd *yG-k’6ff *yG-m6rr d. *yG-k’6rm *yG-k’6ör *yG-s6rö

of two consonants or y-afGs or yG-k6tGf or yG-z6gGd not *yG-k6fGt not *yG-f6rGd not *yG-g6rGz but yG-g6dGd but yG-k’6fGf but yG-m6rGr but yG-k’6rGm but yG-k’6öGr but yG-s6rGö

‘He scoops’ ‘He hashes’ ‘He remembers’ ‘He opens’ ‘He judges’ ‘He ages’ ‘He pierce’ ‘He clips’ ‘It is bitter’ ‘He insults’ ‘He buries, plants’ ‘He spins’

Looking at the second column of (25) reveals that only fricative-fricative, stopfricative and stop-stop word-final clusters (i.e. (25a)) can optionally be broken. However, the final clusters in a-]-k6f6t-xw ‘I did not open’ and a-n-d6n6g-ç ‘you ( ) did not hit’ cannot be broken possibly because the suffixes are analyzed as -xu and -xi, respectively. Medial clusters of three consonants are broken as C1C2GC3 when one of the following disjunctive conditions is satisfied: (a) C1 is a homorganic nasal derived from /r/, as in (26a), (b) C2 is an obstruent and C3 a sonorant, as in (26b), (c) C1C2C3 is a sonorant-fricative-stop cluster, as in (26c), or (d) C2 and C3 are the same as in (26d). (See §4.2.3 for the nasalization of /r/ in (26a), §4.4.3 and §6.4.2 for metathesis to syllabify /r/ as a coda.) They are broken as C1GC2C3 when C1 is an obstruent and C2C3 is a fricative-stop or sonorant-obstruent cluster, as in (26e). Otherwise, i.e. when none of the above conditions can be


27

achieved, they can be broken either way, (26f). However, I prefer the second alternate (i.e. the one with a heavy penult) in all these cases. (26) a. b. c. d. e. f.

y6-]gGd-o y6-gfGr-o yG-t’6ösG-te yG-k’6msG-te y6-gdGd-o y6-kGft-o y6-k’Grs-o y6-ktGf-o / y6-kGtf-o y6-zgGd-o / y6-zGgd-o y-a-zmGr-o / y-a-zGmr-o y6-k’rGm-o / y6-k’Grm-o y6-k’öGr-o / y6-k’Gör-o y6-srGö-o / y6-sGrö-o

‘Let them touch sth!’ ‘Let them release sth!’ ‘He is going to fry sth.’ ‘He is going to taste sth.’ ‘Let them pierce!’ ‘Let them open sth!’ ‘Let them start sth!’ ‘Let them hash sth!’ ‘Let them remember!’ ‘Let them sing!’ ‘Let them insult!’ ‘Let them bury, plant!’ ‘Let them spin!’

To sum up, there are three distinct sites of epenthesis. The first scans any two distinct word-initial consonants, (27a). This scanning applies before the other two. A cluster of three consonants C1C2C3 can be broken as C1C2GC3, C1GC2C3 or both depending on the nature of the consonants, as specified in (27b,c,d). (The conditions in (27b) are disjunctive so satisfying only one of them suffice whereas in (27c) the first condition must be satisfied and conjoined with one of the remaining two conditions).6

6. However, a cluster of three consonants is not broken if the first member is a placeless nasal and the following two members are assimilated consonants. In this case, the nasal consonant deletes by nasalizing a preceding vowel, e.g. a-N-t-dan6g → ã-d-dan6g ‘I do not fight’ and a-N-t-k’an6m → ã-t’k’an6m ‘I do not insult.’ Similarly, when the reflexive t- is flanked between the second person t- and a stem-initial stop or coronal (as in negative-2-reflexive-stem- ), e.g. a-t-t-dar6g-o [addar6go] ‘do not fight ( ) each other!’ a-t-t-k’ar6m-o [at’k’ar6mo / atk’ar6mo] ‘do not insult ( ) each other!’ and a-t-t-zam6d-o [adzam6do / atzam6do] ‘do not pull ( ) each other!’, one of the prefixal t’s delete so no epenthetic vowel is inserted. On the other hand, when the stem-initial consonant is nonstop or noncoronal (in which case t will not share a feature with C1), there is no t-deletion and G is inserted after the geminate tt, e.g. a-t-t-mar-o [attGmaro] ‘do not go to school!’, a-tt-öar6t’-o [attGöar6t’o] ‘do not outwit ( ) each other!’, a-t-t-fat’6r-o [attGfat’6ro] ‘do not lie ( ) to each other!’ and a-t-t-x6d6r-o [attGx6d6ro] ‘do not dress up ( )!’

28

SOUND MUTATIONS

(27)

Epenthesis sites of Chaha a. #C1___C2 (where C1 ≠ C2) b. C1C2___C3 (where C1 = /r/, C2C3 is obstruent-sonorant cluster, C1C2C3 is sonorant-fricative-stop cluster, or C2 = C3) c. C1__C2C3 (where C1 is an obstruent and C2C3 is sonorantobstruent or fricative-stop cluster) d. C1C2__C3 or C1__C2C3 (elsewhere)

If we replace C1 by V1, word-final clusters of two consonants fall under (27b,c,d). In other words, the consonants of V1C2C3# (where # = word-final) are separated if they are like the C2 and C3 of (27b). However, separation does not require that C2 in V1C2C3# be an obstruent, i.e. at least in my speech, a final sonorant cannot form a cluster with any consonant. The consonants of V1C2C3# are not separated if they are like the C2 and C3 of (27c), i.e. sonorant-obstruent or fricative-stop. Otherwise, i.e. where C2 and C3 of V1C2C3# are obstruents and C2 is less or equally sonorous as C3, C2 and C3 can be broken optionally (similar to (27d)). When there is a cluster of more than three medial consonants, syllabification starts from the first C1C2C3 and proceeds towards the right till every consonant is syllabified as specified in (27). For example, the consonants in y6-ktf-n-xma ‘let him hash sth for you (pl.f)!’ are syllabified as follows. The first three consonants (i.e. ktf) do not fall in any of the first three categories of (27) so (27d) dictates that G should be inserted after k or t, as shown in (28a). Then, the three consonants immediately following the G are tfn in the first column and fnx in the second. In both cases, G is inserted after f as in (28b). The three consonants immediately following the second G are nxm, which are syllabified as in (28c). (28)

/y6-ktf-n-xma/ a. y6kGtfnxma (by (27d)) or b. y6kGtfGnxma (by (27b)) c. y6kGtfGnxGma (by (27b)) [y6kGtfGnxGma]

y6ktGfnxma (by (27d)) y6ktGfGnxma (by (27c)) y6ktGfGnxGma (by (27b)) [y6ktGfGnxGma]

However, a prefix of the type VC- tends to form a cluster with a stem-initial consonant. Due to this, a-t- may cause separation of m from a following obstruent, (29a), and a fricative from a following stop, (29b). Such a separation contradicts (27c), which forms sonorant-obstruent and fricative-stop clusters. (29)

a. b.

a-t-mxr-o → atGmxGro / atmGxro a-t-ft’r-o → atGft’Gro / atfGt’ro a-t-zgd-o → a-tzGgd-o

‘Do not advise ( )!’ ‘Do not lie ( )!’ ‘Do not remember ( )!’


29

The C1C2__C3 / C1__C2C3 alternation holds even when it incurs an additional epenthetic vowel, e.g. y6-k’rGm-x6 / y6-k’GrmG-x6 ‘let him insult you ( )!’ but it cannot give rise to a …VCGCG… sequence, e.g. y-a-köGr-x6 (not *y-a-kGöGrx6) ‘let him respect you!’ Affixation does not alter a CiGCi syllabification. The consonants preceding and following the [G] of CiGCi are syllabified like any other consonant sequences. While syllabification in general functions as we have just discussed, there are some peculiarities that need to be mentioned. One of them is the interaction between gemination and epenthesis. First of all, even though [G] is normally inserted between two initial consonant clusters, it is also inserted before initial geminates, e.g. Gyya ‘I.’ (See §4.9.3 for a discussion and exhaustive list of such geminates.) The [G] is inserted also before a nongeminate N-, called the localmovement prefix in Prunet and Petros (1996), e.g. Gn-dGöan6r ‘be deformed.’ Notice also that, according to the context in (27d), three medial sonorants can be broken either way, e.g. /I-s6rö-n-o/ → [yGs6rGöno, yGs6röGno] ‘he spins them’. However, this holds only when the three consonants are distinct. In other words, if one of the clusters forms a derived surface geminate, e.g. /y-s6ör-n-o/ → [yGs6öGnno] ‘he breaks them’, this will be the only acceptable form, cf. *[yGs6örGno]. Besides, an underlying geminate or homorganic nasal-obstruent cluster cannot be broken to form a surface geminate, thus /I-s6ör-nd6/ → [yGs6örGnd6], not *[yGs6öGnnGd6]. The other point is that there are some [G]’s whose presence is not needed for syllabic wellformedness, e.g. Gxa ‘water’ ( wGha). Similarly, in some contexts, two intervocalic consonants cannot form a cluster unless they are adjacent in UR, e.g. /a-t-Uga/ → [atGga], not *[atga, adga], ‘do not stab!’ and /a-t-Ad6r/ → [atGd6r], not *[atd6r, add6r], ‘do not spend the night!’ (See §1.3 on assimilation, §7.5.2 on U-deletion, and Petros 1993a on A-deletion.) Based on these considerations we can analyze such [G]’s as reminiscent of a deleted preceding glide. However, one problem remains since, in other contexts, such as in the impersonal /g6f6r-U-öö-a-m/ → [g6fw6rpam] ‘one released to her detriment’, r and p form a cluster even though they are not adjacent in UR. Thirdly, there are cases in which final CiCi is not broken by [G] as in g6bb ‘calm’ which contrasts with the examples in (25c). (See Banksira 1999 for a discussion of such forms.) Besides, there are rare lexical exceptions such as amGst ‘five’, wrongly predicted by (27b) to be syllabified as *amsGt, and the cluster öny of G]k’yGöGny6 ‘brain’, predicted by (27d) to be syllabified as both the correct G]k’yGöGny6 and incorrect *G]k’yGönGy6. Finally, no [G] is inserted between a C and a glide docking on that C, e.g. y6-ft’I → y6-fc’, not *y6-fc’G ‘let him grind’ and y6-t’6rk’U → y6-t’6]k’w, not *y6-t’6]k’wG ‘let him become deaf’, which suggests that [G] is not an underlying segment.

30

SOUND MUTATIONS

1.5.4 Treatment of hiatus The central vowels 6 and a fuse with a following vowel, (30), but 6 has an impact only on a following close vowel. (See §9.4.4 and §9.5.5 for a proposal that the suffix -i and -e below derive from /-rI/.) (30)

a.

b.

tGk6-u f w6c6-i-m tGk6-o ag6d6-e-m tGk6-6çta tGk6-aç bora-u yG-f6t-6ma-i gweta-o yG-g6ö-6ma-e naöa-6çta naöa-aç

→ → → → → → → → → → → →

tGko f w6cem tGko ag6dem tGk6çta tGkaç borf yGf6t6m7 gweto yGg6ö6m7 naöaçta naöaç

‘It is a child’ ‘One released it/him’ ‘Oh child!’ ‘He tied me’ ‘her child’ ‘your ( ) child’ ‘It is an ox’ ‘They () release it/him’ ‘Oh God!’ ‘in order that they () enter’ ‘her waist’ ‘your ( ) waist’

The mid noncentral vowels e, o, 7 and f form hiatus with a following central vowel, (31a), whereas they form diphthongs when followed by other vowels, (31b). However, o becomes 6w before i, (31c). No other oi sequence is found to verify whether this process is peculiar to the masculine plural suffix -o or not. (31)

a.

b.

c.

gw6f6re-6ta bwGtGto-ax6 t’7-6na w6-t-k’f-6xno gw6f6re-u bwGtGto-u y6-t’7-u yG-t’6öt’-e-e yG-g6ö-o-e y6-t’7-e yG-t-k’f-e yG-t’6öt’-o-i

→ → → → → → → → → → → →

gw6f6re6ta bwGtGtoax6 t’76na w6t’k’f6xno gw6f6rey/wu bwGtGtowu y6t’7y/wu yGt’6öt’eye yGg6öowe y6t’7ye yGt’k’fwe yGt’6öt’6wi

‘his Afro’ ‘your ( ) worn out cloth’ ‘my sheep’ ‘their () drinking coffee’ ‘It is Afro’ ‘It is worn out cloth’ ‘it is for a sheep’ ‘in order that he catch me’ ‘in order that they () enter’ ‘towards the sheep’ ‘in order that he drinks coffee’ ‘they () catch him’

The hiatus in (31a) should be analyzed as a sequence of two syllables since the initial vowel of the suffix bears main stress, which falls on the penultimate syllable (see §1.5).


31

The high vowels i and u become the respective glides y and w in a VC___V context, (32a). On the other hand, they become the respective diphthongs Gy and Gw in CC___V and #C___V contexts, (32b). However, note that iu can also be realized as iyu and iwu. In addition, u-e is realized as uwe (not as Gwe) in y6c6k6r-xuw-e ‘because you ( ) cooked’. (32)

a. waöi-u sGöi-i y6-c6kw6r-i-e y6-c6kw6r-i-o abi-6ta

→ → → → →

abi-aç b6-t’u-u y-a-c6n6-xu-i y-a-c6n6-xu-e b6-t’u-6ta b6-t’u-aç

→ → → → → →

b. y6-k’w6^c’-i-e → y6-c6k6r-xu-i → t’u-6ta t’u-aç

→ →

waöyu sGöyi y6-c6kw6rye y6c6kw6ryo aby6ta

‘He is generous’ ‘(you (sg.f)) break him/it’ ‘because one cooked it’ ‘those cooked’ ‘his Abi (way of addressing elders)’ abyaç ‘your ( ) Abi’ b6t’wu ‘it is with breast’ yac6n6xwi ‘the one you ( ) brought’ yac6n6xwe ‘because you ( ) brought’ b6t’w6ta ‘on his breast’ b6t’waç ‘on your ( ) breast’ (swear-word) y6k’w6^c’Gye ‘because one despised him’ y6c6k6rxGwi ‘ t h e o n e y o u (       ) cooked’ t’Gw6ta ‘his breast’ t’Gwaç ‘your ( ) breast’ (swearword)

In all cases, the post-consonant glides are more closed and audible than the intervocalic glides. In a sequence of three vowels a medial high vowel becomes a glide, (33a), and a final high vowel inserts a glide before it, (33b). The oy in (33a) can also become 6w, as in yGt’6öt’6wye. Three nonhigh vowels form a hiatus, (33c). (33)

a. yG-t’6öt’-o-i-e → yGt’6öt’oyye ‘in order that they () catch him’ yG-f6t-6ma-i-e → yGf6t6maye ‘in order that they () release him’ b. yG-f6t-6ma-e-u → yGf6t6m7wu ‘it is that they () release’ tG-k’aw-i-e-u → tGk’awyewu ‘it is that you ( ) discard it’ tG-d6rgy-i-e-u → tGd6rgyGyewu ‘it is that you ( ) churn it’ c. yG-f6ta-e-e → yGf6t7e ‘in order that he release me’

32 1.6

SOUND MUTATIONS

Stems

1.6.1 Basic verb stems and verb types The basic verb stems are of two types: short or long template. Short template stems, (34a), have three and long template stems, (34b), have four consonants. (34) a. b.

Imperative sGöGr sGx6r s6mbGt

Imperfective tG-s6öGr tG-s6xGr tG-sr6p(G)t

Perfective s6p6r-x6-m ‘break sth’ s6k6r-x6-m ‘get drunk’ sGr6p6t-x6-m ‘sojourn’

In general, Transitive short template verbs have the C1C2C3 imperative stem, where an epenthetic G is inserted between the consonants following the epenthesis rules of §1.6. Only intransitive short template verbs have the Imperative stem sGx6r ‘get drunk!’ (i.e. C1C26C3). The verbs bGx6r ‘lack!’, nGm6d ‘love!’ and st’6I → sGt’e ‘drink!’ are exceptions in having the sGx6r stem irrespective of being transitive. The distinction of stem for transitive and intransitive verbs holds only in the Imperative of short template verbs. Accordingly, the nine stems of (34) can be generalized to the following seven stems. (35) a. b.

Imperative Imperfective Perfective  = C1C2C3 Triradical -C16C2(G)C3 C16C2C26C3 = C1C26C3 Quadriradical C16C2C3GC4 -C1C26C3C3(G)C4 C1(G)C26C3C36C4-

I assume that these seven stems exhaust the basic verb stems, which include only the root and vowels expressing aspect, which are intercalated between the radicals. I will use these stems in accounting for the sound and pattern alternations to be discussed throughout this book. (See Chapters 8 and 9 for subject and object affixes and their interaction.) As we proceed, it will become evident that the surface realization of the radicals /I, U, A/ and the geminated penult are the main factors of sound and pattern alternations. For the moment, I will only mention some of the assumptions and descriptive generalizations concerning the stems given in (35). First of all, C2C2 of the triradical and C3C3 of the quadriradical (i.e. the proposed underlying geminated penults) surface as simple but in these contexts we obtain the nasal [n] when the root is /r/, the stop [k] when the root is /x/, the voiceless fricative [s] when the root is /z/ and the voiceless stops [p, t, k] when the root is /ö, d, g/, respectively. (See Chapter 2 for restrictions on devoicing.) Plain and ejective voiceless segments and the nasal /m/ are not altered in this position.


33

An anonymous reviewer questioned the correctness of the proposed underlying geminates, suggesting that the sound alternations may be due to a sound restriction on the penult. However, there is at least one argument showing that strengthening and degemination are synchronic processes in Chaha. Consider the examples in (36). We see from (36a) that the 1. subject suffix is -x and from (36b) that the 2  object suffix is -x6. These two suffixes come together in (36c), where we have strengthening and degemination (xx → k). (36)

a. b. c.

s6p6r-x-n-o-m ‘I have broken them ()’ 6-s6öGr-x6 ‘I break you ( )’ s6p6r-x-x6-m → s6p6r-k6-m ‘I have broken you ( )’

Strengthening and degemination does not apply in all contexts. For instance, we have nax-xG-n-a-m (not *naknam) ‘I sent her’. Yet, the fact that they apply in (36c) show that they do apply in specified contexts.7 In order to understand how the root vocoids /I, U, A/ are realized phonetically consider the second person singular masculine conjugations in (37). In (37a–c) the stems include only three consonants, which may lead one to believe that they are triradicals similar to the Classical Arabic –ktb ‘write’. However, I will analyze these verbs as quadriradicals, paralleling (37d). Similarly, irrespective of the fact that the stems in (38a–c) include only two consonants I will analyze them as triradicals, paralleling (38d). Some of the reasons for my analysis are discussed immediately below. (See also Lowenstamm 1996b and Prunet and Petros 1996 on this issue.) (37)

(38)

a. b. c. d. a. b. c. d.

Imperative z6\gy t’6]k’w k’6mba s6mbGt sGç nGk’w k’Göa sGöGr

Imperfective tG-zr6ky tG-t’r6k’w tG-k’r6pa tG-sr6p(G)t tG-s6ç tG-r6k’w tG-k’6öa tG-s6öGr

Perfective zGr6ky6-x6-m t’Gr6k’w6-x6-m k’Gr6pa-x6-m sGr6p6t-x6-m s6ky6-x6-m n6k’w6-x6-m k’6pa-x6-m s6p6r-x6-m

‘speak’ ‘be deaf’ ‘hit, break at once’ ‘sojourn’ = (34b) ‘flee’ ‘roar’ ‘smear’ ‘break sth’ = from (34a)

7. I do not adopt the account suggested by the reviewer also because: (a) it cannot connect these sound alternations with the gemination found in the geminating dialects such as Eža, (b) it cannot establish a relationship between nasalization, strengthening and devoicing, (c) it cannot link these processes with gemination and it cannot relate them to compensation (§2.2.7 and §6.3), and (d) these processes apply even in affixes so we cannot link them with the penult of the stem.

34

SOUND MUTATIONS

In the Imperative, C1 of a quadriradical is followed by [6], (37d). The fact that C1 in the Imperative of (37a–c) is also followed by [6] shows that these are quadriradicals. Conversely, C1 of a triradical is followed by [G], (38d), whereas C1 in the Imperative of (37a–c) is not, showing that the latter are not triradicals. In addition, the second radical /r/ of a quadriradical becomes nasal in the Imperative, (37d). The fact that the second radical /r/ of (37a–c) is a nasal in the Imperative also shows that these forms are quadriradicals. Note that the second radical /r/ of a triradical does not nasalize in the Imperative, e.g. dGrg (not *dG]g) ‘hit!’ In the Imperfective, [6] of a quadriradical is preceded by two root consonants, (37d). The fact that [6] in the Imperfective of (37a–c) is also preceded by two root consonants shows that the forms in (37a–c) are also quadriradicals. Conversely, [6] of a triradical is preceded by a single root consonant, (38d), whereas [6] in the Imperfective of (37a–c) is not, showing that these are not triradicals. In addition, the penult is fortitioned in the Imperfective of quadriradicals, e.g. b devoices in (37d), while it is not in the triradicals, cf. (38d). The fact that ky in (37a) and p in (37c) are devoiced shows that these forms are quadriradicals. Similarly, that we have the respective consonants ç and ö, and not ky and p, in the Imperfective of (38a, c) demonstrates the absence of fortition in this class, again showing that these forms pattern with triradicals. In the Perfective, the subject suffix -x6 is immediately preceded by the final radical, as in (37d) and (38d). However, such a radical is lacking in (37a–c) and (38a–c) since the suffix is immediately preceded by a vowel. In other words, the phonetic stem-final vowels are not final in . Notice that only the penultimate consonant is flanked by the Perfective vowels 6-6, again showing that the surface last consonant of these stems is in fact the penult in . Moreover, no [G] follows C1 of a triradical Perfective verb whereas C1 in (37a–c) is followed by [G] indicating that these apparent triradicals are in fact quadriradicals. Based on these arguments and others to be discussed throughout this book, I claim that the final radical of (37a, 38a) is /I/, that of (37b, 38b) is /U/, and that of (37c, 38c) is /A/. In these examples, /I/ and /U/ surface on the preceding consonant as palatalization and labialization respectively whereas /A/ surfaces as an independent [a]. In the same manner, I analyze the surface triradicals of (39a–c) as vocoidsecond quadriradicals and the surface biradicals of (40a–c) as vocoid-second triradicals, i.e. C2 is /I/ in (39a, 40a), /U/ in (39b, 40b) and /A/ in (39c, 40c), where the vocoids are realized as discussed in the previous paragraph. (The a raise to 6 in the Imperfective of (40c) but raising does not apply when the surface final radical is biphonemic, e.g. tG-mac ‘you get mad’ from –mAtI. See Petros 1993a on this issue.)

35


(39)

(40)

a. b. c. d. a. b. c. d.

Imperative g6p(G)t bw6rs marx s6mbGt k’yGm k’wGm dak’ sGöGr

Imperfective tG-gy6p(G)t tG-w6ns tG-manx tG-sr6p(G)t tG-k’y6m tG-k’w6m tG-d6k’ tG-s6öGr

Perfective gy6p6t-x6-m bw6n6s-x6-m man6x-x6-m sGr6p6t-x6-m k’y6m-x6-m k’w6m-x6-m dak’-x6-m s6p6r-x6-m

‘gallop’ ‘feel lonely’ ‘capture’ ‘sojourn’ ‘win’ ‘stand still’ ‘laugh’ ‘break’

The I-second quadriradical of (39a) represents the verb class known as type B, (39b) represents type D, and (39c) represents type C. The claim that these forms has a second radical vocoid which fuses with a preceding segment explains why surface biradicals conjugate like triradicals (i.e. they utilize the stems of (35a)) and surface triradicals conjugate like quadriradicals (i.e. they utilize the stems of (35b)).8 In some contexts, the radical /I/ surfaces as a front vowel ([i], [e] or [7]) and /U/ surfaces as a back round vowel ([u], [o] or [f]). This happens mostly when the vocoids cannot find a legitimate consonant to dock onto. A radical /I/ docks on: (a) an immediately preceding lingual consonant (i.e. coronal or dorsal), as in the examples (37a), (38a), (39a), (40a, b) any preceding dorsal consonant given that no lingual consonant intervenes, e.g. a-ç6p-x6-m ‘you ( ) have crouched’ from –xöI, and (c) an immediately following dorsal consonant if (a) and (b) cannot apply, e.g. m6ky6r-x6-m ‘you ( ) have burnt sth’ from –mIgr. In the absence of these three contexts, /I/ surfaces as a vowel, e.g. nG-sif ‘let me sew’ and sef6-xwG-m ‘I have sewn’ from –sfI. See §7.5 and §7.6 on the realization of a radical /U/. 1.6.2 Stems expanded by affixation Nonreduplicated triradicals can maximally have seven different conjugation Forms (comparable to the seven Benyan of Tiberian Hebrew), as shown below by –rxö ‘find’. (F2 is parenthesized below to indicate that the given Form is hypothetical as –rxö does not conjugate for F2 but there are roots such as –sxr ‘get drunk’ with F2 conjugation, e.g. y-a-sxGr / y-a-s6xGr / a-s6k6r-. I analyze atas a single causative prefix and not as the transitive prefix a- followed by the reflexive t-, see below for arguments.)

8. For analyzing the traditional type B and type C verbs as quadriradicals, see e.g. Rose (1992), Petros (1993a, b), Prunet and Petros (1996), Prunet (1996a) and Chamora (1997).

36

SOUND MUTATIONS

(41) Basic stem F1 a-stems F2 F3 t66-stems F4 F5 at-stems F6 F7

Imperative nGx6ö (a-]xGö a-raxGö t6-r6x6ö t6-rax6ö at-r6xGö at-raxGö

Imperfective tG-r6xGö t-a-r6xGö t-a-rakGö tG-t-r6k6ö tG-t-rak6ö t-at-r6kGö t-at-rakGö

Perfective n6k6öa-r6k6ö-) a-rak6öt6-r6k6öt6-rak6öat-r6k6öat-rak6ö-

‘find’ (hypothetical) ‘announce search’ ‘be found’ ‘meet’ ‘show’ ‘introduce’

The initial prefix of the second person Imperfective is t- but an epenthetic G is inserted after t in the Basic and t6-stems to separate it from the following consonant. The penult is invariably [x] (the underlying form) in the Imperative and [k] (the fortitioned form) in the Perfective. The Imperfective has mixed forms, [x] only in F1 and F2 and [k] in the remaining paradigms. The vocalism of the expanded stems is as follows. The two final radicals are separated by 6 in all Forms in the Perfective and in all aspects in the t6-stems. Otherwise, the two final radicals are not separated by an underlying vowel. The two initial radicals are adjacent in the Imperative of F1 and F2 (the forms without fortition in the Imperfective), they are separated by an infix -6- in F4 and F6, and by an infix -a- in F3, F5 and F7. When attached to a free stem, the prefixes a-, t6- and at- alter the argument structure of the verb. (See Petros 1994 on their role in prefix necessitating stems). The prefix a- transitivizes an intransitive verb, e.g. w6t’a ‘go out’ vs. a-w6t’a ‘take out’. It slightly modifies the meaning of some transitive verbs, e.g. b6na ‘eat’ vs. a-ö6na ‘feed’, z6g6d ‘remember’ vs. a-z6g6d ‘remind’ and t’6ö6t’ ‘hold’ vs. a-t’6ö6t’ ‘give to someone to hold, bet’ and t6k6s ‘burn’ vs. a-t6k6s ‘light’. The prefix t6- (only initially, otherwise it is t-) makes the verb reflexive, e.g. 6gr-6ta t6-s6p6r- ‘he broke his leg’, or ergative, e.g. injapa t6-s6p6r- ‘the bowl broke’. While we have the interpretations in (42a–c), the prefix at- does not convey the meaning in (42d), suggesting that at- is not decomposable. (42)

Internal structure a. kft = Open () b. t-kft = Open () c. at-kft = Cause to open () d. a-t-kft = Cause to open ()

‘X opens the door’ ‘The door opens’ ‘Y causes X to open the door’ *‘Y causes the door to open’

This predicts that ergative verbs may not take a-, which is confirmed by the impossibility of having *a-w6t’6k’ ‘X cause Y to fall’ from *w6t’6k’ ‘Y fall’. Combined with the prefixes t6- the infix -a- expresses reciprocity so it requires that the subject be plural as in y6-t-rax6ö-o ‘let them meet’ (= find each


37

other). When the subject is not in the plural it expresses a habitual or repeated action as in zGx wGr yG-t-waka ‘this bull fights’ (= has the habit of fighting). Combined with at- the -a- expresses causation of reciprocity so it requires that the object be plural as in y-at-raxGö-n-o ‘let he introduce them’ (= cause them to find each other). Nouns and adjectives can be expanded by prefixing a-, t6- or atas shown in a-t’Grk’w-Gy6 ‘dried (kind of bread)’ (from –t’rk’), t6-m6nˇnˇ-at ‘hope’ (from –mIrI), at-wac’-at ‘contribution’ (from –wt’A). However, nouns and adjectives with similar prefixes are very rare and their stems do not have a fixed pattern. 1.6.3 Stems expanded by reduplication Chaha displays three types of reduplication. These are medial CCiVCiC (also known as frequentative), final (C)CCiVCi and total CiVCjCiVCj reduplication. The reduplicated forms can also be expanded by affixing a-, t6- or at-. Transitive triradicals and vocoid-second quadriradicals reduplicate their penultimate radical to form what is known as the frequentative, as shown below. Consonants with labialization or palatalization are manipulated as a single unit in reduplication, e.g. m6w6- ‘became night’ vs. a-mwaw6 ‘stayed till night’. Vowels of the unreduplicated base, e.g. a of c’aöGr are not retained when reduplicated, e.g. c’GöaöGr, (43d). As exemplified in (43f), some forms need a prefix to be reduplicated. Triradicals with a penultimate /A/ can reduplicate their C1 if C1 is preceded by a prefix, e.g. from t6-wad ‘share’ we obtain t6-w6w6d ‘share among many people’, from a-dak’ ‘make laugh’ we get a-d6d6k’ ‘make laugh repeatedly’, and from t6-ç6r ‘be known’ we derive the reflexive frequentative t6-ç6ç6r ‘introduce each other’.9 (43) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Verbs with a reduplicated penult (= Frequentative) Root Imperative Imperfective Perfective sör sGö6öGr tG-sö6pGr sGö6p6r-x6-m rgd nGgag(G)d tG-rgag(G)d nGgag6d-x6-m rxö t6-rx6x6ö tG-tG-rk6k6ö t6-rk6k6ö-x6-m t’IAör c’GöaöGr tG-c’öapGr c’Göap6r-x6-m mIt’r mGt’6t’Gr tG-mt’6t’Gr mGt’6t’6r-x6-m k’Umr t6-k’wmam6r tG-t-k’wmam6r t6-k’wmam6r-x6-m

‘smash’ ‘stir’ ‘be visible’ ‘pare’ ‘sort out’ ‘encouraged’

9. The x is palatalized in all prefixed stems of xar, e.g. t6-ç6r ‘be known’, a-ç6r ‘become clear’ and at-ç6r ‘inform’.

38

SOUND MUTATIONS

An underlying vowel 6 or a always separates the first two consonants from the last two. The choice among 6 and a in this position seems arbitrary, cf. (43a) and (43b). There are some verbs in which the two vowels are in free variation, e.g. mGt’6t’6s/mGt’at’6s ‘has broken a cord in many pieces’ from –mIt’s. The syllable with this vowel (underlined in sGö6öGr and nGgag(G)d) is considered as the reduplicant, infixed before the penultimate radical. However, so far, no solid arguments have been found in support of this view (the only argument mentioned so far is the fixed vowel of the syllable). It is possible, for example, to see sGö6öGr as totally reduplicated –sör linked to a CC6CC frequentative template by edge-in association with the unassociated consonants being truncated, as shown in (44). See Yip (1988) for edge-in association and Inkelas and Zoll (1999) for a claim that all types of reduplication are better analyzed as double stem selection. (44)

s | C

ö | C

r

→

Ø

6

Ø

←

s

C | ö

C | r

This analysis can solve the problem of infixation (or circumfixing part of the root constituent as a base of reduplication) since no reduplicative infix is involved. It can also solve the problem of copying directionality in that, now, copying proceeds in an edge-in fashion whereas in an analysis where ö alone is copied, copying does not proceed from an edge. However, this book will not develop the issue any further. Some roots reduplicate their final radical. With final reduplication, biradicals function like triradicals and triradicals function like quadriradicals. (45) a. b.

Verbs with final reduplication Root Imperative Imperfective k’ö k’GöGö tG-k’6öGö ör bGr6r tG-ö6rGr brg b6rgGg tG-ör6gGg

Perfective k’6p6ö-x6-m ‘shave’ b6n6r-x6-m ‘fly’ bGr6g6g-x6-m ‘be startled, bolt’

The two copies are always separated by either epenthetic or underlying vowel but exceptionally no such vowel is found in tG-f6zz ‘you get better’. Bound stems with one or two surface consonant may undergo total reduplication, as shown in (46).


(46) a. b. c.

Verbs with total reduplication Root Imperative Imperfective sA sasa tG-sasa t’m t’6t’Gm tG-t’m6t’Gm gUz gw6zgwGz tG-gwz6gwGz

39

Perfective sasa-x6-m ‘become thin’ t’Gm6t’6m-x6-m ‘roll’ gwGz6gw6z-x6-m ‘spread’

The patterning of –gUz with this class indicates that gw here functions as a single consonant. While five totally-reduplicated verbs with a rounded velar are found (out of total 54) only kyGf6ky6f ‘has drizzled’ has a palatalized velar and no verb of this class contains a rounded labial. The complex consonant is always the first member. (See §6.3 for the deletion of the penult in the Imperative of (46b).) The three types of reduplication are seen also in nouns and adjectives, e.g. nGk’6k’6mwac6 ‘collected, tiny’ (from –rk’m), m6rd6d ‘sickle’ (from –mrd), fGrfGr ‘worm’ (from –fr) and can be analyzed in a similar fashion.

1.7

Conclusion

In this chapter I briefly discussed the phonemes, syllables and stems of Chaha. I have concluded that: (a) sonorants and /t/ lack laryngeal specification whereas ejectives are [constricted glottis], voiceless fricatives are [spread glottis] and voiced obstruents are [voice], (b) /ö/ is an approximant while its allophones [b, p] are obstruents, (c) the spirant /x/ differs form both fricatives and approximants, (d) plain voiceless stops [p, k] are not underlying phonemes, (e) phonemes with laryngeal specification (obstruents other than t) are not licensed in prefixes, and (f) the contrast between the liquid /r/ and the placeless nasal /N/ is neutralized in verb stems. But there are instances of nonalternating /N/’s in a handful nominal stems and affixes which require postulating an /N/. Based on the discussions in this chapter the phonetic inventory of Chaha consonants given in (1) can be reduced to the following phonemic inventory.

40

SOUND MUTATIONS

Table 1.4. Phonemic inventory of Chaha consonants (47)

bilabial

Labiodental

Stops Voiceless ejective Voiceless Voiced

alveolar

palatal

t’ t d

Fricatives Voiceless Voiced

f

labiodorsal

guttural

k’ g

s z

A

Spirants Sonorants Nasal Approximant

velar

x m öœ

N r

I

U

Given that /I, U/ are not the only sources of peripheral vowels we will accept the phonetic vowel inventory of Chaha to be also the phonemic inventory. (But see Beyene (1973: 217) for a different generalization about Amharic vowel phonemes.) It is shown that some [a] derive from a radical /A/ but it has not been proven whether all [a]’s do. Despite the presence of [a]’s which function differently no contrast between an [a] coming from /A/ and /a/ has been identified. We will see now that geminate devoicing and degemination support the proposals of this chapter.

C 2 Geminate Devoicing and Degemination

2.1

Introduction

The penultimate obstruent radical of some Perfective verbs (which I call the m6k6r type) devoices in Chaha, cf. the contrast between Jussive and Perfective in (1a). On the other hand, other Perfective verbs (which I call the n6g6d type) do not devoice their penult, (1b). This chapter will attempt to account for the voicing difference in the penult of the m6k6r- and n6g6d-type verbs and will discuss its implications for theories of underspecification as well as the role of tier conflation on devoicing and degemination. (1)

Perfective penult devoicing vs. its absence a. m6k6r-type verbs Jussive Perfective y6-mg6r m6k6r ‘suppurate’ y6-sdGö s6t6ö ‘curse’ y6-z6sGm zGm6s6m ‘be wet’ y6-zaöt zap6t ‘lose one’s way’ y6-k’öGö k’6p6ö ‘shave’ b. n6g6d-type verbs Jussive Perfective y6-]gGd n6g6d ‘touch’ y6-ndGf n6d6f ‘sting’ y6-z6z(G)f zGf6z6f ‘soak’ y6-zGök’ z6b6k’ ‘daub’ y6-fz6z f6z6z ‘be better’

Devoicing occurs also in the Imperfective if: (a) the verb has the reflexive prefix t(6)-, e.g. yG-t-g6t6r ‘he goes to sleep’, from –gdr, or (b) the verb has the reciprocal infix -a-, e.g. y-a-dapGr ‘he associates with others’ from –dör (-a- is always infixed before the penultimate radical), or (c) the verb is a quadriradical, e.g.

42

SOUND MUTATIONS

yG-fr6kGr ‘he extirpates ’, from –frgr (cf. y6-f6]gGr ‘let him extirpate !’), yGj6pGr ‘he finishes ’ from –dIör (cf. y6-d6öGr ‘let him finish !’), and yG-zapGt ‘he loses his way’ from –zAöt (cf. y6-zaöt ‘let him lose his way!’). The prefix adiffers from the infix -a- and the prefix t(6)- in not triggering penult devoicing in the Imperfective, e.g. y-a-k’6öGr ‘he reduces ’ from –k’ör. Devoicing in the Imperfective behaves as in the Perfective and will not be discussed in this book. Devoicing may occur in the Jussive but only if there is a deleted radical to compensate for (see §2.2.7 and §2.3). According to Leslau (1976: 138), devoicing gives rise to a third type of Perfective pattern in the triradicals of Ethiopian Semitic languages. The three patterns are: the Geäez pattern (with a simple penult, e.g. s6b6r), the Amharic Pattern (with a geminate penult, e.g. s6bb6r), and the Chaha pattern (with a simple but devoiced penult, e.g. s6p6r). (Endegenˇ verbs have either a geminate, which is necessarily devoiced, or a simple penult.) In my view, devoicing is equivalent to gemination, i.e. m6k6r is an underlying /m6gg6r/ with a CVCiCiVC template. Thus, Amharic and Chaha have the same underlying pattern but degemination applies only in Chaha. Nonetheless, despite the fact that a geminate penult is common to all Perfective verbs in Amharic (and a few other languages: they are, according to Leslau 1976: 138, Argobba, Gafat, Eža, Muher, Masqan, Gogot and Soddo), the n6g6d-type Perfective verbs of Chaha do not devoice their penult. There are two ways of explaining this difference. The first is to divide verbs in two classes: (a) those which have underlying gemination, i.e. the m6k6r type, and (b) those which do not have such gemination, i.e. the n6g6d type. Such a division is made in McCarthy (1986a: 224, note 7), where it is claimed that zGm6s6m ‘be wet’ (from (1a)) has devoicing because it is reconstructed with a medial geminate while gGz6g6z ‘be cold’, (parallel to zGf6z6f of (1b)) has no devoicing because it is not reconstructed with a medial geminate. Nevertheless, note that all Perfective verbs have a geminate penult in languages that have the Amharic pattern and that this hypothesis will force us to lose this important generalization. It is possible to surmount this problem by assuming that Chaha combines the Amharic pattern (i.e. m6k6r type) and the Geäez pattern (i.e. n6g6d type). However, geminate strengthening (affecting x, e.g. y6-sx6r/s6k6r ‘get drunk’, discussed in Chapter 3) occurs in all Perfective verbs, showing that all of them have the underlyingly geminate penult of the Amharic pattern. Furthermore, geminate nasalization (affecting r, e.g. y6srGö/s6n6ö ‘spin’ and y6-dGrg/d6n6g ‘hit’, discussed in Chapter 4) occurs in all Perfective verbs, also showing that all of them have a geminate penult. It is therefore not plausible to create two classes of verbs which operate only in Chaha verbs with penultimate voicing alternation. Classifying verbs into the

GEMINATE DEVOICING AND DEGEMINATION

43

geminating type of m6k6r and the nongeminating type of n6g6d fails to capture the important generalization that, in every Ethio-Semitic language, verbs with an equal number of radicals employ a unique pattern for a given verbal aspect. It is not a plausible analysis also from a typological perspective as it adds a third language type in Ethiopic where only two (North and South) would be enough. Finally, I will show in this chapter that the voicing difference in the penult of the m6k6r- and n6g6d-type verbs is determined by the nature of the last radical, showing that classifying the two types on the basis of their pattern is unfounded. The second possibility, which I will argue for, consists in assuming that all Perfective verbs have an underlying geminate penult and explaining why such a penult in n6g6d-type verbs degeminates without being devoiced. Leslau (1979: lxxiv, vol III) takes a similar option but from a diachronic point of view. He states: “Harari and East Gurage have a non-geminated 2nd radical. As for West Gurage except Eža … the 2nd radical is likewise simple, but there are indications from diachronic point of view that the 2nd radical was geminated. Indeed, whenever the original 2nd radical is a geminated voiced … it appears as voiceless nongeminated … ” Various reasons as to why the original geminate penult in n6g6d-type verbs has not been devoiced are given in Leslau (1979: lxvii-lxxi, vol III). But his reasonings do not offer a unified explanation and fail to explain some exceptions to geminate devoicing. For example, the absence of devoicing in t6-c’ab6k’ ‘has been squeezed’ is attributed to “the tendency of avoiding a succession of three voiceless sounds *c’pk’” (p. lxviii) whereas such successions of sounds are found at the surface level, e.g. w6p6t ‘has chosen’. (Note, however, that according to my analysis, these forms are quadriradicals with the second radical being /I/, i.e. –t’Iök’ and –sIöt, respectively). Similarly, he attributes the absence of devoicing in n6g6d to “the presence of another voiced in the root” (p. lxix). But the presence of another voiced radical in the root does not necessarily block geminate devoicing, as in g6t6r ‘has put to sleep’ (from –gdr). Besides, there are words like n6z6k’ ‘has been fortunate’ which cannot be explained in either of these analyses. On the other hand, McCarthy (1986a: 210) claims that “devoicing of historical geminates was blocked just in case the voiced geminate appeared in a configuration […VC i C i VC i …] (as in add6d6) or […C i VC i C i V…] (as in a-rgagg6t’6).” This explanation may account for the blocking of geminate devoicing in verbs such as f6z6z ‘has been better’, from (1b). However, the devoicing of /gg/ in a verb such as wGgak6r ‘has changed repeatedly’ (from /wGgagg6r/), shows that these configurations do not necessarily block geminate devoicing. In addition, his explanation does not account for the absence of geminate devoicing in n6g6d since g here is not in such a configuration.

44

SOUND MUTATIONS

Hetzron (1977: 51–52), Leslau (1979: lxx, vol. III) and McCarthy (1986a: 219) invoke borrowing as the other factor to block devoicing. But this explanation cannot account for n6g6d, which is a native verb. Goldenberg (1994: 55) lists some native verbs without devoicing (i.e. n6g6d type) but does not give an explanation for the absence of devoicing in them. I will attempt to give a unified account for the absence of penult devoicing in n6g6d-type verbs. In particular, I will argue that both m6k6r-type and n6g6d-type verbs have an underlying geminate penult in the Perfective and that the voicing difference between them follows from the following two hypotheses:1 (2)

Hypotheses about geminate devoicing and degemination in Chaha: (first version) a. Geminates devoice and degeminate if they are the rightmost obstruent of a morpheme. b. Otherwise, they degeminate (without being devoiced).

What (2a) states is that geminate penultimate obstruents devoice and degeminate when the final radical is a sonorant whereas (2b) states that they degeminate without being devoiced when the final radical is an obstruent. In my view, the underlying representations of m6k6r and n6g6d are as follows: (3)

a.

C

6

C

C

6

C

m g r m6k6r ‘has suppurated’

b.

6

C

r g n6g6d ‘has touched’

d

C

6

C

C

In both (3a) and (3b), /gg/ is the penultimate radical and it is a geminate. It is also the rightmost obstruent in m6k6r since /r/ is not an obstruent. Because /gg/ in m6k6r is a geminate and the rightmost obstruent at the same time it devoices and degeminates, following hypothesis (2a). The /gg/ in n6g6d is also a geminate but the rightmost obstruent of the morpheme (i.e. the root) is d, not g. In addition, the rightmost obstruent d is not a geminate. So, neither g nor d satisfies the structural description of devoicing, (2a). Accordingly, /gg/ degeminates without being devoiced, following hypothesis (2b). In my account, what triggers devoicing in (3a) is not the presence of the final sonorant r but rather the absence of a final obstruent. The fact that g is the rightmost obstruent in (3a),

1. In the closest (to Chaha) dialect Eža, where there is neither devoicing nor degemination, the penult is a geminate in the Perfective of all verbs. This shows that the last radical does not play a role in determining whether the penult should geminate or not. It also strengthens my claim that all Chaha Perfective verbs have an underlying geminate penult.


45

but not in (3b), is what causes the voicing difference between the two. Adding a suffix with an obstruent such as -xu ‘2 ’ to (3a) does not block devoicing of /gg/, showing that a suffix does not change the rightmost-obstruent status of /g/. I argued in Chapter 1 that the underlying obstruents of Chaha are ejectives, fricatives and voiced stops and that the plain voiceless stops are not underlying phonemes, i.e. [p] is a devoiced and degeminated /öö/, [k] is a strengthened /x/ or a devoiced and degeminated /g/, and some [t]’s are a devoiced and degeminated /dd/. In addition, because [t] is the default consonant it does not behave like underlying obstruents. Due to this, /öö/ in zap6t ‘has lost the way’, from (1), is considered the rightmost obstruent, which devoices and degeminates following (2a). Furthermore, given the proposal that Chaha /ö/ is a sonorant (see §1.3.1), /dd/ in s6t6ö ‘has cursed’, from (1), is the rightmost obstruent, which devoices and degeminates, as predicted by (2a). Degemination (with or without devoicing) applies only to true geminates, in which a single phoneme is linked to two adjacent syllables. One type of true geminate is the stem-internal geminate shown in (3). The other type is a morpheme-internal geminate, e.g. yG-k6ft-o-öö-a → yGk6ftopa ‘they open  to her detriment’, where /öö/ surfaces as [p] (see §9.4). Because /öö/ here is the rightmost obstruent of the suffix it devoices and degeminates, following (2a). (Even though /öö/ is not a radical no obstruent follows the /öö/ in the suffix.) Fake geminates, which arise at a word boundary (e.g. gwad d6k [gwadd6k] ‘white calf’) or morpheme boundary due to assimilation (e.g. yG-t-d6m6d → yGdd6m6d ‘it combines’) neither devoice nor degeminate. So, it should be noted that our discussion in this chapter refers to true geminates. The nature of radicals preceding the penult plays no role in geminate devoicing. For instance, devoicing occurs in verbs such as zap6t ‘has lost one’s way’ and s6t6ö ‘has cursed’ (both from (1a)) regardless of the initial obstruents. Since the respective initial obstruents z and s do not block geminate devoicing, there is no reason why the initial obstruents z, f and g would block it in words such as z6b6k’ ‘has daubed’, f6z6z ‘has been better’ (both from (1b)) and g6d6f ‘has broken the lent’. The penult devoicing in zap6t, s6t6ö and m6k6r and its absence in z6b6k’, f6z6z and g6d6f must be attributed to their final radical. In the first three verbs, the final radical is a sonorant or t and the geminate penult is the rightmost obstruent in each root. Hence, devoicing and degemination apply according to hypothesis (2a). But the final radical in the last three verbs is an obstruent other than t and the geminate penult is not the rightmost obstruent in each root. Accordingly, degemination alone applies, which is in accordance with hypothesis (2b).

46

SOUND MUTATIONS

Even though my analysis accounts for the vast majority of Chaha verbs there are a handful of sonorant-final verbs in which geminate devoicing does not apply, e.g. mez6r ‘has counted’ or is optional, e.g. as6r/az6r ‘has carried on one’s back’. The hypothesis in (2a) predicts devoicing and degemination in such verbs because the geminate is the rightmost obstruent. Yet, degemination applies without devoicing. So these verbs are problematic to my analysis. We will notice as we proceed that the proportion of exceptions is higher in the coronal series, the only place where voiced and plain voiceless consonants contrast. It maybe that Chaha tends to retain this contrast forcing some geminate coronal penults to degeminate without being devoiced. In any case, all verbs with an underlying voiced penultimate radical will be discussed in this chapter, which is organized as follows. Verbs without a doubled radical are discussed in §2.2 and those with a doubled radical are discussed in §2.3. Devoicing and degemination in nouns and adjectives is discussed in §2.4, devoicing and degemination in affixes in §2.5, and absence of devoicing and degemination in §2.6. In §2.7, it is claimed that geminate devoicing and its absence (the hypothesis in (2)) follow from the assumption that sonorants and t are unspecified for laryngeal features and a claim that Chaha has a constraint which forbids a final doubly linked [voice]. As a summary, the percentage of verbs that supports or goes against the hypotheses is quantified in §2.8. The chapter also includes two appendices showing that the analysis proposed for Chaha extends to explain the Amharic type B verbs and apparent violations of the Obligatory Contour Principle (), which prohibits identical adjacent autosegments, in Amharic.

2.2

Devoicing and degemination in verbs without a doubled radical

Verbs involving a penultimate voiced geminate but without doubling of a radical are discussed in this section. Type B verbs (analyzed as I-second quadriradicals in §1.6.1) are not introduced until §2.2.6 and §2.2.7. 2.2.1 When the final radical is /r/ The penultimate radicals of the verbs in (4) alternate between voiced and voiceless. The voiced allophone is used in the Jussive while the voiceless allophone is used in the Perfective. A variety of radicals (ejectives, fricatives, voiced stops and sonorants) are found preceding the penult. This shows that radicals preceding the penult play no role in determining whether it should devoice or not. Moreover, in the exceptions (listed at the end of (4)), the radicals


47

preceding the penult are not homogeneous and whether the penultimate radical is ö, d or g makes no difference concerning its devoicing. Devoicing and degemination when the final radical is /r/2 Jussive Perfective Penultimate /ö/: y-at-s6öGr at-w6p6r ‘miscarry’ y-a-x6mbGr a-xr6p6r ‘take out from a cooking pot’ y6-c’aöGr c’ap6r ‘pare the root of 6s6t-plant’ y6-döGr d6p6r ‘add’ y6-k’öGr k’6p6r ‘plant, bury’ y6-k’ö6r k’6p6r ‘decrease, be incomplete’ y6-mb6r n6p6r ‘live’ y6-söGr s6p6r ‘break’ Penultimate /g/: y-f6]gGr fGr6k6r ‘extirpate’ y-a-sragGr a-srak6r ‘cause to be ill-mannered’ y-6gGr ak6r ‘raise cattle’ y6-d6ngGr dGr6k6r ‘throw away’ y6-mg6r m6k6r ‘suppurate’ y6-zg6r z6k6r ‘jump’ Penultimate /d/: y-a-fdGr a-f6t6r ‘ascribe one’s error to someone’ y-a-]-gwadGr a-]-gwat6r ‘feel sleepy, drowsy’ y-a-xdGr a-x6t6r ‘dress , buy cloth for someone’ y-6d6r at6r ‘spend the night’ y6-öd6r b6t6r ‘become first, advance’ y6-gdGr g6t6r ‘put to sleep’ y6-ndGr n6t6r/n6d6r ‘pierce’ y6-xdGr x6t6r ‘thatch’ Penultimate /z/: y-6z6r as6r/az6r ‘carry on one’s back, mount’ Exceptions: y6-d-dGraö6r t6-drab6r ‘bolt, grope’ y6-kö6r k6b6r ‘be respectable’ (< ) y6-sg6r s6g6r ‘amble’ (4)

The final radical of all these verbs is /r/. Therefore, the Perfective geminate penult is the rightmost obstruent. Hence, it devoices and degeminates as predicted by hypothesis (2a). However, the last three verbs are exceptions because they have not devoiced their penult in the Perfective. Note that the degeminated /öö/

2. In the Jussive, ö is a stop only when it is postnasal (y-a-x6mbGr and y6-mb6r), where its place specification is doubly linked. See Petros (1996b) and Chapter 4 on r vs. nasal alternation. The epenthetic G in the Jussive shows that r may not be the second member of a final cluster.

48

SOUND MUTATIONS

of the exceptions is a stop b even though it is intervocalic. Absence of devoicing in such verbs is often attributed to an assumption that they are loans. However, in my view, these verbs are native. In fact, there is no difference between the Amharic/Chaha cognates n6bb6r/n6p6r ‘has lived’ and t6-d6nab6r/t6-drab6r ‘has groped’. So if we analyze n6p6r as a native verb (on the basis of its devoicing) we cannot analyze t6-drab6r as a loan verb (just because we want to attribute the absence of devoicing to that). Notice also that geminate devoicing is optional in two verbs with a coronal penult (underlined in (4)), for which there is absolutely no reason to assume that they are loans. 2.2.2 When the final radical is /A/ At first glance, devoicing in the vowel-final verbs below seems to suggest that it is not limited to the penultimate radical. However, in my analysis, a verb such as g6pa ‘has entered’ is a triradical with a final /A/ (an original guttural). In other words, g6pa is an underlying /g6öö6A/. I also assume that /A/ is a sonorant. Therefore, the geminate penult is the rightmost obstruent in each word and hypothesis (2a) predicts that it should devoice and degeminate. As shown by the following list, the prediction holds for most verbs. (5)

Devoicing and degemination when the final radical is /A/ Jussive Perfective Penultimate /ö/: y6-göa g6pa ‘enter’ y6-k’öa k’6pa ‘smear’ y6-köa k6pa ‘bend’ y6-mba n6pa ‘split’ y6-söa s6pa ‘be efficient’ y6-t’öa t’6pa ‘skin’ y6-t-gaöa t6-gapa ‘be comfortable’ y6-töa t6pa ‘harden’ y-a-köa a-k6pa ‘malinger’ y6-k’6mba k’Gr6pa ‘hit, break at once’ y6-t-g6mba t6-gr6pa ‘stoop’ y-a-n-sGraöa a-n-sGrapa ‘suffocate, choke’


Penultimate /g/: y6-ga y6-]ga y6-zraga Penultimate /d/: y-a-öda y6-öda y6-fda/y6-fta y6-gda Penultimate /z/: y-a-gza y6-öza y6-gza Exceptions: y6-fga y6-f6nda y6-gwda y6-k’wada y6-nda y6-xda y6-wza

w6ka n6ka zGraka a-ö6ta b6ta f6ta g6ta a-g6sa b6sa g6sa f6ga fGn6da gw6da k’wada n6da x6da w6za

49

‘hit by stone, stab’3 ‘coagulate’ ‘spread’ ‘marry off, give in marriage’ ‘take’ ‘untie’ ‘pour, draw liquid from a source’ ‘burp’ ‘enlarge ()’ ‘own, buy’ ‘blow’ ‘burst’ (< ) ‘hurt’ ‘rave, talk nonsense’ ‘help, drive’ ‘abjure, betray’ ‘shine’

Given our assumption that the /A/ of these verbs is their final radical, devoicing affects the geminate penult as usual since it is the rightmost obstruent. It also follows that there is no Perfective verbal template CVCV in Chaha. The underlying minimal Perfective verbal template is CVCCVC. Verbs such as g6pa, from above, have the minimal CVCCVC Perfective template but their final radical fuses with the preceding /6/ and their geminate penult devoices and degeminates, as dictated by (2a). Degemination applies without devoicing in the exceptions of (5). Again, this is usually attributed to a claim that the exceptions are loans. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, I see no reason to treat verbs such as g6pa ‘has entered’ and w6ka ‘has stabbed’ as native (just because they devoice their penult since if not they could have been treated as coming from Amharic g6bba and w6gga) and f6ga ‘has blown’ and gw6da ‘has hurt’ as loans (just because they do not devoice their penult). In my view, each exception is idiosyncratic and has nothing to do with it being borrowed or native. The relatively high number of exceptions in (5) may also be due to the fact that some [a]’s diachronically originate from the pharyngeal fricatives, which can function like obstruents. But fGn6da ‘has burst’ is a loan introduced very recently (with the 1974 revolution, used as in abyot

3. The stem-initial /U/ found in the Perfective /U6gg6A/ → [w6ka] ‘has stabbed’ deletes in the Jussive /y6-UgA/ → [y6ga] ‘let him stab!’ See §7.3.2 for discussion.

50

SOUND MUTATIONS

fGn6da-m ‘revolution has burst’). The n in fGn6da is also exceptional as we normally have r in this context, e.g fGr6ta ‘has splashed’. This can be attributed to the fact that it is borrowed. 2.2.3 When the final radical is a high vocoid (/U/ or /I/) Surface biconsonantal stems may arise also from triradicals with a final vocoid /U/ or /I/. For instance, the stem of t’6pw6 ‘has sucked’ is U-final /t’6öö6U/ but /U/ floats and labializes ö (see Chapter 7 on this). Similarly, a-ç6p6 ‘has hidden’ is I-final /x6öö6I/ but due to the floating nature of /I/ and the impossibility of palatalizing ö, the I skips to x (see Chapter 3 on x/k alternation). (Velars can be palatalized even by a nonadjacent I.) In this account, the final radical of the verbs in (6) is /U/ or /I/, which are sonorants. The geminate penult of the Perfective is therefore the rightmost obstruent. It devoices and degeminates according to (2a). Whether devoicing applies when /U/ and /I/ are at their underlying/final or surface position makes no difference since the geminate penult is the rightmost obstruent in all cases. (6)

Devoicing and degemination when the final radical is /U/ or /I/ Jussive Perfective ‘suck’ Penultimate /ö/: y6-t’u (< y6-t’Göw) t’6pw6 y-a-ç6ö a-ç6p6 ‘hide’ Penultimate /g/: y6-d6gy d6ky6 ‘brew’ y-6r6gy 6r6ky6 ‘throw  to someone’ w y y6-m 6g mw6ky6 ‘bury’ y6-t-m6rgy t6-mr6ky6 ‘be worsen’ y y6-z6\g zGr6ky6 ‘speak’ Penultimate /d/: y6-gaj gac6 ‘rope the legs’ ‘engage, get rid of y6-fj f6c6/f6j6 tapeworm’ y-a-saj/y-a-sac a-sac6 ‘step over ’ Penultimate /z/: y6-gaŠ gaw6 ‘raid’ y-6Š aw6/aŠ6 ‘see’ y6-t-k’GraŠ t6-k’raw6/t6-k’raŠ6‘look here and there’ Exceptions: y6-sgy s6gy6 ‘call a witness’ y-a-sraj a-sraj6 ‘eke out, stretch out’ w w y6-k’ (G)Š k’ 6Š6 ‘have dysentery’ Even though the rightmost geminate obstruent in (6) devoices and degeminates as expected, we have three exceptions where devoicing is not observed. Again,


51

to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to consider these verbs loans. They are lexical exceptions which do not even have a corresponding Amharic cognate. In addition, devoicing is optional in three verbs underlined in (6). This makes them neutral with respect to the hypotheses about devoicing. Nevertheless, it is noticeable so far that devoicing tends to be optional when the penult is a coronal (cf. as6r/az6r and n6t6r/ n6d6r from (4)). Coronals are apt to behave differently because they are the only series with voicing contrast. 2.2.4 When the final radical is a bilabial (/ö/ or /m/) The verbs listed in (7) have a final radical /ö/ or /m/. It is argued in §1.3.1 that a noninitial simplex /ö/, i.e. [ö], is a sonorant. Similarly, /m/ is a sonorant. Thus, the geminate penult is the rightmost obstruent, which should devoice and degeminate following hypothesis (2a). In three verbs the geminate penult devoices and degeminates as expected. But it only degeminates in the last two verbs in (7). (7)

Devoicing and degemination when the final radical is /ö/ or /m/ Jussive Perfective Penultimate /g/: y6-t-uz6g6ö t-oz6k6ö ‘regret’ Penultimate /d/: y6-sdGö s6t6ö ‘curse’ y6-g6rdGm gGr6t6m ‘break  in two’ Exceptions: y6-nz6ö n6z6ö ‘be flexible’ y6-xdGm x6d6m ‘look after’ Here, we have only a penultimate g or d. But hypothesis (2a) also predicts that a penultimate ö should surface as p in the Perfective when the final radical is /ö/ or /m/. More ö- or m-final verbs, which involve a second radical /I/ (§2.2.7), a doubled final radical (§2.3.1) or total reduplication (§2.3.3), show that geminate penultimate /öö/ devoice and degeminate whenever ö or m are the final radicals. There is no verb with a penultimate ö and a final m, which I believe is due to the , to allow us to see if ö is devoiced when the final radical is m. 2.2.5 When the final radical is an obstruent other than [t] The penult of the verbs below does not devoice in the Perfective. These are some of the n6g6d-type verbs. What is common to all these verbs is that their final radical is an obstruent other than t, i.e. it is an ejective, a fricative or a voiced stop.

52

SOUND MUTATIONS

Degemination without devoicing in n6g6d-type verbs4 Jussive Perfective Penultimate /ö/: y6-gaöz gab6z ‘invite’ (< ) y6-gw6bGz gw6b6z ‘be brave’ (< ) y6-dGös d6b6s ‘enlarge’ y y y6-g aös g ab6s ‘be sick due to excess food’ y6-t’Gös t’6b6s ‘roast ()’ y-a-saök’ a-sab6k’ ‘sneak’ y-6bGk’ ab6k’ ‘become moldy’ y6-c’-c’aö6k’ t6-c’ab6k’ ‘be squeezed’ y6-t’-t’aö6k’ t6-t’ab6k’ ‘get stuck’ y6-t’ö6k’ t’6b6k’ ‘be tightened’ y6-zGök’ z6b6k’ ‘daub’ y6-gwGöt’/ gw6b6t’ ‘be stooped’ (< ) y6-gwö6t’ y6-g6röGt’ gGr6b6t’ ‘turn inside out’ y6-k’Göt’ k’6b6t’ ‘become naughty’ y6-mb6t’ n6b6t’ ‘warm up, be flexible’ y6-t’Göt’ t’6ö6t’ ‘hold’ y6-t-zraö6t’ t6-zrab6t’ ‘hope, expect, crave’ y-6öd ab6d ‘be crazy’ (< ) y-a-xGöd a-x6b6d ‘defer’ y6-z6bwGd z6bw6d ‘have a mouthful of c’at’ Penultimate /d/: y6-g(G)d(G)f g6d6f ‘break the lent’ (either G drops) y6-g6rdGf gGr6d6f ‘grind roughly’ y6-ndGf n6d6f ‘fluff cotton, sting’ y6-t’-t’ad6f t6-t’ad6f ‘be in a hurry’ (< ) y-6d(G)g ad6g ‘throw down, make fall’ y6-t-fad6g t6-fad6g ‘endeavor’ Penultimate /z/: y6-nzGk’ n6z6k’ ‘be fortunate’ y6-wzGf w6z6f ‘procrastinate’ (< ) (8)

4. Even though ö is expected in the Jussive it is not found in y6-gw6bGz, y-6bGk’ and y6-z6bwGd, maybe because they are loans. But ö is strengthened in y6-mb6t’ due to the preceding nasal. On the other hand, ö exceptionally remains sonorant in the Perfective t’6ö6t’.


Penultimate /g/: y-6g(G)z y-at-mwag(G)z y6-t-mw6gy6z y6-d(G)g(G)s (either G drops) y6-]g6s y6-d(G)g(G)f or y6-d6ggGf y6-]gGf y-6g(G)d y6-m6rgGd y6-]gGd y6-s(G)g(G)d (either G drops) y6-z(G)g(G)d (either G drops)

ag6z at-mwag6z t6-mw6gy6z d6g6s

‘help’ ‘off-load a responsibility’ ‘lean on’ ‘feast’ (< )

n6g6s d6g6f

‘reign’ ‘support’

n6g6f ag6d mGr6g6d n6g6d s6g6d

‘pick, pluck’ ‘bind, tie’ ‘act mad’ ‘touch’ ‘worship’

z6g6d

‘remember, miss’

53

The continuant obstruents [f, s, z, x], voiced stops [b, d, g], voiceless stops [p, k] and ejective stops [t’, k’] (and their labialized or palatalized forms) exhaust all the obstruents different from [t] found in the phonetic inventory of Chaha. Notice that not all the obstruents listed are found as a final radical in (8). Particularly, [b, p, k] are not found as a final radical of these verbs whereas every underlying ejective, fricative and voiced obstruent is found. A simplex [b] is normally found only word-initially or after an [m] and that is why it is not found as a final radical. That [p] is not found has also an independent reason, i.e. it is not an underlying phoneme of Chaha and it can be found only as a simplified /öö/ (cf. the ö/p alternation in (4), (5) and (6)), a well-defined context. Thus, it cannot be found as a final radical. Similarly, [k] is not an underlying phoneme (see Chapter 3 for justification) and it can be found only as a simplified /gg/ (cf. the g/k alternation in (4), (5), (6) and (7)) or a strengthened /x/, and a final position is neither a devoicing nor a strengthening context. Thus, [k] cannot be found as a final radical. A single verb, namely /mI6zz6x/ → [mes6x] ‘has ruminated’, is found in which the penult is a voiced obstruent and the final radical is x. (The voiced penult of /mI6zz6x/ is found in all Gurage dialects which do not exhibit geminate devoicing, cf. Leslau 1979.) Devoicing in this verb shows that a final x forms a m6k6r-type verb whereas my analysis predicts that it should be a n6g6d-type verb since its final radical is neither a sonorant nor t. This is the only n6g6d-type verb to be an exception for hypothesis (2b) by devoicing its penult.

54

SOUND MUTATIONS

Leslau (1948: 44) and (1979: lxix) attributes the absence of devoicing in some of the verbs in (8) to the presence of another voiced obstruent in the root, e.g. n6g6d ‘has touched’. While this accounts for why devoicing does not apply when there is a voiced obstruent in the root it does not explain why it is blocked in words such as n6g6f ‘has picked’ and n6b6t’ ‘has warmed up’, from (8). These verbs show that the presence of a voiced obstruent is not necessary to block geminate devoicing. Moreover, we saw in (4), (5), (6) and (7) that devoicing is not necessarily blocked by a voiced obstruent, as g and z in g6dd6r → g6t6r ‘has put to sleep’ and z6gg6r → z6k6r ‘has jumped’, from (4), do not block it. This shows that the mere presence of a voiced obstruent is insufficient to block geminate devoicing unless it is the final radical. The absence of devoicing in most of the above verbs is considered an exception and is attributed to their Amharic origin by Hetzron (1977: 51–52), Leslau (1979: lxviii) and McCarthy (1986a: 219). Nevertheless, the following reasons militate against this analysis. First, m6k6r-type Chaha verbs devoice their penult regardless of their Amharic cognates, as shown by the Amharic/Chaha pairs g6bba/g6pa ‘has entered’, s6bb6r/s6p6r ‘has broken’ and m6gg6l/m6k6r ‘has suppurated’. Second, most verbs from (8) do not even have a corresponding Amharic cognate, e.g. d6b6s ‘has enlarged’, mGr6g6d ‘has acted mad’, ad6g ‘has thrown down’ and n6z6k’ ‘has been fortunate’ (see also Goldenberg 1994: 55). Third, it is unjustified to consider forms such as n6g6s ‘has reigned’ as borrowings from Amharic. Every clan in Chaha had a nGgwGs ‘king’ and the ceremony a-r6g6s ‘appoint a king’ long before Amharic speakers arrived in the Gurage land. Many such verbs, e.g. t’6b6s ‘has roasted ()’ and s6g6d ‘has worshipped’, are common to both languages and there is no evidence that borrowing was ever involved. Quite the contrary, older speakers who know no Amharic use and regard these verbs as native Chaha. In my analysis, the verbs in (8) are not considered exceptions to devoicing. In these verbs, the geminate penult is not the rightmost obstruent and hence does not satisfy the structural description of devoicing. These medial geminate obstruents fall under hypothesis (2b), which states that they should degeminate without being devoiced. According to my analysis, verbs such as *n6p6t’, from –röt’ ‘warm’, and *t6-x6p6d, from –xöd ‘respect’, where a voiced geminate penult devoices regardless of a following obstruent other than t, is excluded. The attested output, e.g. n6b6t’ and a-x6b6d from the above list, shows that the prediction is borne out. To my knowledge, there is no devoiced geminate that is followed by an obstruent other than t (and the exception [mes6x]). Borrowed n6g6d-type verbs confirm the hypothesis in (2b). In my view, they all are n6g6d-type verbs and not exceptions.


55

2.2.6 When the final radical is [t] The sound t is the only plain voiceless stop to be found as a final radical. When t is the final radical the penult can be a sonorant, e.g. c’6m6t ‘has hit the target’ or a voiceless obstruent, e.g. k6f6t ‘has opened’. But a geminate obstruent devoices and degeminates when the final radical is t, e.g. w6p6t (not *w6b6t) ‘has chosen’. Accordingly, a n6g6d-type verb such as *w6b6t is not found. In not allowing a voiced geminate penult to remain voiced, t behaves like the final sonorant /r/ in s6p6r (not *s6b6r) ‘has broken ’ and unlike the stem-final obstruents of (8). The list in (9) below exhausts t-final verbs whose penult can show voicing alternation. Note that the list contains only six verbs all of which are quadriradicals (assuming type B verbs to be I-second quadriradicals, see 1.1.6 and 2.2.7). Triradicals such as *g6p6t are not found. The geminate penult of these quadriradicals devoices and degeminates. There is no native t-final Chaha verb such as *gy6b6t where degemination applies without devoicing. The exception tob6t ‘has become a Muslim’ is a loan. (9)

Devoicing and degemination when the final radical is t Jussive Perfective y6-g6p(G)t gy6p6t ‘gallop’ y6-g6k(G)t gy6ky6t ‘accompany on departure’ y6-s6p(G)t w6p6t ‘choose’ y6-s6mbGt sGr6p6t ‘sojourn’5 y6-zaöt zap6t ‘lose one’s way’ Exception: y6-tobGt tob6t ‘become a Muslim’ (< Arabic) Disregarding the single verb /mI6zz6x/ → [mes6x] ‘has ruminated’ mentioned in the preceding subsection, the list in (9) also exhausts all Chaha verbs in which the final radical is an obstruent and where the penult still devoices. In this respect, t is different from all other obstruents. In my view, its uniqueness follows from the assumption that it is a default consonant in Chaha (see Broselow 1984 for the same generalization in Amharic and the articles in Paradis and Prunet 1991 on coronal underspecification in general). Devoicing in these verbs strongly suggests that t lacks some features of other obstruents. Notice that the penult also devoices in the Jussive of the first three verbs in (9). I will argue in

5. Also relevant are its derived forms such as y-a-srap(G)t ‘let him (the person who stays) say goodbye !’ a-srap6t ‘(the person who stays) has said good-bye’, yG-t-sGrap6t ‘he (the person who leaves) says good-bye’ and t6-srap6t ‘(the person who leaves) has said good-bye’.

56

SOUND MUTATIONS

the immediately following section that gemination occurs in the Jussive of these verbs to compensate for depalatalization. On the other hand, devoicing and degemination in both the Jussive and Perfective follow from hypothesis (2a). 2.2.7 Devoicing in the Jussive and Perfective of I-second quadriradicals In the following verbs, the penult is voiceless in both the Jussive and Perfective. For instance, in (10a), a voiced penult is found neither in the Jussive nor in the Perfective. But in (10b), devoicing is optional in the Jussive. (10)

Devoicing and degemination in both the Jussive and Perfective Obligatory devoicing in both the Jussive and Perfective Jussive Perfective y6-g6p(G)t gy6p6t ‘gallop’ (repeated from (9)) y6-s6p(G)t w6p6t ‘choose’ (repeated from (9)) y6-t’-t’ep t6-c’ep6 ‘be careful’6 y6-g6k(G)t gy6ky6t ‘accompany (repeated from (9)) y6-m6s(G)x mes6x ‘ruminate’ (only example with x#) y6-r6kGr n6ky6r ‘win in a lawsuit’ y6-m6kGr m6ky6r ‘burn, light the fire’ y6-d6kwGr/y6-d6gwGr j6kw6r ‘wilt, droop’ y6-s6kGr/y6-s6gGr w6k6r/w6g6r ‘change’ y6-d6kGm j6k6m ‘bash, hit with the fist’ y6-r6kGm n6ky6m ‘mount, e.g. a horse’ y6-z6kGö Š6k6ö ‘bar’ ‘place  diagonally’ y6-g6tGö gy6t6ö b. Optional devoicing in the Jussive y6-k’6pGr/y6-k’6öGr k’y6p6r ‘help’ y6-d6pGr/y6-d6öGr j6p6r ‘finish’ y6-x6pGr/y6-x6öGr ç6p6r ‘reply, resume speaking’ y-a-k’6pGr/y-a-k’6öGr a-k’y6p6r‘hand’ y6-z6pGr/y6-z6öGr Š6p6r ‘return’ a.

6. The root of t6-c’ep6 ‘be careful’ must be –t’IöI. Due to the impossibility of palatalizing ö, the stem-final I of /t’I6öö6I/ skips and docks on the first 6. The first I palatalizes t’ whereas the second one causes the fronting of 6 to e. Evidence for this analysis is that [e] is still found in the Jussive, even though [c’] has depalatalized to [t’]. Note also that a second-radical /I/ do not affects both C1 and V1 at the same time, cf. w6p6t not *wep6t, from –sIöt.


c.

No devoicing (exceptions) y6-g6bGr gy6b6r y-a-d6gGr a-j6g6r y6-t’6gGr c’6g6r y6-m6zGr mez6r

57

‘pay tribute, submit’ ‘trouble ()’ ‘be cruel, refuse’ ‘count’

The first problem that needs to be addressed is whether the penult of the verbs in (10) is underlyingly voiced or voiceless. By stating that devoicing is involved in both columns of (10), I am obviously claiming that the penult of these verbs is an underlyingly voiced radical. Four arguments substantiate this claim. The first argument is that the voiced alternate ö is found in the Jussive of (10b). In addition, as was shown in §1.2.3, a nongeminated p is inexistent in Chaha and that it cannot be an underlying penult of any verb (this takes care of (10b) and the first three verbs in (10a)). Second, the voiced alternate is found in forms where the penult is reduplicated, e.g. j6kw6r ‘wilt’ vs. a-jgwakw6r ‘cause to wilt’ and j6k6m ‘hit with the fist’ vs. jGg6k6m ‘hit with the fist repeatedly’. I will also show in Chapter 3 that Chaha has no simplex k which is not followed by a fricative or /A/. The k in (10a) is neither followed by a fricative nor /A/, hence it is not a simplex k (this takes care of the rest in (10a) except the last one). Third, the voiced obstruent of these verbs appear also in corresponding nominal forms such as gyGdö-ar ‘ placed diagonally’. This noun and the verb gy6t6ö ‘has placed  diagonally’ are derived from the same root –gIdö, showing that the t in gy6t6ö is a devoiced dd. This explains the last verb in (10a) and it reinforces the second argument since some of the verbs with k in (10) have corresponding nouns with g. For instance, w6-zg6ö ‘door’ and y6-z6kGö/Š6k6ö ‘bar’ are derived from –zIgö. In addition, nouns such as jGgwm-ar ‘fist’ and jagm-ar ‘strong fight’ are derived from –dIgm and these nouns and the verb y6-d6kGm/ j6k6m ‘hit with the fist’ have the same root –dIgm, whose penult is g. Finally, in the geminating dialect Eža, all these verbs have a voiced geminate as in y6-d6ggGm, not a voiceless penult. Note that, in contrast with these verbs, there are verbs whose penult is always voiceless. For instance, k in y6-]kGs/n6k6s ‘bite’ does not become g in any nominal form, e.g. t6-rakaw (not *t6-ragaw ) ‘one who bites’. Gemination in the Jussive of (10) has a different cause from the one in the Perfective. I claim that the penult geminates in the Jussive because it is spread to the C slot of a deleted I (due to depalatalization in the Jussive) as shown in (11a). Depalatalization occurs when the radical I is immediately followed by CC

58

SOUND MUTATIONS

as in (11a) (i.e. ICiCj → CiCiCj, the G between Ci and Cj is epenthetic).7 The second C slot of the stem in (11a) is originally occupied by the second radical I, which delinks due to the depalatalization in the Jussive. The g is linked to the vacant C of I. Gemination in the Jussive of this class of verbs (i.e. I-second quadriradicals, otherwise known as type B) is therefore due to compensation. There is no depalatalization in the Perfective, (11b), and I occupies its C slot. (We will see later that what docks on the preceding consonant is only the terminal features of /I/.) However, the Perfective has always one more C slot than the Jussive (which causes gemination). The g is therefore a geminate. (A more explicit representation of a palatalized segment, such as j in (11b), is given in Appendix 2A.) (11)

Compensatory and Perfective gemination in an I-second quadriradical a. y6-C 6 C C G C b. C C 6 C C 6 C = d I g m [d I] g m y6-d6kGm ‘Let him bash!’ j6k6m ‘has bashed’

In (11), the penult is a geminate in both the Jussive and Perfective. In addition, the final radical is a sonorant. Hence, the geminate penult is the rightmost obstruent, which devoices and degeminates according to hypothesis (2a). Verbs of (10b) are characterized by a penultimate /ö/ and a final /r/ and in this case compensatory gemination is optional as ö and p in the Jussive are in free variation. In (10a), on the other hand, either the penult is different from /ö/ (all except the first three) or the final radical is different from /r/ (the first three) and in these cases devoicing is obligatory. This difference between the Jussives of (10a) and (10b) suggests that compensatory devoicing is optional only when

7. My argument for the present claim is that (ignoring suffix-triggered depalatalization, to be discussed in Chapter 9) in all the stems given below /I/ docks on the immediately preceding consonant except in the Jussive of the I-second quadriradical y6-d6Igm → y6-d6kGm and what is different about y6-d6Igm is that it alone has the ICiCj configuration. For different opinions on this, see Leslau (1957: 482), Hudson (1974: 213), Hetzron (1977: 48), Lowenstamm (1986: 171–3), Rose (1992: 110), Petros (1993a: 101–6), Prunet and Petros (1996: 328) and Chamora (1997: 95–102). I-final quadriradical I-second quadriradical I-final transitive triradical I-final intransitive triradical I-second transitive triradical I-second intransitive triradical

Jussive y6-z6rgI [y6z6\gy] y6-d6Igm [y6d6kGm] y6-fdI [y6fj] y6-ms6I [y6mw] y6-sIm [y6wGm] y6-k’I6t’ [y6k’yGt’]

Imperfective yG-zr6ggI [yGzr6ky] yG-dI6ggm [yGj6kGm] yG-f6dI [yGf6j] yG-m6sI [yGm6w] yG-s6Im [yGw6m] yG-k’6It’ [yGk’y6t’]

Perfective zr6gg6I [zGr6ky6] dI6gg6m [j6k6m] f6dd6I [f6c6] m6ss6I [m6w6] s6II6m [w6m] k’6II6t’ [k’y6t’]


59

it does not neutralize a contrast and the final radical is /r/. As ö and p are not contrastive the free variation in the Jussive of (10b) can easily be tolerated. The expected devoicing is not attested in the four exceptions (gy6b6r, a-j6g6r, c’6g6r and mez6r), (10c), (cf. the ungrammatical *gy6p6r, *a-j6k6r, *c’6k6r and *mes6r). It is possible to remotely relate these exceptions to Amharic g6bb6r, c6gg6r, c’6kk6n and m6zz6n respectively. But due to the reasons I gave in §2.2.5 I do not consider them as loans. Furthermore, a morphological piece of evidence that they are not loans from Amharic comes from a-j6g6r, which in Chaha requires the prefix a- while it does not allow this prefix in Amharic (cf. *a-c6gg6r). If Chaha borrowed this word it would have borrowed the free form c6gg6r, and not the impossible Amharic form *a-c6gg6r. In my analysis, absence of devoicing in the above exceptions has no explanation. On the other hand, the fact that b in y6-g6bGr/gy6b6r is a stop (and not ö) shows that it is a simplified geminate. Not also that degemination applies without exception. Verbs of the n6g6d-type which are also I-second quadriradicals are very rare. I found only one such verb, shown in (12). (But it is also possible to consider the three verbs with a penultimate [b] mentioned in note 4 of this chapter as belonging to this class in which case the lack of palatalization in them will remain unaccounted for.) The penult of this verb is a geminate in the Perfective as usual and in the Jussive, too, to compensate for depalatalization. But in both cases, the geminate is not the rightmost obstruent and it degeminates without being devoiced, in accordance with hypothesis (2b). (12)

Degemination without devoicing in both the Jussive and Perfective Jussive Perfective y6-t’6bGk’ c’6b6k’ ‘extract juice’

Another piece of evidence for the claim that devoicing in the Jussive of I-second quadriradicals is due to compensation comes from their frequentative forms. These have no depalatalization in the Jussive, e.g. y6-k’yö6öGr ‘let him help slightly!’ While ö devoices in the Jussive, as in y6-k’6pGr ‘let him help!’, the same ö does not devoice in y6-k’yö6öGr. Because there is no depalatalization to compensate for in y6-k’ yö6öGr, depicted in (13a), the penult cannot be geminated, cf. *y6-k’yö6pGr. This explains the absence of devoicing and corroborates the claim that devoicing in y6-k’6pGr is due to compensatory reasons, i.e. to compensate for the depalatalization. Note that the impossibility of *y6-k’yö6pGr is not due to the ö…p string as this is allowed in the Perfective k’yGö6p6r, (13b).

60

SOUND MUTATIONS

(13)

Absence of compensatory gemination in the frequentative of I-second quadriradicals a. y6-C C C 6 C G C b. C C G C 6 C C 6 C

[k’ I] ö ö r y6-k’yö6öGr ‘Let him help slightly!’

[k’ I] ö ö k’yGö6p6r ‘has helped slightly’

r

In (13a), there is no depalatalization and I occupies its original C slot. Therefore, ö cannot be geminated, which explains why it is not devoiced. The ö devoices in the Perfective because this aspect has always one more C slot than the Jussive, which gives rise to the Perfective gemination. The öö devoices and degeminates because it is the rightmost obstruent, i.e. devoicing and degemination apply according to hypothesis (2a). Additional evidence from the Jussive of totally reduplicated verbs support the position that gemination (i.e. phonetic devoicing) in the Jussive is compensatory. Some totally reduplicated verbs (to be defined in Chapter 6) delete their antepenult, e.g. /z6mzGm/ → [z6sGm] ‘be wet’ (to be compared with zGm6s6m ‘has become wet). The deletion of /m/ in [z6sGm] results in compensatory devoicing of /z/ and supports my proposal. Note also that /z/ devoices in [z6sGm] because it is the rightmost obstruent. Compensatory devoicing does not apply in cases where /z/ is not the rightmost obstruent, e.g. /z6fzGf/ → [z6zGf] (not *[z6sGf]) ‘put  to soak!’ See §2.3.3 and §2.3.4 for detailed discussion on compensatory devoicing in totally reduplicated verbs. Finally, I show in Appendix 2A that the compensatory gemination proposed in this section also gives a straightforward account for the elsewhere gemination of Amharic type B verbs. From a total of 142 verbs that we have investigated in this section the penultimate consonant of 20 Perfective verbs is not devoiced even though their final radical is a sonorant. In my view, these 20 verbs (14.08% of the total 142) are lexical exceptions, which deviate from hypothesis (2a). Some of these have an Amharic cognate, e.g. n6da ‘has helped’, while others do not, e.g. s6gy6 ‘has called a witness’, a-sraj6 ‘has eked out’ k’w6Š6 ‘has had dysentery’ and k’wada ‘has raved’. Given this and the fact that many verbs with an Amharic cognate have a devoiced penult in Chaha, e.g. n6ka ‘has coagulated’ and s6p6r ‘has broken’, I maintain that it is wrong to attribute the absence of devoicing in the exceptions to their being loans. There are also six verbs in which the expected devoicing is optional which cannot be attributed to borrowing. However, in all 41 verbs (listed in (8) and (12)) in which the geminate penult is not the rightmost obstruent, degemination applies without devoicing. We will see in the following


61

section that exceptions to geminate devoicing are inexistent in verbs with doubled radicals.

2.3

Devoicing and degemination in verbs with doubled radicals

Verbs involving voiced geminates and a doubled radical are discussed in this section. 2.3.1 Voiced geminates in verbs with a doubled final radical In (14), /ö/ is both the penult and the final consonant. I follow the standard assumption that the two consonants are one underlyingly so C1C2C2 derive from biradicals and C1C2C3C3 from triradicals (see McCarthy 1981, Lowenstamm and El M’hammedi 1996 and Prunet and Petros 1996). As a penult of the Perfective, it is [p] in both (14a) and (14b). As a penult of the Jussive, it is [p] in (14b) whereas it is [ö] in (14a) (unless it is postnasal). On the other hand, as a final radical, it is [ö] in both the Jussive and Perfective of (14a, b). (14)

Devoicing and degemination when the doubled radical is /ö/ Jussive Perfective a. y6-k’öGö k’6p6ö ‘shave’ y6-t’ö6ö t’6p6ö ‘be narrow’ y6-xöGö x6p6ö ‘encircle’ y-a-x6mbGö a-xr6p6ö ‘cover up’ y-a-z6röGö a-zr6p6ö ‘incline’ y-a-^-c’aöGö a-^-c’ap6ö ‘blink’ y-a-^-ŠaöGö a-^-Šap6ö ‘soar’ b. y-a-t’6pGö a-c’6p6ö ‘curtain off’ y6-z6pGö Š6p6ö ‘defend, block the passage’ y6-d6pGö j6p6ö ‘dam’ Exception: y-a-mbGö a-r6b6ö ‘read’ (< ) As usual, the penult is a geminate in the Perfective. It is geminated also in the Jussive of (14b) to compensate for depalatalization, i.e. y6-d6IöGö → y6-d6ööGö → y6-d6pGö, as we saw in §2.2.7. Furthermore, I have argued in §1.3.1 that a nongeminated /ö/ is a sonorant. Hence, /öö/ (i.e. bb) in these verbs is the rightmost obstruent. Accordingly, hypothesis (2a) predicts that /öö/ should devoice and degeminate. The prediction is borne out in all native verbs of this type. The only exception is a-r6b6ö, which degeminates without being devoiced, maybe because it is a clear loan from Amharic.

62

SOUND MUTATIONS

My account of the verbs in (14) is that geminate devoicing does not take into consideration whether the penultimate and the final consonants originate from the same radical or not. In other words, geminate devoicing does not make a distinction between …CiCiVCj# and …CiCiVCi#. Let us now turn to the geminate penult of the Perfective in (15). These have a …CiCiVCi# configuration in which CiCi degeminates without being devoiced. (15)

Degemination without devoicing when the doubled radical is a voiced obstruent Jussive Perfective Doubled /g/: y-a-dragGg a-drag6g ‘revive’ y-a-fagGg a-fag6g ‘retreat, do  unenthusiastically’ y-a-zagGg a-zag6g ‘delay’ y-6gGg ag6g ‘be pumped up, be empty’ y6-ö6rgGg bGr6g6g ‘be startled, bolt’ y6-fg6g f6g6g ‘die without being slaughtered’ y6-f w(6)gGg f w6g6g ‘cut from the root’ y6-m6rgGg mGr6g6g ‘make tall and straight’ y6-t’6gGg c’6g6g ‘mow (grass and mud together)’ Doubled /d/: y-a-ö6rdGd a-ör6d6d ‘add too much of  (e.g. salt)’ y-6dGd ad6d ‘collect, drink much’ y6-f6rdGd fGr6d6d ‘roll up one’s sleeves or dress’ y6-gdGd g6d6d ‘pierce, germinate and break out’ y6-g6rdGd gGr6d6d ‘cut in big logs’ y6-mw(6)dGd mw6d6d ‘choose one’s judges’ y6-m6rdGd mGr6d6d ‘whip’ y6-nd6d n6d6d ‘burn down’ y6-sdGd s6d6d ‘chase’ y6-t-gad6d t6-gad6d ‘wrestle for a long time’ y6-t-rad6d t6-rad6d ‘get mad’ Doubled /z/: y-6z6z az6z ‘order’ y6-bazGz baz6z ‘be in low spirits’ y6-c’azGz c’az6z ‘be empty (a house, a village)’ y6-d6rzGz dGr6z6z ‘be blunt’ y6-fz6z f6z6z ‘be better’ y6-g6özGz gGö6z6z ‘become numb’ y6-k’6özGz k’Gö6z6z ‘be inert’ y6-mzGz m6z6z ‘draw out (e.g. thread from cloth)’ y6-nz6z n6z6z ‘dream’ y6-t’6mzGz t’Gm6z6z ‘twist’ y6-t-raz6z t6-raz6z ‘make one’s last will’

63


These verbs have a geminate penult in the Perfective. However, the penult is not the rightmost obstruent. Accordingly, hypothesis (2b) predicts that the penult should degeminate without being devoiced, and the prediction holds without exception. I stated that /öö/ devoices in y6-d6pGö ‘let him dam!’ from (14b), to compensate for depalatalization. However, such devoicing is impossible in y6t’6gGg (not *y6-t’6kGg) ‘let him mow!’ from (15), regardless of the depalatalization. In my account, this is not because y6-t’6gGg lacks compensatory gemination. Rather, the absence of devoicing follows from the hypothesis that degemination but not devoicing applies when the penult is not the rightmost obstruent i.e. y6t’6IgGg → y6-t’6ggGg → y6-t’6gGg. McCarthy (1986a: 215ff.) gives an explanation different from mine for the penult devoicing in (14) and its absence in (15). In his account, these verbs have a …VCiCiVCi… configuration with two levels of representation. The first is prior to tier conflation, depicted in (16a), in which ö and z are triply linked. The second is after tier conflation, depicted in (16b), in which only the penultimate ö and z are doubly linked. (16)

a.

b.

Prior to tier conflation C 6 C C 6 C

C

6

C

C

6

C

C

6

C

k’ ö After tier conflation C 6 C C 6 C

C

k’ ö ö k’6p6ö ‘has shaved’

f z z f6z6z ‘has been better’

f

z 6

C

McCarthy attributes devoicing in k’6p6ö and its absence in f6z6z to the claim that devoicing in the former is feature-filling (because b and p are not contrastive), which can apply postlexically (i.e. after tier conflation), while devoicing in the latter is feature-changing (because z and s are contrastive), which must apply lexically (i.e. prior to tier conflation). According to his analysis, neither ö nor z can devoice prior to tier conflation because they are triply linked and Geminate Inalterability blocks devoicing. On the other hand, Geminate Inalterability cannot block devoicing after tier conflation since the penult is separated from the final radical. In this derived context, the postlexical feature-filling devoicing rule can apply, affecting ö in k’6p6ö and resulting in a devoiced p. However, the lexical feature-changing devoicing rule affecting z cannot apply in the derived context and that explains why devoicing does not occur in f6z6z. Yet, degemination

64

SOUND MUTATIONS

applies in both k’6p6ö and f6z6z, which led McCarthy (1986a: 218) to claim that it is postlexical since otherwise it would be incorrectly predicted to be blocked by Geminate Inalterability. See Scobbie (1991: 143ff.) for arguments against this analysis based on different reasons. In my analysis, devoicing and degemination cannot even tell us whether the prior-to-tier conflation stage, (16a), exists or not. (See Angoujard 1988, Gafos 1996 and Rose 1997 for a claim that such long-distance geminates are better analyzed as copies rather than spreading.) In addition, neither Geminate Inalterability nor rule ordering are the right explanation for the voicing difference between k’6p6ö and f6z6z. In my analysis, the hypothesis in (2a), combined with the claim that ö is a sonorant, dictates that the geminate öö in (16) should devoice and degeminate. I claim that the penults in s6t6ö ‘has cursed’, (4c), and k’6p6ö, (16), devoice for the same reason: they are both geminates and the rightmost obstruent. Devoicing applies irrespective of whether it is feature-changing or feature-filling. Similarly, the geminate penults in t’6b6s ‘has roasted ()’, from (8), and f6z6z, (16), remain voiced because they are not the rightmost obstruent, and this irrespective of whether devoicing is featurechanging or feature-filling. In the present analysis, the absence of geminate devoicing in the verbs of (15) receives a unified account with all other verbs ending with a final obstruent other than t. The fact that z in f6z6z, (16), is the penultimate and final radical is not at all a factor for the absence of geminate devoicing. Had a penultimate zz devoiced when the final radical is any other obstruent such as k’ (i.e. if we had the ungrammatical *n6s6k’ instead of n6z6k’, from (8)), the triply linked configuration …VCiCiVCi… could have been invoked to explain the absence of geminate devoicing in words like f6z6z, from (16), as McCarthy (1986a: 211) does. But, we have seen that a penultimate zz is never devoiced when the final radical is an obstruent different from t. Attributing the absence of devoicing to triple-linking is therefore a solution that lacks generality. However, the hypotheses given in (2) are sufficient to explain the complex array of data presented in this chapter. 2.3.2 Voiced geminates in verbs with a doubled medial radical The underlying voiced penult of the verbs in (17) is devoiced in the Perfective. All these verbs end with a sonorant and, following hypothesis (2a), their geminate penult is predicted to devoice and degeminate. The prediction holds without exception. Note again that the penult in the Perfective is in a […CiVCiCiV…] configuration and that this does not block devoicing.


65

(17)

Devoicing and degemination in m6k6r-type medially reduplicated verbs Jussive Perfective Penultimate /ö/: y-a-döaöGr a-döap6r ‘do an injustice’ y-a-k’öaöGr a-k’öap6r ‘cover fire with ashes to keep it alive’ w y-a-t’wawGr a-t’wap 6r ‘show a feeling of sadness’ y6-ŠöaöGr ŠGöap6r ‘turn  inside out’ Penultimate /g/: y-a-jgagGr a-jgak6r ‘be troublesome’ y-a-jgw6gwGr a-jgw6kw6r ‘wither  slightly’ y-a-zgagGr a-zgak6r ‘cause to jump’ y6-wgagGr wGgak6r ‘interchange’ y-a-rgaga a-rgaka ‘calm down ()’ y6-wgaga wGgaka ‘stab repeatedly’ Penultimate /d/: y6-tG-fd6d6r t6-ft6t6r ‘strive’ Penultimate /z/: y-a-wzaza a-wzasa ‘perspire’ y-a-wz6sGr a-wz6s6r ‘roast’ In fact, all other things being equal, devoicing prefers […CiVCiCiV…] rather than […CiCiV…]. As the verbs in (17) are frequentatives, some of them have a basic form without doubling discussed in §2.2, where we found a number of exceptions to devoicing. For instance, penultimate z in (5) w6za is an exception to devoicing while z devoices in (17) a-wzasa. The same observation holds for g in (10c) a-j6g6r vs. (17) a-jgak6r. In addition, devoicing in (10a) w6k6r/w6g6r is optional whereas it is obligatory in (17) wGgak6r. Doubling minimizes the number of exceptions to devoicing. In contrast with the verbs in (17), the underlying voiced penult of the verbs in (18) remains voiced in the Perfective. All these verbs end with an obstruent and the geminate penult is not the rightmost obstruent. Hence, it is predicted that degemination should apply without devoicing, following (2b). Again, the prediction holds without exception. In addition, devoicing in (17) and its absence in (18) does not discriminate a penultimate /ö/ from the other voiced obstruents. This shows that McCarthy’s (1986a: 215) feature-changing versus feature-filling rationale for devoicing is not the relevant one.

66

SOUND MUTATIONS

(18)

Degemination without devoicing in n6g6d-type medially reduplicated verbs Jussive Perfective Penultimate /ö/: y6-t-k’Göaö6z t6-k’öab6z ‘deny’ y6-t-kGöaö6s t6-köab6s ‘be dirty, be messy’ y6-t-röaö6t’ t6-röab6t’ ‘be flexible’ Penultimate /g/: y6-d-g6g6z t-6g6g6z ‘help each other’ y-a-rgag(G)s a-rgag6s ‘flatter (i.e. make reign)’ y6-d-dGgag6f t6-dgag6f ‘support each other’ y6-rg6g(G)f nGg6g6f ‘pick repeatedly’ y-a-rgag(G)t’ a-rgag6t’ ‘make sure’ y-a-zgag(G)d a-zgag6d ‘remind’ y6-rgag(G)d nGgag6d ‘instigate, stir’ Some of these verbs have basic forms (such as n6b6t’, ag6z, n6g6s, n6g6f, z6g6d and n6g6d, all from (8)). Devoicing applies neither in the basic forms nor in their reduplicated forms in (18). According to my analysis, whether a geminate voiced penult is doubled or not, it may not be devoiced when the final radical is an ejective, a fricative or a voiced stop. But Leslau (1979: lxvii) records incorrectly t6-köap6s against my t6-köab6s, from (18). According to McCarthy (1986a: 211), the triply linked configuration …CiVCiCiV… is responsible for the absence of devoicing in verbs such as a-rgag6t’ ‘had made sure’, from (18). However, triple linking cannot be responsible for the absence of devoicing in such verbs since the triply linked g in a-zgak6r ‘has caused to jump repeatedly’, from (17), is devoiced. Both a-zgak6r and a-rgag6t’ are derived by penult-reduplication of the respective roots –zgr (cf. y6-zg6r ‘let him jump!) and –rgt’, found in the unreduplicated adjectival form GrgGt’ ‘sure’. But we have devoicing only in the former. This shows that attributing the absence of devoicing to triple linking is incorrect. However, my hypothesis (2a) correctly predicts the devoiced penult k in a-zgak6r because the final radical r is a sonorant, which makes the underlying geminate penult the rightmost obstruent. Similarly, hypothesis (2b) correctly predicts the voiced penult g in a-rgag6t’ because the final radical t’ is an obstruent, which makes the underlying geminate penult a nonrightmost obstruent. 2.3.3 Voiced geminates in totally reduplicated verbs All the verbs in (19) have a devoiced penult in the Perfective. Note also that the antepenult in (19a) is deleted in the Jussive and that the penult devoices and


67

degeminates, except in y6-]-g6gGö, for which I have no explanation. What is common to these verbs is that their final radical is a sonorant, i.e. they are of the m6k6r-type. (Totally reduplicated verbs normally have a C16C2C1GC2 Jussive and C1C26C1C16C2 Perfective patterns even though there are some with a C1C2aC1GC2 Jussive and C1C2aC1C16C2 Perfective patterns.) (19)

m6k6r-type totally reduplicated verbs a. With a deleted antepenult in the Jussive Jussive Perfective Penultimate /g/: y6-g6kGm gGm6k6m ‘chip the rims’ y6-]-g6gGö G]-gGö6k6ö ‘thunder’ Penultimate /d/: y6-d6tGö dGö6t6ö ‘patch’ y6-d6tGm dGm6t6m ‘conclude’ Penultimate /z/: y6-z6sGm zGm6s6m ‘become wet’ b. Without a deleted antepenult in the Jussive Penultimate /ö/: y-a-m-baöa a-m-bapa ‘pop’ y-a-m-b6röGr a-m-bGr6p6r ‘make fluffy’ Penultimate /g/: y-a-gGöagGö a-gGöak6ö ‘heap’ y-a-]-gGragGr a-]-gGrak6r ‘boycott’ a-]-gwGr6kw6r ‘roar’ y-a-]-gw6rgwGr y6-gw6rgwGr gwGr6kw6r ‘burrow’ y6-]-g6rgGr G]-gGr6k6r ‘mill about’ Penultimate /d/: y-a-n-dGradGr a-n-dGrat6r ‘stagger’ y6-d-dGöad6ö t6-döat6ö ‘be confused’ y6-d-dGrad6r t6-drat6r ‘step on  repeatedly’ y6-d6ndGr dGr6t6r ‘thicken’ y6-d6rdGr dGr6t6r ‘pile’ Penultimate /z/: y-a-n-z6rzGr a-n-zGr6s6r ‘drop here and there’ y6-t-zGöaz6ö t6-zöas6ö ‘be protracted, be prolonged’ y6-zaza zasa ‘act mad’ y6-z6rzGr zGr6s6r ‘cut meat into strips’ y6-Š6Š Š6w6 ‘be(come) cold’ In my view, gemination in the Jussive compensates for the deletion of the antepenult, as depicted in (20a). The penult is a geminate in (20b) like in all other Perfective verbs. In addition, the final radical in both (20a) and (20b) is a sonorant and the geminate penult is the rightmost obstruent. Accordingly, devoicing and degemination apply to both compensatory and Perfective geminates. This supports the hypothesis that geminates devoice and degeminate when they are the rightmost obstruent. Note that the CiVCiCi configuration in y6-g6kGm does not block devoicing.

68

SOUND MUTATIONS

(20)

Compensatory and Perfective devoicing in m6k6r-type totally reduplicated verbs y6-C 6 C C G C a. = g m g m y6-g6kGm ‘Let him chip the rims’ b. C G C 6 C C 6 C

g m g m gGm6k6m ‘has chipped the rims’ Even though y6-g6kGm seems to violate the , its corresponding Perfective shows that this apparent violation is created by the deletion of the antepenult only in the Jussive. A labial antepenult deletes as represented in (20a) when it is immediately followed by a coronal or dorsal obstruent whereas a velar antepenult deletes only when it is immediately followed by a coronal obstruent, see §6.3 for detailed discussion. In the Perfective, the voiced penult in the totally reduplicated verbs of (21) remains voiced without exception. Again, what all these verbs have in common is that their final radical is an ejective, a fricative or a voiced stop. Therefore, the geminate penult is not the rightmost obstruent. (21) Penultimate Penultimate

Penultimate

Penultimate

Penultimate

n6g6d-type totally reduplicated verbs a. With a deleted antepenult in the Jussive Jussive Perfective /d/: y6-d6d(G)f dGf6d6f ‘mix flour with water’ y6-d6d(G)g dGg6d6g ‘stuff’ /z/: y-a-z6z(G)g a-zg6z6g ‘throw in a spiral motion’ y6-z6z(G)f zGf6z6f ‘put to soak’ y6-z6z(G)k’ zGk’6z6k’ ‘turn upside down’ b. Without a deleted antepenult in the Jussive /ö/: y-a-ösaös a-ösab6s ‘grope’ y-a-özaöz a-özab6z ‘be scattered, be less in number’ y6-ö6k’öGk’ bGk’6b6k’ ‘ripen/be cooked too much’ y6-ö6söGs bGs6b6s ‘be putrid, be rotten’ y6-ö6t’öGt’ bGt’6b6t’ ‘stir violently’ /g/: y-a-]-gGzag(G)z a-]-gGzag6z ‘stagger, reel’ y-a-]-gw6dgwGd a-]-gwGd6gw6d ‘deepen’ y6-gw6sgwGs gwGs6gw6s ‘move  to and fro in a fire’ w w y6-g 6zg Gz gwGz6gw6z ‘spread (e.g. a mat)’ y6-g6sgGs gGs6g6s ‘go fast’ y6-g6zgGz gGz6g6z ‘be cold’ /d/: y-a-dgad(G)g a-dgad6g ‘yield a lot’ y-a-jgaj(G)g a-jg6j6g ‘hinder’


69

The emergence of a y6-Ci6Ci(G)Cj pattern in the Jussive of (21a) is due to the deletion of the antepenult, as shown in (22a). Their penult is geminated to compensate for the deleted antepenult. The penult in the Perfective is also a geminate, as usual. (22)

Degemination without devoicing in n6g6d-type totally reduplicated verbs a. y-a- C 6 C C (G) C = z g z g y-a-z6z(G)g ‘Let throw in a spiral motion’ b. a- C C 6 C C 6 C

z

g

z

g

a-zg6z6g ‘has thrown in a spiral motion’ Because, in both (22a) and (22b), the final radical is an obstruent, the geminate /zz/ is not the rightmost obstruent. Hence, it degeminates without being devoiced following (2b). The absence of compensatory devoicing in (22a) and Perfective devoicing in (22b) confirms hypothesis (2b). The penult devoicing in the Jussive of totally reduplicated verbs such as y6g6kGm ‘let him chip the rims!’, (20a), and its absence in y-a-z6z(G)g ‘let him throw in a spiral motion!’, (22a), are predicted by my analysis. My hypothesis is that the penult geminates in both to compensate for the deleted antepenult and that their devoicing difference originates from the nature of the stem-final radical. As I have argued so far the geminate /gg/ in y6-g6kGm devoices and degeminates because it is the final obstruent. On the other hand, the final obstruent in y-a-z6z(G)g is not the geminate /zz/. In addition, my hypothesis states that a voiced geminate will degeminate without being devoiced if it is not the rightmost obstruent of the morpheme. So, /zz/ remains voiced but degemination applies to it regardless of the final radical. Consequently, the compensatory geminate simplifies in both, as expected. McCarthy (1986a: 224, note 7) states that verbs of the type gGm6k6m, (20), “should not be confused with verbs like gGz6g6z, which have no devoicing because they are not reconstructed with medial geminates.” However, as argued in the beginning of this chapter, penult gemination in the Perfective is not a characteristic of a certain class of verbs. All verbs have Perfective penult gemination, and there is no verb type gGz6g6z ‘be cold’ which differs from gGm6k6m ‘chip the rims’ under any relevant criterion of verb classification. Both conjugate like quadriradicals. In addition, geminate devoicing is insensitive to verb types in the traditional sense of the term “type”, where Ethiopic triradical

70

SOUND MUTATIONS

verbs are classified into types A, B and C. Rather, devoicing is sensitive to the position of the geminate in the root/morpheme, and the voicing difference between the two verbs is derivable from this. In the present analysis, the absence of devoicing in verbs such as n6g6d ‘has touched’ and gGz6g6z ‘has been cold’ receives a unified account. The presence or absence of reduplication plays no role in geminate devoicing. Geminates devoice and degeminate when they are the rightmost obstruent whereas they degeminate without being devoiced when they are not the rightmost obstruent. Now let us turn to forms such as a-]-gwGr6kw6r ‘has roared’, from (19), and a-]-gwGd6gw6d ‘has deepened’, from (21), in which the antepenult does not delete. Their representations are given below: (23)

(24)

Devoicing and degemination when the geminate is the rightmost obstruent a-]-C G C 6 C C 6 C y-a-]-C 6 C C G C

[g U] r [g U] r [g U] r [g U] r y-a-]-gw6rgwGr ‘Let him roar!’ a-]-gwGr6kw6r ‘has roared’ Degemination without devoicing when the geminate is not the rightmost obstruent y-a-]-C 6 C C G C a-]-C G C 6 C C 6 C [g U] d [g U] d [g U] d [g U] d y-a-]-gw6dgwGd ‘Let him deepen!’ a-]-gwGd6gw6d ‘has deepened’

The coronal antepenult is not deleted in either (23) or (24). Therefore, there is no compensatory gemination in the Jussive. On the other hand, the penult is a geminate in the Perfective of both. In addition, the only contrast between these two verbs is that the final radical is r in the former and d in the latter. Hence, the penult is the rightmost obstruent only in the former. The voicing difference in the geminate penult of these verbs is a function of this final radical. One further aspect needs to be clarified about these forms. It is claimed in Chapter 1 of this book and in Prunet and Petros (1996) that a verb such as y-a]-gw6rgwGr ‘let him roar!’ is formed from a triradical gUr and not a biradical gwr. According to such analyses, gw is not even an underlying phoneme of Chaha. When totally reduplicated, the root should yield gUrgUr whose penultimate radical is U and not g. However, there is no triradical root of the type –kft ‘open’ which can be totally reduplicated, i.e. a hypothetical verb *kGft6kf6t is impossible in Chaha. It is also clear that the consonant which is affected by geminate devoicing is g, not the vocoid. Geminate devoicing shows that g is the penulti-


71

mate consonant while a triradical analysis of the verb suggests that it is not. This paradox receives a plausible explanation if we assume, as argued in Prunet and Petros (1996: 320), that high vocoids in Chaha may be either “strong” or “weak.” Strong vocoids are those which have a Root node and occupy their own C slot and the weak ones are those which have neither a Root node nor a C slot. The vocoids in the above representations are weak, i.e. they do not have their own Root node, and do not occupy their own C slot. They are floating segments until they find g to dock onto. In this view, g is the penultimate consonant at the Root level and the skeleton. However, it should be noted that an underlying /gw/ would also be compatible with the facts here.8 2.3.4 Voiced geminates in verbs with a doubled initial radical The penult of the verbs listed in (25) is g or its palatalized or labialized form, i.e. the initial and penultimate consonants are the same. They are of the type C 1 VC 1 C 1 VC 2 . An argument for this is that, as shown in McCarthy (1986a: 224–5), the initial radicals and the penults undergo some processes as a single unit. For instance, both g and k are palatalized in the Perfective, e.g. gy6ky6r ‘has straightened out’. Similarly, they depalatalize in the Jussive, e.g. y6g6kGr ‘let him straighten out!’ and labialize in the impersonal, e.g. y6-gw6kwGr-i ‘let one straighten it out!’ together. The uniqueness of the first two consonants is problematic to the theory of autosegmental phonology because of the form C1VC1C1VC2. Such a form violates either the  or the left-to-right direction of autosegmental spreading. However, as argued in McCarthy (1986b), there is an enormous amount of evidence in support of the correctness of the  and I am not aware of any clear evidence against it in Chaha. If we want to maintain the  and the left-to-right direction of autosegmental spreading, an analysis of the C1VC1C1VC2 pattern is mandatory. Furthermore, there is no verb of the form C1VC1C1VC2 in Chaha where C1 does not have a secondary articulation, such as a hypothetical *g6k6r, or a verb whose final radical is a labial, such as a hypothetical *gy6ky6ö. So, these facts must be explained.

8. It would be desirable to derive the strong vs. weak dichotomy of vocoids from other information in the grammar. One possible way of attaining this may be to assume that gw6n6r ‘cut the head’ (the vocoid here is strong) is formed from –grU whereas gwGr6kw6r ‘burrow’ (the vocoid here is weak) is formed from –gUr. The strong vs. weak nature of U in the two verbs could thus be derived from the difference in its position. However, I will not deal with this problem in this book.

72

SOUND MUTATIONS

(25)

Devoicing and degemination in the C1VC1C1VC2 pattern Jussive Perfective a. y6-g6kGr gy6ky6r ‘straighten out, arrange’ y-a-g6kGr a-gy6ky6r ‘be useful, helpful’ y6-g6kGt gy6ky6t ‘accompany on departure’ (repeated from (9)) b. y-a-gw6kwGr a-gw6kw6r ‘roar’ c. y-a-gyagyGz a-gyagy6z ‘flatter’

A solution to the problems related with these verbs has been offered in McCarthy (1986a: 225) where it is claimed that C1VC1C1VC2 forms “involve copying of the phonemic melody … but also must be lexically marked to associate the final root consonant … with the last C slot of the skeleton.” According to this claim, the first radical associates to the first C1 and the second radical associates to C2 (as in edge-in association). Then, the first radical is copied onto the medial C1C1. While I follow the idea that these verbs involve copying I differ in dispensing with the lexical-linking and unifying these verbs with totally reduplicated ones, discussed in §2.3.3. Particularly, I claim that these verbs are formed by copying of all root consonants exactly like y-a-]-gw6rgwGr ‘let him roar!’ (C1VC2C1VC2). Nevertheless, some C1VC2C1VC2 forms (where C1 is a velar with a secondary articulation) may undergo deletion of the antepenult, and its compensation yields C1VC1C1VC2. This is shown in (26). (26)

Deletion of a sonorant antepenult y-a-C 6 C C G C a-C C 6 C C 6 = = [g U] r [g U] r [g U] r [g U] y-a-gw6kwGr ‘Let him roar!’ a-gw6kw6r ‘has roared’

C r

As a result of this deletion, the penult is a geminate in the Jussive, as it is for templatic reasons in the Perfective. In addition, the final radical is a sonorant, which makes the geminate penult the rightmost obstruent. Hence, hypothesis (2a) predicts that it should devoice and degeminate. Indeed, we have devoicing and degemination as predicted. Again, consider the following representation: (27)

Deletion of an obstruent antepenult y-a-C a C C G C a-C C a C C 6 = = [g I] z [g I] z [g I] z [g I] y-a-gyagyGz ‘Let him flatter!’ a-gyagy6z ‘has flattered’

C z


73

Here too, the penult is now a geminate in both the Perfective and Jussive. Because the final radical is an obstruent the geminate penult is not the rightmost obstruent and it should degeminate without being devoiced, following hypothesis (2b). The presence of devoicing in a-gw6kw6r and its absence in a-gyagy6z show that reduplication plays no role in the devoicing of the penult. Rather, the difference in voicing between the two correlates with the nature of their final radical. I now present some supporting arguments for the antepenult-deletion analysis. The verbs a-gw6kw6r/a-]-gwGr6kw6r ‘has roared’ are in free variation. The [Gr] is deleted in the former without any modification in meaning, i.e. the deletion is optional in some verbs. In addition, antepenult deletion may apply only in a well-defined class of verbs. In Chaha, it applies only to verbs whose initial radical is a velar with a secondary articulation and whose final radical is an alveolar. Even though a different class of verbs without secondary articulation in which the first C2 of C1VC2C1VC2 deletes is found, e.g. gGm6k6m ‘has chipped the rims’ vs. y6-g6kGm ‘let him chip the rims!’, the deletion occurs only in the Imperative/Jussive, and with compensatory devoicing, y6-g6mgGm → y6-g6kGm ‘let him chip the rims!’ (see §2.3.2 and Chapter 6). Furthermore, the compensatory devoicing found in y-a-gw6kwGr, the Jussive of (26), parallels the one in y6g6kGm, (20a), and receives a straightforward explanation. Finally, some of the C1VC1C1VC2 verbs have a direct semantic relation with C1VC2C1VC2 nouns, e.g. ky6ky6r ‘has held  in an armpit’ vs. kyGrkyGr ‘armpit’. It is clear that these two words have a common root which ends in r and that this root is reduplicated in both. However, r is deleted only in ky6ky6r. In the present analysis, gy6ky6r ‘straightened out’ is a totally reduplicated –gIr, i.e. *gyGr6ky6r with a deleted [Gr]. The root –gIr is also found in unreduplicated words, e.g. gy6r-a ‘naive’ and totally reduplicated words, e.g. gyGrgyGr bar6m ‘it has blazed/burnt easily’. Even though the relationship between gy6ky6r ‘straightened out’, gy6r-a ‘naive’ and gyGrgyGr bar6-m ‘it has blazed/burnt easily’ may seem remote, all share the concept of “straight”, which I assume is expressed by –gIr. Finally, deriving gy6ky6r from –gIr has the theoretical advantage of explaining the apparent  violation in Chaha and some other Ethiopian Semitic languages (see Appendix 2b for Amharic). Let us recapitulate the discussion in §2.3. Out of 110 verbs with a doubled radical investigated, 50 have a final radical sonorant or t. Therefore, their geminate penult is the rightmost obstruent. Hypothesis (2a) states that such geminate penult should devoice and degeminate. This is correct 49 times out of 50. In only one Perfective (a-r6b6ö) does the penult degeminate without being devoiced. On the other hand, 60 of the verbs with a doubled radical have an obstruent different from t as a final radical. The geminate penult is therefore not

74

SOUND MUTATIONS

the rightmost obstruent. Hypothesis (2b) states that their penult should degeminate without being devoiced. This is true 60 time out of 60: there is no verb in which the penult is devoiced where it is not expected, i.e. hypothesis (2b) is respected without exception. Accordingly, almost all the verbs discussed in this section support my hypotheses. Notice the difference in the number of exceptions in verbs without doubled radical discussed in §2.2 (which is 20 out of 142) and those with a doubled radical discussed in this section. This shows that given a final sonorant consonant, a voiced Ci in …CiVCiCiVC# and CiCiVCi# configuration has a better chance of being devoiced (as there is only one exception in this class) than a Ci in a …CiCiVCj# configuration and that triple-linking (Geminate Inalterability) has no role in blocking geminate devoicing.

2.4

Devoicing and degemination in nouns and adjectives

We have seen that an underlying voiced geminate in verbs devoices and degeminates if it is the rightmost obstruent while it degeminates without being devoiced if it is followed by an underlying obstruent. (Underlying obstruents of Chaha include ejectives, fricatives and voiced stops.) Now it is worth examining whether this generalization holds for all lexical items, as we would like it to. This is difficult to prove because nouns and adjectives do not have a wellestablished gemination pattern. However, given the claim that p in all instances is a devoiced geminate it is predicted not to be found before an obstruent. To my knowledge, there is no p in nominal and adjectival stems which is followed by an obstruent other than t. As predicted, p in all instances is followed by a sonorant or t, e.g. c’Gpwi ‘cautious’, gw6p7 ‘brother’, t’6pa ‘field’, dGp6ya ‘hockey stick’, c’Gpw6 ‘parings of the 6s6t-root’ (from c’ap6r6-m), k’6pw6r6 ‘newly planted 6s6t’, x6p6ö-ar ‘surrounding’, wGpwat-I6 → wGpwac6 ‘choice’, etc. There are occasional final p’s as in Š6p ‘lion’, which results from devoicing and degemination. Given that a final p is the rightmost obstruent its devoicing and degemination also follows from hypothesis (2a).

2.5

Devoicing and degemination in affixes

The malefactive /-öö/ in yG-k6f6t-o-öö-a → yGk6ftopa/yGk6ftoka ‘they open () to her detriment’ is the only affix which includes a devoicing consonant. Note that /-öö/ here is the rightmost consonant of the morpheme (the root in my view is a morpheme and the two terms are interchangeable in this context) and my


75

analysis predicts that it should devoice and degeminate. This prediction is borne out, as there is no /-öö/ which degeminates without being devoiced, cf. *yGk6ftoba. See Chapter 9 as to the source of gemination in suffixes and the free variation of p and k in yGk6ftopa/yGk6ftoka.

2.6

Absence of devoicing and degemination

The participles in (28) provide an exhaustive list of some special geminates, which neither devoice nor degeminate. Only voiced obstruents are discussed here. See Banksira (1999) for a detailed discussion of such words.9 (28)

Special geminates10 a. /ö/ g6bb l6bb t’6bb k’6bb w6bb w6bb b. /z/ bwGŠŠ 6zz fizz gyGzz/gGŠŠ k’yGzz/k’GŠŠ mwGŠŠ/mwGŠGŠ c. /g/ bw6gg dGgg mwGgg z6gg

‘calmed’ ‘lukewarm’ ‘dripped’ ‘grabbed’ ‘knot loosely’ ‘tempted’ ‘stand still with fear’ ‘be sickly’ ‘stared’ ‘be motionless’ ‘underdeveloped’ ‘drown out’ ‘illuminated’ ‘acted steadily’ ‘bent’ ‘enlarge’

A possible solution for the absence of devoicing and degemination here is to assume, following See Banksira (1999), that these geminates are derived by total

9. The participles cannot be used as modifiers. Rather, combined with the auxiliary bar6-m ‘become’ (lit. ‘said’) or a-m6n6-m ‘made’, they are used as verbs. This results in composite verbs (intransitive with bar6-m and transitive with a-m6n6-m). See also Chapter 7 and Leslau (1992: 131). 10. Notice that palatalization in gyGzz/gGŠŠ and k’yGzz/k’GŠŠ targets either the initial velar or the final alveolar but not both at the same time. This special case of palatalization suggests that the palatal element is an autosegment targeting the word and is not underlyingly associated with one of the radicals, as discussed in §2.3.3.

76

SOUND MUTATIONS

reduplication with a deleted medial CV, as in /g6ög6ö/ → /g6öö/ → [g6bb]. Devoicing and degemination apply before [g6bb] is derived.

2.7

Geminate devoicing and underspecification

2.7.1 Absence of laryngeal specification in sonorants The hypotheses expressed in (2), i.e. a geminate devoices and degeminates when it is the rightmost obstruent, and degeminates otherwise (without being devoiced when it is followed by an obstruent other than t) have been justified at length. The question to be addressed now is: why does whether a geminate is the rightmost obstruent or not play a decisive role in the devoicing of a geminate? I suggest that this is best viewed as a consequence of underspecification. As it is well known, [voice] is an unmarked feature for sonorants. For instance, all sonorants including ö in Chaha are voiced, i.e. [+] implies [voice]. Furthermore, it is widely assumed that [voice] in sonorants is inactive or unspecified in many languages (e.g. Kiparsky 1985, Itô and Mester 1986, Lombardi 1991, 1995, Calabrese 1995, Itô, Mester and Padgett 1995, Steriade 1995 and Rubach 1996). Following this line of reasoning, let us assume that [voice] in sonorants is unspecified in Chaha. Accordingly, the respective final sonorant radicals /r/, /A/ and /m/ of the following verbs have no laryngeal specification.

(29) a. C 6 C C 6 C Root node

•

•

Laryngeal node

•

•

[voice] m6k6r ‘has suppurated’

b. C 6 C C 6 C •

•

•

•

[voice][voice] g6pa ‘has entered’

•

c. C G C 6 C C 6 C • •

•

•

•

•

[voice] [voice] gGr6t6m ‘has broken in two’

In all these examples, the [voice] of the geminate penult is not followed by a Laryngeal node. Rather, its Laryngeal node is the final one. I hypothesize that it is this final doubly linked [voice] that the grammar of Chaha excludes. In contrast with sonorants, [voice] is marked in obstruents and I assume that they are specified for it, i.e. voiced obstruents are [voice], ejectives are [constricted glottis] and voiceless fricatives (including x) are [spread glottis]. Accordingly, the respective final obstruents d, k’ and f of the verbs in (30a–c)

77


have Laryngeal nodes. The [voice] of the geminate penult is therefore followed by a laryngeal specification. Hence, it is nonfinal, as shown in (30).

(30) a. C 6 C C 6 C Root node

•

Laryngeal node

b. C 6 C C 6 C

c. C G C 6 C C 6 C

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

[voice][voice] [voice] [voice] [voice] [voice] [] [] n6g6d z6b6k gGr6d6f ‘has touched’ ‘has daubed’ ‘has ground roughly’ My hypothesis is that a doubly linked nonfinal [voice] is licensed. So, degemination applies without affecting the licensed feature [voice]. This accounts for the absence of devoicing in the verbs exemplified in (30). On the other hand, the final doubly linked [voice] in (29) is unlicensed. Therefore, the Laryngeal node dominating [voice] delinks from the voiced obstruent g in m6k6r (29a), b in g6pa (29b), and d in gGr6t6m, (29c). (See §5.3.1 for a formal representation of devoicing and degemination.) Based on these considerations, I assume that Chaha does not allow a final doubly linked [voice], i.e. the constraint given in (31) holds at the level of roots/morphemes. (Nothing in my analysis hinges on whether the Root node should directly link to syllabic constituents or skeletal slots but I chose the latter for ease of exposition.) (31)

No Doubly Linked Final [voice] Skeleton *C C

Root node

•

Laryngeal node

•# [voice]

The g in m6k6r, (29a), is the rightmost obstruent of the stem and it is a geminate. It devoices not to violate the constraint given in (31). The g in n6g6d, (30a), is a geminate too but it is not the rightmost obstruent. It does not devoice since it does not violate (31). In other words, the [voice] of the geminate penult in (30) is licensed by a following laryngeal specification. The emergence of two classes of verbs, with and without penultimate voicing alternation, is thus a result of a constraint on a final doubly linked [voice], (31). In this account, the hypotheses in (2) follow from (31) and from the assumption that sonorants (and /t/) lack

78

SOUND MUTATIONS

laryngeal specification. Notice that the constraint in (31) can be satisfied either by delinking the feature [voice] (i.e. devoicing) or deleting one of the C slots (i.e. degemination) so it does not require that both devoicing and degemination apply. However, devoicing alone as in the hypothetical m6kk6r or degemination alone as in hypothetical m6g6r is insufficient showing that rule ordering in which devoicing applies before degemination is required. In addition, given that the input for devoicing (i.e. the geminate) is always degeminated the rule of devoicing is opaque. Penultimate geminate devoicing in Chaha can be seen as a subset of a more general process of final devoicing as in Russian (Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1979), German (Lombardi 1991), and Polish (Rubach 1996), restricted to a geminate voiced obstruent. Final devoicing restricted only to a geminate /bb/ (→ [pp] or [p]) is reported to occur optionally also in Moroccan Colloquial Arabic (see Heath 1987: 16). See Ohala and Riordan 1979 and the references therein as to the tendency of geminates to devoice. In (29), the doubly linked [voice] is final, which according to (31) is illicit. This explains why it devoices. But in (30), the final radical of each verb is an obstruent, which has a laryngeal specification. So, the doubly linked [voice] of the penult is nonfinal and it is licit. This explains why it remains voiced. The assumption that sonorants are unspecified for [voice] also provides a straightforward account of why geminate sonorant penults degeminate without being devoiced irrespective of whether the final radical is a sonorant or an obstruent.

(32) Root node

a. C 6 C C 6 C •

Laryngeal node •

•

•

b. C 6 C C 6 C • •

•

• •

[constricted] [voice] [voice] k’6n6m ‘has insulted’ g6n6z ‘has aged’ The geminate penult in (32) is a sonorant, unspecified for [voice]. Irrespective of whether the penult is followed by a laryngeal specification, as in (32b), or not, as in (32a), a violation of (31) cannot arise since there is no doubly linked [voice]. Similarly, there is no [voice] to delink from the geminate sonorant penult, which may be the reason why geminate sonorants degeminate without being devoiced. A geminate /öö/ (or [b]) is an obstruent with a specification [−, voice] (see §1.3.1). Its specification [voice] is subject to the constraint No Doubly Linked Final [voice], (31). This results in devoicing of /öö/ unless it is followed


79

by another obstruent. Given that only [−] segments devoice /öö/ should become obstruent before devoicing and degemination applies to it. 2.7.2 The patterning of /ö/ and /t/ with sonorants Chaha /ö/ and /t/ pattern with sonorants in many respects (see Chapters 1 and 3), but here I will discuss this only in relation to geminate devoicing. As we have seen so far and summarized in (33), geminate penults degeminate but do not devoice when the last radical is an obstruent other than /t/, (33a). But they devoice and degeminate when the last radical is /t/ or a sonorant, (33b). It is assumed above that sonorants are laryngeally unspecified. (33)

Final obstruents vs. /t/ and sonorants with respect to geminate devoicing Jussive Perfective a. y6-t’Gös t’6b6s < /t’6öö6s/ ‘roast’ y6-ndGf n6d6f < /r6dd6f/ ‘sting’ y-a-k’öaöz a-k’öab6z < /a-k’öaöö6z/ ‘deny the truth’ y-a-xGöd a-x6b6d < /a-x6öö6d/ ‘defer’ y-6dGg ad6g < /A6dd6g/ ‘make fall’ y6-t-zraö6t’ t6-zrab6t’ < /t6-zraöö6t’/ ‘crave’ y6-zGök’ z6b6k’ < /z6öö6k’/ ‘daub’ b. y6-zaöt zap6t < /zA6öö6t/ ‘lose one’s way’ y6-z6sGm zGm6s6m < /zm6zz6m/ ‘be wet’ y6-sdGö s6t6ö < /s6dd6ö/ ‘curse’ y6-söGr s6p6r < /s6öö6r/ ‘break’ y6-mba n6pa < /r6öö6A/ ‘split’ y6-t’u t’6pw6 < /t’6öö6U/ ‘suck’ y y6-d6g d6ky6 < /d6gg6I/ ‘brew’

My proposal is that the final /ö/ patterns with sonorants because it is one (see §1.3.1 for justification). On the other hand, the fact that geminates devoice in verbs whose final radical is t as in zap6t, from (33b), forced me to distinguish /t/ from the class of Chaha obstruents and categorize it instead with sonorants even though it does not form a natural class with sonorants in many, if not all, phonological theories. This may seem to be problematic to my analysis but in fact it follows from the assumption that /t/ have no laryngeal specifications. Many aspects of the distribution of /t/ require an explanation. For instance, note that [t] in (33) is the only plain voiceless stop to appear as a final radical. It is also true that Chaha /t/ is the only underlying plain (nonejective) voiceless stop, as [k] derives from /g/ (or /x/, see next chapter) and [b, p] derive from /ö/.

80

SOUND MUTATIONS

In fact, as argued in §1.2, the plain voiceless stops /p, k/ are not even underlying Chaha phonemes as evidenced by their restricted distribution. Accordingly, [p, t, k] have no laryngeal specification. In fact, no phoneme of Chaha has [−voice], as fricatives in my analysis are [spread glottis]. The claim that /t/ is unspecified for [voice] (i.e. that it is not [−voice]) may explain why it patterns with sonorants in not licensing a preceding doubly linked [voice] even though it does not form a natural class with sonorants and does not receive their redundant value [voice]. In my view, [b] (i.e. initial, geminate or postnasal) is an obstruent with [voice], as is the penult in (34a), whereas [ö] is a sonorant unspecified for [voice], as is the final radical in (34a). So the [voice] of [bb] in (34a) is the final laryngeal specification, which according to (31) is illicit. It therefore delinks, resulting in devoicing to [p].

(34)

a. C 6 C C 6 C •

•

Laryngeal node •

•

Root node

[constricted] [voice] k’6p6ö ‘has shaved’

•

b. C 6 C

C 6 C

•

•

•

•

•

•

[] [voice] [voice] f6z6z ‘has been better’

But the final radical z in (34b) is a laryngeally specified obstruent. Here, the [voice] of the penult zz is licensed by the [voice] of the final z, so it does not violate (31). It, accordingly, does not delink, which explains the absence of devoicing. Degemination applies in both cases because it does not take the nature of a final radical into account. Again, the geminate in verbs such as z6b6k’ ‘has daubed’ and the one in f6z6z degeminate without being devoiced for the same reason that the final radical is an obstruent with a laryngeal specification. Consequently, neither the feature-changing vs. feature-filling distinction nor the triply linked configuration is required. In my view, bb is a voiced stop and its devoicing is the delinking of [voice]. In this regard, I am not aware of any phonologically relevant distinction between bb and any other voiced geminate.


2.8

81

Conclusion

The geminate penults of a total of 252 verbs were investigated in this chapter (disregarding the special final geminates without devoicing and degemination, discussed in §2.6). Based on these verbs two hypotheses were formulated in (2). These are repeated in (35) with the italicized amendment in (35a). (35)

Hypotheses about geminate devoicing and degemination in Chaha: (final version) a. Geminates devoice and degeminate if they are the rightmost laryngeally specified obstruent of a morpheme. b. Otherwise, they degeminate (without being devoiced).

150 of the 252 verbs end with a sonorant or t. Therefore, the geminate penult is the rightmost laryngeally specified obstruent, which according to hypothesis (35a) should devoice and degeminate. 122 out of the 150 conform to (35a). All the exceptions to (35a) (22 verbs) are selected from the relevant sections and reproduced in (36). (Penult devoicing is expected in all Perfective verbs and only in the underlined Jussive forms for compensatory reasons.) (36)

Exhaustive list of exceptions Jussive Perfective Penultimate /ö/: y-a-mbGö a-r6b6ö y6-d-dGraö6r y6-g6bGr gy6b6r y6-kö6r k6b6r y6-tobGt tob6t Penultimate /g/: y-a-d6gGr a-j6g6r y6-fga f6ga y6-]-g6gGö G]-gGö6k6ö y6-sgy s6gy6 y6-sg6r s6g6r y6-t’6gGr c’6g6r Penultimate /d/: y-a-sraj a-sraj6 y6-f6nda fGn6da y6-gwda gw6da w y6-k’ ada k’wada y6-nda n6da y6-xda x6da y6-xdGm x6d6m

to geminate devoicing ‘read’ (< ) t6-drab6r‘bolt, grope’ ‘pay tribute, submit’ ‘be respectable’ (< ) ‘become a Muslim’ (< Arabic) ‘trouble ()’ ‘blow’ ‘thunder’ (exception only in Jussive) ‘call a witness’ ‘amble’ ‘be cruel, refuse’ ‘eke out, stretch out’ ‘burst’ (< ) ‘hurt’ ‘rave, talk nonsense’ ‘help, drive’ ‘abjure, betray’ ‘look after’

82

SOUND MUTATIONS

Penultimate /z/: y6-k’w(G)Š y6-m6zGr y6-nz6ö y6-wza

k’w6Š6 mez6r n6z6ö w6za

‘have dysentery’ ‘count’ ‘be flexible’ ‘shine’

The list shows that a labial, dorsal or coronal penult can be an exception to devoicing (but see next for their proportion) so exceptions cannot be attributed to the nature of the consonant expected to devoice. Similarly, the initial as well as the final radicals of the verbs are varied in nature. Sonorants and obstruents from different place of articulation are found as an initial radical. In addition, all sonorants are found as a final radical. So the exceptions are not due to the surrounding consonants. Furthermore, the relative number of loans in the list (4 out of 22) is not exceptionally high to attribute the exceptions to borrowing. It seems that there is no synchronic rationale which can explain these exceptions. Verbs with optional devoicing are reproduced in (37). In these six verbs the voiced and the voiceless alternates are in free variation. (37)

Exhaustive list of verbs with optional devoicing

Penultimate /g/: Penultimate /d/:

y6-s6kGr/y6-s6gGr

Penultimate /z/:

w6k6r/w6g6r n6t6r/n6d6r f6c6/f6j6 as6r/az6r aw6/aŠ6 t6-k’raw6/t6-k’raŠ6

‘change’ ‘pierce’ ‘engage, get rid of tapeworm’ ‘carry on one’s back, mount’ ‘see’ ‘look here and there’

Table 2.1 compares the results of the verbs that fall under hypothesis (35a). Table 2.1. Calculation of expected devoicing and exceptions penult

number of verbs

corroborative neutral (i.e. exception (i.e. percentage of (i.e. devoicing) free variation) no devoicing) exception

/ö/ /g/ /d/ /z/

053 044 033 020

048 037 024 013

0 1 2 3

05 06 07 04

10.42% 13.64% 21.27% 20.00%

Total

150

122

6

22

14.67%

The total number of exceptions to geminate devoicing (i.e. 22) is 14.67% of the 150 verbs in which the geminate is predicted to devoice. These exceptions militate against hypothesis (35a). Before this book, borrowing has been considered to be the main reason for these exceptions. But I have discussed some


83

arguments showing that this view is erroneous. Rather, I have shown that verbs with a doubled radical have practically no exceptions (see §2.3). In addition, the percentage of exceptions is higher in the coronal series presumably because this is the only series with voicing contrast and it tends to maintain the contrast. The six verbs with optional devoicing are neutral with respect to hypothesis (35a). The rest of the verbs (i.e. 81.33% of 150) devoice and degeminate and consequently support hypothesis (35a). The remaining verbs (a total of 103) fall under hypothesis (35b) because their penult is not the rightmost obstruent with a laryngeal specification, i.e. it is followed by a final radical with a laryngeal specification. The geminate penult of all these verbs but one degeminates without being devoiced. These were considered exceptions till now. According to the present analysis, these verbs are not expected to devoice their penult. The hypothesis is corroborated by more than 99 % of them since there is only one verb (mes6x) with a devoiced penult when the final radical is an obstruent different from t. The two hypotheses are also supported by the compensatory devoicing which applies in the Jussive of I-second quadriradicals, such as y6-d6IöGr → y6d6ööGr → y6-d6pGr, discussed in §2.2.7, and reduplicated biradicals, such as in y6-g6mgGm → y6-g6ggGm → y6-g6kGm, discussed in §2.3.3 and §2.3.4. The deletion of the antepenult in these verbs is compensated by devoicing. Such compensatory devoicing occurs only if the penult is the rightmost obstruent with a laryngeal specification. For instance, in y6-t’6IöGk’ → y6-t’6ööGk’ → y6-t’6bGk’ and y6-z6fzGf → y6-z6zzGf → y6-z6zGf the penult is not the rightmost obstruent with a laryngeal specification and accordingly it degeminates without being devoiced. The absence of compensatory devoicing when the final radical is laryngeally specified corroborates hypothesis (35b). Finally, the antepenultdeletion analysis was also used to explain some apparent  violations. In the appendices to follow, I show that my analysis also explains why the so-called type B verbs of Amharic (including C1VC1C1VC2) always have a geminated penult. It also follows from my analysis that the  violation in Amharic verbs of the type C16C1C16C2 (k’6k’k’6l) and C1aC1C16C2 (gagg6r) is only apparent.

Appendix 2a On the second-radical vocoid in Amharic Amharic quadriradical verbs have no gemination in the Jussive, e.g. yG-g6löGt’ ‘let him turn  upside-down!’ (In what follows I will only give the stem, i.e.

84

SOUND MUTATIONS

the Imperative). Amharic type A and C verbs have no gemination either, e.g. type A sGö6r ‘break !’ and type C bark ‘bless!’ (In all these cases, Chaha has no devoicing.) So gemination in the Imperative is the characteristic of the so-called type B verbs alone, as it characterizes neither triradicals (other than type B) nor quadriradicals. This, in my view, needs an explanation because as shown for Gurage in Petros (1993a), Prunet (1996b) and Chamora (1997), there are only two patterns (short/triconsonantal and long/quadriconsonantal) so there should not be a third pattern, called type B. Of course, it is desirable that this generalization holds in Ethiopic. With this in mind, and in line with the analysis given for Chaha I-second quadriradicals in §2.2.7, let us assume that, with the exception of C1VC1C1VC2 (to be discussed in Appendix 2B) and some denominals, all Amharic type B verbs are vocoid-second quadriradicals. See also Beyene (1973: 232–5) for analyzing some Amharic type B verbs as y-second quadriradicals and Voigt (1990) for a compatible analysis of Geäez. Accordingly, the second radical in Amharic c’6mmGr ‘add!’ is not /m/ but /I/, as in /t’6ImGr/, and it parallels g6löGt’. We have seen in §2.2.7 that devoicing in the Imperative stem of Chaha I-second quadriradicals is triggered by a delinked I, as in /k’6IöGr/ → /k’6bbGr/ → [k’6pGr] ‘help’, with depalatalization in the Imperative. Similarly, gemination in the Imperative of Amharic I-second quadriradicals is triggered by a delinked vocoid as in /t’6ImGr/ → [c’6mmGr] ‘add!’ So, both devoicing in Chaha and gemination in Amharic are compensatory. The second radical is mostly I, but it can also be U, and I assume that gemination in the Imperative of Amharic U-second quadriradicals is also triggered by a delinked U as in /k’6Ut’Gö/ → [k’ot’t’Gö] ‘save!’ and /t’6Uk’Gm/ → [t’6k’k’wGm] ‘nominate!’ But it should be noted that not all surface triradicals containing a labialized segment are U-second quadriradicals. There are verbs such as k’wGt’6r ‘count!’ and t’Gk’w6r ‘be dark!’ which conjugate like triradicals. In these cases, the labializing U is not an independent radical in any respect (see §2.2.7 for such weak glides in Chaha). As it is the case for Chaha, the I-second quadriradicals (e.g. c’6mmGr) of Amharic conjugate like regular quadriradicals (e.g. g6löGt’). For instance, both have a geminated penult in the Imperfective, e.g. yG-g6l6bbGt’-all (not *yG-g6l6öt’all) ‘he turns  upside-down’ and yG-c’6mmGr-all (not *yG-c’6mr-all) ‘he adds’. In addition, the initial radical in both is followed by a vowel in the Imperative, e.g. g6löGt’ ‘turn  upside-down!’ and c’6mmGr ‘add!’ Note that triradicals have an epenthetic vowel after the initial radical in the Imperative, e.g. sGö6r (not *s6öGr) ‘break!’ As depicted below, the delinking of I from its slot triggers compensatory gemination of the penult. This explains why I-second quadriradicals differ from regular quadriradicals and triradicals in having a geminated

85


penult in the Imperative. (Note that the penult is not geminated in the Imperative of the regular quadriradical g6löGt’ or triradicals other than type B.) (1)

Compensatory gemination in the Imperative of I-second quadriradicals a. C 6 C C G C b. C 6 C 6 C C 6 C = = [t’ I] m r [t’ I] m r c’6mm6r ‘has added’ c’6mmGr ‘Add!’ In Chaha, I deletes if it is a nonfinal coda in a stem, as in /k’6IöGr/ → [k’6pGr], thereby triggering compensatory devoicing as well as depalatalization, cf. (11a) in §2.2.7. But Amharic differs from Chaha in that I can dock on its host even when it is a nonfinal coda in a stem, as in (1a). Chaha also differs from Amharic concerning compensatory lengthening. In Chaha, this occurs only when I deletes, i.e. when I cannot dock on a neighboring segment whereas in Amharic I does not need to delete. It can dock on a neighboring segment, as in (1a), and lengthening can still apply. This shows that a palatalizing I in Chaha is linked with both the C slot of its host and its own whereas a palatalizing I in Amharic is linked only with the C slot of its host. In this account, [c] of Chaha is as in (2a) while that of Amharic is as in (2b). ([−back] also represents the other terminal feature [high] of /I/.) (2)

a.

[c] in Chaha C

b.

C

[c] in Amharic C

Root

Root

Root

C = Root

Place

Place

Place

Place

Coronal

Dorsal = [–back]

Coronal

Dorsal [–back]

The Root node of I is delinked but neither the Root node nor its C slot is deleted in the Amharic Imperative c’6mmGr, which explains why we have compensatory gemination and palatalization at the same time. But Chaha has a compensatory gemination only when there is no palatalization, as in k’6pGr, i.e. when the Root node of I is deleted. That an original C slot of a vocoid is vacant in Amharic is also supported by the fact that it can be filled by the default t, explaining the t-epenthesis in m6-fj6t ‘to consume’, from –fdI. On the other hand, t-epenthesis is impossible in Chaha because the original C slot of I is not vacant when there

86

SOUND MUTATIONS

is palatalization, as shown in (2a). Accordingly, we obtain w6-fj (not *w6-fGjt) ‘to engage’, from –fdI. This analysis is also supported by the absorbing nature of Chaha palatalization, e.g. /kGft-I/ → [kGfc] (i.e. [c] occupies its own slot and that of /I/), and the optional nature of absorption in Amharic palatalization, e.g. /kGf6t-I/ → [kGf6c(i)] ‘open ( )!’ (i.e. [c] does not necessarily occupy the slot of /I/). A triradical analysis of type B assumes that the vowel following the first radical is e, cf. Leslau (1957: 488) and Lowenstamm (1986: 171–3), as in /met’6r/ ‘has separated’. I have developed this hypothesis further and assumed that e is in fact a fusion of 6I (occupying a VC slot) as in /m6I6t’t’6r/. Note that /m6I6t’t’6r/ is a quadriradical with the regular 6-6-6 vowel sequence of aquadriradical (cf. g6l6bb6t’ ‘has turned  upside-down’). In my analysis, penult gemination in the Perfective of type B is not compensatory because such gemination characterizes the Perfective in all verb types. Similarly, the penult in the Imperfectives of all quadriradicals is a geminate, which explains why type B verbs have a geminate in this aspect. On the other hand, gemination in the Imperative characterizes only type B and this is due to the abandoned C slot of I, i.e. c’ in c’6mmGr is the combination of t’ and I, as shown in (1b). The I delinks from its C slot and docks on the initial radical if the latter can support the former, i.e. if it is palatalizable (see the following paragraphs). Consequently, the penult gets a vacant C to which it propagates. This explains why all I-second quadriradicals have a geminated penult in the Imperative. It also unifies type B with quadriradicals, hence eliminates the third class (type B) from the analysis of verbs in Ethiopic. Furthermore, we will see in Appendix 2B that this analysis is supported by C1C1C2 verbs such as k’6k’k’6l and it explains the apparent  violation in them. It should be mentioned that, in Amharic, all I-second quadriradicals belong to type B but not all type B verbs are I-second quadriradicals. For instance, there are verbs in Amharic where the initial radical is a dental obstruent which is not palatalized. Yet these verbs belong to type B, e.g. d6gg6f ‘has supported’ and z6mm6r ‘has chanted’. See Leslau (1957: 487) for a list of such verbs and an explanation different from mine. My proposal is that an initial s’ of an I-second quadriradical does not palatalize because there is no palatalized ejective fricative w ’ in Amharic. In addition, I claim that the initial voiced coronals d and z of a I-second quadriradical do not palatalize. If correct, this analysis (in conjunction with the claim that labialized and palatalized consonants are biphonemic) predicts that no type B verb should begin with j or Š and that a verb which begins with s’, d or z can belong to type B. From Aklilu’s (1987) Amharic-English Dictionary, the only free verbs (without a prefix) beginning with j or Š (mostly they


87

are in free variation) are Š6ll6t’ ‘has hit by a stick’, j6mm6r ‘has started’, j6bb6d ‘has struck with a stick’, j6bbon ‘has muffled’, and jaj6 ‘has become senile’. Except for these five verbs the prediction that no type B should begin with j or Š holds in its generality. But I have no clear reason why initial voiced coronals d and z of an I-second quadriradical do not palatalize to yield forms such as *j6gg6f (vs. d6gg6f) and *Š6mm6r (vs. z6mm6r). On the other hand, the geminated penultimate radicals of yG-s’6llGy-all ‘he prays’, yG-d6ggGf-all ‘he supports’ and yGz6mmGr-all ‘he chants’ show that verbs beginning respectively with s’, d and z can belong to type B. An initial t of an I-second quadriradical may palatalize, as in yG-c6ggGr ‘let one be in trouble’, and may remain without palatalization, as in yG-t6llGm ‘let him plan’. However, verbs beginning with t or c are denominals, as yG-c6ggGr derives from cGggGr ‘trouble’ and yG-t6llGm derives from tGlm ‘plan’. This makes it difficult to decide whether t in a regular I-second quadriradical will palatalize or not. I propose that initial voiceless coronals t’ and s in I-second quadriradicals palatalize as in (1) unless the penult is a vocoid, as in t’6yy6k’ ‘has asked’ and s6ww6r ‘has obscured’. If correct, this analysis predicts that a verb which begins with t’ or s and whose penult is not a vocoid cannot belong to type B. The prediction holds in all regular verbs but not in the following five denominal verbs: yG-t’6bbGk’-all ‘he waits’ (from t’Gbb6k’a ‘guarding’), yG-t’6ggGn-all ‘he mends’ (from t’Ggg6na ‘mending’), yG-t’6rrGz-all ‘he binds’ (from t’Graz ‘binding’ or t’6rz ‘edge’), yG-s6rrGg-all ‘he weds’ (from s6rg ‘wedding’) and yG-s6rrGz-all ‘he cancels’ (from s6r6z ‘cancellation’). It also follows from my analysis that a surface triradical beginning with c’ or w (followed by 6) is an underlying I-second quadriradical (i.e. type B) and should always have a geminated penult. This prediction is also borne out except for the absence of gemination in the three denominal verbs yG-c’6nk’-all ‘it distresses’ (from c’Gnk’ ‘distress’), yG-c’6mk’-all ‘he squeezes’ (from c’Gmmak’i ‘juice’), yG-w6rf-all ‘he breaks a piece off’ (from wGrrafi ‘a broken off piece’ or w6rafa ‘the remainder after a piece is broken off’). An initial labial, velar or sonorant of an Amharic I-second quadriradical does not palatalize, e.g. g6bbGr ‘submit!’ and g6bb6r ‘has submitted’. In these examples, the consonants g and b seem to be adjacent radicals. But my claim is that g and b are separated by I and that g is geminated in (3a) to compensate for the delinked I, i.e. /g6IöGr/ → [g6bbGr]. But the I in (3) is silent because it is not preceded by a palatalizable (plain voiceless coronal obstruent) consonant.

88

SOUND MUTATIONS

(3)

Visible compensatory gemination triggered by an invisible delinking a. C 6 C C G C b. C 6 C 6 C C 6 C = = g I ö r g I ö r

g6bbGr ‘Submit!’

g6bb6r ‘has submitted’

In languages where velars are palatalizable, such as Chaha, it is evident that such words include I, cf. gy6b6r ‘has submitted’. In other languages, such as Soddo, where I is allowed to surface independently we find the vowel i, cf. gibb6r. But Amharic allows neither palatalization of velars nor vocalization of I, obliterating all traces of a the second radical I. This creates an apparent similarity (in the number of radicals) between quadriradical verbs such as g6bb6r (formed from –gIör) and triradical ones such as k’6bb6r ‘has buried’ (formed from –k’ör). See Demoz (1964) and Amberber (1997) on the meaning of Amharic basic and derived stems. I have proposed that some Amharic type B verbs are vocoid-second quadriradicals with a delinked antepenult, e.g. t’6ImGr → c’6mmGr and k’6Ut’Gö → k’ot’t’Gö, and that some are denominatives, e.g. t’Graz → t’6rr6z. I have also argued that a second-radical I in Amharic palatalizes only voiceless coronals. The third source of Amharic type B are reduplicated biradicals with a delinked antepenult, e.g. /k’6lk’6l/ → [k’6k’k’Gl] ‘cook !’, to be discussed next in Appendix 2b.

Appendix 2b On Amharic C1C1C2 verbs We have seen in §2.3.3 that in Chaha some totally reduplicated biradicals delete their antepenultimate consonant, e.g. /y-a-gw6rgwGr/ → [y-a-gw6kwGr] ‘let him roar!’ The deletion of /r/ gives rise to two classic problems. The first is that the penult of some of these verbs is always geminated. This has created the other subset of the so-called type B verbs whose raison d’être is still a matter of controversy. The second is the C1C1C2 pattern itself. Due to the existence of such forms, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have been argued to violate the  (Broselow 1984: 27–8). But given my antepenult-deletion analysis proposed for Chaha, both problems receive a straightforward account. The deleted antepenult is responsible for the rise of both compensatory lengthening and the apparent violation in the C1C1C2 pattern. In this section I will account for the Amharic C1C1C2 forms and briefly discuss their differences and similarities with the Chaha forms.


89

The C1C1C2 pattern of Amharic differs from that of Chaha in that its C1 does not need to have a secondary articulation, e.g. k’6k’k’6l ‘has cooked  by boiling’. In my analysis, k’6k’k’6l is a reduplicated biradical, as shown in (1). See also Dillmann (1907: 102) for deriving Geäez sassala ‘to withdraw’ from salsala and Leslau (1995: 454) for deriving Amharic k’6k’k’6l from t6nk’6l6k’k’6l. (1)

Compensatory lengthening in the Amharic Jussive of C16C1C1VC2 verbs a. C 6 C C G C b. C 6 C 6 C C 6 C = = k’ l k’ l k’ l k’ l

k’6k’k’Gl ‘Cook ()!’

k’6k’k’6l ‘has cooked ()’

These representations would be plausible if it could be proved that the initial and the medial k’ are not adjacent in . The strongest argument in support of this is that there is no Imperative of the form C1GC16C2, i.e. such verbs have either medial gemination in all verbal aspects as in (1) above or their two C1’s are separated by the vowel a as in (2) below, giving rise to type C. See Leslau (1995: 454) for the observation that all Amharic C1C1C2 verbs are either of type B or C. See Polotsky (1951: 16) and Lowenstamm (1991a: 951) for arguments that a in Ethiopian Semitic languages is phonologically long and that 6 is its short counterpart. An analysis that unifies the lengthening in (1) and (2) has to eliminate the V slot vs. C slot distinction, as proposed in Lowenstamm and Kaye (1986) and Hayes (1989). (2)

Compensatory lengthening in the Amharic Jussive of C1aC1VC2 verbs a. 6 b. 6

C V C = g r

C

G

g

gagGr ‘Bake ()!’

C r

C V C 6 C C 6 C = g r g r gagg6r ‘has baked ()’

In both (1) and (2), C1C1C2 is a reduplicated biradical with a deleted antepenult. This explains why C1 in the Imperative (in contrast to that of type A sGö6r ‘break !’) cannot be followed by [G], i.e. it is followed by the 6 of quadriradicals, as in (1), to be compared with g6löGt’, or its lengthened form, as in (2). The absence of type A C1C1C2 verbs is a systematic gap which remains unexplained if we analyze k’6k’k’Gl and gaggGr as triradicals. But if we analyze them as reduplicated biradicals the gap is explained because the verbs have four

90

SOUND MUTATIONS

underlying consonants, with the antepenult deleted by compensatory lengthening. Notice that this change parallels the penult devoicing of Chaha (see §2.3.2). Because of the deleted antepenult, the stem-initial and the stem-medial radicals k’ in k’6k’k’Gl and g in gagGr are not adjacent, i.e. they do not violate the . In this section, I accounted for the rise of the C1C1C2 pattern in Amharic as well as for the compensatory lengthening found in the pattern.

C 3 On the Distribution of [x] and [k]

3.1

Introduction

In this chapter, I show that x and k are not contrastive in Chaha and I account for their distribution. In §3.2, I review previous claims on x and k in order to show that these claims do not adequately characterize these sounds. I show that [x] and [k] are in complementary distribution and that their distribution is determined by a root structure constraint, and not by their position in the syllable. I propose that /x/ is the underlying form whereas [k] is the derived form and that [k] obtains when /x/ is followed by another /x/ or by a fricative, a class of segments characterized by [+, −]. I also show that the radical /A/, representing an original laryngeal or pharyngeal, functions like a fricative in triggering the strengthening of a preceding /x/. Based on this, I motivate a constraint which prohibits a precontinuant [x] in a root. In §3.3, I present verbs containing a nonfinal /x/ and show how my proposal accounts for its realization. I examine apparent problematic cases in §3.4 and forms with a final singleton /x/ in §3.5. In 3.6, I introduce forms containing multiple /x/’s and argue that their realization follows from the independently motivated constraint prohibiting a precontinuant [x]. In §3.7 I treat the realization of a geminated /x/. In §3.8, I discuss some implications of strengthening for underspecification. Throughout this chapter, I provide exhaustive lists of verbs and representative examples of nouns and adjectives containing /x/. (See Kenstowicz and Banksira 1999 for a treatment of these problems in an Optimality Theoretic approach.)

3.2

x and k are not contrastive

The voiceless velar spirant x and the voiceless velar stop k are not contrastive in Chaha. This claim was also made in Leslau (1978: 177, reproduced in Leslau 1992 a volume to which I will refer from now on) where he states that: “the

92

SOUND MUTATIONS

spirant consonants are not phonemic.” In his view, [x] is a spirantized allophone of an etymological *k, not an independent phoneme. My concern in this book is with synchrony, not diachrony, so that I will investigate the problem from a synchronic point of view. I believe that: (a) no synchronic arguments have been presented in support of the claim that [x] and [k] derive from one phoneme, (b) attributing a phonemic status to [k] and an allophonic status to [x] is unsubstantiated, and (c) the contexts in which [x] and [k] are found need to be formulated explicitly. Consider the following examples: (1)

Initial [x] vs. [k] a. x6t6r ‘has thatched a house’ ‘has separated (e.g. the fireplace stones called gonzGy6)’ b. k6f6r

The initial consonant is [x] in (1a) whereas it is [k] in (1b). Here, [x] and [k] are in exactly the same syllabic configuration in that they are initial onsets. A claim in which [x] and [k] are one phoneme should account for their distribution in (1) but no such account exists so far. As noted, Leslau’s (1992: 32) remark about [x] and [k] is based on historical reconstruction. In his view, [x] in x6t6r, (1a), is a spirantized *k because this word starts with [k] in other Semitic languages, as in Amharic k6dd6n. His claim that [x] is a spirantized *k is probably influenced by well-documented instances of /k/ → [x] alternations in e.g. Tigrinya and Biblical Hebrew. But given the initial spirant in (1a), what is valid for these languages may not be for Chaha. In fact, even from a diachronic perspective, Leslau’s contention is not straightforward. For instance, [k] in k6f6r, (1b), is not a spirant regardless of the fact that this word starts with [k] in other Semitic languages, as in Amharic k6ff6l. Leslau (1992: 32) admits that: “[n]ot every initial k is spirantized into x. There are as many nouns and verbs with initial k as there are with x” and provides no explanation for this. Things get even worse when we observe that the [k] of (1b) remains a stop even intervocalically, as in yG-k6fGr ‘he separates’. This lack of alternation is valid for all k-initial verbs. The second problem is that some [k]’s alternate with [x], e.g. the Jussive and Imperfective vs. the Perfective of (2a) below, whereas some [k]’s do not alternate with [x], as in (2b). Based on historical considerations, Leslau (1992: 616) views [x] in y6-mxGr, Jussive of (2a), as a spirantized *k because the medial consonant is [k] in Amharic yG-mk6r and other related languages. Even though the etymological reconstruction may be sound I do not see any argument in contemporary Chaha to show that [x] in y6-mxGr derives from an underlying /k/. First of all, given that [x] in y6-mxGr is postnasal it is in a privileged context of strengthening and not of spirantization. Secondly, had there been postnasal spirantization in Chaha the [k] in y6-]kGs, Jussive of (2b), could have

93

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF [X] AND [K]

spirantized since the medial consonant is [k] in Amharic yG-nk6s and other related languages. But there is no context in which the [k] of y6-]kGs surfaces as [x]. It remains a stop even when it is intervocalic, as in yG-r6k(G)s, the Imperfective of (2b). (2)

The x/k alternation Jussive a. y6-mxGr b. y6-]kGs

and its absence Imperfective yG-m6xGr yG-r6k(G)s

Perfective m6k6r n6k6s

‘advise’ ‘bite’

Comparing the Imperfective of (2a) and (2b) reveals that [x] and [k] are in the same syllabic configuration. They are postvocalic onsets. Leslau (1992: 618) attributes the absence of the spirant [x] in yG-r6k(G)s to the fact that [G] is optional and that k is not intervocalic when [G] is absent, as in yG-r6ks. But this analysis cannot be maintained because [x] is found when G is optional, e.g. y6-srax(G)t ‘let him mess up’. In fact, [x] appears even in preconsonantal positions, as in yGm6xr-o ‘they (m.) advise’ (vs. yG-r6ks-o ‘they (m.) bite’). Furthermore, [x] does not necessarily obtain even in intervocalic positions, e.g. y6-t-rak6f ‘let him instigate a quarrel!’ So, being in a preconsonantal position is not the right reason for the absence of the spirant in yG-r6ks. Similarly, in the Jussives of (2a) and (2b), [x] and [k] are in identical syllabic configurations, both are postnasal onsets. The distribution of [x] and [k] in the Jussive and Imperfective of (2), as well as in (1), suggests that these sounds are not in complementary distribution. McCarthy (1986a: 221–3) does not state whether x and k are contrastive but it is implicit in his analysis that he assumes them to be. To account for the x/k alternation in (2a) he also proposes a postvocalic spirantization rule, which he claims to be feature-changing because [x] is also found in nonpostvocalic contexts as in x6t6r, (1a). But this postvocalic spirantization rule is indefensible for two reasons. First, it suffers from overgeneration since [x] in y6-mxGr, Jussive of (2a), is a spirant even though it is postnasal. Bear in mind that [x] and [k] in (2a) have to be derived from a unique underlying form (which can either be /x/ or /k/ but not both), so an analysis that posits /k/ and derives [x] of yGm6xGr by postvocalic spirantization cannot posit /x/ for y6-mxGr. Second, it suffers from undergeneration since [k] in yG-r6k(G)s, Imperfective of (2b), is a stop even though it is postvocalic. Therefore, any rule of postvocalic spirantization will make wrong predictions. To account for the presence of postconsonantal [x] in y6-mxGr ‘let him advise!’ and postvocalic [k] in yG-r6k(G)s ‘he bites’, Petros (1995: 427–8) proposed that x and k are contrastive. According to this analysis, x and k are the underlying phonemes of yG-m6xGr and yG-r6k(G)s, respectively. To account for the alternations, a rule is proposed whereby /x/ strengthens to [k] in the Perfective

94

SOUND MUTATIONS

m6k6r ‘has advised’ because it is a (simplified) geminate. In that account, Chaha does not spirantize /k/ to [x]. Instead, it strengthens /x/ to [k], resulting in the neutralization of /x/ and /k/ in the Perfective of (2). So [k] is a stop in y6-]kGs because it is a stop in UR and there is no k-spirantization. Similarly, [x] is the underlying radical in y6-mxGr and it remains a spirant because it is a singleton. In this case, [k] in m6k6r is the strengthened allophone of /x/. In such an analysis, [k] may represent a simplified geminate /xx/ or an underlying singleton /k/ whereas [x] may not represent a spirantized /k/ (i.e. /x/ → [x] while /k/, /kk/, /xx/ → [k]). This analysis seems to be supported by the only minimal pair I have found in the language. It is given in (3a) and (3b). (3)

Only minimal pair involving [x] and [k] a. x6na ‘has put/prohibited’ a-x6na ‘has shouted’ a-]-x6na ‘has not put/prohibited’ b. k6na ‘has ascended’ a-k6na ‘has ascended sth’ a-]-k6na ‘has not ascended’

It can be observed in (3) that a contrast involving x/k is found in initial, intervocalic and postnasal positions even though all the forms in (3) derive from the stems x6na and k6na. Given the existence of a minimal pair and numerous surface contrasts, one may wonder why I wish to defend, in this book, the position that both sounds come from only one phoneme. To begin with, the fact that x6na and k6na is the only minimal pair throws suspicion on the claim that x and k are contrastive.1 In addition and in contrast to the stem-initial x/k distribution in (1), k-final verbs (where k is singleton) such as Amharic marr6k ‘has captured’ are unattested: (4)

A final singleton voiceless velar Jussive Imperfective a. y6-marx yG-manx b. y6-m6s(G)x yG-mes(G)x

is always a spirant [x] Perfective man6x ‘capture’ mes6x ‘chew’

Regardless of the presence or absence of a vowel before [x] and irrespective of the nature of the preceding radicals, a final singleton [k] is never found. This shows that [x] and [k] are in fact in complementary distribution in word-final

1. Also relevant are the derived verbs (from the stems of (3)) a-t-xana ‘(the crowd) has shouted’ and a-t-kana ‘has put  diagonally’. Even though pairs such as Gxa ‘water’ vs. Gkka ‘like that’ and 6xwa ‘now’ vs. 6kkwa ‘today’ exist, their contrast is also expressed in weight, not just in continuancy. See §3.6 on strengthening of a geminated /x/.


95

position. The Jussive and Imperfective of (4a) also refute proposals which derive [x] from /k/ by a postvocalic/intervocalic spirantization since [x] in these forms is not postvocalic/intervocalic. Furthermore, neither the spirantization nor the strengthening analysis provides an explanation for this complementarity. In addition to the stem-final x/k complementarity in (4), and regardless of whether we adopt the claim that x and k are contrastive, some systematic gaps remain unexplained. For example, setting a handful of exceptions aside, an initial [x] is found only when neither a fricative nor /A/ follows, as in x6t6r (not *k6t6r) ‘has thatched a house’, (1a), whereas an initial [k] is found only when a fricative follows, as in k6f6r (not *x6f6r) ‘has separated’, (1b), and k6t6f (not *x6t6f) ‘has hashed’, or when a radical /A/ follows, as in kad (not *xad) ‘has denied’ and k6pa (not *x6pa) ‘has bent sth’. Moreover, all and only verbs with a penultimate x/k alternation have a final stop or sonorant, e.g. y6-mxGr/yG-m6xGr/m6k6r ‘advise’, (2a), whereas all and only verbs without a penultimate x/k alternation have a final fricative or /A/, e.g. y6-]kGs/yG-r6k(G)s/n6k6s ‘bite’, (2b), and y6-fka/yGf6ka/f6ka ‘escape’. These facts show that [x] and [k] are indeed in complementary distribution even in (1) and (2). The complementary nature of [x] and [k] in (1), (2) and (4), combined with the fact that x6na and k6na is the only minimal pair, leads me to abandon the idea in Petros (1995: 427–8) that x and k are contrastive. Rather, a solution to the apparent minimal pairs shown in (3) should be found (see §3.4). In other words, despite the apparent contrast in (3) and the fact that [x] and [k] in (1) and (2) are found in the same syllabic configurations, these sounds are in fact in complementary distribution, hence not contrastive. Accordingly, I agree with Leslau that x and k are not independent phonemes but for very different reasons. I claim that the spirant [x] is found when neither a fricative nor /A/ follows, i.e. when either only stops or/and sonorants follow, as in (1a) and (2a), or nothing follows, as in (4). The stop [k] is found when the following radical is a fricative, as in (1b) and (2b). [k] is also found when there is a following radical /A/ as in yG-f6ka ‘he escapes’ and k6pa ‘has bent sth’. (See §3.3.3 for discussion of the transparency of nonfricatives in strengthening /x/.) The /A/ derives from etymological pharyngeal or laryngeal segments, some of which can be viewed as fricatives. This may explain why /A/ mostly functions like a fricative in turning a preceding voiceless velar into a stop. Finally, I claim that the nature of a preceding radical or radicals plays no role on the realization of the voiceless velar. As mentioned above, I propose that [x] in Chaha does not derive from the spirantization of /k/. In addition, I agree with Petros (1995) in claiming that [k] in words such as m6k6r ‘has advised’, Perfective of (2a), is derived from an underlying /x/. But I differ from Petros (1995) in claiming that [k] in words such

96

SOUND MUTATIONS

as y6-]kGs ‘let him bite!’, Jussive of (2b), is also an underlying /x/.2 According to the present analysis, the only underlying velars of Chaha are /g, x, k’/, and [k] is derived from either /g/ or /x/. In contrast to what has been assumed so far in the literature, I claim that the distribution of [x] and [k] is governed by root structure constraints and not by their position in the syllable. Specifically, the distribution of [x] and [k] in Chaha does not depend on whether they are in preor postvocalic or consonantal position. Rather, strengthening of the underlying /x/ follows from the need to respect a constraint prohibiting a continuant velar consonant which is followed by a [+] radical in the root. I regard the root as a morpheme whose domain is relevant here. Even though I consider No Precontinuant [x], (5), as a constraint that holds for all continuant velars (and not for x alone) x is the only continuant velar sound in Chaha, so I simplify the name as No Precontinuant [x], instead of the more appropriate No Precontinuant Continuant Velar.3 (5)

No Precontinuant [x] * +cont [+cont] Dorsal

Due to (5), a precontinuant /x/ strengthens to [k], i.e. the [+] of /x/ delinks. This can be seen as a case of OCP-triggered regressive dissimilation in continuancy. I assume that [k] (or [−] in obstruents) is simply the absence of the marked value [+] of obstruents, as no phonological process mentions [−] of obstruents. (Whether the default [−] is subsequently filled in or not has no impact on my analysis). /x/ remains [x] when it is at the end of the root or followed by a radical which is not [+]. Continuant sonorants do not trigger strengthening of a preceding /x/ because [+] is the unmarked stricture feature in sonorants and is consequently unspecified (see §3.8 for discussion of this). Strengthening affects /x/, but not the other fricatives /f, s, z/, because /x/ alone is a Dorsal (or spirant). The prediction is that a precontinuant />/ would strengthen to [g] but we cannot verify this as Chaha has no />/. In my account, /x/ strengthening is a feature-changing process since it delinks the underlying [+] specification of /x/. But it is not neutralization because Chaha does not contrast x and k. In many languages, such as Berber, 2. An analysis which derives [x] and [k] from /K/, a voiceless velar archiphoneme unspecified for continuancy, may obtain more or less equivalent results by assuming an elsewhere spirantization of /K/. But I adopt /x/, for it eliminates the need for the spirantization without additional cost. 3. A rule-based approach can express (5) as a precontinuant strengthening in which the [+] of /x/ delinks when followed by a [+] in the root.


97

Biblical Hebrew and Tigrinya, doubly linked obstruents fail to spirantize (Guerssel 1977, Schein 1981, Kenstowicz 1982, Lowenstamm and Prunet 1986, Scobbie 1991 and Denais 1990). The other consequence of doubling is strengthening, as in the case of Chaha /x/. In the following sections, I will discuss all instances of /x/ and show how (5) accounts for its strengthening.

3.3

The role of a following radical in the strengthening of /x/

In this section I show that a singleton /x/ strengthens to [k] when it is followed by a [+] radical. The phonemes of Chaha with an underlying [+] specification are the fricatives /f, s, z/, the spirant /x/ and the radical /A/. Approximants are unspecified for [+]. When followed by stops or sonorants (i.e. elsewhere) a singleton /x/ remains unchanged. A geminated /x/ always turns to [k]. Table 3.1 summarizes my claims, Table 3.1. The contexts for the allophones of /x/

a.

/x/ [k] ... [+cont]

b. [x] elsewhere

/xx/ [k]

where only {f, s, z, x, A} are [+]. 3.3.1 When the radical following /x/ is a fricative In (6), the consonant that immediately follows /x/ is a fricative. This /x/ strengthens to [k] in all instances except the only exception in (6c). Whether /x/ is labialized or palatalized makes no difference, which shows that the labial or palatal vocoid (regardless of its continuancy) does not trigger strengthening of a preceding /x/. For instance, /x/ in y-a-ky6s and in y-a-kw6w strengthens because it is followed by a fricative. A vocoid that docks on /x/ does not trigger strengthening unless the vocoid itself is followed by a fricative, e.g. y-a-xwGrk’ ‘let him loosen!’ (see §3.3.4). (6)

Strengthening when /x/ is immediately followed by a fricative a. Stem-initial /x/ y6-kfGr ‘Let him separate!’ y6-kGft ‘Let him open sth!’ y6-kz6ö ‘Let it become inferior!’ y6-ks6r ‘Let him strain!’ y6-ks6r ‘Let it become charcoal!’

98

SOUND MUTATIONS

b.

c.

y6-ks6r ‘Let y6-k6w ‘Let y6-kw6w ‘Let y-a-kw6w ‘Let y6-k6sGs ‘Let y ‘Let y-a-k 6s y6-kyaf ‘Let Penultimate /x/ y6-]kGs ‘Let y-a-ö6]kGs ‘Let y-a-]kGs ‘Let y-6kGs ‘Let y6-]kGf ‘Let y6-tGks ‘Let ‘Let y6-t6kwGs y6-m6rkwGs ‘Let Exception y6-t-rax6s ‘Let

him go bankrupt!’ him crush sth!’ it be prickly!’ him remove fibers!’ him accuse!’ him joke!’ it drizzle!’ him him him him him him him him

bite/let a plant root!’ assign as a pretext!’ light the fire!’ wait!’ provoke a quarrel!’ burn sth!’ fire a gun!’ (< ) be a monk!’ (< )

him bite repeatedly, quarrel!’

As can be seen from the twenty verbs in (6), /x/ strengthens when followed by a fricative. A hypothetical *y6-xfGr or *y6-]xGs, where /x/ is immediately followed by a fricative is unattested. However, /x/ exceptionally remains [x] in y6-t-rax6s ‘let him bite repeatedly, quarrel!’, the habitual of y6-]kGs ‘let him bite!’ The [+] of /x/ in y6-kfGr is followed by the [+] of /f/, as shown in (7a). Similarly, the [+] of /x/ in y6-]kGs is followed by the [+] of /s/, (7b). As mentioned earlier, /r/ is a sonorant and sonorants are not contrastively [+]. So I assume that approximants are not specified as [+] (see §3.8). (7)

a.

b.

y6-C C G | | x f [+] [+] [Dorsal] y6-kfGr ‘Let him separate!’ y6-C C G | | r x [] [+] [Dorsal] y6-]kGs ‘Let him bite!’

C | r []

C | s [+]


99

If /x/ in (7a) and (7b) remains [+] it will violate No Precontinuant [x]. To avoid this violation, the offending underlying [+] of /x/ delinks, resulting in a stop, which in my account is the absence of the marked [+] of obstruents.4 Note that /x/ in (7a, b) is not a geminate and its strengthening cannot be attributed to gemination. But it is followed by a fricative and its strengthening can be attributed only to No Precontinuant [x]. This constraint is also respected in nouns, e.g. kGf6ya ‘a burning piece of wood separated from the fire’, kGz6ra ‘cane’ and k6s6r ‘charcoal’ and applies also to a labialized and palatalized /x/, e.g. kwGfn6 ‘chickenpox’ and kyGs ‘pocket’. 3.3.2 When the radical following /x/ is /A/ In (8), the radical that follows /x/ is /A/. In this context, /x/ strengthens without exception. (There are infixal a’s but these do not count, as discussed in §3.4.1.) (8)

Strengthening when /x/ is immediately followed by /A/ a. Stem-initial /x/ y6-kad ‘Let him deny!’ y6-kaö ‘Let him pile!’ y6-kas ‘Let him pay!’ t6-kaw ‘has quarreled’ b. Penultimate /x/ yG-f6ka ‘He escapes’. yG-ö6ka ‘He becomes self-sufficient’. yG-m6ka ‘It troubles someone’. yG-t6ka ‘He replaces a stage of 6s6t by another!’ y6-wka ‘Let it ferment!’ (from y6-öwka) y-a-ösaka ‘Let him mimic!’ y6-t-saka ‘Let him be lucky!’

Here, the radical that follows /x/ is /A/ and I claim that /A/ triggers strengthening of /x/. Verbs like y6-kas and t6-kaw, from (8a), are inconclusive because strengthening could be triggered as well by the fricative that follows /A/ since these verbs contain two [+] radicals following /x/. But in y6-kaö and y6-kad, from (8a), strengthening cannot be triggered by ö (a sonorant) or d since these consonants are nonfricatives, which never trigger strengthening, e.g. y6-xöGö ‘let

4. This may be seen as a repair strategy (Paradis 1993) or preferring the bad (which delinks the underlying [+] of /x/) to the worse (which violates (5)) in the framework of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993 and McCarthy and Prince 1993).

100

SOUND MUTATIONS

him encircle!’ and y6-xdGr ‘let him thatch a house!’ Similarly, /A/ is the last radical in (8b) so it is the only possible trigger of strengthening. In this regard, /A/ differs from approximants and patterns with continuant obstruents as it triggers strengthening of a preceding /x/. My analysis excludes [x] before a fricative such as *y6-xfGr (vs. y6-kfGr ‘let him separate!’) and *y6-]xGs (vs. y6-]kGs ‘let him bite!’). Similarly, it excludes [x] before /A/ such as *y6-xad (vs. y6-kad ‘let him deny!’) and *yG-f6xa (vs. yGf6ka ‘he escapes’). Thus, it offers a unified account for strengthening before a fricative and /A/, categorizing the two in the class of segments specified [+]. In previous analyses, [k] in (8) is expected to spirantize because it is a singleton and intervocalic. Yet, it is not, as first mentioned in Polotsky (1938: 140). Since then, different proposals has been advanced to account for this problem. For instance, Hetzron (1972a: 135, note 57) suggests that words like yG-f6ka ‘he escapes’ are derived historically from yG-f6kLa (L = laryngeal). According to him, [k] was the first member of the consonant cluster kL, i.e. it was not intervocalic and was consequently not spirantized. However, this analysis cannot hold given the presence of [x] as the first member of a consonant cluster, e.g. yG-m6xr-o ‘they (m.) advise’. In addition, in words such as y6-t-saka, from (8b), [k] is intervocalic (cf. y6-t-s6ö6r ‘let it break!’) so it does not form a cluster with a laryngeal. In my analysis, neither is [k] an underlying stop in these words (or elsewhere) nor is [x] a spirantized /k/. The [k] here is rather a strengthened /x/, where strengthening applies due to the following [+] obstruent or /A/. Leslau (1992: 618) cites yG-f6ka ‘he escapes’ as an example in which: “the velar remains stop in the biradical verbs.” This statement presents two problems. First, it does not explain why spirantization is blocked in the so-called biradicals. The spirant is found even in verbs which have only two surface consonants, e.g. y6-rax ‘let him send!’ and x6n6 ‘has dug a hole’, showing that having two surface consonants is not a reasonable account for the absence of the spirant [x]. Second, analyzing verbs such as yG-f6ka as biradicals misses an important generalization. For instance, it implies that the ö/p alternation in y6-göa ‘let him enter!’ vs. g6pa-m ‘he has entered’ occurs in a stem-final position. However, this alternation affects only the penult. Similarly, we saw in examples such as y6marx/yG-manx/man6x ‘capture’, (4a), that there is no final singleton [k] in Chaha. This fact, in conjunction with the strengthening in (8b), shows that [k] in words such as yG-f6ka is not the final radical. It is the penultimate radical, with /A/ being the final one. It then follows that yG-f6ka is not a biradical. Leslau (1992: 130) states that such verbs originate from triradicals while Petros (1996b: 159–160) and Prunet (1996b: 182ff.) provide arguments that /A/ functions like any radical in contemporary Chaha and Inor, respectively.


101

A prevocalic nongeminated [k] is found also in a number of nouns, e.g. tGk6 ‘child’, as noted by Leslau (1992: 617). Assuming that the final [6] derives from the radical /A/, an analysis such as mine, which attributes the absence of a spirant [x] to a following /A/, predicts the stop [k] in such examples. 3.3.3 When /x/ and a following fricative/A are separated by a consonant In words such as k6f6r ‘has separated’ and f6ka ‘has escaped’ /x/ is immediately followed by a fricative or /A/ (evidently, at the level of radicals). Consider now the verbs in (9), where /x/ is separated from the following fricative/A by a consonant. In such cases, too, the stop allophone [k] obtains, as shown below. (9)

Strengthening when a consonant intervenes between /x/ and a following fricative/A k6t6f ‘has hashed’ kGö6s6s ‘has unraveled fiber’ a-köab6s ‘has made dirty’ a-]-kraw6s ‘has fidgeted’ k6ta ‘has worried’ k6pa ‘has bent sth’ a-k6pa ‘has slacked off’ t6-kwram6m ‘has over-praised oneself’ a-kran6 ‘has rented to’ (< ) y ‘has exaggerated’ a-k rana Exceptions: x6da ‘has betrayed’ x6na ‘has put/prohibited’ a-x6na ‘has shouted’

As can be seen from the list, /x/ strengthens irrespective of the presence of a consonant separating it from the following fricative/A. As we will see in the following section, a nonfricative does not trigger strengthening of a preceding /x/, e.g. y6-xöGö ‘let him encircle!’ (recall that ö is not a fricative) and y6-xr6m ‘let him spend the year!’ Hence, it is the distant fricative/A which triggers strengthening of /x/ irrespective of an intervening nonfricative. Even though my analysis predicts that the final /A/ should trigger strengthening in the two stems x6na and x6da (exceptions in (9)) the spirant allophone [x] is found. Here, absence of strengthening is exceptional. (Note that x6da is also exceptional in not devoicing /d/ since this is the simplified geminate penult of a Perfective (see §2.2.2.) But the strengthening observed in (9) also occurs in nouns, e.g. k6ösasa ‘unraveled fiber’, kwGr6w6 ‘type of plant’ and kGtf w6 ‘hashed meal’.

102

SOUND MUTATIONS

3.3.4 When /x/ is followed by radicals other than fricative/A The radicals following /x/ in (10) are neither fricatives nor /A/. In such cases, /x/ remains a spirant [x], as shown below. (10)

Absence of strengthening when /x/ is followed by radicals other than fricative/A a. Stem-initial /x/ y6-xtGö ‘Let him vaccinate!’ y6-x6tGt ‘Let him surround sth!’ y-a-x6tGr ‘Let him precede!’ y6-ç(G)c’ ‘Let him boast!’ y-a-xdGr ‘Let him dress someone!’ y6-xdGr ‘Let him thatch a house!’ y6-xdGm ‘Let him look after!’ y6-xöGö ‘Let him encircle!’ y-a-xGöd ‘Let him respect someone!’ y6-x6ö/pGr ‘Let him reply!’ y-a-ç6ö ‘Let him hide!’ y-a-x6mbGr ‘Let him invert cooked food!’5 y-a-x6mbGö ‘Let him cover sth!’ y6-xr6m ‘Let him spend the year!’ y6-x6rtGm ‘Let him cut sth off!’ y6-xw6rGr ‘Let him amputate!’ y-a-xwGrk’ ‘Let him loosen!’ ‘Let him spill!’ y6-xw7 y6-xi ‘Let him dig!’ y-a-xwramt’ ‘Let him chew!’ y-a-xmac ‘Let him strain people!’6 y6-x6mtGt ‘Let it become hard!’ y6-xw6mt’Gt’ ‘Let it be sour!’ y6-x6mGr ‘Let him adorn someone!’

5. The [m] in y-a-x6mbGr and y-a-x6mbGö is a nasalized /r/ since it alternates with [r], e.g. a-xr6p6r ‘has inverted cooked food (from the cooking pot to a dish)’ and a-xr6p6ö ‘has covered ’. No underlying /m/ ever turns to [r]. 6. I assume that both [a]’s in y-a-xmac are affixes.


b.

c.

103

Penultimate /x/ y6-srax(G)t ‘Let him mess up!’ y6-t-mwax6t ‘Let him vow!’ y-a-drax(G)t ‘Let him hurry (tr.)!’ y-a-m6rxGt ‘Let him indicate!’ y6-öx/k6t ‘Let it rot!’ y6-]x/kGt ‘Let him shatter!’ y6-]x6ö ‘Let him find!’ y-a-raxGö ‘Let him publicize!’ y6-t-rax6ö ‘Let them meet!’ y-a-txGr ‘Let him be naughty!’ y6-öx6r ‘Let him lack!’ y6-mxGr ‘Let him advise!’ y6-sx6r ‘Let him get drunk!’7 y6-tx6r ‘Let it diminish!’ y-a-maxGr ‘Let him be on strike!’ y-a-t-taxGr ‘Let him junk!’ y6-fx6r ‘Let him multiply!’ ‘Let it be thorny’8 y6-sxwe y6-öç ‘Let him cry!’ y6-sç ‘Let him flee!’ y6-t-öaç ‘Let it suit!’ Exceptions (all but y6-f6\ky are loans from Amharic) y6-kö6r ‘Let him be respectable!’ y6-kmGr ‘Let him pile sth up!’ y-6kGm ‘Let him give medical care!’ y6-m6skGr ‘Let him witness!’ y y6-f6\k ‘Let him break in two!’ y6-f w6kGr ‘Let him boast!’

The /x/ in (10) is followed by neither /A/ nor a fricative. In the 45 verbs of (10a, b), /x/ remains a spirant.9 My analysis excludes words such as *y6-köGö

7. Leslau (1992: 619) incorrectly recorded y6-sk6r for my y6-sx6r. 8. This verb is included here even though /x/ is not the penult, cf. y6-sx6rGU → y6sxwe. Note also that the high vocoids /U, I/ differ from /A/ in not triggering the strengthening of a preceding /x/. 9. As noted in Leslau (1992: 619–620) [x] and [k] are in free variation in y6-öx6t/y6-ök6t and y6]xGt/y6-]kGt. Here, /x/ optionally strengthens even though this is unexpected in my analysis. It is possible that these verbs are loans from Amharic b6kk6t6 and a-n6kk6t6 respectively.

104

SOUND MUTATIONS

(vs. y6-xöGö ‘let him encircle!’) and *y6-kr6m (vs. y6-xr6m ‘let him spend the year!’) where a nongeminated [k] would not be followed by a fricative/A. Similar observations hold in nouns such as xGrGm ‘year’, x6öGr ‘prairies’, f6xGr ‘evil act’ and x6p6ö-ar ‘enclosure’ where neither /A/ nor a fricative follows /x/. In addition, the spirant in nouns such as çGn ‘heart’ and xw6r6r-a ‘shell of seeds, fruits’ shows that the secondary articulation on /x/ has no effect. Nevertheless, since the [k] in (10c) is not followed by a fricative or /A/, strengthening in these verbs does not follow from my analysis. This may be due to the fact that five of the six verbs are Amharic loans and the [k] in them is borrowed as is, so it is not a strengthened /x/. But strengthening in y6-f6\ky, which I believe is native, goes against the predictions of my analysis. Similarly, [k] in kGt ‘a special occasion’ is exceptional: my analysis would incorrectly predict xGt. There is also strengthening of /x/ in the I-second quadriradicals of (11) even though it is not followed by a fricative/A. (11)

Strengthening Jussive y-6kGr y6-t6kGr y6-s6k(G)t

in I-second quadriradicals Perfective 6ky6r ‘plane wood’ c6k6r ‘cook (tr.)’ w6k6t ‘prepare sth’

We saw in §2.2.7 that the deletion of the second radical /I/ in the Jussive (i.e. depalatalization) triggers compensatory gemination of the penult, as in y6-d6IöGr → y6-d6ööGr → y6-d6pGr ‘let him finish!’ In addition, the penult always geminates in the Perfective. Accordingly, [k] in these verbs is a simplified geminate, e.g. y6-t6IxGr → y6-t6xxGr → y6-t6kGr ‘let him cook (tr.)!’, and its strengthening follows from it being a geminate. These exceptions are consequently only apparent counter-examples to my analysis of /x/ strengthening. They also offer additional arguments to the claim that gemination in the Jussive of I-second quadriradicals is introduced to compensate for depalatalization. We saw in §3.3.1 that fricatives trigger strengthening of a preceding /x/, e.g. y6-kfGr (not *y6-xfGr) ‘let him separate!’ Similarly, we saw in §3.3.2 that /A/ triggers strengthening of /x/, e.g. y6-fka (not *y6-fxa) ‘let him escape!’ On the other hand, we saw in this subsection that stops do not trigger strengthening of a preceding /x/, e.g. y6-xdGr (not *y6-kdGr) ‘let him thatch a house!’ Furthermore, high vocoids do not trigger strengthening of /x/, e.g. y6-öxGI → y6-öç (not *y6öky) ‘let him cry!’ and y6-x6UrGr → y6-xw6rGr (not *y6-kw6rGr) ‘let him amputate!’ In this respect, /A/ forms a natural class with fricatives though in other respects


105

it functions like a sonorant.10 In this section, a total of 99 verbs containing /x/ have been examined. Only in three verbs (x6na, a-x6na and x6da — the exceptions in (9)) is [x] found irrespective of the presence of a following /A/. Only in one derived form (y6-trax6s, the exception in (6)) is [x] found in the presence of an immediately following fricative. In addition, only in five borrowed verbs (the exceptions in (10)), is a nongeminated [k] found even when not followed by a fricative/A. In the remaining 89 verbs (89.89% of the total 99), [k] is found only if a fricative or /A/ follows whereas [x] is found when any other radical follows. These observations conform to the constraint No Precontinuant [x], which causes the strengthening of /x/ to [k].

3.4

Some apparent problematic cases

3.4.1 When /x/ is followed by an infix -aWe have seen that in words such as y6-kad ‘let him deny!’ an [a] originating from the radical /A/ functions like a fricative in triggering strengthening of /x/. But aspectual vowels, such as the 6 in x6t6ö (below), do not trigger such strengthening as /x/ is not strengthened even though it is immediately followed by 6. This can be attributed to the fact that strengthening is conditioned at the level of radicals. This, in turn, predicts that an infix -a- cannot trigger strengthening of a preceding /x/ because the two are on different tiers. Absence of strengthening regardless of the underlined infix [a] in (12b) shows that this prediction is borne out. (12)

An infix -a- does not trigger strengthening of a preceding /x/ a. Stems without an infix -ax6t6ö ‘contaminated’ ç6c’6 ‘boasted’ x6p6ö ‘encircled’ ç6p6r ‘replied’ ç6t6t ‘escorted’ x6da ‘betrayed’

10. However, note that /A/ functions like a sonorant, and not like a fricative, in not licensing a preceding doubly linked [voice], e.g. t’6öö6A → t’6pa ‘has skinned’ and k’6öö6r → k’6p6r ‘has planted’ vs. t’6öö6s → t’6b6s ‘has fried’.

106

SOUND MUTATIONS

b.

x6d6m ‘looked after’ a-x6b6d ‘respected’ Stems with an infix -at6-xat6ö ‘contaminated each other’ t6-çac’6 ‘been encouraged’ a-çap6ö ‘encircled en masse’ a-t-çap6r ‘echoed’ ‘escorted en masse’ a-çat6t t6-xada ‘betrayed each other’ ‘looked after each other’ t6-xad6m t6-xab6d ‘respected each other’

The a in (12) is not part of the radical; it is an infix. It parallels the -a- in t6sap6r ‘have broken each other’ and, joined by a prefix, it conveys a habitual or reciprocal action. There also exists the problematic xar/ç6r/çGr alternation in the stems of (13), which occurs in the absence of a prefix and reciprocal meaning.11 /x/ is followed by [a] in the Jussive and Perfective of (13a), and No Precontinuant [x] predicts that it should strengthen. Yet, it does not. Thus, the precontinuant [x] violates (5). (13) a. b.

Jussive y6-xar y-a-ç6r y6-t-ç6r y6-t-ç6ç6r y-a-t-ç6ç6r

Imperfective yG-çGr y-a-ç6r yG-t-ç6r yG-t-ç6ç6r y-a-t-ç6ç6r

Perfective xar ‘know’ a-ç6r ‘become clear/evident’ t6-ç6r ‘be known’ t6-ç6ç6r ‘introduce each other’ a-t-ç6ç6r ‘introduce somebody to somebody’

I believe that a solution to this problem may come from a better understanding of the medial radical of the stems in (13). The decisive question here is whether /A/ as found in xar or /I/ as found in -ç6r/-çGr is the medial radical. Prunet (1996b: 185) tentatively assumes that both segments are part of the root, hence –xAIr in Inor. The presence of /I/ (i.e. palatalization) in most of the stems in (13) suggests that /I/ is one of the radicals. On the other hand, the absence of strengthening in xar (compared to the strengthening in kad ‘has denied’) suggests that [a] is not part of the radical. Based on this, I assume that the root is –xIr.

11. Verbs with similar alternations include y6-sar/yG-wGr/sar ‘be happy’, y6-ö6r/ yG-öGr/bar ‘say’ and y-aö/yG-ö/aö ‘give’ but palatalization does not occur in the last two verbs due to the absence of a palatalizable segment. See also Leslau (1992: 462) and Prunet (1996b: 185).


107

Only now does absence of strengthening follow from (5) because /x/ is not followed by a fricative/A. In my account, [a] in xar is not the radical /A/, it is either the infixal -a- or an /æ/ (see the following paragraph). This also accounts for nouns such as ã-xar-ut ‘ignorance’, xara ‘bark (of a tree)’ and xaö6-m ‘again, re-’.12 Similarly, in nouns such as xwGr6ta ‘kind of tree’ and xw6r6ra ‘husk’ the vowel [a] may be suffixal, which explains why it does not trigger strengthening. It is also possible to derive the dual nature of the medial radical in (13) by proposing an abstract medial phoneme /æ/, which combines the features of /A/ and /I/. The /æ/ palatalizes a consonant as in (13b) or becomes [a] as in xar. It also surfaces as [7], e.g. bar ‘has said’ vs. t6-ö7ö7r ‘has said to each other’. Palatalization in yGçGr ‘he knows’ shows that the vowel of xar can palatalize the preceding consonant whereas that of kad cannot: yG-k6d (not *yG-kyGd). Furthermore, while /A/ and /I/ are contrastive stem-finally, e.g. f6t’t’6A → f6t’a ‘has sharpened’ vs. f6t’t’6I → f6c’6 ‘has ground’, their contrast is neutralized steminitially. The neutralized stem-initial /A/ and /I/ can be seen as /æ/, which sometimes surfaces as [a] as in at6r ‘has spent the night’ and sometimes as [y6] as in a-t-y6t6r ‘leave sth for tomorrow’ (to be compared with a-t-s6p6r ‘cause to break’). This [a]/[y6] alternation receives a plausible account if we assume that both alternants derive from /æ/. In addition, the spirant of xar and the stop of kad show that the a’s found in the two words are not the same. For this, Chaha needs to distinguish two [a]’s, one originating from /æ/ and the other from /A/. It is possible to link this distinction with the fact that /A/ represents two historically distinct classes, namely the pharyngeal fricatives [A, ’] and the glottal nonfricatives [‘, h]. (To indicate the dual characteristics of [a] I group it with both front and central vowels in the vowel chart given in §1.1 but I will not develop this idea any further here. Suffice it to say that /æ/ is like the vocoids /U/ and /I/ in that it does not trigger the strengthening of /x/. 3.4.2 Exceptional precontinuant [x] and nonprecontinuant [k] The other problematic case is seen in the minimal pairs below, reproduced from (3). These data are problematic in two ways. First, the precontinuant [x] in (14a) contradicts the constraint No Precontinuant [x], (5), which holds even when /x/ and the following [+] radical are not adjacent (see §3.3.3).

12. This special adverb agrees with the subject of the verb, xaö-xwG-m c6n6-xwG-m ‘I came again’, xaö-6ma-m c6n-6ma-m ‘they () came again’, etc.

108

SOUND MUTATIONS

(14)

Only minimal pair involving [x] and [k] a. x6na ‘has put/prohibited’ a-x6na ‘has shouted’ a-]-x6na ‘has not put/prohibited’ b. k6na ‘has ascended’ a-k6na ‘has ascended sth’ a-]-k6na ‘has not ascended’

An analysis that prohibits [x] before /A/ must account for its presence in x6na. Such an analysis must also account for the [x] in nouns such as Gxa ‘water’ and 6xwa ‘now’. These forms show that there are rare cases of /x/ which do not strengthen before /A/. My contention is that absence of strengthening in these words should be attributed to the dual (fricative and vocoid) nature of /A/. Note that such an exception has not been found before a fricative. Even though /A/ in most cases triggers strengthening like a fricative it rarely functions like a high vocoid and does not trigger strengthening. When it functions like a high vocoid it is a sonorant and does not include [+]. So, if we assume that [a] in x6na and Gxa is not [+], such words do not violate (5). See Prunet (1996b: 197–8) for an opinion that Inor gutturals pattern with glides and §2.2.2 for a demonstration that even Chaha /A/ functions like a sonorant with respect to not licensing a preceding doubly linked [voice]. The second problem is that x6na and k6na contradict the claim that [x] and [k] are in complementary distribution. To my knowledge, these verbs are the only counter-examples to the complementarity of [x] and [k]. I believe that they are exceptions, but there is a historical reason for this. In my view, the [k] in k6na comes from an etymological *k’. (Note, however, that my analysis predicts the [k] of k6na even from /x/ if we assume that the final /A/ here is [+].) The etymological [k’] is preserved in Amharic a-k’6nna ‘has raised/straighten up’, t6-k’anna ‘has been straightened’ and k’6na al6 ‘has raised his head up, revived’. The Amharic k’6(n)na and the Chaha k6na indicate ascending movement. Similarly, [k] in kGr6ta ‘has lifted up’ can be seen as an original *k’, as found in Inor, Endegenˇ, Gyeto, Muher, Gogot and Soddo (Leslau 1979: vol. II, pp. 370–1). The etymological ejectives of kGr6ta can as well be detected from related Chaha forms such as k’G^c’u bar6-m ‘has raised immediately’. Similarly, [k] in the nouns kwGr6 ‘crow’, kw6t6 ‘loft, shelf’, k6n6 ‘right (as opposed to left), engineer’ and k6r6 ‘day’ is a stop because it is an original *k’ as found in the respective Amharic equivalents k’ura, k’ot’, k’6\\ and k’6n. The [k’] is preserved also in some Gurage languages (Leslau 1992: 264). This accounts for the exceptional minimal pair x6na and k6na.


3.5

109

Realization of a stem-final singleton /x/

No Precontinuant [x] predicts that any stem-final /x/ should remain a spirant irrespective of the nature of preceding radicals. To verify the validity of this prediction, an exhaustive list of x-final verb stems (C1C2x and C1C2C3x) is given below. (15)

A stem-final singleton /x/ Jussive Imperfective Perfective a. After a continuant radical (adjacent or not) y6-fr6x yG-f6rx f6n6x ‘tolerate’ y6-m6s(G)x yG-mes(G)x mes6x ‘ruminate, chew’ y6-f w(G)x yG-f w6x f w6x ‘wipe out’ y6-frat(G)x yG-frat(G)x fGrat6x ‘mess’ y6-sr6x yG-s6rx s6n6x ‘be weakened’ y6-t-wam6x yG-t-wam6x t6-wam6x ‘lean on’ y6-marx yG-manx man6x ‘capture’ y6-rax yG-r6x nax ‘send’ b. After noncontinuant radicals y6-ötGx yG-ö6t(G)x b6t6x ‘uproot’ y6-tGmx yG-t6mx t6m6x ‘dip out’ y6-tGrx yG-t6rx t6n6x ‘make incisions’ c. Exception y6-öarGk yG-öarGk bar6k ‘bless, sanctify’ (< )

As claimed in §1.2.1, /x/ is [+]. In addition, constraint (5) does not prohibit a final [x] since it is not followed by a [+] radical, and the constraint says nothing about preceding radicals. As predicted, /x/ remains a spirant whether the preceding radicals include a continuant (15a) or not (15b). Thus, yG-f6rx contains two [+] radicals: [f] and [x]. But, this is allowed because [x] follows [f] and therefore does not violate No Precontinuant [x]. If the view that No Precontinuant [x] is an instance of OCP is correct then the possibility of having two [+]’s as in yG-f6rx shows that the OCP may be asymmetrical for it blocks a [x] before [+] while allowing it after [+]. A stem-final singleton [x] is found also in a number of nouns, e.g. t6r6x ‘kind of grass’, nux ‘soul’, sox ‘thorn’, s6x ‘type of disease’, and w6x ‘luck’. The exception y6-öarGk/yG-öarGk/bar6k ‘bless, sanctify’ of (15c) is an Amharic loanword which has not been adapted to the phonology of Chaha in many respects. For instance, the insertion of [G] between [r] and the final obstruent in the stem -öarGk is alien to Chaha. Similarly, a nonnasal penult in the Perfective, as in bar6k, is unattested in native Chaha verbs.

110

SOUND MUTATIONS

I will argue in the next section that the strengthening of a doubled /x/ can also follow from No Precontinuant [x].

3.6

Realization of a doubled /x/

Doubling as in the case of k6tkGt ‘crush sth up!’, t6-sxax6r ‘act naughtily!’ and sGkGk ‘drive a peg!’ is different from gemination. It is long-distance, i.e. the slots to which /x/ is linked are separated by at least one phonetic vowel. Because doubling occurs in all aspects it does not give rise to a x/k alternation. In this section I will account for the realization of a doubled /x/. 3.6.1 Realization of /x/ in totally reduplicated verbs In (16a) below, /x/ is followed by a fricative or /A/ whereas in (16b) it is followed by a stop or a sonorant. In all cases, the stop allophone [k] obtains. The main difference between the verbs discussed so far and the ones in (16) is the fact that the latter are totally reduplicated verbs. Total reduplication is not evident in verbs such as k6kGr, from (16b), but this is due to a deletion of the antepenult /r/ in both the Imperative and Perfective of such verbs. See §2.3.4 for an analysis that derives C1C1C2 from C1C2C1C2. (16)

Strengthening of /x/ in totally reduplicated verbs a. When /x/ is followed by fricative/A

b.

c.

k6skGs a-]-kaka kaka a-]-k6skGs ky6ky(G)f Elsewhere k6tkGt a-]-kw6tkwGt k6kGm a-]-kw6rkwGr k6kGr Exceptions m6xmGx sGx6s6x xwGr6xw6r s6sGx xw6rxwGr

‘Smash sth!’ ‘Cackle!’ ‘Dry totally!’ ‘Warm (e.g. butter)!’ ‘Sprinkle!’ ‘Crush sth up!’ ‘Remove weeds!’ ‘Trim!’ ‘Make lump!’ ‘Hold sth in the armpit!’ ‘mash’ ‘has ground sth slightly’ ‘has penetrated’ ‘Grind sth slightly!’ ‘Penetrate!’

111


Strengthening in (16a) may be due to the fricative/A that follows /x/. But /x/ in (16b) is not followed by a fricative/A. Therefore, its strengthening can be due only to doubling. C1C2C1C2 verbs like k6tkGt in (16b) often express repetitive or intensified actions. So, it may be possible to decompose them into a base and a reduplicant. This is why such verbs are often analyzed as deriving from biradicals. Yet, its unreduplicated form *k6t or *kGt does not exist. It is therefore difficult to say which half is the base and which half is the reduplicant. In addition, its four consonants are considered as a group of distinct consonants. For instance, 6 and G in g6rdGm ‘cut in two!’ are inserted respectively before the antepenultimate and final radicals. This same rule applies in k6tkGt. So each consonant in grdm and ktkt is treated as a distinct radical. In other words, the internal structure of the base and reduplicant is irrelevant since it is analyzed as –xtxt. In this account, the verbs k6skGs and k6tkGt can be represented as follows: (17)

a.

b.

C 6 C | | x s [+] [+] [Dorsal] k6skGs ‘Smash sth!’ C 6 C | | x t [+] [−] [Dorsal] k6tkGt ‘Crush sth up!’

C | x [+] [Dorsal]

G

C | s [+]

C | x [+] [Dorsal]

G

C | t [−]

Each /x/ in (17a) is followed by the [+] radical /s/. Here, if /x/ surfaces as [x] it will violate No Precontinuant [x], (5). This is why strengthening of both segments takes place in k6skGs. On the other hand, in (17b), only the first /x/ is followed by [+], as /t/ is [−]. But an intervening /t/ does not count (see §3.3.3), so [−] in it can be considered nonexistent (see §3.8). So (5) wrongly predicts *k6txGt, a form which alters the identity of the first allophone only (and not the attested k6tkGt). To account for this overapplication of strengthening, I assume that Chaha has another constraint (18) prohibiting [x] and [k] in the same stem. (See Kenstowicz and Banksira 1999 for viewing this constraint as base-reduplicant identity.) (18)

No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem

112

SOUND MUTATIONS

So, (18) rules out the derivation of *k6txGt from (17b). In addition, x6txGt is ruled out by No Precontinuant [x], (5), since the first [x] is precontinuant. The attested output k6tkGt violates neither (18) nor No Precontinuant [x] but it alters the underlying [+] of /x/ twice. Nouns exhibiting total reduplication also have a strengthened /x/ regardless of the absence of a following [+] radical, i.e. k6rk6r-t ‘dissimulation’ and kwGckwGc-6r ‘a type of dish (from mashed 6s6t-root)’ and they are analyzed likewise (see §7.2.5 for discussions of the labialization and palatalization of the last word). In addition, strengthening in kw6rkwGm ‘give a blow with the knuckles!’ shows that what plays a decisive role in strengthening is not the fact that there is total reduplication but that there are two instances of /x/ in the stem. Both /x/’s remain spirant in the exceptions of (16c) (see Chapter 7 for the deletion of the first /x/ in the Imperative /s6xsGx/ → [s6sGx]). The spirant in (16c) is unexpected in my analysis as the first [x] violates No Precontinuant [x], (5). The same is true of the noun xGtxGta ‘kind of tree’ in which a doubled /x/ is not strengthened. But in both words [x] retains its underlying [+] and the constraint No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem, (18), is respected. 3.6.2 Doubled final /x/ All /x/’s linked to a stem-final CiVCi(V)# are strengthened, as in (19). As noted in McCarthy (1986a: 222), words of the surface form C1(C2)6x6x(a)# are unattested. (19)

Realization of a doubled final /x/ sGkGk ‘Drive a peg!’ ‘Squat!’ a-f wkGk 6kGk ‘Scratch!’ y6-mwakGk-x6 ‘Let it be unpleasant for you!’ t6-m6rk6k ‘Kneel down!’ ‘Talk a lot!’ bw6k6k b6r m6-sk6k ‘peg’ f w6k6k-ar ‘strong fight’ ‘feeling of sickness’ 6ky6ky-(w ) mwGkGka ‘kernel of 6s6t-root’ mwGkyGkya ‘kind of grass’ w ‘too much talk’ b 6k6k-(t)


113

Even though a verb like sGkGk in (19) may be analyzed as deriving from the biradical –sx such roots never surface unaugmented. There is no verb form *sGk or *sGx. In addition, there is no phonologically (segment or position) or semantically identifiable affix in sGkGk. I assume, then, that the two /x/’s in sGkGk belong to the same morpheme and reside on the same tier. In addition, the two /x/ are copies, not a doubly linked /x/, as in (20): (See Gafos 1996 and Rose 1997 for arguments.) (20)

C | s [+]

G

C | x [+] [Dorsal]

G

C | x [+] [Dorsal]

sGkGk ‘Drive a peg!’ The [+] of the first /x/ is followed by the [+] of the second /x/. So the first /x/ cannot be a spirant since that violates No Precontinuant [x]. Accordingly, it loses its [+]. In addition, No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem, (18), rules out forms such as *sGkGx. The remaining option, which is adopted in Chaha, is to strengthen the final /x/ as well. 3.6.3 Doubled medial /x/: the frequentative The /x/ in (21) is a reduplicated medial radical. In contrast with the –xt of k6tkGt, (17b), and the –sx of sGkGk, (20), the roots in (21) can surface without reduplication, cf. sGx6r ‘get drunk!’ and nGk(G)s ‘bite!’ In the reduplicated forms, /x/ remains [x] if it is followed by a stop or a sonorant, as in the Imperative of (21a), whereas it strengthens to [k] if it is followed by a fricative or /A/, as in the Imperative of (21b): (21)

Realization of a reduplicated medial /x/ Imperative Imperfective Perfective a.

b.

t6-sxax6r

yG-t-sGkak6r

t6-skak6r

t6-mxax6r

yG-tG-mkak6r

t6-mkak6r

t6-rx6x6ö nGk6k(G)s tGk6k(G)s t6-rkak6f

yG-tG-rk6k6ö yG-rk6k(G)s yG-tk6k(G)s yG-tG-rkak6f

t6-rk6k6ö nGk6k6s tGk6k6s t6-rkak6f

a-fkaka

y-a-fkaka

a-fkaka

‘act naughtily’ (freq. reflexive) ‘advise each other’ (freq. reflexive) ‘show up’ (freq. reflexive) ‘bite here and there’ (freq.) ‘burn slightly’ (freq.) ‘instigate a quarrel’ (freq. reflexive) ‘be about to vanish’ (freq. causative)

114

SOUND MUTATIONS

It is stated right from the start that No Precontinuant [x] holds at the root level. We also assume that t6-sxax6r, in (22a), and nGk6k(G)s, in (22b), are derived from –sxr and –rxs respectively. Hence, it follows that the copied phoneme of the frequentative infix is on its own tier, as in (22): (22)

a.

b.

t6 – C | s [+]

–

[Dorsal] [+] x | Ca

t6-sxax6r ‘Act naughtily!’ [Dorsal] [+] x | CG– C6 – | r []

–

C | x [+] [Dorsal] nGk6k(G)s ‘Bite here and there!’

C | x [+] [Dorsal]

6

(G)

C | s [+]

C | r []

The [+] of /x/ in (22a) is not followed by [+]. If /x/ remains [x], this [x] does not violate No Precontinuant [x]. In (22b), however, the [+] of /x/ is followed by the [+] of /s/, and if the [+] of /x/ does not delink the spirant will violate No Precontinuant [x]. So the offending [+] delinks, which results in a stop. In addition, No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem, (18), dictates that the copied segment of the infix must agree in continuancy with the base. Hence, both /x/’s must be [+] in (22a), for *t6-skax6r violates (18). Similarly, none of the /x/’s can be [+] in (22b), for *nGx6k(G)s violates (18), too. In an analysis that does not distinguish the phonologically motivated doubling of /x/ in (17b) k6tkGt and (20) sGkGk from the morphologically motivated doubling of /x/ in (22a) t6-sxax6r it will be difficult to explain the continuancy difference for /x/ in the two class of words. The phonologically motivated doubling, as in (17) and (20), requires the phonological templates and militates against theories (see McCarthy and Prince’s 1995) claiming that languages such as Chaha are a-templatic.


115

The correctness of No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem, (18), is also shown by the Imperfective yG-t-sGkak6r and Perfective t6-skak6r, the first line of (21a). For instance, the first [k] in t6-skak6r is a nongeminate and should be a spirant as in the Imperative t6-sxax6r whereas the second one is a simplified geminate and (as we will see next) should be a stop [k]. Yet, *t6-sxak6r does not obtain. When the /x/ of the base is strengthened the copy must also be strengthened. The strengthening difference between words such as k6tkGt ‘crush sth up!’ (17b), and sGkGk, (20), on the one hand and t6-sxax6r, (22a), on the other forces us to distinguish phonological from morphological doubling. Notably, as argued in Prunet and Petros (1996), doubling in the first two is motivated by the need to fill positions made available by the phonology. On the other hand, phonology does not require that sGx6r double its medial radical to form t6-sxax6r. So doubling here is morphologically motivated. In my account, this is expressed by placing the phonologically motivated copies on the same tier as the base and the morphologically motivated copies on a different tier from the base. It is also shown that the phonological constraint No Precontinuant [x] makes reference to such a distinction. The distinction between phonological and morphological reduplication is also seen with respect to the insertion sites of 6 and G, as in g6rdGm ‘cut in two!’ For example, the four consonants of phonologically motivated reduplication, such as k6tkGt, are treated as four distinct radicals (cf. g6rdGm) as they employ the C6CCGC Imperative template of quadriradicals. However, the four consonants (nkks) of morphologically motivated reduplication are not treated as four distinct radicals since they do not employ the C6CCGC in their Imperative: nGk6k(G)s (not *n6kkGs).

3.7

Realization of a geminated /x/

3.7.1 Penultimate geminates in verbs A penultimate /x/ strengthens in the Perfective, e.g. m6k6r ‘has advised’, (to be compared with y6-mxGr ‘let him advise!’ and yG-m6xGr ‘he advises’, (2a). According to this book, all Perfective verbs of Chaha have a geminate penult as in /m6xx6r/.13 In addition, degemination applies to all true geminates and simplifies /xx/ to [k], resulting in [m6k6r]. Note that /x/ is the only obstruent to be strengthened. It is also the only [+, Dorsal]. The strengthening can be

13. Exceptionally, /x/ is not strengthened in a-t6x6r ‘has been naughty’. This may be, to paraphrase Leslau (1992: 617, note 41), because it is back-formed from ataxari ‘naughty’, where /x/ is simple.

116

SOUND MUTATIONS

attributed to a constraint prohibiting a geminated [x], i.e. [+, Dorsal], given in (23). (As was the case for No Precontinuant [x], No Geminate [x] in (23) is a constraint that holds for all continuant velars, so it should be seen as a simplified name of No Geminate Continuant Velar.) (23)

No Geminate [x] *C C

[+cont] [Dorsal] Due to No Geminate [x] the feature specification [+] delinks from a structure like (23). This turns all /xx/’s to [k], i.e. a geminate /xx/ strengthens and degeminates. No Geminate [x] is distinct from No Precontinuant [x], (5), and No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem, (18), because there are no two allophones of /x/ in (23). One may think that m6k6r obtains because *m6kx6r is excluded due to No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem. However, this constraint does not prohibit the derivation of *m6xx6r (if the two /x/’s are on different tiers, as in (22)) which would simplify to the unattested *m6x6r. In addition, we need the double-linking, as in (23), for degemination to apply. Double-linking for true geminates is also independently required as in geminate devoicing (Chapter 2) and geminate nasalization (Chapter 4). 3.7.2 Special final geminates in participles In the following participial stems, which are used to form composite verbs (see Banksira 1999 for detailed discussion), the final /x/ is a geminate. Moreover, the geminate is not simplified, except optionally in f6t6k(k). (24)

Special final cGkk f6t6k(k) n6kk wGkwkw t6kk

geminates involving /x/ ‘been rigid’ ‘gotten up suddenly’ ‘strolled’ ‘sat down for a moment’ ‘trickled in drops’

I assume that degemination does not apply in these participles because the geminates are derived by total reduplication, cGkcGk → cGkk. In this account, the strengthening will parallel that of k6tkGt, (17b). The analysis of these special geminates is mainly supported by the absence of devoicing and degemination in parallel verbs with a voiced geminate such as g6bb ‘calmed’, discussed in §2.6.

117


3.8

Strengthening and underspecification

3.8.1 [CONT] in obstruents The stems k6t6f and k6ta, (25a, b) reproduced below from (9), both have an underlying initial /x/, a medial /t/ and either a final fricative or /A/. (The [t] here is not a devoiced and simplified /dd/ since it does not alternate with [d] in the Imperfective and Jussive, it is a simplified /tt/.) The question here is whether /t/ (or any other obstruent stop) is underlyingly [−]. Does the UR contain both marked and unmarked values or only the marked value(s) of segments? If we assume that it contains both values, the stricture value of the radicals in k6t6f and k6ta will be as follows: (25)

a.

C

6

C

C

6

C

b.

x t f [+] [–] [+] k6t6f ‘has hashed’

C

6

C

C

6

C

x t A [+] [–] [+] k6ta ‘has worried’

In (25a, b), the [+] of /x/ is immediately followed by [−] of /t/. This entails that the initial [+] and the final [+] are not adjacent. In principle, phonological processes are local and they imply A and B, not A, B and C (see Odden 1994 and the references therein on locality condition). If this is correct, it follows that the intervening /t/ is considered nonexistent because, if it were not, the structural description for No Precontinuant [x] would not be met, as [−] would intervene. The forms *x6t6f and *x6ta would be incorrectly predicted. But assume now that the unmarked feature value [−] of /t/ is absent, as in (26a, b). (26)

a.

C

6

C

C

6

C

b.

C

6

C

C

6

C

x t f x t A [+] [] [+] [+] [] [+] k6t6f ‘has hashed’ k6ta ‘has worried’ Only now are the [+] of /x/ and the [+] of the third radical adjacent, which entails a violation of No Precontinuant [x]. Strengthening takes place to avoid a violation of this constraint. The forms k6t6f and k6ta are correctly predicted. This argument supports the view that unmarked feature values are absent in UR and during (at least part of) the phonology.

118

SOUND MUTATIONS

3.8.2 [CONT] in sonorants Setting the dual nature of /A/ aside, we have seen that continuant sonorants (or approximants) do not function like continuant obstruents. In contrast to fricatives, high vocoids do not trigger strengthening of a preceding /x/. For instance, a verb such as sGç ‘flee!’ is derived from the triradical –sxI ‘to flee’ but the /x/ is not strengthened. Similarly, /x/ in sGx6r ‘get drunk!’ is not strengthened regardless of the presence of a [+] final radical /r/. This shows that even though /I/ and /r/ are [+] they do not function as such phonologically. If we assume that the UR contains both marked and unmarked values, the stricture value of sGç and sGx6r will be as follows: (27)

a.

b.

C G C | | s x [+] [+] sGç ‘Flee!’ C G C | | s x [+] [+] sGx6r ‘Get drunk!’

6

C | I [+]

6

C | r [+]

Given the [+] of /I/ in (27a) and of /r/ in (27b), No Precontinuant [x] predicts that /x/ in (27) should not retain its [+]. This incorrectly predicts *sGky and *sGk6r. But assume again that [+] is the unmarked stricture feature value in sonorants and is consequently unspecified, as shown in (28): (28)

a.

b.

C G C | | s x [+] [+] sGç ‘Flee!’ C G C | | s x [+] [+] sGx6r ‘Get drunk!’

C | I [] 6

C | r []

Given that continuant sonorants are [] (i.e. unspecified) for continuancy — and not [+] — the [+] of /x/ in sGç and sGx6r is not followed by [+]

119


on the [] tier. Accordingly, No Precontinuant [x] cannot rule out [x] in these forms since [x] here is not precontinuant. This accounts for why continuant sonorants do not trigger strengthening of /x/. In such an account, [+] will be absent in sonorants, as is [−] in obstruents. Thus, the stricture features of radicals can be represented as follows: (29)

Underlying stricture specifications a. Obstruents ([−]) Fricatives/A C | [+] b. Sonorants ([+]) Continuant sonorants C | []

Stops C | [] Noncontinuant sonorants C | [−]

According to (29), [] represents the unmarked feature values [−] in obstruents and [+] in sonorants. In other words, [] in obstruents means the absence of [+] whereas [] in sonorants mean the absence of [−]. The claim that noncontinuant sonorants are [−] predicts that an /m/ (Chaha has no /n/ in stems) which intervenes between /x/ and a following [+] radical should block the strengthening of /x/. For instance, [x] in the hypothetical word x6m6s, (30), is pre [−] and does not violate No Precontinuant [x]. (30)

C

6

C

C

6

C

x m s [+] [–] [+] x6m6s (hypothetical) So my analysis predicts x6m6s and not k6m6s. But I have not been able to find verbs which can confirm or invalidate this prediction. I have found only the pronouns axma ‘you (pl.f.)’ and xGn6ma ‘they (f.)’ as well as the complementizer x6ma ‘that’. In all three cases, /x/ remains a spirant in spite of the final [a], and this confirms the prediction. On the other hand, given my assumption that [−] in obstruents is unspecified, my analysis predicts that strengthening should apply irrespective of an intervening obstruent stop, as in (26). The only counterexamples that I found are x6da ‘has betrayed’ and x6t’a ‘flatterer’.

120

SOUND MUTATIONS

3.8.3 The sonorant nature of /ö/ with respect to [CONT] The distribution of x and k indicates that ö is not [+]. In (31a), /x/ remains a spirant before a final ö. But in (31b), the final radical is [+], which triggers the strengthening of /x/. (31)

A following /ö/ vs. a [+] obstruent and the strengthening of /x/ a. y6-]x6ö ‘Let him find!’ yG-xöGö ‘Let him encircle!’ yG-xtGö ‘Let him vaccinate!’ b. y6-]kGs ‘Let him bite!’ y6-k6sGs ‘Let him accuse!’ y6-ktGf ‘Let him hash!’

The fact that ö, unlike [+] obstruents, does not trigger strengthening of a preceding x shows that it is not a [+] obstruent and that it patterns with sonorants. Recall that /ö/ occlusivizes to an obstruent [b] in absolute word-initial position (and when it is doubly linked but not devoiced, see Chapter 5 for a discussion of occlusivization). As a sonorant, /ö/ is not [−] and cannot have this specification. In addition, its obstruent allophones [b, p] are not [+] and cannot have this specification. So, /ö/ is neither a [−] sonorant nor a [+] obstruent, it is unspecified for continuant, so []. When the [+] phoneme /ö/ becomes [−] [b] (by being initial or doubly linked), it does not change its specification for continuancy (it remains []). in addition, according to the definition in (29), [] continuant in obstruents is a stop. So, as an obstruent, /ö/ can only be a stop and this explains why it is in (32a). (32)

a.

C

6

C

C

6

C

ö s A [] [+] [+] b6sa ‘has enlarged (intr.)’

b.

a-C

6

C

C

6

C

ö s A [] [+] [+] a-ö6sa ‘has enlarged (tr.)’

On the other hand, /ö/ in (32b) is medial and singly linked, so it is [+]. Again, according to (29b), [] continuant in sonorants means a continuant sonorant. This explains why /ö/ in (32b) is an approximant. In this account, the UR of /ö/ should not contain specification for continuancy because specifying an obstruent stop as [−] and a continuant sonorant as [+] cannot capture the phonological inertness of [+] in sonorants and that of [−] in obstruents.


121

3.8.4 Following vs. preceding [+CONT] Finally, consider the verbs nGk(G)s ‘bite!’, (33a), and sGx6r ‘get drunk!’, (33b). Both stems have the same type and number of consonants. The only difference concerning their consonants is the order of their initial and final radicals. /x/ is followed by a fricative in nGk(G)s whereas it is followed by a sonorant in sGx6r. (33)

a.

b.

C G C | | r x [] [+] nGk(G)s ‘Bite!’ C G C | | s x [+] [+] sGx6r ‘Get drunk!’

(G)

C | s [+]

6

C | r []

While /x/ is followed by [+] in (33a) it is preceded by it in (33b). What follows /x/ in (33b) is /r/, which according to (29) has no continuancy specification. So, [+] of /x/ is precontinuant in (33a), which is forbidden by No Precontinuant [x]. This explains why we obtain [k]. But [+] of /x/ is postcontinuant in (33b), a situation about which No Precontinuant [x] says nothing at all. This explains why /x/ simply surfaces as [x]. Based on the absence of [x] in y6-]kGs and its presence in y6-sx6r, Leslau (1992: 619) states that: “[t]here is no consistency in the Jussive of verbs with 2nd radical velar.” However, the examples he cites fall under three categories. The first are verbs with a final fricative where, in my analysis, /x/ strengthens because it is precontinuant, e.g. y6-]kGs. The second are verbs with a final nonfricative where /x/ remains a spirant because, in my analysis, it is not precontinuant, e.g. y6-mxGr. The third are verbs with a doubled /x/ such as y6skGk, discussed in §3.6, where /x/, in my analysis, strengthens because it is doubled. I have argued in §3.6 that this also is a subset of No Precontinuant [x]. The explanation offered for the difference between y6-]kGs and y6-mxGr, i.e. the fact that /x/ is precontinuant only in the former, accounts also for the precontinuant [k] in nouns such as nGkGf w ‘defile’ and m6-]k6s ‘stomach-ache’ as well as for the postcontinuant [x] in nouns such as f6xGr ‘mischief’, s6x6r ‘kind of beer’, w6xr-a ‘clay’, Š6xw6r6 ‘elephant’ and ax6d ‘comrade’. But I have no account as to why /x/ remains a spirant in m6x6za ‘first shot’ in spite of the following continuant radical.

122 3.9

SOUND MUTATIONS

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have shown that [x] and [k] derive from the same phoneme /x/. I described the distribution of the two allophones and argued that it does not have anything to do with the position of /x/ in the syllable. Rather, it depends on the continuancy specification of radicals following /x/. If /x/ is followed by a [+] obstruent ([+] is assumed to be unspecified in sonorants) the [+] of /x/ delinks. Furthermore, I assumed that when a segment lacks a marked feature value it means that it has the unmarked value by default. The value [+] is marked in obstruents, and its absence in an obstruent entails the presence of the unmarked value [−]. So, delinking [+] from /x/ results in the stop allophone [k]. I cited some examples suggesting that nasal stops, in contrast to oral stops, are [−]. I have attributed this to the assumption that [−] is the marked stricture value in sonorants. The delinking is a direct consequence of either of the constraints No Precontinuant [x] (which takes care of a /x/ preceding a fricative or /A/) or No Geminate [x] (which takes care of a geminated /x/). In conjunction with either of these two, No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem results in eliminating (i.e. strengthening) an otherwise acceptable [x], as in y6-skGk or yG-t-sGkak6r, where the underscored k is neither precontinuant nor geminate. Leaving the handful of exceptions aside (which, of course, are unpredictable in any previous analysis), the three constraints account for all instances of [x] and [k] in Chaha without any appeal to syllabic configurations. The constraints are seen as applying on [+, Dorsal] but /x/ is the only such segment of Chaha. I concluded that, in general, /A/ functions like a fricative even though there are a few instances of a radical [a] which functions like a sonorant in not triggering the delinking of [+] from a preceding /x/. I suggested to account for this by postulating an abstract phoneme /æ/ but the implications of this analysis await future research. I distinguished a phonologically motivated reduplication (k6tkGt and sGkGk) from a morphologically motivated one (t6-sxax6r), a distinction which is manifested in both form and meaning. I attributed the differences to the proposal that the base and reduplicant of a phonologically motivated reduplication reside on the same tier while that of a morphologically motivated reduplication reside on different tiers. This distinction is supported by arguments from /x/ strengthening and the insertion site of aspectual and epenthetic vowels within the base. In the next chapter, we will discuss the distribution of placeless sonorant consonants (mainly n/r). We will see that, in contrast to obstruent (x/k) alternations, sonorant alternations are governed by syllabic considerations and not by


123

the continuancy specification of surrounding radicals. So, constraints of the type No Precontinuant [r] and No Different Allophones of /r/ in a Stem do not hold because, in my view, the distribution of r/n is mostly determined at the level of the skeleton/syllable and not at the phonemic (specifically continuant) tier.

C 4 Sonorant Alternations

4.1

Introduction

This chapter (which expands Petros 1996b with minor modifications) investigates the distribution of n, l and r in Chaha and accounts for the alternations among them. Following Polotsky (1938: 140–3), Leslau (1950: 13), Hetzron (1977: 40), McCarthy (1986a: 220), Petros (1995: 431) and others, it will be argued that the contrast between n, l and r is neutralized and that they are in complementary distribution in contemporary Chaha verb stems. They are represented by a single placeless sonorant phoneme /r/ (analyzed as a sonorant archiphoneme /R/ in Petros 1996b), which is also unspecified for laterality and nasality. The r has mainly two realizations [r] and [n] but also [l] when geminated across a morpheme boundary. It will be shown that there are some instances of liquid-nasal minimal pairs in nouns and that there are reasons to believe that the contrast in some of them is a simple r vs. geminated rr. Even though it is not a priori impossible to derive all instances of n’s found in nouns from an r (as this will be the case in verb stems) this will require postulating a phoneme r which always surfaces as n. In addition, no liquid is found in prefixes, i.e. a prefixal nasal does not alternate with a liquid. Due to the presence of such nonalternating nasals, it will be suggested that two independent phonemes (nasal /N/ and liquid /r/) should be recognized in nouns and affixes. The chapter is organized as follows. In §4.2 the description and account of the main alternations in stems is laid out, and three types of r-nasalization (geminate, initial and penultimate coda) are proposed. The interaction of penultimate coda nasalization with epenthesis, the radical A and complex consonants is discussed in §4.3, the role of doubling on nasalization in §4.4, nasal dissimilation in §4.5, counterexamples related with borrowing in §4.6 and alternations of r and front vowels in §4.7. Some problematic cases (r/n contrasts in nouns) are discussed in §4.8. Sonorant alternations in affixes and why they differ from stems is dealt with in §4.9. Finally, §4.10 concludes the chapter.

126 4.2

SOUND MUTATIONS

Stems

4.2.1 Geminate nasalization and degemination Representative examples of transitive r-medial triradical verbs are given in (1). The penult of these verbs is an underlying simple consonant in the Jussive and Imperfective similar to y6-söGr ‘let him break’ and yG-s6öGr ‘he breaks’. On the other hand, the penult is an underlying geminate in the Perfective similar to m6k6r ‘has suppurated’, from –mgr, discussed in Chapter 2, and m6k6r ‘has advised’, from –mxr discussed in Chapter 3. While a geminate obstruent either devoices or strengthens, a geminated r nasalizes. The devoiced, strengthened and nasalized geminates simplify, so /rr/ becomes [n] in the Perfective verbs of (1).1 (1)

Jussive a. y6-öGrt’ b. y6-fGrt c. y6-fGrd d. y6-t’Grs e. y-a-gGrz f. y6-grGr g. y6-t’Grk’ h. y6-dGrg i. y6-tGrx j. y6-k’Grf k. y6-srGö l. y6-k’rGm m. y6-öra

Imperfective yG-ö6rt’ yG-f6rt yG-f6rd yG-t’6rs y-a-g6rz yG-g6rGr yG-t’6rk’ yG-d6rg yG-t6rx yG-k’6rf yG-s6rGö yG-k’6rGm yG-ö6ra

Perfective b6nt’ ‘become wise’ f6nt ‘cut in half’ f6nd ‘judge’ t’6n6s ‘break off a little piece’ a-g6n6z ‘age’ g6n6r ‘extract butter’ t’6n6k’ ‘scoop out’ d6n6g ‘hit’ t6n6x ‘make an incision’ k’6n6f ‘strike  down’ s6n6ö ‘spin, twist a rope’ k’6n6m ‘insult’ b6na ‘eat’

In (1a–f), the final consonants are coronals. All the coronals except r, (1f), form a cluster with a preceding r (see Leslau 1964 for similar generalizations). In (1g–i), the final consonants are velars. All velars form a cluster with a preceding r. In (1j–l) the final consonants are labials, of which only the labio-dental f, (1j), forms a cluster with a preceding r, in the Jussive and Imperfective. Note that ö acts like the nasal m and not like the fricative f in not forming a cluster with a preceding r. In general, r can be the first member of a word-final cluster when

1. The 6 found between the penult and the final radical of Perfective verbs, e.g. b6n6s ‘has demolished’, is absent when the penult is n and the last radical is a coronal stop, e.g. b6nt’ ‘has become wise’ (see also Leslau 1992: 360).

SONORANT ALTERNATIONS

127

the second member is any consonant except r, ö and m. According to §1.3.1, ö in Chaha is a sonorant. Hence, it can be stated that r cannot be the first member of a final cluster if the second member is a sonorant.2 The contrast between the Jussive and the Imperfective on the one hand and the Perfective on the other is of the absence of gemination in the former and its presence in the latter. Geminate Nasalization and Degemination (), shown in (2), turns the doubly linked r, of the Perfective, into a simple n. (See §5.3.2 for a formal representation of Geminate Nasalization and Degemination.) (2)

Geminate Nasalization and Degemination C C

r n The r in the following quadriradical verbs nasalizes and degeminates in both the Imperfective and Perfective, also due to :3 (3)

Quadriradicals with a penultimate r Jussive Imperfective Perfective a. I-second quadriradicals y-a-ö6nGr y-a-öenGr a-öen6r ‘yawn’ y-a-t’6nz y-a-c’6nz a-c’6n6z ‘crouch’ y6-f6nk’ yG-fenk’ fen6k’ ‘burp’ y6-g6nGm yG-gy6nGm gy6n6m ‘take back the loan of a cow’ y6-g6nGz yG-gy6nGz gy6n6z ‘cut in a big slice’ y6-t’6nf yG-c’6nf c’6n6f ‘slash’ y6-z6nGr yG-Š6nGr Š6n6r ‘curtain’

2. Leslau (1964: 55) has also reported y-6rö ‘milk’, y6-t’Grö ‘tear off (e.g. leaves)’, y-6rm ‘weed’, y6fGrm ‘break’ and y6-k’Grm ‘insult’ as possible forms. (See also Hayward 1988: 143 for y6-fGrm) However, such clusters are possible only in medial positions, i.e. when ö or m is the onset of a syllable containing a vowel, e.g. y-6rö-o ‘let them () milk!’ and y-6rm-o ‘let them () weed!’ According to Berhanu Chamora and me, there is no final rö or rm. The above forms should respectively be y-6rGö, y6-t’rGö, y-6rGm, y6-frGm and y6-k’rGm. 3. A nasalized r normally assimilates in place with the following obstruent, e.g. yG-r6gs ‘he reigns vs. y6-]g6s and yG-r6öGr ‘he lives’ vs. y6-mb6r ‘let him live!’ However, the geminate n of (3) does not assimilate in place with the following obstruent. This may be because a geminate penult is followed by [G], (i.e. …CCGC#) as in yG-sr6p(G)t ‘he sojourns’, which deletes only after degemination.

128

SOUND MUTATIONS

b.

c.

A-second quadriradicals4 y6-öarGr yG-öanGr y6-k’yars yG-k’yans y6-marx yG-manx y6-Šarg yG-Šang U-second quadriradicals y6-k’w6rGr yG-k’w6nGr y6-w6rs yG-w6nGs

ban6r k’yan6s man6x Šan6g

‘demolish’ ‘attack with words’ ‘capture’ ‘go away’

k’w6n6r ‘trim’ bw6n6s ‘feel lonely’

As just mentioned, quadriradicals geminate their penultimate consonant in the Imperfective, e.g. yG-sr6p(G)t ‘he sojourns’, and Perfective, e.g. sGr6p6t6-m ‘he has sojourned’, from –sröt, where the devoicing of ö replaces gemination. Accordingly, a penultimate r nasalizes and degeminates in both the Imperfective and Perfective of quadriradicals, (3a–c). Nasalization is peculiar to r whereas degemination is common to all morpheme-internal geminates. A penultimate r nasalizes and degeminates also in the Jussive of I-second quadriradicals, (3a), traditionally called type B. It is argued, in §2.2.7 and Appendix 2a, that gemination in the Jussive of I-second quadriradicals occurs to compensate for the depalatalization. The same explanation holds for gemination in the Jussive of I-second quadriradicals shown in (3a). r does not nasalize in the Jussive if there is no depalatalization, e.g. y6-t’6nf ‘let him slash!’ vs. its frequentative y6-c’r6rf ‘let him slash repeatedly!’ indicating that  is not a historical but a contemporary process. 4.2.2 Initial nasalization The phoneme r becomes n when it is at the beginning of a word.5 (See Ahn 1998 for a comparable nasalization in Korean.) The difference between the Simple and other stems in (4) exemplifies Initial Nasalization (), (5). In the other contexts, r surfaces as r, be it after a vowel or any consonant different from itself (or a prefix /N-/ which triggers the nasalization of the r). (4)

Simple nak’

Reflexive t6-rak’

Causative a-r6k’

Reflexive Causative at-r6k’ ‘grow’

4. In Petros (1996b: 155), y6-öarGr, y6-k’yars, y6-marx and y6-w6rs are misprinted respectively as y6banGr, y6-k’yar(G)s, y6-mar(G)x and y6-w6r(G)s. 5. However, see Ford (1991: 245, note 5) for an opinion that r can optionally become n also wordmedially. She cites examples such as y6-neöa ‘of a thief’ and y6-nesa ‘of a corpse’, forms which I do not accept or say. I only say y6-reöa and y6-resa.

129


(5)

nas t6-ras nGk’6k’6t’ t6-rk’ak’6t’ nGt’6n6t’ t6-rt’6n6t’ n6k6ö t6-r6k6ö Initial Nasalization #C | r →n

a-r6s a-rk’ak’6t’ a-rt’6n6t’ a-rak6ö

at-r6s atG-rk’ak’6t’ atG-rt’6n6t’ at-r6k6ö

‘lick’ ‘kick’ ‘oscillate’ ‘find’

Initial Nasalization is exceptionless: no word begins with r or l. Polotsky’s (1938: 141) exceptions: 6r6ky6-m ‘has thrown’, 6ram ‘cow’, 6r7 ‘cattle’, 6r6k’w-e ‘far’ and 6ro ‘Wednesday’ begin with the vowel 6. I am not familiar with his räg’g’a¯ ‘property’. Leslau’s (1985: 238) exception lux/rux ‘soul’ is, according to me, nux. 4.2.3 Penultimate coda nasalization (PCN) The nasal in (6) is not a geminate and therefore is not the result of . It is not word-initial and cannot result from  either. Yet, r is nasalized, showing that  and  are not the only types of nasalization. A simplex noninitial r is nasalized if it is the coda of the penultimate syllable of the stem (i.e. when the antepenultimate radical r is the first member of a consonant cluster).6 (6)

a.

b.

c.

Jussive of triradicals y6-Xf6s/y6˜ -f6s ‘Let it wind!’ y6-nz6ö/y6˜ -z6ö ‘Let it be flexible!’ y6-]k’Gt’ ‘Let him kick!’ Jussive of quadriradicals y6-s6mbGt ‘Let him sojourn!’ y6-k’w6nt’Gs ‘Let him pinch!’ y6-d6]gGr ‘Let him throw down!’ Infinitives w6-s6mbGt ‘to sojourn’

6. In theories where every syllable (in Semitic) is CV (Guerssel and Lowenstamm 1995 and Lowenstamm 1996a), a penultimate coda may be seen as an antepenultimate radical followed by an empty nucleus. Since the syllable-types of Chaha are not at issue here, I will not argue for or against whether []] in words such as y6-]k’Gt’ ‘let him kick!’ from (6a) is a coda of the first syllable or an onset of an empty nucleus. However, I use the term ‘coda’ because it is simpler than ‘onset of an empty nucleus’.

130

SOUND MUTATIONS

d.

w6-k’w6nt’Gs w6-d6]gGr Nouns s6mb6t fGnt’Gr dG]gar

‘to pinch’ ‘to throw down’ ‘Sabbath’ ‘cheer’ ‘miscarriage’

Leslau (1985: 236) points out that nasalization occurs in the Jussive of verbs beginning with n, i.e. the examples given in (6a). The examples given in (6b) demonstrate that nasalization occurs also in the Jussive of quadriradicals, where r is not at the beginning of a stem. Furthermore, nasalization occurs in infinitives (6c) and nouns (6d), so is not characteristic of the Jussive. What characterizes nasalization in (6) is the fact that r is the antepenultimate radical consonant and it is a coda (i.e. r is followed by a CVC# — making it a penultimate coda) and nasalizes according to Penultimate Coda Nasalization (): (7)

Penultimate Coda Nasalization C C V C# | r → N

The nasalized /r/ always takes the point of articulation of the following consonant. Affixes have no effect on . For example, if we add the suffixes -o-n ‘ -me’ to a verb such as y6-k’Grt’ ‘let him despise!’ its syllable structure changes and we obtain y6-k’Grt’-o-n ‘let them () despise me!’ Here, r cannot nasalize even though it is followed by a CVC#, cf. *y6-k’Gnt’-o-n. Similarly, if we add -6ma ‘ ’ to a verb such as y6-s6mbGt ‘let him sojourn!’ we obtain y6-s6mbGt-6ma (not *y6-s6rbGt-6ma) ‘let them ( ) sojourn!’ even though r is not the penultimate coda of the entire word. This shows that  scans only the stem and does not take affixes into consideration. There are two Jussive forms of fGc’6n6k’ ‘has crushed’: y6-fc’6rk’ or y6f6^c’Gk’ ‘let him crush!’ The r is a final coda in y6-fc’6rk’ and does not nasalize. But r and c’ have metathesized in y6-f6^c’Gk’, which brings r into penultimate coda position, resulting in its nasalization. Note that r nasalizes also in yG-fc’6nk’ ‘he crushes!’ but the nasalization here is due to gemination, to be compared with yG-sr6p(G)t ‘he sojourns’. In words such as y6-Xf6s/y6˜-f6s ‘let it wind!’ the nasal can delink from its C slot and nasalize the preceding vowel if the consonant following the nasal is a fricative. On the other hand, the nasal does not delink before ö. Instead, ö strengthens to b, e.g. y6-mb6r ‘let him live’, and parallels the strengthening of U


131

to bw as in a-N-U6t’6A → ambw6t’a ‘he has not gone out’ (see Chapter 6). This again supports the position that ö in Chaha is a sonorant and not an obstruent. An r which is not subject to any of the three types of nasalization (GND, IN or PCN) surfaces as r, a central approximant (IPA [p] but I use the usual regular [r]). The contexts where r remains an approximant can be summarized as: (a) a noninitial onset … CV, e.g. fGr6x ‘be patient!,’ (b) a final coda … C(C)#, e.g. sGx6r ‘get drunk!’ or yG-f6rx ‘he is patient!’ and (c) a coda which precedes the penultimate coda C … CCVC#, e.g. a-rgagGt’ ‘make sure!’ The realization of r as an approximant is shown in the Jussive and Imperfective of the r-medial triradical verbs of (1) and the Jussive of quadriradical verbs of (3b, c), where r is neither geminated nor word-initial nor followed by CVC#, i.e. the elsewhere realization of an r is an approximant. (Petros 1996b and Banksira 1997 treat the r as a flap but recent phonetic experiments indicate that it is more like an approximant than a flap, especially when it is in a coda position.)

4.3

Interaction of PCN with epenthesis, /A/ and complex consonants

4.3.1 Interaction of PCN with epenthetic [G] An exhaustive list of clearly triradical and quadriradical Jussive verb stems undergoing  is given in (8). The nasals in (8) are penultimate coda r, which became n due to . (8)

a.

b.

Intransitive Triradicals y6-]x6ö/y6˜ -x6ö ‘Let y6-nz6ö/y6˜ -z6ö ‘Let y6-Xf6r/y6˜ -f6r ‘Let y6-Xf6s/y6˜ -f6s ‘Let y6-]g6s ‘Let y6-nt’6r ‘Let y6-mb6r ‘Let Transitive Triradicals y6-XfGg/y6˜ -fGg ‘Let y6-XfGk’/y6˜ -fGk’ ‘Let y6-]gGd ‘Let

him find!’ him be flexible!’ it be very hot!’ it wind!’ him reign!’ it melt!’ him live!’ him be avaricious!’ him yank!’ him touch!’

132

SOUND MUTATIONS

c.

d.

y6-]k’Gf y6-]k’Gr y6-]k’Gt’ y6-nt’Gö y6-nt’Gr y6-nt’Gs y6-ndGf y6-ndGr y6-]gGf y6-]k’Gm y6-]k’Gs y6-]kGs y6-nt’Gf y6-nt’Gk’ Quadriradicals y-a-ö6]kGs y6-d6]gGr y6-f6]k’Gr y6-k’w6nt’Gs y6-s6mbGt y-a-f6]gGr y-a-x6mbGr y6-f6nt’Gr y6-k’w6nt’Gr y6-t’6]k’wGr Exception9 y6-s6rk’Gt’

‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let

him him him him him him him him him him him him him him

embrace!’7 uproot!’ kick!’ profit!’ separate!’ sneeze!’ sting!’ incise!’ lop off!’ gather!’ limp!’ bite!’ sift s6x6r-drink!’ snatch away!’

‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let

him him him him him him him him him him

pretext!’ throw!’ lever!’ pinch!’ sojourn!’ uproot!’ take out from a pot!’ prepare food!’ take a little!’8 rip out!’

‘Let him hide with secrecy!’

In (8d), my analysis predicts *y6-s6]k’Gt’ instead of y6-s6rk’Gt’ and I have no explanation as to why r is not nasalized in this case.

7. It is not so clear whether []] in y6-]k’Gf is an antepenult since the root contains /I/ which appears in the Imperfective, e.g. yG-\k’yGf ‘he embraces’ and Perfective, e.g. 6\k’y6f6-m ‘he has embraced’. 8. The verbs y6-k’w6nt’Gs ‘let him pinch!’, y6-k’w6nt’Gr ‘let him take a little!’ and y6-t’6]k’wGr ‘let him rip out!’ are formed from quinquiradicals. But the /U/ here is weak — does not have a Root node and does not map onto a C slot, as discussed in §2.3.3 and Chapter 7. 9. The absence of  in forms such as y6-f6rfGr ‘let it breed worms!’ and y6-t’6rk’Gk’ ‘let him scoop out in large quantities!’ will be explained in §4.4. Forms such as y6-g6rdGm ‘let him break  in two!’ are explained in §4.5. Note that these are not exceptions.

133


The r of (9) surfaces as r when it is not followed by CVC#, as in yG-r6g(G)d ‘he touches’ and yG-sr6p(G)t ‘he sojourns’. But, here, it nasalizes because of the . (9)

a.

b.

y6- C C V C | | | r g d y6-]gGd ‘Let him touch!’ y6- C 6 C C | | | s r ö y6-s6mbGt ‘Let him sojourn!’

V

C | t

Transitive triradicals of Chaha have been assumed to have the Jussive pattern y6-CCGC or y6-CGCC, depending on the relative sonority of the last two consonants (e.g. Leslau 1964: 54, Hayward 1988: 161 and McCarthy and Prince 1995: 331). But note that the last two consonants of y6-dGfk’ (not *y6-dfGk’) ‘let him soak!’ and y6-XfGk’ (not *y6-rGfk’) ‘let him yank!’ are the same though they have different syllabification patterns. The only segmental difference between these two verbs is the initial consonant, which is a stop in one case and r in the other. The same is true in y6-gGmt’ (not *y6-gmGt’) ‘let him chew off!’ and y6rmGt’ (not *y6-rGmt’) ‘let him make slim bread!’ Furthermore, some verbs have both patterns, e.g. y6-kGtf/y6-ktGf ‘let him chop’. Given these facts, it is clear that the sonority of the last two consonants is not the decisive factor in determining the site of G in these verbs. I claim instead that the y6-CCGC pattern is obligatory when: (a) C3 is a sonorant (i.e. r, m or ö), e.g. y6-gdGr ‘let him put to bed’, or (b) C2 and C3 are the same (i.e. C2 and C3 are occupied by the same radical), e.g. y6-gdGd ‘let it germinate, pierce’ and/or (c) C1 is r, cf. (8b). Otherwise, the basic pattern is y6-CGCC, e.g. y6-kGtf ‘let him chop’. However, some verbs of this class can also take the y6-CCGC pattern, e.g. y6-ktGf. The relative sonority of the last two consonants only determines if one verb can have both patterns, e.g. y6-kGtf or y6ktGf ‘let him chop’, or not, e.g. y6-kGft but not *y6-kfGt ‘let him open!’. The y6-rCGC pattern is used in (8b) regardless of the content of C3. Note also that the y6-rGCC pattern will force the r to be an onset, hence not nasalizable by , cf. *y6-rGfk’ ‘let him yank’ with an acceptable final cluster fk’, cf. y6dGfk’ ‘let him soak!’ However, there is a conspiracy to ensure that /r/ syllabifies as a coda whenever possible, and the coda undergoes nasalization. Because all r-initial triradicals take the y6-rCGC pattern the r will always be in the coda and will nasalize. This shows that the first radical has a role in determining the site

134

SOUND MUTATIONS

of G in the verbs in question. In fact, the syllabification in these verbs is similar to the syllabification of any CCC, discussed in §1.5.3. 4.3.2 Interaction of PCN with the radical /A/ The nasal in each word of (8) is linked with the penultimate coda of the Jussive template, in each case followed by a heavy syllable CVC. But in (10) each nasal is a penultimate coda followed by a CV and not CVC, which should remain an approximant. (10)

a.

b.

Triradicals y6-nda y6-nsa/y6˜ -sa y6-nt’a y6-nta y6-]ga y6-mba y6-Xfa/y6˜ -fa Quadriradicals y6-f6nda y6-k6nta y6-f6nta y6-f6]k’a y6-k’6mba y-a-t-g6mba y6-k’6Xfa/y6-k’6˜ fa

‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let

him help!’ him lift up !’ him turn white!’ him split  apart!’ it coagulate!’ him split  into half!’ him blow  up!’

‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let

it burst!’ him lift up !’ it sprinkle!’ it hatch out!’ him strike !’ him bow down!’ him strike!’

Penultimate Coda Nasalization presents a testing ground for many intricacies of Chaha phonology. For instance, it gives us a solid ground for the claim that a in examples such as y6-]ga ‘let it coagulate!’ and y6-k’6mba ‘let him hit!’, depicted in (11), represents a radical A which, like any other radical consonant, has its own C slot, i.e. y6-]ga is formed from –rgA and y6-k’6mba is formed from –k’röA. (See also Marcos 1974: 21, Hetzron 1977: 76, Lowenstamm 1991b, 1996a: 424, Rose 1992: 96, Petros 1993a: 15ff., Prunet and Petros 1996: 318, and Prunet 1996b: 182 for compatible proposals.) From this perspective, A is the final and r the antepenultimate radical, i.e. r is followed by a heavy CVC syllable and it nasalizes due to . In other words, bGt in y6-s6mbGt ‘let him sojourn!’ (9b), and ba in y6-k’6mba ‘let him hit!’ (11b), have equal weight which allows the preceding r to nasalize. (Association of /A/ to the VC in (11) is intended to mean that /A/ is an underlying abstract stem-final consonant but it spreads to the preceding V slot and surfaces as a vowel).

135


(11)

a.

y6-C r

C V C g

b.

y6-C

6

k’

A

y6-]ga ‘Let it coagulate!’

C

C V C

r

ö

A

y6-k’6mba ‘Let him hit!’

Notice that 6 in the Jussive stem k’6mba is a clear indication of the fact that the verb is a quadriradical. It parallels y6-s6mbGt ‘let him sojourn!’ from (8c). In addition, r in the Perfective k’Gr6pa-m ‘he has hit!’ is not an underlying geminate whereas p is. Perfective gemination affects the penultimate consonant, e.g. sGr6p6t6-m ‘he has sojourned’ and never the final one, e.g. *s6n6p from –srö. This proves that p in k’Gr6pa-m is the penultimate and not the final consonant. It then follows that the a in k’Gr6pa-m as well as in man6x ‘has captured’, (the latter is traditionally called type C) occupies a C slot like any other radical, making these verbs quadriradicals. Quadriradicals geminate their penult also in the Imperfective, cf. yG-manx (not *yG-marx) ‘he captures’ and yG-sr6p(G)t ‘he sojourns’. This analysis unifies type C with quadriradicals and eliminates this class (as well as type B, see §2.2.7) from the grammar of Chaha. (See also §1.6.1 on this issue). 4.3.3 Interaction of PCN with complex consonants The r is also nasalized in (12a, b) even though at the surface it is part of the final and not the penultimate syllable. (12)

a.

b.

Triradicals y6-]k’w y6-\k’y y6-^c’ y6-f6\k’y Quadriradicals y6-t’6]k’w y6-f6\ky y6-k’w6^c’ y6-z6\gy

‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let

him him him him

shout!’ be enraged!’ pluck!’ pick out seeds!’

‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let

him him him him

become deaf!’ break the head!’ take a handful!’ speak!’

136

SOUND MUTATIONS

c.

Exceptions y-a-rw y6-ö6rw

‘Let him construct!’10 ‘Let him bolt!’

The nasalizations in (12) also pose an apparent problem to . However, if we adopt that these labialized and palatalized consonants are two segments (Petros 1993a, Prunet and Petros 1996, Prunet 1996a and Chapter 7 of this book) nasalization in these verbs follows naturally from  because the labialized and palatalized consonants are an underlying plain consonant followed by a high vocoid. Hence, a complex segment such as k’w comprises a heavy syllable, as in (13). (It will be claimed in Chapter 7 that what docks on k’ is only the terminal feature [round] of /U/.) (13)

a.

y6-C r

C k’

6

C U

y6-]k’ ‘Let him shout!’

b.

y6-C

6

t’

C

C V C

r

k’

U

y6-t’6]k’ ‘Let him become deaf!’ w According to the present analysis, y6-]k’ is an intransitive verb which has the y6-CC6C Jussive template where k’w encompasses the final C6C. However, had k’w in these examples been a single phoneme similar to the k’ in y6-t’Grk’ ‘let him scoop out!’, the nasalization would be unexplained since a singly linked penultimate r always surfaces as r. Notice that in contrast to the verbs in (12a, b), r of a transitive triradical such as y6-t’Grk’ (and all similar verbs given in (1)) is a coda followed by a single plain consonant, and r surfaces as r. To my knowledge, there is no singly linked r in Chaha verbs which surfaces as n before one plain consonant, i.e. we have y6-t’Grk’ and never *y6-t’G]k’. Contrary to a penultimate coda r, a final coda r always remains an approximant. Similarly, given that, in my view, k’w in y6-]k’w occupies two C slots, it is plausible to claim that bw in bw6n6s ‘has felt lonely’ does too. This implies that bw6n6s is a quadriradical, which has gemination in the Perfective as well as Imperfective, e.g. yG-w6ns (not *yG-w6rs) ‘he feels lonely’. As proposed in Petros (1993a: 9–16) this unifies this class of verbs with quadriradicals and eliminates it from the analysis of Chaha verbs. w

w

10. The a in y-a-rw ‘let him construct!’ is the causative prefix. The a is absent when we add the prefix t6-, as in t6-r6w6-m ‘it is constructed’ while a radical a remains, ag6d ‘has tied’ and t-ag6d ‘has been imprisoned’. A radical a centralizes to 6 in the Imperative/Jussive stem, e.g. 6g(G)d ‘tie!’, while the a in y-a-rw does not, as is the case with the causative prefix in all instances, e.g. y-a-öra ‘let him feed!’ (See also Petros 1994: 1221 for more criteria to distinguish a prefixal a from a radical one.)

137


Now, compare the r and n in the nominal stems such as gw6rd-6ra ‘big trunks of wood for building a wall’ (from –gUrd ‘cut off in big piece’) and t’6]k’w-ara ‘deaf’ (from –t’rk’U ‘become deaf’). In the present analysis, r in gw6rd- is not followed by a complex consonant while it is in t’6]k’w-, so a nasal is correctly predicted to be found only in the latter. This supports the position that  does not take suffixal segments into account and that complex consonants are biphonemic. That is, r is the antepenultimate radical only in the latter, and nasalizes according to . The sound w in the exceptions of (12c), above, is a complex consonant. For instance, in y-a-rw ‘let him construct!’, w must occupy two C slots, as shown in (14a), for the verb to have the minimal triconsonantal template. Note that there is no verb with a biconsonantal template such as y-a-rs, a biradical such as –rs should double the second radical to form –rss. In addition, w is not actually stemfinal, as indicated by the presence of the stem-final 6 in the Perfective a-r6w6-xwGm (not *a-r6w-xwG-m) ‘I have constructed’. These indicate that it is formed from –rsI. (14)

a.

y-a-C r

C V C s

I

y-a-rw ‘Let him construct!’

b.

y6-C ö

6

C

C V C

r

s

I

y6-ö6r w ‘Let him bolt!’

Similarly, the Jussive y6-ö6rw ‘let him bolt!’ has the vowel 6 after C1, symptomatic of a quadriradical. In addition, in contrast to the Perfective n in triradicals such as b6n6s ‘has demolished’, the r in bGr6w6 ‘has bolted’ is not a geminate and is not surrounded by a 6-6 vowel sequence. These indicate that bGr6w6 is formed from a quadriradical –örsI, and its Jussive should be as (14b). In this account, w is a complex consonant in both (14a) and (14b) and r is followed by CVC#. Penultimate Coda Nasalization states that such an r should nasalize. Yet, r in (14a, b) does not nasalize and it poses problem to . I assume that these two forms are exceptions to , as is y6-s6rk’Gt’, (8d). In this section, we have investigated 59 verbs containing an antepenultimate radical r which, in my analysis, should nasalize according to . A total of 56 verbs, listed in (8a–c), (10a, b) and (12a, b), corroborate  while a total of three exceptions (y6-s6rk’Gt’, (8d), and y-a-rw, y6-ö6rw, (12c)) do not.

4.4

The role of doubling on PCN

In stems involving doubling,  applies only if the r also undergos Initial Nasalization, (5). (See Petros 1996b for a different view on this.) For example, r in

138

SOUND MUTATIONS

y6-nd6d ‘let it burn!’ undergoes  because it also nasalizes in n6d6d ‘has burn’ due to Initial Nasalization whereas r in y6-g6rdGd ‘let him cut in big slices!’ does not undergo  because it is not subject to some other rule of nasalization. In other words, in stems involving doubling,  applies if and only if an outputoutput correspondence relation can be established between the output of  and that of some other rule, such as Initial Nasalization. (See, among others, Benua 1995, Kenstowicz 1995, and Kenstowicz and Banksira 1999 on output-output correspondence.) 4.4.1

PCN

in verbs with a doubled medial radical

The examples in (15a) differ with those in (15b) in that  applies only in the former. What distinguishes (15a) from (15b) is that the medial consonant is doubled in the latter. The absence of  in the frequentative Jussive, (15b), shows that the nasal in the simple Jussive of (15a) is not transferred to (15b), which indicates that (15b) is not cyclically derived from the output of (15a). Similarly, the presence of a nasal in (15a) does not trigger the nasalization of r in (15b), as the r here is not followed by a CVC# to be a subject of . (15)

 and its absence in verbs with medial doubling a. Simple Jussive b. Frequentative Jussive y6-XfGk’/y6˜ -fGk’ y6-mb6t’ y6-mf6s/y6˜ -f6s y6-ndGf y6-]gGd y6-]k’Gr y6-]k’Gt’ y6-]kGs y6-nsa/y6˜ -sa y6-nt’Gk’ y6-nta y6-]x6ö/y6˜ -x6ö y6-rmGr

y6-rf6f(G)k’ y-a-röaöt’ y-a-rfaf(G)s y6-rd6d(G)f y6-rgag(G)d y6-rk’6k’Gr y6-rk’6k’Gt’ y6-rk6k(G)s y6-rsasa y6-rt’6t’(G)k’ y6-rtata y6-tG-rx6x6ö y6-rm6mGr

‘Let him yank (repeatedly)!’ ‘Let him be/make flexible!’ ‘Let it/him wind/ventilate!’ ‘Let it sting (here and there)!’ ‘Let him touch (repeatedly)!’ ‘Let him uproot (repeatedly)!’ ‘Let him kick repeatedly!’ ‘Let him bite (here and there)!’ ‘Let him get up/initiate!’ ‘Let him snatch (here and there)!’ ‘Let him take apart (repeatedly)!’ ‘Let him find/show up!’ ‘Let him pinch pennies!’

Medial doubling in (15b) is morphologically triggered to satisfy a reduplicative infix (see also Petros 1993a: 42 and §3.6.3). Assuming that the copied radical and radicals of the base are on different tiers, r is the antepenultimate radical in both (15a) and (15b). But r is followed by a CVC# only in (15a) so  predicts that r should nasalize in (15a) and not in (15b). The prediction is borne out.

139


4.4.2

PCN

in verbs with a doubled final radical

The following verbs are formed from biradicals of which the first is r, i.e. r is the penultimate coda in (16a) and the initial consonant in (16b). This r is nasalized in both cases. (The n in a-n6b6ö reflects the Amharic form.) (16)

 in forms with initial nasalization a. Jussive b. Perfective y-a-mbGö a-n6b6ö/a-r6b6ö y6-]k’Gk’ n6k’6k’ y6-nz6z/y6˜ -z6z n6z6z y6-nd6d n6d6d

‘read’ (< Amharic) ‘tear  wide apart’ ‘dream’ ‘burn ()’

Like the verbs in (16a), those in (17a) are also formed by final doubling and they are followed by a CVC#. Yet the r is not nasalized. The question, then, is: why an r followed by a CiVCi# nasalizes in (16a) while it does not in (17a) and how can we formally express the difference between the verbs of (16a) and (17a)? Absence of  in forms without initial nasalization a. Jussive b. Perfective y-a-ö6rdGd a-ör6d6d ‘put too much (e.g. salt!’ a-gwr6f6f ‘bristle up’ y-a-gw6rfGf y6-d6rzGz dGr6z6z ‘be very blunt’ y6-g6rdGd gGr6d6d ‘cut in big slices’ y6-m6rdGd mGr6d6d ‘go deeper, whip’ y6-ö6rgGg bGr6g6g ‘be startled, bolt’ y6-f6rdGd fGr6d6d ‘fold (sleeves), uncover’ y6-f6rt’Gt’ fGr6t’6t’ ‘open by force’ y6-m6rk’Gk’ mGr6k’6k’ ‘tear completely, scratch’ y6-]-k6rtGt G]-kGr6t6t ‘incline’ y6-s6rtGt sGr6t6t ‘feel ill at ease constantly’ y6-t’6rk’Gk’ t’Gr6k’6k’ ‘scoop a lot’11 y6-t-f6r/]k’6k’ t6-fr6k’6k’ ‘be careless’ y6-t-m6rg6g t6-mr6g6g ‘be very slim and straight’ y6-t-m6rk6k t6-mr6k6k ‘kneel down’ y6-n-z6röGö Gn-zGr6p6ö ‘bend over (branches of trees)’ Exception: y6-t-x6mb6ö t6-xr6p6ö ‘cover with an umbrella!’ (17)

11. The final 6 in y6-t-f6r/]k’6k’, y6-t-m6rg6g and y6-t-m6rk6k is due to the reflexive prefix t-.

140

SOUND MUTATIONS

In my view, the difference between (16a) and (17a) is that the stems in the former (C1C2C2) are formed from biradicals and r is initial — subject to nasalization in the Perfective — while the stems in the latter (C1C2C3C3) are formed from triradicals and r is not initial (nor geminate) to be nasalized. The r in the Jussive, (16a), is nasalized because it is followed by a CVC# and there is a morphologically related word where the r is nasalized, the Perfective of (16b). The r of (17a) is not nasalized regardless of following CVC# as it does not have a corresponding nasal output in the Perfective of (17b). The difference between (16a) and (17a) shows that an output-output correspondence relation plays a decisive role concerning  in verbs involving doubling. y6-t-x6mb6ö, from (17a), is an exception in that it undergoes  even though no corresponding nasal exists in the Perfective (or any other form). 4.4.3

PCN

in verbs with total reduplication

The Jussive verbs of (18) are also formed from biradicals. In addition, at the surface level, the stem-initial r is a penultimate coda (followed by a super heavy syllable) and it has a corresponding nasal in the Perfective. (In the Perfective of the first five forms, nasalization applies to both r’s while in the last two forms it applies only to the medial r.) If  targeted any penultimate coda r that has a corresponding nasal, the r in (18a) could have been nasalized. Yet, the r is not targeted by  because it is not followed by a CVC#, as my analysis predicts. (18)

Absence of  in r1C2Vr1C2# verbs a. Jussive b. Perfective y6-rg6rg nGg6n6g ‘covet’ y6-rs6rs nGs6n6s ‘scatter’ y6-rt’6rt’ nGt’6n6t’ ‘oscillate’ y6-rx6rx nGx6n6x ‘shake hard’ y6-rz6rz nGz6n6z ‘nag’ y-a-rfarf a-rfan6f ‘make dirty’ y-a-rk’6rk’ a-rk’6n6k’ ‘dig a hole’

The stem-medial r in (19b) is followed by a CVC# but fails to nasalize (save the exception y6-d6ndGr ‘let him/it be stout!’12

12. Notice the difference in the position of 6 in (18a) and (19a). Given that both are formed by total reduplication, we expect them to have the same vocalic pattern, but the verbs of (18a) have the y6-CC6CC pattern whereas those of (19a) have the regular y6-C6CCGC pattern. See §6.4.2 for deriving y6-CC6CC from the regular y6-C6CCGC, e.g. y6-r6grGg → y6-rg6rg, due to a tendency to syllabify r


Absence of  in C1Vr2C1Vr2# a. Jussive b. Perfective y6-f6rfGr fGr6f6r y-a-X-f6rfGr a-X-fGr6f6r y6-k’6rk’Gr k’Gr6k’6r y-a-]-k’6rk’Gr a-]-k’Gr6k’6r y6-s6rsGr sGr6s6r y-a-n-s6rsGr a-n-sGr6s6r y6-t’6rt’Gr t’Gr6t’6r y-a-n-t’6rt’Gr a-n-t’Gr6t’6r y6-d6rdGr d’Gr6t6r y-a-m-b6rbGr a-m-bGr6p6r y6-t6rtGr tGr6t6r y6-z6rzGr zGr6s6r y6-c6rcGr cGr6c6r y6-gw6rgwGr gwGr6kw6r y6-m6rmGr mGr6m6r y6-w6rwGr wGr6w6r y6-xw6rxwGr xwGr6xw6r Exception: y6-d6ndGr dGr6t6r (19)

141

verbs ‘breed worms’ ‘grow young shoots’ ‘prevent’ ‘shake ’ ‘scrap to level’ ‘boil ’ ‘suspect’ ‘hung’ ‘stamp’ ‘fluff cotton’ ‘tear’ ‘change money’ ‘retail’ ‘burrow’ ‘be skinny’ ‘level’ ‘take out earwax’ ‘be stout’

Even though the r in (18a) has a corresponding nasal in (18b) it is not followed by a CVC#, so  is not expected. The medial r in (19a) is followed by a CVC# but it does not have a corresponding nasal in (19b), so  is not expected. The predictions are borne out in both cases. Again, the fact that r is not nasalized in (19a) shows that the mere fact of being followed by a CVC# is insufficient for being nasalized. What characterizes the stems in (17a) and (19a) is that they involve doubling and they include an r that is followed by a CVC# but lacks a nasal correspondent in a related morphological form. This explains the absence of . The r is not nasalized either in the reduplicated passive participles of (20).13 (See Banksira 1999 for exhaustive list and analysis of such words.)

as a coda in order to avoid the obstruent-r cluster. 13. Even though there are words in which we have n, as in c’Gnn bar6-m or c’Gn c’Gn bar6-m ‘he has hesitated’, these are two words, as in gGrdGm a-m6n6-m or gGrdGm gGrdGm a-m6n6-m ‘he has cut in big slices’. (In cases where there is no reduplication, n is geminated, e.g. c’Gnn ‘hesitated’, and constitutes the basic triconsonantal template.) So, c’Gn c’Gn is not a reduplicated word to be compared with the participles of (20) such as c’Grc’Gr ‘flowed slowly’.

142

SOUND MUTATIONS

(20)

An r in reduplicated participles g6rg6r ‘confused’ c’Grc’Gr k’6rk’6r ‘waken up’ wGrwGr k6rk6r ‘simulated’ cGrcGr t’Grt’Gr ‘burnt steadily’ f wGrf wGr wGrwGr ‘strolled’ k’w6rk’w6r

‘flowed slowly’ ‘gotten crazy’ ‘tried hard’ ‘moved a little’ ‘meandered’

As in (19a), the medial r does not have a corresponding nasal. Therefore, r remains an approximant for the same reason as in (19a). Even though it is possible to assume that the medial r in (19a) and (20) remains an approximant to maintain its identity with the final one, I do not adopt this analysis because it cannot account for why  is blocked in (17a), where reduplicative identity is not at issue. The generalizations are that an r followed by a CVC# nasalizes due to  in verbs without doubling, i.e. V-r1C2VC3 and C1Vr2C3VC4 (e.g. y6-ngGd ‘let him touch!’ and y6-s6mbGt ‘let him sojourn’. Here,  does not need to be enforced by nasalization in a morphologically related form. Penultimate Coda Nasalization applies also in verbs with doubling but only if it is enforced by the presence of nasalization, dues to an independent reason, in a morphologically related form, e.g. y6-nd6d/n6d6d ‘burn ()’. Otherwise,  does not apply in verbs with doubled radical.

4.5

The role of the OCP on PCN

Penultimate Coda Nasalization is blocked if the root contains the labial nasal m, (see also Leslau 1985: 236, footnote 2), as in (21). Here, r is followed by a CVC# and there is no doubled radical, so it is expected to nasalize but it does not: (21)

Absence of  due to nasal dissimilation a. Triradicals y6-rma ‘Let it grow (plants)!’ y6-rm6d ‘Let him love!’ y6-rmGr ‘Let him pinch pennies!’ y6-rmGt’ ‘Let him make slim bread!’ b. Quadriradicals y6-k’w6rmGz ‘Let it get ripe (cereal)!’ y6-k’6rt’Gm ‘Let him amputate !’ y6-m6rgGd ‘Let him act mad!’


c.

y6-m6rk’y y6-t’6rk’Gm y6-xw6rmGt’ y6-d6rgGm y6-g6rdGm y6-g6rmGt’ y6-m6rkwGs y6-m6rky Exception y6-]k’Gm

‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let ‘Let

him him him him him him him him

143

lop off!’ tie tightly!’ age without physical growth!’ do  at once!’ break  in two!’ stare at someone!’ be a monk!’ be dangerous!’

‘Let him gather!’

I attribute the absence of  in (21) to nasal dissimilation, i.e. the avoidance of  violation. On the other hand, I have no explanation for the exception in (21c). As mentioned in McCarthy (1986b), the  prevents a stem from containing identical (auto)segments, here [nasal]. Due to this, the penultimate coda r remains an approximant when the root contains a nasal segment. According to McCarthy (1988: 98), no cases of nasal dissimilations triggered by  effects are attested, but the examples above are of this kind. It should be noted, however, that this restriction does not hold with , cf. n6m6d (not *r6m6d) ‘has loved’ and , cf. x6n6m (not *x6r6m) ‘has stayed a year’.14 This can be seen as ranking in the Optimality Theory framework where an initial [r] and geminate [rr] are severely banned, so the nasal obtains even if it results in a violation of the  whereas  is lower ranked and the rCVC# is banned only if the nasal will not result in a violation of the . In words such as y6-g6rdGm ‘let him break  in two!’ from (21b), r is not adjacent to m since d intervenes between the two, yet  is blocked. This implies that the restriction on having two nasals applies at the nasal tier and that the obstruent between them (d in this case) is not specified for [nasal], i.e. [nasal] is monovalent. Gemination in the stem applies to a penultimate consonant, e.g. z6n6ö, (22a). This means that in both Geminate Nasalization and Degemination (), (22a), and , (22b), the nasalized r is linked to the penultimate coda — before degemination in (22a).

14. Prunet (1990: 496) discusses a case of denasalization and nasal deletion triggered by the  in French loans in Carrier. See also Odden (1994) for more data and discussion of nasal dissimilation.

144

SOUND MUTATIONS

(22)

a.

y6-C z

6

C

C r

z6n6ö ‘has rained’

6

C ö

b.

y6-C

6

C

C V C

r

ö

s

t

y6-s6mbGt ‘Let him sojourn!’

It may seem that  is a subset of ; however, the two types of nasalization differ in three important aspects. First,  is blocked in cases where the root contains an m whereas  is not. Second,  is blocked in stems involving doubled radicals (unless it is enforced by output-output correspondence) whereas doubling does not block . Finally,  involves degemination while  does not. Given these differences, it is impossible to consider  a subset of . An affixal m does not block , as in (23a, b). (23)

Stem vs. affix distinction and  a. m6-^j6 ‘help’ ‘the last stage of the 6s6t-plant’ m6-]k’w6r m6-^c6 ‘pillage’ m6-]g6s ‘name of a month’ m6-]k6s ‘stomach-ache’ b. y6-]gGd-6ma ‘Let them () touch !’

That a nasal blocks  only when it belongs to the stem shows that the domain of application for  is the stem, i.e. the nasal introduced by morphological affixation is not considered in (23). The dissimilation is also an interesting argument that r is underlyingly nonnasal, for while  is blocked when a root contains the nasal m, it is not blocked when a root contains r. For instance, the stem-initial r in y6-mb6r ‘let him live!’ y6-ndGr ‘let him bore a hole!’ and y6-]k’Gr ‘let him uproot!’ nasalizes due to  regardless of the stem-final r. However, had the final r been underlyingly [nasal] it would have triggered nasal dissimilation in the same way that m does. Again, consider the different role of m and n on , (24). The r in the passive participles of (24a) is followed by CVC# but it does not nasalize because the final m precludes . However, the penultimate-coda r nasalizes in (24b) even though the words terminate by n, which I assume to be a nasalized and simplified /rr/. (24)

Absence of nasal dissimilation with n a. k’Grt’Gm b. sG]k’wGn ‘amputate/bleed from the nose’ dGrgGm fG\k’yGn ‘fall at once/turn at once’ ‘become tight/drink completely’ t’Grk’Gm c’G]k’wGn


145

The nasalization difference between (24a) and (24b) demonstrates that the derived nasal n in (24b) is unable to block . This shows that an underlying nasal m differs from the derived nasal n in blocking .

4.6

PCN

and borrowings

Penultimate Coda Nasalization does not apply to the verbs in (25), in which r is an approximant before a CVC# although there is neither doubling nor nasal dissimilation. (25)

Absence of  in loan verbs Chaha Amharic y6-ö6rk’Gt’ yG-ö6lk’Gt’ ‘Let him bolt (Chaha), open  apart (Amharic)’15 y6-g6röGt’ yG-g6löGt’ ‘Let him turn over!’ y6-ö6rta yG-ö6rta ‘Let him be courageous!’ y6-g6rdGf yG-g6rdGf ‘Let him grind coarsely!’

These verbs are borrowed from Amharic and I attribute the failure of nasalization to the fact that they are loans. These are not totally adapted to the phonology of Chaha. (They are adapted partially since the [l] of Amharic is not kept in the first two examples of Chaha even though the [r] of Chaha is not nasalized).

4.7

Alternations of [r] and front vowels

The Perfective n in (26), which in my analysis is /rr/, alternates with front vowels; it surfaces as i in the Jussive and e in the Imperfective. But I have argued that r becomes either n or r, not i/e, so we need to provide a source for i/e in these examples or accept i/e as a third realization of r. In addition, we need evidence that /r/ (and not /n/), despite the absence of a phonetic [r], is the source of i/e/n alternation. These verbs have the palatal nasal [\] in related Gurage dialects. (26)

Jussive y-a-mi y6-gi

Imperfective Perfective y-a-me a-m6n6 ‘do, work’ yG-ge g6n6 ‘cast a spell’

15. It is not evident whether Chaha y6-ö6rk’Gt’ ‘let him bolt’ is semantically related with Amharic yG-ö6lk’Gt’ ‘let him open  (e.g. legs/eyelids) wide apart’.

146

SOUND MUTATIONS

y6-ji y6-k’i/y6k’re y6-ti y6-xi

yG-je yG-k’e yG-te yG-xe

j6n6 k’6n6 t6n6 x6n6

‘cripple’16 ‘get lost, disappear’ ‘swear’ ‘dig a hole’

Even though r in most of these verbs does not surface as r, it can be detected in some derived nouns such as jGr6 ‘cripple (n.)’ vs. j6n6 ‘has crippled’. In addition, the Jussive y6-k’i/y6k’re shows that the Perfective n of the verb alternates with r.17 Moreover, Chaha [n] does not become [y] when palatalized while we have [y] in the derived nouns t6y6 ‘oath’ (vs. t6n6 ‘has sworn’) and x6y6 ‘abyss’ (vs. x6n6 ‘has dug a hole’), showing that [y] in these nouns is a palatalized r. Finally, if we postulate /n/ only to account for the Perfective n in (26) this /n/ will not be distinct from /r/ because a geminate /r/ also surfaces as [n]. Note also that the i/e of (26) alternates with r, as shown in the conjugation forms, y-a-mr-o ‘let them () do, work’ and y-a-m6r-o ‘they () do, work’. Based on these considerations, I consider the penult of the above verbs to be an /r/. Let us now turn to the i/e/n alternation in (26). First of all, I follow Polotsky (1951: 18) in assuming that the vowels i and e can arise respectively from *Gy and *6y. In addition, I propose that (as r is the penultimate radical) I is the final radical of these verbs (see Rose 1992, Prunet and Petros 1996 and Prunet 1996a for similar proposals). So, the verbs of (26), depicted in (27), are triradicals of the form –CrI. The penult of triradical verbs do not geminate in the Imperfective, so r in (27a, b) is simple. However, the salient terminal feature [−back] of I (which according to Sagey 1990 is dominated by the Dorsal articulator) delinks from Dorsal and docks on the preceding r (see §7.2.2 for a detailed discussion). The [−back] palatalizes r to y and the y surfaces as i, as in y6-xGrI → y6-xGy → y6-xi. This gives rise to a phonetic complementarity between r and I (see Lowenstamm 1996b: 128). In (27b), r is preceded by 6 and, when palatalized, r (i.e. y) fuses with 6 resulting in e, as in yG-x6rI → yG-x6y → yG-xe. (Nodes dominating Dorsal are omitted.)

16. The j in j6n6 functions like a simplex (nonpalatalized) consonant, i.e. the verb conjugates like a triradical. This is one of the very few exceptions in which a complex segment occupies a single C. 17. The two possibilities y6-k’i/y6k’re ‘let him/it get lost or disappear!’ arise maybe due to the two Jussive forms of triradicals, namely y6-CCGC and y6-CC6C. The y6-CCGC pattern is used with transitive verbs while the y6-CC6C pattern is used with intransitive verbs (Leslau 1964). When –k’rI takes the y6-CCGC pattern it yields y6-k’i whereas when it takes the y6-CC6C pattern it yields y6-k’re.


(27)

a.

Jussive y6-C C

b.

C

x r Dorsal = [–back] c.

x

r

Imperfective yG-C C C

x

y6-xi ‘Let him dig a hole’ Perfective C 6 C C 6 C

147

r Dorsal = [–back]

yG-xe ‘He digs a hole’

Dorsal = [–back]

x6n6 ‘dug a hole’ The r in the Perfective, (27c), is geminated but it nasalizes and degeminates according to . In addition, a geminated r (i.e. [n]) absorbs palatalization (as proposed in Hetzron 1975: 43, see also Rose 1992: 99. Such absorption is also found in object suffixes, see §9.4.4.) Palatalization in (27) is seen as docking the [−back] of I on the penult, i.e. x6rr6I → x6nI6 → x6n6. The absorbed final radical I gives a satisfactory account of the Perfective final 6. The 6-6 in x6n6xwG-m ‘I have dug a hole’ parallels the Perfective vowels 6-6 of d6n6g-xwG-m ‘I have hit ’, but I of the first verb docks on the preceding r, bringing 6 into stem-final position. The Dorsal in (27) remains unpronounced because it has no terminal features. A verb such as s6c’6 ‘has drunk’ is formed from –st’I, and its underlying form is /s6t’t’6I/. Similarly, a verb such as x6n6 is formed from –xrI, and its underlying form is /x6rr6I/. The penult in both palatalizes due to the stem-final I. However, the expected output \ of n-palatalization is invisible in Chaha, i.e. [−back] is absorbed by n. Accordingly, parallel to the t’/c’ alternation in s6c’6-m ‘he has drunk’ vs. s6t’6-wo-m, (28a), the n in x6n6-m ‘he has dug a hole’, (27c), is a palatal phonologically (i.e. it includes [−back]) while the one in x6n6-wo-m, (28b), is an alveolar (i.e. it does not include [−back]). Because [n] absorbs palatalization, the phonetic difference between n, cf. (28b), and \, cf. (27c), is neutralized in favor of n.

148

SOUND MUTATIONS

(28)

a.

C

6

s

b.

C

C t’

6

C -6 C-m = Dorsal ö/U

[–back] s6t’6-wo-m/s6t’6-öo-m ‘They () have drunk.’ C 6 C C 6 C -6 C-m = x r Dorsal ö/U [–back] x6n6-wo-m/x6n6-öo-m ‘They () dug a hole.’

An /I/ has to occupy a skeletal slot in order to palatalize (see Appendix 2b). I assume that the Dorsal node of /I/ delinks in (28) and that [−back] cannot palatalize the penult because it is not floating. Delinking the Dorsal node of /I/, as in (28), is meant to express depalatalization as in I-second quadriradicals (§2.2.7). The plural masculine suffix /-6öU/ (see §7.8) fuses to o but the stemfinal [6w] cannot fuse because it is followed by o, which requires an onset (Banksira 1992). The sounds [w] and [ö] of (28) are in free variation. In my view, this is because either /ö/ or /U/ (but not both) of the plural masculine /-6öU/ propagates to the C slot of /I/, as depicted above. (See Chapter 8 for discussion of subject affixes.) One of the problems related to the verbs of (26) was that, in regular verbs such as d6n6g-xwG-m ‘I have hit ’ the stem ends with a consonant, but in verb such as x6n6-xwG-m ‘I have dug a hole’, the stem ends with the vowel 6. The same problem is observed also in (29a, b). Furthermore, so far we have not seen a stem-final nasalization so the n in the Imperfective of (29) requires an explanation. (29) a.

b.

Jussive y6-gde y6-gze y6-we y6-Šöe y-a-cr7 y-a-kr7 y-a-wr7

Imperfective yG-gd6n yG-gz6n yG-w6n yG-Šö6n y-a-cran y-a-kran y-a-wran

Perfective gGd6n6 gGz6n6 w6n6 ŠGö6n6 a-cran6 a-kran6 a-wran6

‘become furious’ ‘age’ ‘nourish, feed well’ ‘crave’ ‘bring to an end, complete ‘rent’ ‘detect, find out’

149


The [n] of these verbs also derives from /r/. The r/n alternation in w6r6t ‘food’ vs. w6n6 ‘has fed’ and Š6öGr ‘craving person/cat’ vs. ŠGö6n6 ‘has craved’ shows that [n] of the verbs alternates with [r]. There is no r/n alternation in g6d6n6 ‘furious’ vs. gGd6n6 ‘has become furious’ and g6z6n6 ‘old’ vs. gGz6n6 ‘has aged’. This may be because /r/ is geminated in both the adjectives and the verbs. On the other hand, r and n in (29b) originate from the same phoneme. The simplex form surfaces as r, and this is the form which underlies the two. Accordingly, I conclude that r and n in (29) originate from /r/. As depicted in (30), n in the Imperfective is geminated because the verb is quadriconsonantal, which geminate their penult in the Imperfective, cf. yG-t’öanGr (not *yG-t’öarGr) ‘he rolls ’, but not in the Jussive, cf. y6-t’öarGr (not *y6t’öanGr) ‘let him roll !’ The penult geminates also in the Perfective, as this is common to all verbs. (The complex consonants of (29) function as single phonemes.) (30)

a.

Jussive y-a-C C

w

c.

r

y-a-wr7 Perfective a-C C a

w

a

b. Imperfective y-a-C C a C

C

C

r

Dorsal = [–back]

w

r

C V C r

Dorsal = [–back]

y-a-wran

C

C

r

r

6

C

Dorsal = [–back]

a-wran6 ‘detect’ The [−back] of I in (30a) palatalizes r to y, and the y fuses with a yielding 7. The difference in the final vowel of verbs such as y-a-wr7, (30a), and y6-gde ‘let him become furious!’, from (29a), is due to the quality of the vowel preceding the penult: a combines with y to yield 7, and 6 combines with y to yield e. When r is a geminate, as in (30b, c), it is phonologically palatalized but palatalization has no phonetic effect. Finally, consider the verbs in (31), where we have n in all forms. (31) a.

Jussive y6-t’6n y6-t6n

Imperfective Perfective yG-c’6n c’6n6 ‘beget’ yG-c6n c6n6 ‘come’

150

SOUND MUTATIONS

b.

y6-öan y-on

yG-öan y-on

ban6 on6

‘stop raining’ ‘yell’

I assume that these verbs are quadriradicals, e.g. c’6n6 derives from –t’IrI and ban6 from –öArI. Accordingly, gemination in the Perfective and Imperfective is expected. On the other hand, gemination in the Jussive of (31a) arises to compensate for depalatalization (see §2.2.7). Nevertheless, I have no explanation for why the two Jussives of (31b) have gemination. This terminates the discussion of verbs with a penultimate r and final I. The r vs. vowel alternation in verbs involving labialization will be discussed in §7.6.5. See Lowenstamm (1996b) for an account of similar alternations in C1Gy6 (Perfective) verbs.

4.8

Liquids and nasals in some problematic stems

Setting the exceptional nonalternating [n] found in the Jussive of two verbs in (31b) aside, I have shown that [n] in all instances alternates with [r] and that [r] and [n] are in complementary distribution. It then follows that r and n are nondistinctive. In addition, I have proposed an analysis which derives [r] and [n] from /r/ and which predicts the distribution of the allophones. However, most of my discussion so far was based on verb stems. We will now see that even though it is possible to derive all [n]’s of the language from an /r/ this cannot be done without the assumption that all nonalternating [n]’s are /rr/. We will also see that there are arguments suggesting that nonalternating [n]’s are /rr/, i.e. rr → N (homorganic nasal). This, as well, has some problematic cases and a handful of exceptions. These will be discussed next. Consider the minimal pairs of r and n in the nonverbal stems of (32). Unless we find some evidence bearing on the geminateness of r in (32b) its nasalization is unexpected, as it is a medial onset (i.e. it is neither initial nor followed by a CVC#). (32)

r/n contrast in a medial onset a. c’6r-6t b. c’6n6-t ‘load/interest, bud’ g6r6 g6n6 ‘a piece of broken clay/country’ k6r6 k6n6 ‘day/physician, engineer, right’ mera mena ‘generous/work’ mwGra mwGna ‘full/freedom’ mw6n6 ‘border, edge/bladder, leather bag’ mw6r6 w6ra w6na ‘good quality (root of vegetable)/empty’ w6r6t w6n6t ‘allotment/hoe’


151

These minimal pairs suggest that r and n are contrastive. My position is that in some of the pairs the contrast is due to length, i.e. [n] is /rr/. Let us discuss c’6r6t ‘load’ and c’6n6-t ‘interest, bud’, to show that their contrast is skeletal. We know that c’6r-6t ‘load’ is related to c’ar6-m ‘he has loaded’. This implies that r in c’6r-6t is stem-final and nongeminated. So there is no reason for r to nasalize in c’6r-6t. But c’6n6-t ‘interest, bud’ is related to the I-second quadriradical c’6n6-6-m → c’6n6m ‘he has begotten, it has accrued interest’ (I have shown in §2.2.7 that such verbs always have gemination). This implies that n in c’6n6t is stem-internal and geminated, hence /t’I6rr6I-6t/ → [c’6n6t]. The [n] here parallels the [p] in /g6öö6A-6t/ → [g6pat] ‘evening’, which is related with g6pam ‘he/it (the sun) has entered’. Based on this, it is possible to generalize that n in (32b) is a geminate, which nasalizes and degeminates due to , (2). This generalization is supported by the phonetically geminate equivalents of (32b) in the geminating dialect Eža, e.g. c’6nn6-t ‘load/interest, bud’, g6nn ‘country’, k6nn6 ‘physician, engineer, right’, mw6nn6 ‘bladder, leather bag’ and w6nn6t ‘hoe’. According to Leslau (1979), the n in mena ‘work’ is not a geminate in Eža, while it is in Masqan and Muher (menna and merra respectively). But n in w6na ‘empty (house)’ is simple even in the geminating dialects, making the generalization untenable (at least for that pair). The data in (33) show that the two sounds contrast also in a coda position. (33)

r/n contrast in a coda a. sir b. sin mwan mwar gGrd gGnd

‘hide of cattle (hairless)/cup’ ‘share/who’ ‘misery, obligation/log’

Because the n of (33b) is simplex in all geminating dialects (Leslau 1979) it is difficult to postulate /rr/ for the n in (33b). Accordingly, the contrast in (33) is problematic to the claim that r and n are not contrastive. The contrast in (33a) vs. (33b) forces us to admit that r and n are contrastive (or at least we presently cannot show without exception that they are not) in nonverbs. I assume that these are exceptions, in which an older contrast remains intact. In the nouns of (34) r and n contrast in a penultimate coda position, while a verbal r in this position nasalizes due to . (34)

r/n contrast in a penultimate a. arwa b. enwa arö6t a]g6t b6rc6 gw6^c6 darka danga

coda ‘self/dry trunk of 6s6t-plant’ ‘four/neck’ ‘misfortune due to bad deeds/hyena’ ‘dewlap/cheek’

152

SOUND MUTATIONS

wGrk’w6 w6rkw6

w6]k’w6 ‘cold, frost/dust’ w6\ky6 ‘a big tent (sign of importance), funeral dance/monkey’

Nominal stems of (34a) show that [r] is found before a CVC#, against . These also are exceptions. Given my analysis, [c6] is /t6I/, [ga] is /g6A/, etc. Accordingly, the nasal in (34b) is followed by a CVC# so it is expected due to .

4.9

Liquids and /N/ in affixes

The distribution of liquids and N in affixes diverges in three crucial ways from what we have seen so far. The first is that there is a surface minimal pair between r and n in suffixes. Second, we observe an instance of l at suffix boundaries. (But each of these generalizations holds only in one context.) Third, no liquid is found in prefixes (i.e. placeless nasal prefixes do not alternate with a liquid). (My discussion of nasals here excludes m, which, of course, is an underlying nasal and never alternates with a liquid.) While the r/n minimal pair will be shown to be apparent (i.e. derivable from gemination) the fact that nasal prefixes do not alternate with a liquid forces us to postulate a nonalternating nasal phoneme /N/. (The /N/ is even distinct from /rr/ since we have the contrast /rr-r/ → [ll], e.g. y-a-c6rr-r-a → yac6lla ‘he brings for her’ vs. /N-r/ → [nn], e.g. a-N-r6gd → ann6gd ‘I do not touch’. See §5.3.3 and §5.4.1 on this.) 4.9.1 [r] and [n] in suffixes The benefactive (35a) vs. accusative (35b) contrast is expressed by the minimal pair -r and -n. This suggests that the r/n contrast is preserved in suffixes. (35)

r/n minimal pair in suffixes a. yG-t’6öt’G-r-a ‘He catches it for her (advantage).’ b. yG-t’6öt’G-n-a ‘He catches her.’ subject-verb-Case-object

However, I will argue in §9.4.4 that n in (35b) is in fact /rrI/ and that the r/n contrast in (35a) vs. (35b) is only apparent. [r] and [n] are found also in a number of other suffixes, as shown in (36). [n] in most of the examples in (36c) is intervocalic but it still does not become a liquid. (Such [n] is found also in stems but it is analyzed as /rr/, e.g. z6n6ö ‘has rained’ vs. yG-z6rGö ‘it rains’.) It should also be noted that most of the [n]’s found


153

in (36) are phonetically geminate in the geminating Gurage languages, cf. Eža n6ŠG-nn6r, gaz-6nn6, etc. (36)

Distribution of [r] a. Onset [r] s6stG-ra t’6]k’w-ara gw6rd-6ra b. Coda [r] x6p6ö-ar n6Š-n6r wGzgGp-6r c. Onset [n] bew-n6t bet-6na gaz-6n6 k’Grt’G-na nG-kGftG-n6 d. Coda [n] kGftG-nd6 bet-6nda

and [n] in suffixes ‘two days ago’ (cf. s6st-6 the day after tomorrow’) ‘deaf’ (cf. t’Gr6k’w6-m ‘become deaf’) ‘big trunks’ (cf.  gw6rr6d6 ‘cut in big slices’) ‘encircled place’ (cf. x6p6ö6-m ‘has encircled’) ‘heaviness’ (cf. naz6-m ‘has been heavy’) ‘regret’ (cf. t-oz6k6ö6-m ‘has regretted’) ‘friendship’ ‘my house’ ‘warrior’ ‘contempt’ ‘Let us open !’ ‘Open (it to) us!’ ‘our house’

A suffixal [r] can be an onset, (36a), or a coda, (36b). Similarly, [n] can be an onset, (36c), or a coda, (36d). However, n of (36b, c) is a geminate in most of the geminating dialects. In addition, none of these examples form a minimal pair so they do not necessarily require r and n to be distinctive phonemes. The [n] can be seen as /rr/, as in stems. 4.9.2 The emergence of [l] A stem-final /r/ becomes [l] when followed by /-rV/ (V = vowel), as in (37a). On the other hand, /r/ becomes [n] when it is followed by [−n], as in (37b). (See Chapter 5 on the proper formulation of Lateralization and Nasalization.) (37)

Suffixal r/n contrast between r-final stem and a vowel a. /yG-f6t’Gr-r-a/ → [yG-f6t’Gl-l-a] ‘He tells lies for her advantage.’ b. /yG-f6t’Gr-n-a/ → [yG-f6t’Gn-n-a] ‘He tells her lies.’

154

SOUND MUTATIONS

In addition, l is found in the following fairly exhaustive list of which most are loans. (38)

Words containing a. at6lla b6lla dik’ala gwalla gwGdella m6lla t’Glla n6t’6la t’6lla b. bGk’Glle bGrGlle bw6lale gw6dalle lale sulle c. w6llGw6t w6llub6lla w6ll6öa d. allawed allu bwGllGko b6k’w6llo

l ‘lees of beer’ ‘disaster’ ‘half caste, half breed’ ‘wall’ ‘strap on a horse’ ‘guess’ ‘umbrella’ ‘kind of scarf’ ‘traditional beer’ ‘hide’ ‘flask for drinking t’6jj’ ‘type of trousers’ ‘yam’ ‘song’ ‘trousers’ ‘name of a woman’ ‘crazy’ ‘a free-born’ ‘nude’ ‘betrayal’ ‘toga’ ‘corn’

The data in (38) are very homogeneous, which makes it difficult to conclude that the presence of l in them is an idiosyncratic property of each word. For instance, l is a geminate in most cases and degemination does not apply to it. In addition, la in (38a) and le in (38b) seem to be suffixes whereas w6l in (38c) seems to be a prefix. These facts suggest that the l in (38) is also a lateralized r at a word-boundary, parallel to the one in (37a). Thus, l is not a distinct phoneme of Chaha. 4.9.3 Absence of liquids in prefixes While a homorganic nasal N is found in a number of prefixes the liquids [l, r] are not found in prefixes. Prefixes involving N include the past tense (39a, b), the local-movement (39c, d), and the first person (39f, g) markers. N also serves as a nominalizing prefix, cf. (39h, i, j). In all of these prefixes N alternates not with


155

a liquid but with 6-, as in (39e), and optionally with Ø-, as in (39i).18 (39)

Prefixes involving a nasal a. Ø-Gn-ag6d-x6 neg.-past-tie-you ( ) ‘You ( ) may not tie!’ b. a-n-ag6d-x6 neg.-past-tie-you ( ) ‘You ( ) have not tied.’ c. G]-k’Gr6k’6r6-m ‘He has moved.’ d. G]-k’Grk’Gr ‘restless’ e. 6-agGd → agGd ‘I tie.’ f. tG-n-agGd ‘while I tie’ g. n-agdG-n6 ‘We tie!’ h. Gn-ac’y6 ‘ragged mat’ i. (G]-)k’wGs ‘quite’ j. a-n-zGwawGr/ã-zGwawGr ‘land encircled by river’

Given the fact that the nasal in the above forms does not alternate with a liquid and that no other liquid is found in prefixes we are forced to assume that prefixes differ from stems in not licensing a liquid. Given that the nasal never alternates with a liquid analyzing it as /rr/ raises questions. We can thus hypothesize that all the above prefixes are nasal, /N/, and that they are underlying geminates, i.e. /N/ is preserved only in prefixes and only in its geminated form.

18. See Petros (1996a: 139–141) for arguments that the prefix N- in (39a, b) is the past tense — and not part of the negative — marker and that the negative prefix is Ø- in (39a) and a- in (39b). See Prunet and Petros (1996) for discussions and an exhaustive list of local movement verbs. See Chamora (1997) for Inor.

156

SOUND MUTATIONS

(40)

Every prefixal N- generates two C slots C C

NThe hypothesis that the above nasal prefixes are geminates is supported by independent arguments. Word-initial geminates are prohibited in Chaha, no word begins with p or bb. The nasal prefixes above are also prohibited to appear wordinitially, as shown by the absence of the nasal in (39e) where we have the 6alternant. Geminates are allowed in word-medial position. When a prefix is added before the 6- alternant, as in (39f), we obtain n because the geminate r is allowed in word-medial position. The initial [n] in n-agdG-n6 ‘we tie’, (39g), is also a geminate but assuming that it is structurally word-internal, as in [[n-[agdG]] -n6], may explain why it is allowed. The epenthetic vowel G of Chaha is normally inserted after C1 (see §1.5.3). But when the prefix is a nasal, G appears before it, as in (39a, c, d, h, i). Assuming that the nasal occupies CiCi and that geminate inalterability forbids G to break the CiCi sequence we can readily explain why G is inserted in this unusual site, i.e. at the beginning. Stem-initial and prefixal nasals show a remarkable difference with respect to the insertion site of G. Stem-initial nasals are not preceded by G, e.g. n6g6d6-m ‘he has touched’, because they are not geminates. On the other hand, prefixal nasals are geminates, which, word-initially, must be preceded by G, e.g. in Gnag6d-x6 ‘you ( ) may not tie!’ Had the nasal in Gn-ag6d-x6 been simple, there would have been no reason to insert G since *n-ag6d-x6 is a well-syllabified string in Chaha. But because this n is a geminate *n-ag6d-x6 is ill-formed unless G is inserted before the nasal to make it noninitial. Note that the insertion of G before underlying initial geminates is the rule, cf. (41), but these geminates are special for they are initial and phonetic. (41)

Epenthesis before initial geminates GddGr ‘cooperation’ Gff ‘blown’ Gkka ‘like that’ GkkGm ‘in vain’ (Gmm)at ‘one’ Gmmet-6n6 ‘a mother of several young’ Gmm6-wec6 ‘mistress’ ‘pestle’ Gmmw6 GmmGy6 ‘large’


Gnnet Gnn6 GnnGm Gww Gyya

157

‘kind of bamboo’ ‘a bat-like piece of wood’ ‘all, every’ ‘sh, ssh’ ‘I’

The optionality of Gmm in (Gmm)at ‘one’, from (41), parallels that of G] in (G]-)k’wGs ‘quite’, (39i). However, degemination does not apply in (41), whose justification awaits further research. Yet, because an initial CiCi is illicit the insertion of G before it is needed. Accordingly, the only skeletal difference between the nasal prefixes of (39) and the initial geminates of (41) is that the geminates in the former are simplified whereas the ones in the latter are not.

4.10 Conclusion Chaha sonorant alternations are, for the most part, one of the hitherto unsolved problems. This is not because linguists have paid them little attention but because the alternations have been conditioned by many seemingly unrelated factors discussed in this chapter. For instance, due to degemination there is no direct evidence to determine if an n comes from a geminate or not. Similarly, a palatalized obstruent is similar to a nonpalatalized one in many respects so it was not so clear why /r/ in y6-^c’ ‘let him pluck!’ nasalizes and not in y-6rt’ ‘let him cut!’ Furthermore, the impact of doubling on nasalization, the verb stem vs. nonverb/affix distinction in regard to nasalization, the impact of the  on nasalization and so on have combined together to obscure the alternations. Due to this, whether r and n were contrastive or not has always been an unresolved question. The purpose of this chapter has been to throw some light on this obscure area and reach some generalizations about the alternations. The alternations in general are accounted for by postulating a single phoneme r and deriving its different realizations from three types of nasalization (,  and ). A principled account has been given for most of the deviating forms and a number of hypotheses have been laid out. For instance, the gemination of prefixal nasal is one of them. This accounts not only for the fact that no prefixal n becomes a liquid intervocalically but it also gives a straightforward account for why we need the epenthetic vowel G before the majority of prefixes containing a nasal. Similarly, more comprehensive generalizations about the site of the epenthetic vowel in the Jussive of transitive triradicals have been attained.

158

SOUND MUTATIONS

I will now present a formal expression of the rules and constraints discussed in Chapters 2, 3 and 4. I will also introduce a post-N occlusivization of /U/ and discuss the interaction among the rules.

C 5 Initial, Geminate and Post-N Strengthening

5.1

Introduction

In this chapter I propose a rule of occlusivization by which [p, b] derive from /ö/. The same rule derives some [bw] from /U/ and all other [bw] from /öU/. In addition, I propose a rule of nasalization by which all prevocalic [n]’s and homorganic nasals belonging to a stem derive from /r/. In other words, all [m]’s which are not followed by a labial consonant are underlyingly /m/, and no other underlying nasal exists in a stem. I also propose a rule of lateralization by which [l] derives from /r/. I characterize /ö, U, r/ of Chaha as approximants, the allophones [p, b, bw] of /ö, U/ as occlusives and [n, l] of /r/ as sonorants. I view occlusivization, nasalization and lateralization as cases of approximant strengthening in which [+approx] becomes [−, voice] in occlusives, [−, nasal] in nasals and [−, lateral] in [l]. Approximants are continuants, but I assume that [+] in them is unmarked (hence unspecified). Approximants are unspecified also for [voice, nasal, lateral]. Occlusives [p, b, bw], nasals and [l] are [−], but [−] in occlusives is unmarked (hence unspecified). Notice also that I consider the manner features nasal and lateral as well as all Place and Laryngeal features as monovalent. Occlusivization occurs when /ö/ is initial and nasalization occurs when /r/ is initial. These are called initial strengthening and they are discussed in §5.2. In addition, occlusivization occurs when /ö/ is a geminate and nasalization occurs when /r/ is a geminate. These are called geminate strengthening and they are treated in §5.3. Lateralization, which occurs when two /r/’s meet at a morpheme boundary, is also discussed in §5.3. Moreover, occlusivization occurs when /ö, U/ are post-N and Nasalization occurs when /r/ is post-N. Cases of Post-N strengthening are presented in §5.4. Nasalization occurs also when a radical /r/ is followed by a CVC#. This is not discussed in this chapter but in Chapter 4. Finally, in §5.5. I compare obstruent strengthening (e.g. /x/ → [k] and /g/ → [k])

160

SOUND MUTATIONS

with approximant strengthening (e.g. /ö/ → [b], /U/ → [bw] and /r/ → [n]) and discuss some theoretical implications of strengthening. I argue that strengthening supports viewing the so-called long-distance geminates as two singletons.

5.2

Initial strengthening

5.2.1 Occlusivization The approximant /ö/ surfaces as an obstruent [b] in absolute initial position, as in the Perfective of (1). (See §1.3.1, §2.7.2. and §3.8.3. for arguments that /ö/ is an approximant.) (1)

Medial approximant vs. Jussive Perfective y6-öGrs b6n6s < y6-öd6r b6t6r < y6-öx6r b6k6r
-a ‘You ( ) send () to her ’ *tG-r6x-Ø->-a tG-r6x-Ø-ö-a ‘She sends () to her detriment.’ yG-r6x-Ø-ö-a *yG-r6x-Ø->-a ‘He sends () to her detriment.’

(21a, b) shows that the  is always labial, never dorsal. A comparison between (20b) and (21b) indicates that velarization characterizes only Heavy clitics.

275

OBJECT CLITICS

The trigger of gemination (i.e. the Dorsal X of the final vocoids of the subject suffixes) is also the trigger of velarization. It is proposed in (19) above that the Peripheral nodes of the vocoids and  fuse, dominating Dorsal/Labial. The fusion is expected to yield a labio-dorsal segment [kp] or [pk]. However, Chaha does not allow contour segments in which both members are obstruents, such as [kp]. Because [kp] is not a well-formed segment, either [k] or [p] or both [k] and [p] has to be derived from Dorsal/Labial. Chaha adopts the last option. Accordingly, instead of [kp] we find both [p] (20a) and [k] (20b), i.e. the two sounds are in free variation. This gives a natural explanation for the otherwise unexpected free variation between [p] and [k] in the Heavy . As to the precise formal mechanism which causes free variation, I propose that it results from suppression of one of the articulators. The suppression is, of course, triggered by the impossibility of forming [kp]. When the Dorsal of the final vocoids is suppressed, as in (22a), we obtain the labial [p] of (20a). On the other hand, when the Labial of /ö/ is suppressed, as in (22b), we get the dorsal [k] of (20b). So velarization is the suppression of Labial. Because the Root nodes are doubly linked in both we obtain the simplified geminate [p] in (20a) and [k] in (20b). (22)

Dorsal or Labial suppression a. Dorsal suppression X + X X + X

b.

Labial suppression X + X X + X

Root

Root

Root

Root

Place

Place

Place

Place

Peripheral

Peripheral

Peripheral

Peripheral

Dorsal/Labial

Labial

Dorsal/Labial

Dorsal

Ø

Ø

In §9.4.1 I proposed that the final vocoids of nonnull-Q2 suffixes of the subject include a Dorsal X, which fuses with a following Dorsal and triggers gemination (§9.4.2) and velarization (§9.4.3) in Heavy clitics. We will now see the role of the Dorsal X on the [−n] vs. [−y] alternation of the .

276

SOUND MUTATIONS

9.4.4

LHA

as [ n] vs. [ y] alternation

When the object pronoun is vocoid-initial, the Light  suffix is [n] while the Heavy one is [y], as shown in (23a, b). (The reader will notice that, in my analysis, neither [n] of (23a) nor [y] of (23b) are part of the 3  object, which is [a]. [n] and [y] are different realizations of the .) (23)

 as [n] vs. [y] in the accusative a. Light  b. Heavy 9 6-r6x-Ø-n-a nG-r6x-n6-y-a10 ‘I/We send her.’ tG-r6ç-↑-y-a tG-r6x-Ø-n-a ‘You ( /) send her.’ tG-r6x-Ø-n-a yG-r6x-6ma-y-a ‘She/They () send(s) her.’ yG-r6x-o-(y)y-a yG-r6x-Ø-n-a ‘He/They () send(s) her.’ yG-r6x-Ø-n-a yG-r6xw-↑↑-y-a ‘He/One sends her.’

An attempt to derive [n] and [y] of (23) from a single phoneme is problematic because if we assume /n/ to be the underlying form for both sounds, this will be the only context where /n/ palatalizes and denasalizes to yield [y]. Similarly, if we assume /y/ to be underlying, this will also be the only context where /y/ depalatalizes and nasalizes to yield [n]. Based on these observations we can conclude that [n] and [y] do not derive from a single phoneme. The distribution of [n] and [y] in (23) can straightforwardly be accounted for if we assume that the UR of  is /-rrI/. In this view, the derivation of the Light  will be as in (24). Recall that the UR of all clitics is the one which corresponds to the Light clitic. In addition, I have independently claimed in §7.2.2 that the terminal feature [−back] of /I/ dissociates from its articulator Dorsal and docks on a preceding target. In a similar fashion, [−back] of /I/ abandons its Dorsal and docks on the preceding /rr/, as in (24). The abandoned Dorsal remains unpronounced, as usual.

9. The [y] can optionally remain geminate when preceded by the   suffix -o/-u and followed by a vowel, e.g. nax-x-u-(y)y-a ‘you ( ) have sent her’ and tG-r6x-o-(y)y-a ‘you ( ) send her’. I assume that this is a mere phonetic alternation and I exclude the optional phonetic gemination from our discussion. 10. The /I/ of /-n6I/ fuses with the following [y] of the Heavy , and yet [y] is not geminate.

277

OBJECT CLITICS

(24)

Derivation of the Light  (-rrI → -n) X X X X X

X

Root

Root

Root

Root

Place

Place

Place

Place

Lingual

Lingual/Peripheral

Lingual

Lingual/Peripheral

Coronal

Dorsal

Coronal

Dorsal = [–back]

[–back]

From a phonological point of view, [n] in (24) is palatalized because it supports the floating feature [−back]. However, the phonetic difference between n and \ in Chaha is leveled in favor of n, so [−back] of /I/ has no phonetic realization. The docking of [−back] on /rr/ without a phonetic consequence creates a phonetic complementarity between /r/ and /I/. In other words, when /r/ and /I/ are in contact with each other either /r/ or /I/, but not both, can be pronounced. (See Lowenstamm 1996b: 128 for a discussion of a variety of contexts in which [n/r] and [y/i] are in complementary distribution.) In cases where /r/ is geminate the /I/, i.e. its [−back], is unpronounced, it is absorbed by a geminate /rr/ (i.e. [n]). Such an event is not limited to the  but it is the norm in Chaha, as can be deduced by comparing the following stems from –k’rI ‘disappear’. (Notice that [n] and [i] of (25) also alternates with [r], as in k’Gr-o ‘disappear ( )!’). (25)

a.

C 6 C C 6 C k’

r

Dorsal = [–back] k’6n6 ‘has disappeared’

b.

C G

C

k’

r

G C

Dorsal = [–back] k’i ‘Disappear ( )!’

According to my analysis, /r/ is palatalized in both (25a) and (25b) because it supports [−back]. However, [−back] is not pronounced in (25a) for the same reason as in (24). In (25b), on the other hand, the simple /r/ is palatalized phonetically as well. In addition, the palatalized /r/ is vocalized to [i] so /r/ has no surface manifestation. In both cases, only one of the phonemes is pronounced. In cases where /r/ and /I/ are singly linked it is always the latter that surfaces phonetically unless it deletes by an independent process. For instance,

278

SOUND MUTATIONS

neither C2 nor C4 of a quadriradical is ever geminated, so /r/ and /I/ are always simple in verbs of the type –CrAI, e.g. sGy6 ‘has bought ()’. (See Lowenstamm 1996b on such verbs as being of the type –CrAI and for confirmation of the following statement in them.) Accordingly, /I/ surfaces in all palatalization contexts, cf. sGy6-m ‘he has bought ()’ and f6c’6-m ‘he () have ground ()’, from –ft’I, while /r/ surfaces only in depalatalization contexts, cf. sGraw-om ‘they () have bought ()’ and f6t’6w-o-m ‘they () have ground ()’. (See also Marcos 1974 on similar alternations.) A stem /r/ and the 2  /-I/ show the same complementary distribution. The four words in (26) are formed from –örA ‘eat’. In (26a), r is not geminated, as is the ö in tG-s6öGr ‘you ( ) break ’. On the other hand, in (26b), r is geminated, as is the p in tG-t-s6p6r ‘you ( ) are being broken’. (26) a. b.

sg.2m (suffix -Ø) sg.2f (suffix /-I/) tG-ö6ra tG-ö6y6 ‘You (sg.) eat .’ tG-t-ö6na tG-t-ö6n6 ‘You (sg.) are being eaten.’

The singly linked /r/ in (26a) is palatalized in the second column. The palatalized singly linked /r/ surfaces as [y] so there is no surface [r]. But /r/ in the second column of (26b) is geminated and nasalized to [n], so /I/ has no surface manifestation. (See also Hetzron 1975: 43, Rose 1992: 99 and Lowenstamm 1996b for discussion.) In this account, the  [n] in (24), the [n] in (25a) k’6n6 and the [n] in (26b) tG-t-ö6n6 are all derived from /rrI/. The /I/ is the final phoneme of the  suffix in (24), the final root segment in (25a), and an independent suffix in (26b). In all cases, /I/ has no phonetic realization. But we have seen contexts in which this /I/ is pronounced, cf. (25b) and (26a, second column). Based on the above observations concerning the distribution of [n/r/y/i] and the independently proposed Dorsal Fusion, (16), let us now derive the [n]/[y] alternation of the  suffix from /-rrI/. As shown in (27a), a Heavy  includes the Dorsal of the vocoids and the  /-rrI/. In addition, it is proposed in (16) that the Dorsal of the vocoids fuses with a following Dorsal. Accordingly, the Dorsals of the vocoids and the suffixfinal /I/ of the  fuse, as shown in (27b). The fusion changes the DorsalCoronal-Dorsal sequence of (27a) to the Coronal-Dorsal sequence of (27b).

279

OBJECT CLITICS

(27)

Derivation of the Heavy  (-rrI → -y) a. /I, U, A/ +  /-rrI/ b. Dorsals fused X X X X X X X →

X

Root

Root

Root

Root

Root

Place

Place

Place

Place

Place

Peripheral Lingual Peripheral

Lingual

Peripheral

Coronal

Coronal

Dorsal

Dorsal

Dorsal

[–back]

[–back]

We have seen in (24) that, in the Light , a singly linked /I/ docks on /rr/ and remains silent as shown by the [n] of (28a), (repeated from (23)). However, when /I/ is doubly linked it can be realized independent of any segment. The fused Dorsal in (27) is doubly linked (one X coming from each Dorsal) and has the terminal feature [−back] of /I/. Thus, it can now be realized as [y]. This explains why /I/ is pronounced in the Heavy  of (28b). (28)

a.

Light b. Heavy tG-r6x-Ø-n-a yG-r6x-6ma-y-a ‘She/They () send(s) her.’

Note that the Coronal in (27b) is not pronounced as we have only [y] (not the expected [ny]) in the Heavy clitic of (28b). I assume that /rr/ is silent in the Heavy  because “r and y are mutually incompatible”, an independently motivated proposal in Lowenstamm (1996b: 128). Note that both /r/ and /I/ in (27b) are doubly linked so the number of slots to which they link do not favor the deletion of one over the other. Nevertheless, we saw in k’i, (25b), and tG-ö6y6 ‘you ( ) eat’, from (26a), that when /r/ and /I/ are linked with an equal number of slots /r/ is silent and /I/ is pronounced. In the same fashion, /r/ is silent and /I/ is pronounced in (27b), resulting in the Heavy  [y] of (28b). The doubly linked /I/ also simplifies so the [y] in (28b) is a simplified geminate which parallels the [p] of Heavy clitics in §9.4.2.

280

SOUND MUTATIONS

9.4.5

LHA

in the 1SG clitics

Observe the six variants of the 1 clitics shown below inside the boxes. (As discussed in §9.4.3, the [p] of (29b) is in free variation with [k].) As it was the case throughout this chapter, the penultimate suffix is the Case while the final one is the object marker. Immediately following the stem are the Q2 suffixes — null in the Light and nonnull in the Heavy series. (29)

The 1 clitics Light Heavy a. yG-r6x-Ø-n-i yG-r6x-o-n-i ‘He/They () send(s) () for me.’ yG-r6x-o-p-i b. yG-r6x-Ø-ö-i ‘He/They () send(s) () to my ’ c. yG-r6x-Ø-Ø-e yG-r6x-o-Ø-n ‘He/They () send(s) me.’

The first question to ask would be what the UR of the 1 pronoun (final suffix) is. Is it /-i/ as in (29a, b), /-e/ as in Light (29c), /-n/ as in Heavy (29c) or something different from the three? In fact, the -e of the Light (29c) is a fused 6i (i.e. 6i → e). So the choice will be between /-i/, /-6i/, /-n/ or something different from all. Four reasons substantiate that the UR of the 1 is different from the three phonetically realized suffixes. The first argument is based on the [n] vs. [r] alternation of the benefactive (), (30). In (30a), the  /-r/ is followed by a consonant-initial final suffix, in which case it nasalizes to [n]. (See §9.4.8 as to why it nasalizes, but note that this nasalization has nothing to do with  since the nasal occurs in both columns regardless of the fact that the first column is Light and the second column is Heavy.) On the other hand, in (30b), /-r/ is followed by a vocoidinitial final suffix and in this case /r/ remains an approximant. So, these give us a testing ground to determine whether the final suffix of (30c) is underlyingly consonant- or vowel-initial. According to this test, the final suffix in (30c) is consonant-initial so it is not /-i/ (or the /-i/ should be analyzed as a consonant). (30)

[n] vs. [r] alternation of  Light  Heavy  a. tG-r6xG-Ø-n-ç yG-r6x-6ma-n-ky ‘She/They send(s) () for you ( ).’ b. tG-r6x-Ø-r-a yG-r6x-6ma-r-a ‘She/They () send(s) () for her.’

OBJECT CLITICS

c.

281

tG-r6x-Ø-n-i yG-r6x-6ma-n-i ‘She/They () send(s) () for me.’

The second argument that the 1 object [−i] is not vowel-initial — and, in fact, it is n-initial — comes again from the behavior of the  -n in (29a), (30c). As we have seen in §4.9.2 and §5.3.3, r-n → n-n and r-r → l-l whereas an r-Vowel sequence remains unchanged. Assuming, till §9.4.8, that n~r in (30) derives from /r/ it indicates that what follows the n (i.e. the [i]) is an underlying /n/.) In other words, the benefactive 1 clitic in (29a), (30c) includes /r+ni/. The /r/ nasalizes because it is followed by a nasal consonant. But the n which triggers nasalization deletes (see below) so we do not obtain a phonetic geminate nn. The third argument is based on the [n] vs. -Ø alternation of the , shown in (31). The final suffix is vocoid-initial in (31a), in which case the Light  is [−n] and its Heavy counterpart is [−y]. On the other hand, the final suffix is consonant-initial in (31b), and in this case the  is -Ø in both Light and Heavy series. (31)

[n] vs. -Ø alternation of  Light  Heavy  a. tG-r6x-Ø-n-a yG-r6x-6ma-y-a ‘She/They () send(s) her.’ b. tG-r6x-Ø-Ø-x6 yG-r6x-6ma-Ø-k6 ‘She/They () send(s) you ( ).’ c. tG-r6x-Ø-Ø-e yG-r6x-6ma-Ø-n ‘She/They () send(s) me.’

That the  in (31c) is -Ø shows that both [−e] and [−n] are consonant-initial, as are [−x6] and [−k6]. This initial consonant is /n/ so /-i/ cannot underlie [−e] and [−n]. The forth argument that the 1 object suffix is n-initial comes from the suffix [−6i] → [−e] in (31c). To my knowledge, the only phonetic consonant of Chaha to alternate with 6 is n, e.g. 6-s6öGr ‘I break ’ vs. tG-n-s6öGr ‘while I break ’. This suggests that the 6 of 6i may come from n, with the derivation -ni → -6i → -e. Based on the arguments given above I suggest that the UR of the 1 is /-ni/. The n of /-ni/ deletes when it is immediately preceded by the consonants of the Case suffixes, and in that case we obtain the [−i] of (29a, b), reproduced as (32a, b).

282

SOUND MUTATIONS

(32)

The 1 clitics Light Heavy a. yG-r6x-Ø-n-i yG-r6x-o-n-i ‘He/They () send(s) () for me.’ b. yG-r6x-Ø-ö-i yG-r6x-o-p-i ‘He/They () send(s) () to my ’ c. yG-r6x-Ø-Ø-e yG-r6x-o-Ø-n ‘He/They () send(s) me.’

The n becomes 6 when it is not preceded by the Dorsa X (i.e. it is preceded by null Q2 and null ) and in this case we have the Light suffix [−e] of (32c). The n is unaffected when it is preceded by the Dorsa X (i.e. it is preceded by a nonnull Q2 and a null ) but in this case the i of /-ni/ deletes, as in the Heavy (32c).11 9.4.6

LHA

as [ n] vs. -Ø alternation

There are three differences between (33a) and (33b). First, the  suffix is [n] in (33a) while it is -Ø in (33b). Second, the consonant of the object suffixes is a simple [x] in (33a) but it is a simplified geminate [k] in (33b). Third, the object suffixes are vocoid-initial in (33a) while they are consonant-initial in (33b). (33)

The second person accusative clitics of the Perfective a. Light b. Heavy nax-o-Ø-kma nax6-n-axma ‘He/They has/have sent you ( ).’ nax6-n-axu nax-o-Ø-ku ‘He/They has/have sent you ( ).’ nax6-c(6)-n-aç nax-6ma-Ø-ky ‘She/They has/have sent you ( ).’ nax6-c(6)-n-ax6 nax-6ma-Ø-k6 ‘She/They has/have sent you ( ).’

11. Polotsky (1951: 19–20) derives [−i] from *\ by diachronic denasalization. His analysis is supported by the [\] found in related languages where phonetic [\] is present. For instance, instead of the Chaha [n], we obtain [\] in Inor, e.g. yG-d6rgwG-\ ‘one/they () hit me’, and Amharic, e.g. m6tta-\ ‘he hit me’. My analysis is similar to his in that /ni/ has the nasality and palatality of [\]. I do not postulate /\/ as a synchronic input for it has no phonetic realization and it will be the only underlying palatal consonant.

OBJECT CLITICS

283

The vocoid-initial object suffixes of (33a) are not used in the Imperfective , e.g. yG-r6x-Ø-x6 (not *yG-r6xG-n-ax6) ‘he sends you ( )’, and in all the aspects of the  and . I assume that whether the object suffix is vocoidinitial, as in (33a), or consonant-initial, as in (33b), is idiosyncratic. In addition, I believe that the -Ø suffix has to be listed as a lexical property of the , i.e. the  has two forms: /-rrI/ before vocoids and -Ø before consonants, so the [−n]/Ø alternation above cannot be given a phonological explanation. On the other hand, I have shown in §9.4.4 that before vocoid-initial object suffixes the Light  is [n], as in tG-r6x-Ø-n-a ‘she sends her’, and the Heavy  is [y], as in yG-r6x-6ma-y-a ‘they () send her’, so the Light  [n] of (33a) is expected (since it is not preceded by the Dorsal X). Furthermore, the [x]/[k] alternation can be explained phonologically, and without any additional mechanism. The Heavy clitics include the Dorsal which fuses with Dorsal of the velar-initial object suffixes. The Dorsal links with the X’s of the Dorsal and the suffix-initial velar giving rise to gemination, hence strengthening as expected. The  is -Ø also when the subject is first person and irrespective of whether the subject is singular (34a) or plural (34b), showing that the subject plays no role in determining whether the  suffix /-rrI/ or -Ø is used. (34)

a. b.

nax-x-Ø-x6 → [naxk6] ‘I have sent you ( ).’ nax-ne-Ø-x6 → [naxnek6] ‘We have sent you ( ).’

The subject suffix /-x/ of (34a) is always followed by Light clitics because it lacks the Dorsal X. But, here, it is followed by /x/ of the second person object pronoun and the two /x/’s fuse, resulting in a /xx/ sequence which eventually strengthens and simplifies to [k]. (See the discussion of (17) above and Hetzron 1972b: 467). On the other hand, the /x/ in (34b) is geminated due to the preceding Dorsal X of /-n6I/ (→ [ne]). So the [k] in (34a) is the fusion of subject and object suffixes whereas the one in (34b) is due to the Dorsal X of the subject suffixes. 9.4.7

LHA

and the 3SG MASC object labialization

The last, but very important, distinction between the Light and Heavy clitics concerns the 3  object pronoun labialization. Before discussing the effects of the 3  labialization on the  let us see how it functions. (See McCarthy 1983 and Akinlabi 1996 for an autosegmental treatment of the 3  object. Some of their generalizations are different from mine because they focus only on the Light accusative forms.)

284

SOUND MUTATIONS

The 3  object pronoun in Chaha is /-6U/ (in all contexts) with a floating feature [round] which starts at the end (indicated by ↑↑ in (35)) and moves leftwards till it finds a target (labial or velar) to dock onto, as exemplified in the first column of (35). (As discussed in §7.2.2, the [high] of /U/ palatalizes a left-adjacent coronal obstruent but this /U/ is not immediately preceded by a coronal obstruent so it does not cause palatalization, see also §7.4.5). The feature [round] targets the Case marker in (35a) and the subject suffix in (35b). (Ignore the Q1 vs. Q2 distinction and their null suffixes for the moment.) In the absence of a labializable Case or subject suffix, [round] enters the stem and labializes the rightmost target. Accordingly, the rightmost targets [m], [f] and [k’] in (35c, d, e) respectively are labialized, as shown in the first column. ([w] in (35a) is a labialized [ö], i.e. [öw]. All affirmative Perfective forms include a final -m, which is omitted in (35). Because this -m follows ↑↑ it is never labialized.)12 (35)

The 3  object labialization Light 3  clitic Heavy 3  clitic k6f6t-ne-p/kw-6↑↑ a. k6f6t-xG-w-6↑↑ ‘I/We have opened () to his .’ k6f6t-xG-ma-r-6↑↑ b. k6f6t-xwG-r-6↑↑ ‘I/You ( ) have opened for him.’ c. f6t’6mw6-c(6)-n-↑↑ f6t’6m-ç-i-↑↑ ‘She/You ( ) has/have closed it.’ d. k6f w6t6-r-6↑↑ k6f6t-ne-r-6↑↑ ‘He/We has/have opened () for him.’ k’6n6s-o-r-6↑↑ e. k’w6n6s6-r-6↑↑ ‘He/They () has/have started for him.’

[round] labializes the nearest (to ↑↑) preceding target. For instance, in (35a), the  [ö] in the first column and [p]/[k] in the second are the nearest preceding targets so they are labialized. This poses no problem. But in (35b), the consonants of the subject suffixes (i.e. [x] in the first column and [m] in the second

12. The final vowel [6] in (35) is part of the 3  pronoun and not of the Case markers. This is shown by the absence of this vowel between the Case markers and the consonant-initial pronouns, e.g. nax6-ö-x6 (not *nax6-ö6-x6) ‘he sent () to your ( ) detriment’ and nax6-n-x6 (not *nax6-r6-x6) ‘he sent () for you ( )’. This shows, as Polotsky (1951: 33) remarks, that the underlying form of the 3  pronoun contains the vowel [6], -6U → w…-6↑↑. To account for the absence of [6] in the accusative 3  in (35c), I assume that /6/ deletes due to the preceding /I/ of the  /-rrI/. As already mentioned, in contrast with all previous analyses, the [n] and the [i] in (35c) are not part of the pronoun. They are rather different realizations of the .

285

OBJECT CLITICS

one) are the nearest preceding targets. Nonetheless, [x] is labialized whereas [m] is not. (Notice that [x] is Q1 and [m] is part of Q2.) In other words, [round] cannot reach [m]; hence rounding does not surface. In addition, the respective rightmost labializable stem consonants [m], [f] and [k’] in (35c, d, e) are the nearest preceding targets but they are not labialized in the second column either. Even though all forms in the second column have the feature [round], labialization occurs only in (35a). I therefore must account for the absence of labialization in the second column and for its presence in all the forms in the first column as well as in the second column of (35a). All the forms in the second column of (35) contain the nonnull-Q2 suffixes. As I have argued so far, these suffixes end with a vocoid including the Dorsal articulator which, I claim, is responsible for the absence of labialization. The movement of [round] is blocked by Dorsal or Labial everywhere in Chaha. For example, in (36a), there is no Dorsal or Labial between the original location of [round] (the final articulator Labial) and the Labial of the medial stem consonant /f/. Hence, /f/ is labialized. There is, however, the Labial of /f/ between the stem-initial velar /k/ and the origin of [round]. Hence, [round] is blocked by /f/ from reaching /k/. This explains the absence of labialization on /k/, cf. (36a) vs. *kw6f w6t6-r-6. (Irrelevant intermediate nodes are omitted.) (36)

Labial or Dorsal as the blocking node a. Light X 6 X 6 X 6 + X + 6 X

k

f

t

r Labial = [round]

Labial

b.

k6f w6t6-Ø-r-6↑↑ open-3 --him ‘He has opened () for him.’ Heavy X 6 X 6 X + X X X + X + 6 X

k

f

t

n 6

r Dorsal = [–back]

k6f6t-ne-r-6↑↑ open---him ‘We have opened () for him.’

Labial = [round]

286

SOUND MUTATIONS

In the same manner, in (36b), the Dorsal of the plural subject suffix /-n6I/ intervenes between /f/ and the origin of [round]. The feature [−back] of /I/ abandons its Dorsal and docks on the preceding schwa to yield [e]. [round] of the 3  /-6U/ docks on the abandoned Dorsal of /I/. Therefore, /f/ is not labialized, which explains the absence of the 3  labialization, cf. (36b) vs. *k6f w6t-ne-r-6. In such cases, [round] remains unpronounced, cf. (36b) vs. *k6f6tnew-r-6↑↑, and I have no explanation for it. But, whether labialization is visible, as in (36a), or not, as in (36b), the 3  suffix is /-6U/ and it includes [round] and its articulator Labial. The fact that [m] (part of the Q2 suffix -ma) in the Heavy (35b), k6f6t-xGma-r-6↑↑ ‘you ( ) have opened () for him’, is not labialized, shows that something found between m and ↑↑ blocks [round] from reaching the /m/. On the other hand, [round] can appear on the Case-marker /-ö/ in both Light and Heavy alternants, cf. first and second columns of (35a) and their respective representations in (37a, b). These demonstrate that there is no blockage between the Case marker and the original site of [round], i.e. the blockage precedes /ö/. It follows that the blockage is the final constituent of the nonnull-Q2 suffixes of the subject (i.e. Dorsal of a in k6f6t-xG-ma-r-6↑↑). In this account, the labialization of the  /-ö/ in (37b) receives a straightforward explanation because /-ö/ is not followed by the blocking Dorsal of these suffixes. In addition, the Dorsal of the  suffix and the Labial of the  /-ö/ fuse to form a Dorsal/Labial combination, as in (37b). Dorsal/Labial links to the X slots of /I/ and /ö/. The double-linking is responsible for devoicing and hardening of /ö/ to [p], the Dorsal for optionally velarizing [p] to [k], and the floating feature [round] for labializing [p]/[k]. (37)

Why the  /-ö/ is always labialized a. Light X 6 X 6 X + X + X + 6 X

k

f

t

x Labial Labial =

[round] k6f6t-xG-w-6↑↑ open-1--him ‘I have opened () to his detriment.’

287

OBJECT CLITICS

b.

Heavy X 6 X 6 X + X k

f

t

n

X

X + X + 6 X

6

Labial/Dorsal Labial = = [–back] [round] k6f6t-ne-pw-6↑↑/k6f6t-ne-kw-6↑↑ open---him ‘We have opened () to his ’ In (37b), the Q2 suffix /-n6I/ and the Dorsal of its /I/ precede the Labial of the  /-ö/. In addition, the Peripheral nodes (not shown in (37)) dominating the two articulators fuse and dominate Labial/Dorsal node of (37b). The autonomous terminal feature [−back] of /I/ docks on /6/ of /-n6I/, fronting the /6/ to [e]. Moreover, [round] targets the fused Dorsal/Labial, which gives rise to either [pw] or [kw]. This explains why /-ö/ is labialized in both Light (37a) and Heavy (37b) clitics. Labialization caused by the floating 3  object pronoun is banned from labializing a nonnull Q2 suffix and entering the stem in the presence a nonnull Q2. Based on this Hetzron (1971: 206) remarks: “[t]he Internal Labialization is established before the Light O 3  suffix *-nu → -n in all these languages.” So far, no explanation as to why internal labialization is not “established” before the Heavy 3  object suffix *-yu → -y has been offered. Given the labialization of the Heavy  /-ö/ in (37b) it is clear that the Heavy 3  clitic consists in the floating labialization. The labialization of the  /-ö/ as well as the ban from passing the final vocoids of the nunnull-Q2 suffixes of the subject gets a natural explanation in my analysis. In other words, [round] can labialize a target that follows the Dorsal X of a Q2 suffix (because there is nothing to block it) while it cannot labialize a target the precedes the Dorsal X (because this Dorsal X blocks it). 9.4.8 Apparent absence of LHA I have argued that the final /I, U, A/ of the nonnull Q2 suffixes give rise to Heavy clitics, which are characterized by gemination, palatalization, velarization and blocking the movement of [round]. We expect these processes to occur in all the three sets of Case markers (,  and ) when they are preceded by /I, U, A/. But there are some cases in which the expected gemination does not occur so it is problematic to the analysis. In this section, we will discuss such remaining problems.

288

SOUND MUTATIONS

The movement of the 3  object [round] is blocked from reaching the stem in the Heavy clitics of (38). According to my analysis, the [round] does not dock on any constituent preceding a Q2 suffix because the Dorsal X of Q2, which immediately precedes the clitics, blocks its movement. (38)

The 3  object labialization is blocked in the benefactive Light  Heavy  a. 6-r6xw-Ø-r-6↑↑ nG-r6x-ne-r-6↑↑ ‘I/We send () for him.’ b. tG-r6xw-Ø-r-6↑↑ tG-r6x-o-r-6↑↑ ‘You (/ ) send () for him.’ yG-r6x-6ma-r-6↑↑ c. tG-r6xw-Ø-r-6↑↑ ‘She/They () send(s) for him.’

That the 3  object labialization is blocked in the Heavy  shows that these forms include the Dorsal X. Yet, the Dorsal X in (38) does not trigger gemination of the  suffix /r/. Besides, in contrast to the Dorsal-X-triggered gemination of /x/ in the Heavy (39a), no sign of gemination can be identified in the Heavy (39b, c). (39)

[n] vs. [r] alternation of  (repeated from (30)) Light  Heavy  a. tG-r6xG-Ø-n-ç yG-r6x-6ma-n-ky ‘She/They send(s) () for you ( ).’ yG-r6x-6ma-r-a b. tG-r6x-Ø-r-a ‘She/They () send(s) () for her.’ yG-r6x-6ma-n-i c. tG-r6x-Ø-n-i ‘She/They () send(s) () for me.’

In the Heavy clitic of (39b), /-r/ remains [r] even though my analysis predicts that it should be doubly linked (hence nasalize to [n]) due to the preceding Dorsal X. In addition to this, the nasalized  /-r/ of (39a) does not assimilate in place to a following velar while a nasalized /r/ assimilates in place to the following obstruent, as in (40). (But see §4.2.1, footnote 3, for /rr/). (40)

Nasal-obstruent assimilation a. y6-]x6ö *y6-nx6ö ‘Let him find ()!’ (cf. n6k6ö ‘has found ()’) b. y6-]kGs *y6nkGs ‘let him bite ()!’ (cf. n6k6s ‘has bitten ()’)

OBJECT CLITICS

289

The difference between (39a) and (40), i.e. lack of nasal-obstruent harmony in (39a) and its presence in (40), is due to an exceptional characteristic of the  /-r/ in (39a). Similarly, nasalization caused by a following consonant as in (39a) is an idiosyncratic property of the  /-r/. Absence of place assimilation in (39a), nasalization of /-r/ in (39a), and presence of the liquid [r] (instead of a [n]) in the Heavy clitic of (39b) do not follow from the phonology of Chaha. This suffix is a diachronic /-l/ so it may have preserved some properties of /l/, which may explain why it behaves the way it does. 9.4.9 Summary of LHA The differences between Light and Heavy clitics can be summarized as follows. (41)

Summary of  I. In the second person objects -(n-a)x alternates with -k. II. The  alternates between [−ö] and [−p] when (I.) does not apply. III. The  alternates between [−n] and [−y] before vocoid-initial object suffixes. IV. The labial [p] of Heavy clitics is in free variation with the dorsal [k]. V. The  /-r/ is invariant with regard to . VI. The 1 alternates between [−e] and [−n] in the accusative/ dative. VII. The floating [round] of the 3  object is blocked by the Dorsal X of the final vocoids of the nonnull-Q2 suffixes.

In order to help us verify these generalizations the complete list of Light and Heavy clitics of Chaha given in Table 9.1 is reproduced below as Table 9.3. We have a total of ten object pronouns and three Case markers. Their combination gives thirty clitics (10 × 3 = 30) of which each has a Light form and a Heavy form (30 × 2 = 60). There are also four second person Light  clitics with -n-a, which augments the total number to 64.

290

SOUND MUTATIONS

Table 9.3. Light and Heavy clitics of Chaha 

(42)





object

Light

Heavy

Light

Heavy

Light

Heavy

me us

-Ø-e -Ø-nd6

-Ø-n -Ø-nd6

-ö-i -ö-nd6

-p-i -p-nd6

-n-i -Ø-nd6

-n-i -Ø-nd6

(-n-a)x6 (-n-a)ç (-n-a)xu (-n-a)xma

-Ø-k6 -Ø-ky -Ø-ku -Ø-kma

-ö-x6 -ö-ç -ö-xu -ö-xma

-ö-k6 -ö-ky -ö-ku -ö-kma

-n-x6 -n-ç -n-xu -n-xma

-n-k6 -n-ky -n-ku -n-kma

-n-U -n-a -n-o -n-6ma

-y-U -y-a -y-o -y-6ma

-ö-6U -ö-a -ö-o -ö-6ma

-p-6U -p-a -p-o -p-6ma

-r-6U -r-a -r-o -r-6ma

-r-6U -r-a -r-o -r-6ma

you you you you

( ( ( (

) ) ) )

him/it her them () them ()

9.5

Supporting evidence for my hypothesis

Polotsky (1938, 1951), Hetzron (1968, 1971, 1972, 1977) and Goldenberg (1968) have proposed hypotheses, to be discussed immediately, concerning the trigger of . We will now see the similarities and the differences between their hypotheses and mine and what I claim to be the advantages of my analysis. 9.5.1 Previous and present hypotheses All the aforementioned authors attribute the  to the nature of the segment preceding the clitics. Polotsky (1938: 161) writes: “[o]n constatera que la série A [Light] s’emploie après consonne et la série B [Heavy] après voyelle (longue).” Hetzron (1968: 165) claims: “… their distribution is arbitrary from a synchronical point of view, but very well motivated historically.” In the same vein, Goldenberg (1968: 81) claims: “[f]or the explanation of this kind of conditioning, which when described synchronically looks completely capricious, a historical glance … will yield interesting results.” Hetzron (1977: 63) describes the historical development as follows: “Heavy suffixes occur where there used to be long vowels preceding … and were developed through a compensatory change — V: +C- → -V+C: —, i.e. when vocalic length ceased to be relevant the subsequent consonant was lengthened.” On the other hand, I have proposed a synchronic trigger: the final vocoids /I, U, A/ of the nonnull-Q2 suffixes, i.e. the Dorsal articulator and X slot of the vocoids. Heavy clitics result from a compensatory change X+C → CC — where

OBJECT CLITICS

291

X represents /I, U, A/. In addition, my proposal predicts that compensation cannot apply if the vocoids belong to the Q1 suffix or the stem because in these cases the vocoids are not adjacent to the clitics while compensation requires adjacency between the trigger and target. In my analysis, /I, U, A/ are a necessary but not sufficient condition for Heavy clitics whereas in previous analyses they are sufficient. The discussions in the following subsections show that my analysis is to be preferred. Furthermore, we have seen that the proposed Dorsal of the vocoids gives a new explanation for the Dorsal/Labial free variation of the , [n/y] alternation of the , and the ban on the movement of the 3  object pronoun labialization. 9.5.2 Clitics following the IPL Polotsky (1951: 32) states: “[t]he 1st pl. of all tenses, -n6, takes the Heavy suffixes, though it ends in a short vowel.” In addition, Hetzron (1968: 166) claims: “[a]lthough the final -a (or -6) is short in every modern Ethiopian Semitic language, the length might occasionally have survived and led to the use of heavy suffixes.” As both authors remarked, the clitics following the  are Heavy. However, according to my analysis, the  does not have a short vowel, it ends with /I/. This is demonstrated by the presence of the preclitic alternant -ne, e.g. nG-k6ftG-ne-ö-k6 ‘we open to your ( ) detriment’, which derives from /-n6I/. As I have argued throughout, the nonnull-Q2 suffixes are followed by Heavy clitics and /-n6I/ is an invariable (hence Q2) suffix. Like all invariable subject suffixes, it is always followed by Heavy clitics. This is predicted by my analysis — no additional statements are required to account for the fact that the  /-n6I/ (→ [ne]) is followed by Heavy clitics. It has the required vocoid /I/ and it is adjacent with a following clitic as no suffix intervenes between Q2 and a clitic. 9.5.3 Clitics following the two 2SG FEM allomorphs Comparing the phonetic forms (second column) of (43), there is no distinction between the [c] in the Perfective (43a) and that in the Nonperfective (43b). Nonetheless, the clitic in (43a) is Light while the one in (43b) is Heavy, i.e. regardless of the common preclitic palatalized consonant the clitic is Light in one case and Heavy in the other. If the mere phonological complexity of the segment preceding the clitics were what conditions the weight of the clitic we should have found Heavy clitics after both forms. This is problematic to the previous analyses. Thus, a theory that does not distinguish Q1 from Q2 suffixes cannot predict the type of the following suffix.

292

SOUND MUTATIONS

(43)

(Q1-)verb(-Q1)-Q2-Case-object (where there is only one Q1 per verb) a. mw6t6-tI-Ø-ö-o → mw6t6cöo ‘She has died on them () (= to their )’ b. t-mot-I-ö-o → tGmocp/ko ‘You ( ) die on them ().’

However, in my analysis (left column), the /I/ of the Perfective (43a) is part of a Q1 suffix (so it is immediately followed by a null Q2) whereas the /I/ of (43b) is a nonnull-Q2 suffix (so it is immediately followed by /-ö/). The proposal that Light clitics are immediately preceded by null-Q2 suffixes and that Heavy clitics are immediately preceded by nonnull ones explains why /I/ in (43a) is followed by a Light clitic and the one in (43b) by a Heavy clitic. 9.5.4 Stem-final vs. suffix-final vocoids and the following clitics Comparing the phonetic forms (second column) of (44a) and (44b) shows that the underlined clitics are preceded by the exact same segment, i.e. -x6 of (44a) and -k6 of (44b) are both preceded by [a], -öa of (44a) and -p/ka of (44b) are both preceded by [c] and so on. It then follows that the conditioning factor for the Light clitics of (44a) and Heavy clitics of (44b) is not only the content of the preceding segment. (44)

Stem-final vs. suffix-final vocoids and the following clitics a. 6-s6mGA-Ø-x6 → 6s6max6 ‘I listen to you ( ).’ t-m6AtGI-Ø-ö-a → tGmacöa ‘You ( ) get angry at her.’ t-m6AtGI-Ø-ö-i → tGmacöi ‘She gets angry at me.’ y-a-t’6fGU-Ø-n-6ma → yat’6f wn6ma ‘He satiates them ().’ b. y-s6mGA-6mGA-x6 → yGs6m6mak6 ‘They () listen to you ( ).’ t-m6AtGI-I-ö-a → tGmacp/ka ‘You ( ) get angry at her.’ y-m6AtGI-U-ö-i → yGmwacp/ki ‘One gets angry at me.’ y-a-t’6fGU-U-n-6ma → yat’6f wy6ma ‘One satiates them ().’

OBJECT CLITICS

293

These examples show that the mere presence of a preceding vocoid is insufficient to obtain a Heavy clitic. The difference in (44a) and (44b) gets a natural explanation in an analysis, such as mine, which requires adjacency between vocoids and Heavy clitics and which postulates null Q2 suffixes between the stem and the clitics, as in (44a) (cf. left column). A theory that does not posit two subject positions will not have the option of postulating the null-Q2 suffix in (44a), where the subject is phonetically realized as a prefix, and cannot explain why the stem-final and suffix-final vocoids are followed by different types of clitics.

9.6

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have discussed three sets of Case markers and accounted for their alternations based on the independently motivated claim (see §7.2.2) that the terminal features of /U, I, A/ abandon their articulator Dorsal with its X slot and dock on a preceding target. We have seen that the abandoned Dorsal X triggers gemination, velarization and palatalization. It also blocks the movement of [round]. I have proposed that the  is -Ø before consonants and /-rrI/ before vocoids. /-rrI/ surfaces as [n] after the null-Q2 suffixes and as [y/i] after the vocoids of the nonnull Q2 suffixes. The  is /-ö/ and has three forms: [p] between the Dorsal X and nonvelars, [k] in free variation with [p], and [ö] elsewhere. The  is /-r/ and has two forms: [r] before vocoids and [n] before consonants. Accordingly, we have only the following four phonologically unrelated Case suffixes. (45)

Case suffixes a.  = = b.  = c.  =

-Ø / ____C /-rrI/ / ____V /-ö/ /-r/

Other variations of Case suffixes are triggered by the context, mainly by the presence or absence of a preceding Dorsal X and whether the following object suffix is vocoid- or consonant-initial. I have proposed that the 1 is /-ni/. Each second person pronoun has three forms, e.g. you ( ) is [ax6] in the Perfective Light , [x6] elsewhere in the Light series and [k6] elsewhere in the Heavy series. The last two derive from the same UR /-x6/ but the first one has a different UR: /-ax6/. Every third person

294

SOUND MUTATIONS

pronoun has a unique form but [round] of the 3  /-6U/ may or may not surface depending on the presence or absence of a Q2 suffix following its target. In general, I have attempted to solve the most complicated and seemingly unpredictable alternations of Chaha subject and object suffixes. I have tried to show that there is a system that governs all of them and that it will allow us to make some accurate predictions. I have proposed an underlying form for all the alternating affixes and offered a unified account (a common trigger) for all the alternations. Most of the alternations were shown to follow from the proposed underlying forms and general principles of Chaha. Appendix 9 kft ‘open’ conjugated13 1. Subject conjugations without object suffixes a. Which license Light clitics Perfective I k6f6t-xwG-m He k6f6t6-m She k6f6t6-cG-m You ( ) k6f6t-x6-m b. Which license Heavy clitics Perfective We k6f6t-n6-m They () k6f6t-o-m They () k6f6t-6ma-m You ( ) k6f6t-xu-m You ( ) k6f6t-xGma-m You ( ) k6f6t-çG-↑-m Impersonal k6f w6cG-↑↑-m

Imperfective 6-k6ft yG-k6ft tG-k6ft tG-k6ft

Jussive nG-kGft y6-kGft tG-kGft kGft

Imperfective nG-k6ftG-n6 yG-k6ft-o yG-k6ft-6ma tG-k6ft-o tG-k6ft-6ma tG-k6fc-↑ yG-k6f wcG-↑↑(m)

Jussive nG-kGftG-n6 y6-kGft-o y6-kGft-6ma kGft-o kGft-6ma kGfc-↑ (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑(m)

13. The conjugation is in the affirmative but some affixes are affected in the negative. For example, the final -m of the Perfective is absent, e.g. a-]-k6f6t-xw ‘I have not opened ()’. On the other hand, in the Imperative the second person prefix t- appears when the negative prefix a- or a tense suffix/auxiliary is introduced, e.g. kGftG-n-i ‘open ( ) () for me!’ vs. a-t-kGftG-n-i ‘do not open ( ) () for me!’ Similarly, 6- of the 1 Imperfective becomes N- when a- is added, cf. 6-k6ft ‘I open ()’ vs. a-]-k6ft ‘I do not open ()’. See footnote 7 of Chapter 8 concerning the status of the stem-final vowel and suffixes in the third singular. The symbols: ↑ = the origin of feminine palatalization (/-I/), ↑↑ = the origin of labialization (and palatalization) (/-U/) are analytical devices introduced in the conjugation in order to help the reader. Eliminating them will not affect the conjugation. Hence, you can ignore them in case you find them to be useless or misleading. I have no arguments showing whether an epenthetic vowel should precede or follow the affix boundaries but I have chosen the conventional way of putting it before the boundary, e.g. tG-k6ftG-n-i ‘you ( ) open () for me’ and not t-Gk6ft-Gn-i.

295

OBJECT CLITICS 2. Subject conjugations with the 1SG object suffix Perfective Imperfective Subjects Accusative/Dative He k6f6t-e-m yG-k6ft-e She k6f6t6-c-e-m tG-k6ft-e You ( ) k6f6t-x-e-m tG-k6ft-e yG-k6ft-o-n yG-k6ft-6ma-n tG-k6ft-o-n tG-k6ft-6ma-n tG-k6fcG-↑-n yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-n

Imperative/Jussive y6-kGft-e tG-kGft-e kGft-e

They () They () You ( ) You ( ) You ( ) Impersonal

k6f6t-o-nG-m k6f6t-6ma-nG-m k6f6t-xu-nG-m k6f6t-xGma-nG-m k6f6t-çG-nG-m k6f w6c-↑↑-nG-m

He She You ( )

Malefactive/Instrumental k6f6t6-ö-i-m yG-k6ftG-ö-i k6f6t-6c(6)-ö-i-m tG-k6ftG-ö-i k6f6t-x6-ö-i-m tG-k6ftG-ö-i

y6-kGftG-ö-i tG-kGftG-ö-i kGftG-ö-i


k6f6t-o-p/k-i-m k6f6t-6ma-p/k-i-m k6f6t-xu-p/k-i-m k6f6t-xGma-p/k-i-m k6f6t-çG-p/k-i-m k6f w6c-↑↑-p/k-i-m

y6-kGft-o-p/k-i y6-kGft-6ma-p/k-i kGft-o-p/k-i kGft-6ma-p/k-i kGfcG-↑-p/k-i (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-p/k-i


k6f6t6-n-i-m k6f6t6-c(6)-n-i-m k6f6t-x6-n-i-m


k6f6t-o-n-i-m k6f6t-6ma-n-i-m k6f6t-xu-n-i-m k6f6t-xGma-n-i-m k6f6t-çG-n-i-m k6f w6c-↑↑-n-i-m

yG-k6ft-o-p/k-i yG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-i tG-k6ft-o-p/k-i tG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-i tG-k6fcG-↑-p/k-i yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-p/k-i

Benefactive yG-k6ftG-n-i tG-k6ftG-n-i tG-k6ftG-n-i yG-k6ft-o-n-i yG-k6ft-6ma-n-i tG-k6ft-o-n-i tG-k6ft-6ma-n-i tG-k6fcG-↑-n-i yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-n-i

y6-kGft-o-n y6-kGft-6ma-n kGft-o-n kGft-6ma-n kGfcG-↑-n (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-n

y6-kGftG-n-i tG-kGftG-n-i kGftG-n-i y6-kGft-o-n-i y6-kGft-6ma-n-i kGft-o-n-i kGft-6ma-n-i kGfcG-↑-n-i (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-n-i

3. Subject conjugations with the 1PL object suffix Perfective Imperfective Subjects Accusative/Dative He k6f6t6-nd6-m yG-k6ftG-nd6 She k6f6t6-c6/G-nd6-m tG-k6ftG-nd6 You ( ) k6f6t-x6-nd6-m tG-k6ftG-nd6

y6-kGftG-nd6 tG-kGftG-nd6 kGftG-nd6


y6-kGft-o-nd6 y6-kGft-6ma-nd6 kGft-o-nd6 kGft-6ma-nd6 kGfcG-↑-nd6 (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-nd6

k6f6t-o-nd6-m k6f6t-6ma-nd6-m k6f6t-xu-nd6-m k6f6t-xGma-nd6-m k6f6t-çG-nd6-m k6f w6cG-↑↑-nd6-m

yG-k6ft-o-nd6 yG-k6ft-6ma-nd6 tG-k6ft-o-nd6 tG-k6ft-6ma-nd6 tG-k6fcG-↑-nd6 yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-nd6

Imperative/Jussive

296

SOUND MUTATIONS


Malefactive/Instrumental k6f6t6-öG-nd6-m yG-k6ftG-öG-nd6 k6f6t6-c(6)-öG-nd6-m tG-k6ftG-öG-nd6 k6f6t-x6-öG-nd6-m tG-k6ftG-öG-nd6

y6-kGftG-öG-nd6 tG-kGftG-öG-nd6 kGftG-öG-nd6


k6f6t-o-p/kG-nd6-m k6f6t-6ma-p/kG-nd6-m k6f6t-xu-p/kG-nd6-m k6f6t-xGma-p/kG-nd6-m k6f6t-çG-p/kG-nd6-m k6f w6cG-↑↑-p/kG-nd6-m

y6-kGft-o-p/kG-nd6 y6-kGft-6ma-p/kG-nd6 kGft-o-p/kG-nd6 kGft-6ma-p/kG-nd6 kGfcG-↑-p/kG-nd6 (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-p/kG-nd6

yG-k6ft-o-p/kG-nd6 yG-k6ft-6ma-p/kG-nd6 tG-k6ft-o-p/kG-nd6 tG-k6ft-6ma-p/kG-nd6 tG-k6fcG-↑-p/kG-nd6 yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-p/kG-nd6

Benefactive Same as Accusative/Dative 4. Subject conjugations with the 3SG MASC object suffix14 Perfective Imperfective Subjects Accusative/Dative I k6f6t-xwG-nG-↑↑-m 6-k6f wtG-n-↑↑ He k6f w6t6-nG-↑↑-m yG-k6f wtG-n-↑↑ She k6f w6t6-c(6)-nG-↑↑-m tG-k6f wtG-n-↑↑ You ( ) k6f6t-xw6-nG-↑↑-m tG-k6f wtG-n-↑↑

nG-kGf wtG-n-↑↑ y6-kGf wtG-n-↑↑ tG-kGf wtG-n-↑↑ kGf wtG-n-↑↑

We They () They () You ( ) You ( ) You ( ) Impersonal

k6f6t-ne-↑↑-m k6f6t-6w-i-↑↑-m k6f6t-6m7-↑↑-m k6f6t-xGw-i-↑↑-m k6f6t-xGm7-↑↑-m k6f6t-ç-i-↑↑-m k6f w6c-↑↑-i-↑↑-m

nG-kGftG-ne-↑↑ y6-kGft-6w-i-↑↑ y6-kGft-6m7-↑↑ kGft-6w-i-↑↑ kGft-6m7-↑↑ kGfc-↑-i-↑↑ (y6-)kGf wc-↑↑-i-↑↑

I He She You ( )

Malefactive/Instrumental k6f6t-xG-w-6↑↑-m 6-k6ftG-w-6↑↑ k6f6t6-w-6↑↑-m yG-k6ftG-w-6↑↑ k6f6t6-c(6)-w-6↑↑-m tG-k6ftG-w-6↑↑ k6f6t-x6-w-6↑↑-m tG-k6ftG-w-6↑↑

nG-kGftG-w-6↑↑ y6-kGftG-w-6↑↑ tG-kGftG-w-6↑↑ kGftG-w-6↑↑

We They () They () You ( ) You ( )

k6f6t-ne-p/kw-6↑↑-m k6f6t-o-p/kw-6↑↑-m k6f6t-6ma-p/kw-6↑↑-m k6f6t-xu-p/kw-6↑↑-m k6f6t-xGma-p/kw-6↑↑-m

nG-kGftG-ne-p/kw-6↑↑ y6-kGft-o-p/kw-6↑↑ y6-kGft-6ma-p/kw-6↑↑ kGft-o-p/kw-6↑↑ kGft-6ma-p/kw-6↑↑

nG-k6ftG-ne-↑↑ yG-k6ft-6w-i-↑↑ yG-k6ft-6m7-↑↑ tG-k6ft-6w-i-↑↑ tG-k6ft-6m7-↑↑ tG-k6fc-↑-i-↑↑ yG-k6f wc-↑↑-i-↑↑

nG-k6ftG-ne-p/kw-6↑↑ yG-k6ft-o-p/kw-6↑↑ yG-k6ft-6ma-p/kw-6↑↑ tG-k6ft-o-p/kw-6↑↑ tG-k6ft-6ma-p/kw-6↑↑

Imperative/Jussive

14. Three remarks are in order. i) The labialization on -xwG is the 3  object labialization docked on the 1 subject suffix -xG. Hence, it is not part of the 1 ii) The origin of labialization on k6f w6c-, -k6f wc(G)- and -kGf wc(G)- is the impersonal subject, not the 3  object. iii) The y of the Heavy  becomes [i] if it is preceded by an onset, e.g. k6f6txGwim, if not it coalesces with the preceding vowel, e.g. k6f6txGm7m.

297

OBJECT CLITICS You ( ) Impersonal

k6f6t-çG-p/kw-6↑↑-m tG-k6fcG-↑-p/kw-6↑↑ kGfcG-↑-p/kw-6↑↑ k6f w6c-↑↑-p/kw-6↑↑-m yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-p/kw-6↑↑ (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-p/kw-6↑↑


Benefactive k6f6t-xwG-r-6↑↑-m 6-k6f wtG-r-6↑↑ k6f w6t6-r-6↑↑-m yG-k6f wtG-r-6↑↑ k6f w6t6-c(6)-r-6↑↑-m tG-k6f wtG-r-6↑↑ k6f6t-xw6-r-6↑↑-m tG-k6f wtG-r-6↑↑

nG-kGf wtG-r-6↑↑ y6-kGf wtG-r-6↑↑ tG-kGf wtG-r-6↑↑ kGf wtG-r-6↑↑


k6f6t-ne-r-6↑↑-m k6f6t-o-r-6↑↑-m k6f6t-6ma-r-6↑↑-m k6f6t-xu-r-6↑↑-m k6f6t-xGma-r-6↑↑-m k6f6t-çG-r-6↑↑-m k6f w6c-↑↑-r-6↑↑-m

nG-kGftG-ne-r-6↑↑ y6-kGft-o-r-6↑↑ y6-kGft-6ma-r-6↑↑ kGft-o-r-6↑↑ kGft-6ma-r-6↑↑ kGfcG-↑-r-6↑↑ (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-r-6↑↑

nG-k6ftG-ne-r-6↑↑ yG-k6ft-o-r-6↑↑ yG-k6ft-6ma-r-6↑↑ tG-k6ft-o-r-6↑↑ tG-k6ft-6ma-r-6↑↑ tG-k6fcG-↑-r-6↑↑ yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-r-6↑↑

5. Subject conjugations with the 3SG FEM object suffix Perfective Imperfective Subjects Accusative/Dative I k6f6t-xG-n-a-m 6-k6ftG-n-a He k6f6t6-n-a-m yG-k6ftG-n-a She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-a-m tG-k6ftG-n-a You ( ) k6f6t-x6-n-a-m tG-k6ftG-n-a nG-k6ftG-n6-y-a yG-k6ft-o-(y)y-a yG-k6ft-6ma-y-a tG-k6ft-o-(y)y-a tG-k6ft-6ma-y-a tG-k6fcG-↑-y-a yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-y-a

Imperative/Jussive nG-kGftG-n-a y6-kGftG-n-a tG-kGftG-n-a kGftG-n-a


k6f6t-n6-y-a-m k6f6t-o-(y)y-a-m k6f6t-6ma-y-a-m k6f6t-xu-(y)y-a-m k6f6t-xGma-y-a-m k6f6t-çG-y-a-m k6f w6c-↑↑-y-a-m


Malefactive/Instrumental k6f6t-xG-ö-a-m 6-k6ftG-ö-a k6f6t6-ö-a-m yG-k6ftG-ö-a k6f6t6-c(6)-ö-a-m tG-k6ftG-ö-a k6f6t-x6-ö-a-m tG-k6ftG-ö-a

nG-kGftG-ö-a y6-kGftG-ö-a tG-kGftG-ö-a kGftG-ö-a


k6f6t-ne-p/k-a-m k6f6t-o-p/k-a-m k6f6t-6ma-p/k-a-m k6f6t-xu-p/k-a-m k6f6t-xGma-p/k-a-m k6f6t-çG-p/k-a-m k6f w6c-↑↑-p/k-a-m

nG-kGftG-ne-p/k-a y6-kGft-o-p/k-a y6-kGft-6ma-p/k-a kGft-o-p/k-a kGft-6ma-p/k-a kGfcG-↑-p/k-a (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-p/k-a

I He

k6f6t-xG-r-a-m k6f6t6-r-a-m

nG-k6ftG-ne-p/k-a yG-k6ft-o-p/k-a yG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-a tG-k6ft-o-p/k-a tG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-a tG-k6fcG-↑-p/k-a yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-p/k-a

Benefactive 6-k6ftG-r-a yG-k6ftG-r-a

nG-kGftG-n6-y-a y6-kGft-o-(y)y-a y6-kGft-6ma-y-a kGft-o-(y)y-a kGft-6ma-y-a kGfcG-↑-y-a (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-y-a

nG-kGftG-r-a y6-kGftG-r-a

298

SOUND MUTATIONS

She You ( )

k6f6t6-c(6)-r-a-m k6f6t-x6-r-a-m

tG-k6ftG-r-a tG-k6ftG-r-a

tG-kGftG-r-a kGftG-r-a


k6f6t-ne-r-a-m k6f6t-o-r-a-m k6f6t-6ma-r-a-m k6f6t-xu-r-a-m k6f6t-xGma-r-a-m k6f6t-çG-r-a-m k6f w6c-↑↑-r-a-m

nG-k6ftG-ne-r-a yG-k6ft-o-r-a yG-k6ft-6ma-r-a tG-k6ft-o-r-a tG-k6ft-6ma-r-a tG-k6fcG-↑-r-a yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-r-a

nG-kGftG-ne-r-a y6-kGft-o-r-a y6-kGft-6ma-r-a kGft-o-r-a kGft-6ma-r-a kGfcG-↑-r-a (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-r-a

6. Subject conjugations with the 3PL MASC object suffix Perfective Imperfective Subjects Accusative/Dative I k6f6t-xG-n-o-m 6-k6ftG-n-o He k6f6t6-n-o-m yG-k6ftG-n-o She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-o-m tG-k6ftG-n-o You ( ) k6f6t-x6-n-o-m tG-k6ftG-n-o nG-k6ftG-n6-y-o yG-k6ft-o-(y)y-o yG-k6ft-6ma-y-o tG-k6ft-o-(y)y-o tG-k6ft-6ma-y-o tG-k6fcG-↑-y-o yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-y-o

Imperative/Jussive nG-kGftG-n-o y6-kGftG-n-o tG-kGftG-n-o kGftG-n-o


k6f6t-n6-y-o-m k6f6t-o-(y)y-o-m k6f6t-6ma-y-o-m k6f6t-xu-(y)y-o-m k6f6t-xGma-y-o-m k6f6t-çG-y-o-m k6f w6c-↑↑-y-o-m


Malefactive/Instrumental k6f6t-xG-ö-o-m 6-k6ftG-ö-o k6f6t6-ö-o-m yG-k6ftG-ö-o k6f6t6-c(6)-ö-o-m tG-k6ftG-ö-o k6f6t-x6-ö-o-m tG-k6ftG-ö-o

nG-kGftG-ö-o y6-kGftG-ö-o tG-kGftG-ö-o kGftG-ö-o


k6f6t-ne-p/k-o-m k6f6t-o-p/k-o-m k6f6t-6ma-p/k-o-m k6f6t-xu-p/k-o-m k6f6t-xGma-p/k-o-m k6f6t-çG-p/k-o-m k6f w6c-↑↑-p/k-o-m

nG-kGftG-ne-p/k-o y6-kGft-o-p/k-o y6-kGft-6ma-p/k-o kGft-o-p/k-o kGft-6ma-p/k-o kGfcG-↑-p/k-o (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-p/k-o


k6f6t-xG-r-o-m k6f6t6-r-o-m k6f6t6-c(6)-r-o-m k6f6t-x6-r-o-m

We They () They () You ( )

k6f6t-ne-r-o-m k6f6t-o-r-o-m k6f6t-6ma-r-o-m k6f6t-xu-r-o-m

nG-k6ftG-ne-p/k-o yG-k6ft-o-p/k-o yG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-o tG-k6ft-o-p/k-o tG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-o tG-k6fcG-↑-p/k-o yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-p/k-o

Benefactive 6-k6ftG-r-o yG-k6ftG-r-o tG-k6ftG-r-o tG-k6ftG-r-o nG-k6ftG-ne-r-o yG-k6ft-o-r-o yG-k6ft-6ma-r-o tG-k6ft-o-r-o

nG-kGftG-n6-y-o y6-kGft-o-(y)y-o y6-kGft-6ma-y-o kGft-o-(y)y-o kGft-6ma-y-o kGfcG-↑-y-o (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-y-o

nG-kGftG-r-o y6-kGftG-r-o tG-kGftG-r-o kGftG-r-o nG-kGftG-ne-r-o y6-kGft-o-r-o y6-kGft-6ma-r-o kGft-o-r-o

299

OBJECT CLITICS You ( ) You ( ) Impersonal

k6f6t-xGma-r-o-m k6f6t-çG-r-o-m k6f w6c-↑↑-r-o-m

tG-k6ft-6ma-r-o tG-k6fcG-↑-r-o yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-r-o

7. Subject conjugations with the 3PL FEM object suffix Perfective Imperfective Subjects Accusative/Dative I k6f6t-xG-n-6ma-m 6-k6ftG-n-6ma He k6f6t6-n-6ma-m yG-k6ftG-n-6ma She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-6ma-m tG-k6ftG-n-6ma You ( ) k6f6t-x6-n-6ma-m tG-k6ftG-n-6ma nG-k6ftG-n6-y-6ma yG-k6ft-o-(y)y-6ma yG-k6ft-6ma-y-6ma tG-k6ft-o-(y)y-6ma tG-k6ft-6ma-y-6ma tG-k6fcG-↑-y-6ma yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-y-6ma

kGft-6ma-r-o kGfcG-↑-r-o (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-r-o

Imperative/Jussive nG-kGftG-n-6ma y6-kGftG-n-6ma tG-kGftG-n-6ma kGftG-n-6ma


k6f6t-n6-y-6ma-m k6f6t-o-(y)y-6ma-m k6f6t-6ma-y-6ma-m k6f6t-xu-(y)y-6ma-m k6f6t-xGma-y-6ma-m k6f6t-çG-y-6ma-m k6f w6c-↑↑-y-6ma-m


Malefactive/Instrumental k6f6t-xG-ö-6ma-m 6-k6ftG-ö-6ma k6f6t6-ö-6ma-m yG-k6ftG-ö-6ma k6f6t6-c(6)-ö-6ma-m tG-k6ftG-ö-6ma k6f6t-x6-ö-6ma-m tG-k6ftG-ö-6ma

nG-kGftG-ö-6ma y6-kGftG-ö-6ma tG-kGftG-ö-6ma kGftG-ö-6ma


k6f6t-ne-p/k-6ma-m k6f6t-o-p/k-6ma-m k6f6t-6ma-p/k-6ma-m k6f6t-xu-p/k-6ma-m k6f6t-xGma-p/k-6ma-m k6f6t-çG-p/k-6ma-m k6f w6c-↑↑-p/k-6ma-m

nG-kGftG-ne-p/k-6ma y6-kGft-o-p/k-6ma y6-kGft-6ma-p/k-6ma kGft-o-p/k-6ma kGft-6ma-p/k-6ma kGfcG-↑-p/k-6ma (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-p/k-6ma


Benefactive k6f6t-xG-r-6ma-m 6-k6ftG-r-6ma k6f6t6-r-6ma-m yG-k6ftG-r-6ma k6f6t6-c(6)-r-6ma-m tG-k6ftG-r-6ma k6f6t-x6-r-6ma-m tG-k6ftG-r-6ma

nG-kGftG-r-6ma y6-kGftG-r-6ma tG-kGftG-r-6ma kGftG-r-6ma


k6f6t-ne-r-6ma-m k6f6t-o-r-6ma-m k6f6t-6ma-r-6ma-m k6f6t-xu-r-6ma-m k6f6t-xGma-r-6ma-m k6f6t-çG-r-6ma-m k6f w6c-↑↑-r-6ma-m

nG-kGftG-ne-r-6ma y6-kGft-o-r-6ma y6-kGft-6ma-r-6ma kGft-o-r-6ma kGft-6ma-r-6ma kGfcG-↑-r-6ma (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-r-6ma

nG-k6ftG-ne-p/k-6ma yG-k6ft-o-p/k-6ma yG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-6ma tG-k6ft-o-p/k-6ma tG-k6ft-6ma-p/k-6ma tG-k6fcG-↑-p/k-6ma yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-p/k-6ma

nG-k6ftG-ne-r-6ma yG-k6ft-o-r-6ma yG-k6ft-6ma-r-6ma tG-k6ft-o-r-6ma tG-k6ft-6ma-r-6ma tG-k6fcG-↑-r-6ma yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-r-6ma

nG-kGftG-n6-y-6ma y6-kGft-o-(y)y-6ma y6-kGft-6ma-y-6ma kGft-o-(y)y-6ma kGft-6ma-y-6ma kGfcG-↑-y-6ma (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-y-6ma

300

SOUND MUTATIONS

8. Subject conjugations with the 2SG MASC object suffix Perfective Imperfective Subjects Accusative/Dative I k6f6t-k6-m 6-k6ftG-x6 He k6f6t6-n-ax6-m yG-k6ftG-x6 She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-ax6-m tG-k6ftG-x6 nG-k6ftG-ne-k6 yG-k6ft-o-k6 yG-k6ft-6ma-k6 yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-k6

Imperative/Jussive nG-kGftG-x6 y6-kGftG-x6 tG-kGftG-x6

We They () They () Impersonal

k6f6t-ne-k6-m k6f6t-o-k6-m k6f6t-6ma-k6-m k6f w6c-↑↑-k6-m

I He She

Malefactive/Instrumental k6f6tG-ö-k6-m 6-k6ftG-ö-x6 k6f6t6-ö-x6-m yG-k6ftG-ö-x6 k6f6t6-c6/G-ö-x6-m tG-k6ftG-ö-x6

nG-kGftG-ö-x6 y6-kGftG-ö-x6 tG-kGftG-ö-x6


k6f6t-ne-ö-k6-m k6f6t-o-ö-k6-m k6f6t-6ma-ö-k6-m k6f w6cG-↑↑-ö-k6-m

nG-kGftG-ne-ö-k6 y6-kGft-o-ö-k6 y6-kGft-6ma-ö-k6 (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-ö-k6

I He She

k6f6tG-n-k6-m k6f6t6-n-x6-m k6f6t6-c6/G-n-x6-m


k6f6t-ne-n-k6-m k6f6t-o-n-k6-m k6f6t-6ma-n-k6-m k6f w6cG-↑↑-n-k6-m

nG-k6ftG-ne-ö-k6 yG-k6ft-o-ö-k6 yG-k6ft-6ma-ö-k6 yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-ö-k6

Benefactive 6-k6ftG-n-x6 yG-k6ftG-n-x6 tG-k6ftG-n-x6 nG-k6ftG-ne-n-k6 yG-k6ft-o-n-k6 yG-k6ft-6ma-n-k6 yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-n-k6

9. Subject conjugations with the 2SG FEM object suffix Perfective Imperfective Subjects Accusative/Dative I k6f6t-kyG-m 6-k6ftG-ç He k6f6t6-n-açG-m yG-k6ftG-ç She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-açG-m tG-k6ftG-ç

nG-kGftG-ne-k6 y6-kGft-o-k6 y6-kGft-6ma-k6 (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-k6

nG-kGftG-n-x6 y6-kGftG-n-x6 tG-kGftG-n-x6 nG-kGftG-ne-n-k6 y6-kGft-o-n-k6 y6-kGft-6ma-n-k6 (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-n-k6

Imperative/Jussive nG-kGftG-ç y6-kGftG-ç tG-kGftG-ç


k6f6t-ne-kyG-m k6f6t-o-kyG-m k6f6t-6ma-kyG-m k6f w6c-↑↑-kyG-m

I He She

Malefactive/Instrumental k6f6tG-ö-kyG-m 6-k6ftG-ö-ç k6f6t6-ö-çG-m yG-k6ftG-ö-ç k6f6t6-c6/G-ö-çG-m tG-k6ftG-ö-ç

nG-kGftG-ö-ç y6-kGftG-ö-ç tG-kGftG-ö-ç

We They ()

k6f6t-ne-ö-kyG-m k6f6t-o-ö-kyG-m

nG-kGftG-ne-ö-ky y6-kGft-o-ö-ky

nG-k6ftG-ne-ky yG-k6ft-o-ky yG-k6ft-6ma-ky yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-ky

nG-k6ftG-ne-ö-ky yG-k6ft-o-ö-ky

nG-kGftG-ne-ky y6-kGft-o-ky y6-kGft-6ma-ky (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-ky

301

OBJECT CLITICS They () Impersonal

k6f6t-6ma-ö-kyG-m k6f w6cG-↑↑-ö-kyG-m

I He She

k6f6tG-n-kyG-m k6f6t6-n-çG-m k6f6t6-c6/G-n-çG-m


k6f6t-ne-n-kyG-m k6f6t-o-n-kyG-m k6f6t-6ma-n-kyG-m k6f w6cG-↑↑-n-kyG-m

yG-k6ft-6ma-ö-ky yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-ö-ky

Benefactive 6-k6ftG-n-ç yG-k6ftG-n-ç tG-k6ftG-n-ç nG-k6ftG-ne-n-ky yG-k6ft-o-n-ky yG-k6ft-6ma-n-ky yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-n-ky

y6-kGft-6ma-ö-ky (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-ö-ky

nG-kGftG-n-ç y6-kGftG-n-ç tG-kGftG-n-ç nG-kGftG-ne-n-ky y6-kGft-o-n-ky y6-kGft-6ma-n-ky (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-n-ky

10. Subject conjugations with the 2PL MASC object suffix Perfective Imperfective Subjects Accusative/Dative I k6f6t-ku-m 6-k6ftG-xu He k6f6t6-n-axu-m yG-k6ftG-xu She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-axu-m tG-k6ftG-xu

nG-kGftG-xu y6-kGftG-xu tG-kGftG-xu


k6f6t-ne-ku-m k6f6t-o-ku-m k6f6t-6ma-ku-m k6f w6c-↑↑-ku-m

nG-kGftG-ne-ku y6-kGft-o-ku y6-kGft-6ma-ku (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-ku

I He She

Malefactive/Instrumental k6f6tG-ö-ku-m 6-k6ftG-ö-xu k6f6t6-ö-xu-m yG-k6ftG-ö-xu k6f6t6-c6/G-ö-xu-m tG-k6ftG-ö-xu

nG-kGftG-ö-xu y6-kGftG-ö-xu tG-kGftG-ö-xu


k6f6t-ne-ö-ku-m k6f6t-o-ö-ku-m k6f6t-6ma-ö-ku-m k6f w6cG-↑↑-ö-ku-m

nG-kGftG-ne-ö-ku y6-kGft-o-ö-ku y6-kGft-6ma-ö-ku (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-ö-ku

I He She

k6f6tG-n-ku-m k6f6t6-n-xu-m k6f6t6-c6/G-n-xu-m


k6f6t-ne-n-ku-m k6f6t-o-n-ku-m k6f6t-6ma-n-ku-m k6f w6cG-↑↑-n-ku-m

nG-k6ftG-ne-ku yG-k6ft-o-ku yG-k6ft-6ma-ku yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-ku

nG-k6ftG-ne-ö-ku yG-k6ft-o-ö-ku yG-k6ft-6ma-ö-ku yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-ö-ku

Benefactive 6-k6ftG-n-xu yG-k6ftG-n-xu tG-k6ftG-n-xu nG-k6ftG-ne-n-ku yG-k6ft-o-n-ku yG-k6ft-6ma-n-ku yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-n-ku

11. Subject conjugations with the 2PL FEM object suffix Perfective Imperfective Subjects Accusative/Dative I k6f6t-kGma-m 6-k6ftG-xma He k6f6t6-n-axma-m yG-k6ftG-xma She k6f6t6-c(6)-n-axma-m tG-k6ftG-xma

Imperative/Jussive

nG-kGftG-n-xu y6-kGftG-n-xu tG-kGftG-n-xu nG-kGftG-ne-n-ku y6-kGft-o-n-ku y6-kGft-6ma-n-ku (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-n-ku

Imperative/Jussive nG-kGftG-xma y6-kGftG-xma tG-kGftG-xma

302

SOUND MUTATIONS


k6f6t-ne-kma-m k6f6t-o-kma-m k6f6t-6ma-kma-m k6f w6c-↑↑-kGma-m

nG-k6ftG-ne-kma yG-k6ft-o-kma yG-k6ft-6ma-kma yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-kma

I He She

Malefactive/Instrumental k6f6tG-ö-kGma-m 6-k6ftG-ö-xGma k6f6t6-ö-xGma-m yG-k6ftG-ö-xGma k6f6t6-c6/G-ö-xGma-m tG-k6ftG-ö-xGma

nG-kGftG-ö-xGma y6-kGftG-ö-xGma tG-kGftG-ö-xGma


k6f6t-ne-ö-kGma-m k6f6t-o-ö-kGma-m k6f6t-6ma-ö-kGma-m k6f w6cG-↑↑-ö-kGma-m

nG-kGftG-ne-ö-kGma y6-kGft-o-ö-kGma y6-kGft-6ma-ö-kGma (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-ö-kGma

I He She

Benefactive k6f6tG-n-kGma-m 6-k6ftG-n-xGma k6f6t6-n-xGma-m yG-k6ftG-n-xGma k6f6t6-c6/G-n-xGma-m tG-k6ftG-n-xGma

nG-kGftG-n-xGma y6-kGftG-n-xGma tG-kGftG-n-xGma


k6f6t-ne-n-kGma-m k6f6t-o-n-kGma-m k6f6t-6ma-n-kGma-m k6f w6cG-↑↑-n-kGma-m

nG-kGftG-ne-n-kGma y6-kGft-o-n-kGma y6-kGft-6ma-n-kGma (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-n-kGma

nG-k6ftG-ne-ö-kGma yG-k6ft-o-ö-kGma yG-k6ft-6ma-ö-kGma yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-ö-kGma

nG-k6ftG-ne-n-kGma yG-k6ft-o-n-kGma yG-k6ft-6ma-n-kGma yG-k6f wcG-↑↑-n-kGma

nG-kGftG-ne-kma y6-kGft-o-kma y6-kGft-6ma-kma (y6-)kGf wcG-↑↑-kma

Conclusion

The data discussed in this book support the widely accepted idea that sonorants are laryngeally unspecified. They also argue for an analysis of ejectives as [constricted glottis], voiceless fricatives as [spread glottis] and voiced obstruents as [voice]. It has been shown that the phoneme /ö/ is an approximant while its allophones [b, p] are obstruents. It is argued that that the voiceless stops [p, k] are not underlying phonemes of Chaha. Exhaustive lists of verbs with a voiced penult were investigated in Chapter 2. It is proposed that the penult is an underlying geminate in all of them. The geminates devoice and degeminate if they are the rightmost obstruent of the root with a laryngeal specification whereas they degeminate without being devoiced when they are followed by an obstruent with a laryngeal specification. This is attributed to the constraint No Final Doubly Linked [voice]. All exceptions to the generalization (which violate No Final Doubly Linked [voice]) were discussed and it is shown that, for the most part, they do not form a homogeneous set. Because a labial, dorsal or coronal penult can resist devoicing, exceptions cannot be attributed to the place of the consonant expected to devoice. But the number of exceptions is proportionally higher in the coronal series — the only series with a voicing contrast. It was also argued that the exceptions are not due to borrowing. But I have demonstrated that all verbs with a doubled radical undergo devoicing if their geminate penult contains the rightmost laryngeal specification. When a voiced geminate penult is followed by a radical with a laryngeal specification it degeminates without being devoiced. This generalization holds for all such verbs, which were considered exceptional till now. This suggests that my analysis is correct. Geminate penult devoicing has shown that sonorants (including /ö/) and the default /t/ are laryngeally unspecified. Compensatory devoicing supports that the penult of the verbs under discussion is an underlying geminate. The Jussive of I-second quadriradicals and reduplicated biradicals shows that a deleted antepenult is compensated by devoicing the penult. In addition, such compensatory devoicing occurs only if the

304

CONCLUSION

[voice] of the penult is the rightmost laryngeal specification. The absence of compensatory devoicing when the final radical has a laryngeal specification follows from my analysis because the doubly linked [voice] of these forms is not the final laryngeal specification. It also follows from the antepenult-deletion analysis that the  violations in Ethiopian Semitic languages are only apparent. My analysis also explains why the so-called type B verbs always have a geminated penult. It also dispenses with the traditional classification of triradicals into types A, B and C by analyzing types B and C as quadriradicals. Now, we only have two verbal patterns: a short one with three C slots and a long one with four C slots (excluding the penultimate geminates in the Perfective of short and long patterns and Imperfective of the long pattern). I have submitted that [x] and [k] derive from the same phoneme /x/ and that, when singly linked, the distribution of the allophones is not determined by whether /x/ is pre- or postvocalic but by the continuancy specification of the radicals following /x/. If /x/ is followed by a [+] obstruent it strengthens to [k]. Strengthening is analyzed as the delinking of [+] from /x/. Approximants do not trigger delinking of [+] from a preceding /x/ and this is attributed to the claim that [+] is the unmarked stricture value in approximants so it is unspecified in them. Delinking results from either of the two constraints No Precontinuant [x] or No Geminate [x]. In conjunction with either of these two, No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem triggers strengthening of an otherwise acceptable /x/. These constraints account for all instances of [x] and [k] so appeal to pre- or postvocalic positions is unnecessary. In this respect, my analysis of [x] and [k] is radically different from previous analyses of spirantization. It was shown that a phonologically motivated reduplication (k6tkGt and sGkGk) is distinct from a morphologically motivated one (t6-sxax6r) in both form and meaning. /x/ necessarily strengthens in the first type but not in the second type. This is attributed to the proposal that the base and reduplicant of a phonologically motivated reduplication reside on the same tier while those of a morphologically motivated reduplication reside on different tiers. This distinction is also supported by arguments related to the insertion site of vowels within the base. Sonorant alternations are accounted for by postulating a single phoneme r and deriving its different realizations from Geminate Nasalization, Initial Nasalization and Penultimate Coda Nasalization. Sonorant alternations are mostly governed by syllabic considerations (being initial, geminate or penultimate coda) and not by the featural specification of the surrounding radicals. The interaction of devoicing (b, d, g → p, t, k), strengthening (x → k), nasalization (r → N), lateralization (r → l) and occlusivization (ö, U → b, bw) is discussed. These mutations are categorized in two; the first two form a class

CONCLUSION

305

of obstruent strengthening process and the last three form a class of sonorant strengthening process. The two types of strengthening were compared and contrasted. Differences between them lie in the fact that sonorant alternations mainly affect major class features such as [sonorant] and [approximant] (these are assumed to constitute the Root node) while obstruent alternations do not affect major class features. They affect features such as [voice] and [] (these are assumed to be dominated by the Root and other organizing nodes), which may observe restrictions (due to assimilatory or dissimilatory tendency) related to the [], [voice] or Laryngeal tier whereas similar restrictions normally do not hold for major class features such as sonorant, approximant or vocalic. Due to this, sonorant strengthening is not conditioned by features found below the Root node (i.e. /öö/ becomes b irrespective of the laryngeal specification of the final radical while the latter determines its devoicing). It was shown that sonorant strengthening takes place mainly due to double-linking of the Root (or Place) node or at word-initial positions, and not due to assimilatory or dissimilatory processes. Cluster simplification in totally reduplicated verbs was also discussed and it was argued that the markedness of the place of a consonant in question determines whether the coda dominating it in a stem-medial cluster should be deleted or not. The data led us to conclude that Coronal is the least and Labial the most marked articulators. In addition, compensatory gemination resulting from simplification was shown to support the proposed analysis of geminate devoicing and degemination. The impersonal labialization and palatalization in Chaha has long been a major challenge for linguistic theories. In this book many other affixes (in different contexts and languages) with simultaneous labialization and palatalization were documented and analyzed in all cases in unprecedented detail. It was proposed that labialization and palatalization are triggered by a unique phoneme /U/. This proposal gives a unified account for the different contexts and languages and eliminates the problem of discontinuous morphemes because both processes are now triggered by a unique underlying phoneme /U/. In other words, /U/ can surface as w(…)y, w, y and Ø depending on the nature of preceding consonants. It was also proposed that there is no [w] vs. [u] contrast and that there is no floating vs. nonfloating /U/. Labialization and palatalization in Gurage are absorbing processes, i.e. the vocoids /U, I/ trigger labialization and/or palatalization and they disappear. This creates an enrichment of the consonant system at the expense of the frequency of back and front vowels. That is, back and front vowels are much less frequent than central vowels. The disproportional nature of back, central and front vowels

306

CONCLUSION

is therefore (at least partially, because central vowels are more frequent even in languages without secondary articulation) a natural consequence of the observation that back and front vowels can turn into secondary articulation while central vowels cannot. It was shown that the linear order of subject suffixes is either variable (Q1) or invariable (Q2). I have claimed that whether a suffix is variable or invariable is not an idiosyncratic property; it is the characteristic common to the syntactic position occupied by that suffix. It was proposed that Q1 is subject clitic while Q2 is subject agreement, with the structures: [[[+ verb] Q1] Q2] and [[Q1 [− verb]] Q2]. In both structures Q1 is distinct and independent from Q2 but it is inseparable from aspect. In addition, Q1 is variable as it has a prefixal and suffixal position depending on the aspect of the verb. But Q2 is invariable; i.e. it has only a suffixal position. Learning the two structures and the category of the affix will suffice for the learner to know where to place the affixes. Hence, (s)he does not need to study the position of each affix in every aspect. In this view, my proposal minimizes the number of items to be learnt and is desirable from the perspective of language acquisition. Phonological processes affecting object clitics support the Q1 vs. Q2 distinction. Q1 suffixes are followed by Light object clitics while Q2 suffixes are followed by Heavy object clitics, regardless of similar phonemes found in both types of suffixes. Similarly, Q1 suffixes do not block 3  labialization whereas Q2 suffixes do block it, again regardless of the common phonemes of the suffixes. It was further argued that an abandoned Dorsal X of Q2 vocoids triggers gemination, velarization and palatalization. These generalizations cannot be captured in an analysis where floating features do not include organizing nodes and a fixed underlying site. To summarize, this book has been mainly concerned with sound mutations (obstruent and sonorant strengthening), floating features (the rise of secondary articulations) and the organization of subject affixes and object clitics. All these phenomena are intertwined. For instance, mutation in object clitics is the result of the rise of secondary articulation. In addition, mutations of the type [u/w/öw/bw/pw] are inseparable from the rise of secondary articulation. Whether the 3  object triggers labialization or not is conditioned by the type of the subject suffixes. Each of these processes has been previously treated as fragments of alternations. This book put forth a number of original and unifying analyses. Time and further research is indispensable to clarify, develop and test the proposals but it is my contention that most of them will provide fruitful avenue of research.

References

Ahn, S.-C. (1998). An introduction to Korean phonology. Seoul: Hanshin. Akinlabi, A. (1996). Featural affixation. Journal of Linguistics 32, 239–289. Aklilu, A. (1987). Amharic-English dictionary. Addis Ababa: Kuraz. Alderete, J. et al. (1997). Reduplication and segmental unmarkedness. Manuscript, Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Amberber, M. (1997). Transitivity alternation, event types and light verbs. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University. Anderson, H. (1968). IE *s after i, u, r, k in Baltic and Slavic. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 11.2, 171–190. Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Angoujard, J.-P. (1988). Gémination et redoublement. Langues orientales anciennes. Philologie et linguistique 1, 1–15. Archangeli, D. & D. Pulleyblank. (1994). Grounded phonology. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Banksira, D. P. (1992). Vowel licensing. The proceedings of the 1992 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, edited by C. Dyck, J. Ghomeshi and T. Wilson, 1–12. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics. (Be advised that my works from 1993–1998 appear as Petros, D.) Banksira, D. P. (1997). The sound system of Chaha. Ph.D. dissertation, Université du Québec à Montréal. Banksira, D. P. (2000). Words without a lexical category. To appear in Lingua Posnaniensis. Bender, M. L. & H. Fulass. (1978). Amharic verb morphology: A generative approach. East Lansing: African Studies Center. Benua, L. (1995). Identity effects in morphological truncation. University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality

308

REFERENCES

Theory, edited by J. Beckman, L.W. Dickey & S. Urbanczyk, 77–136. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association. Berhane, G. (1991). Issues in the phonology and morphology of Tigrinya. Doctoral dissertation, Université du Québec à Montréal. Beyene, T. (1973). Aspects of the verb in Amharic. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University. Beyene, T. (1980). A note on two process verbs in Amharic. Journal of Ethiopian Studies 14, 123–130. Bhat, D. N. S. (1978). A general study of palatalization. Universals of human language. Vol. 2, Phonology, edited by J. H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson & E.A. Moravcsik, 47–92. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Broselow, E. (1984). Default consonants in Amharic morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 15–29. Browman, C. & L. Goldstein. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6, 201–251. Buckley, E. (1990). Edge-in association and OCP ‘violations’ in Tigrinya. The proceedings of the ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by A.L. Halpern, 75–90. Palo Alto: Stanford Linguistics Association. Calabrese, A. (1995). A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and simplification procedures. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 373–463. Cantineau, J. (1946). Esquisse d’une phonologie de l’arabe classique. Bulletin de la société linguistique de Paris 43, 93–140. Chamora, B. (1997). The phonology of Inor verbs. MA Thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal. Chomsky, N. & M. Halle. (1968). The sound pattern of English. London: Harper & Row. Clements, G. N. & E. V. Hume. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. The handbook of phonological theory, edited by J.A. Goldsmith, 245–306. Oxford: Blackwell. Cohen, M. (1970). Traité de langue amharique (abyssinie). Paris: Institut d’ethnologie. Cole, D.T. (1955). Introduction to Tswana grammar. London. Cole, J. (1987). Planar phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cowan, H. K. J. (1965). Grammar of the Sentani language. ‘sGravenhage. De Jong, K. (1995). On the status of redundant features: the case of backing and rounding in American English. Phonology and phonetic evidence: Papers in laboratory phonology IV, edited by Connell, B. and A. Arvaniti, 68–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

REFERENCES

309

Demoz, A. (1964). The meaning of some derived verbal stems in Amharic. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. Denais, M. (1990). Éléments de phonologie et de morphologie tigrigna (éthiopien septentrional). Doctoral dissertation, Université de Nice. Di Sciullo, A.-M. & E. Williams. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Dillmann, A. (1907). Ethiopic grammar, 2nd edition. Translated from German by James A. Crichton. London: Williams and Norgate. Elmedlaoui, M. (1992). Aspects des représentations phonologiques dans certaines langues chamito-sémitiques. Thèse de Doctorat d’État, Rabat, Université Mohammed V. Eshun, F. B. (1993). Aspects of Akan Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Ford, C. M. (1991). Notes on the phonology and grammar of Chaha-Gurage. Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 3, 231–296. Frew, S. (1994). Le système verbale de l’amharique contemporain. Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris V. Fulass, H. (1966). Derived nominal patterns in Amharic. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. Fulmer, L. S. (1990). Dual-position affixes in Afar: An argument for phonologically-driven morphology. The proceedings of the ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by A.L. Halpern, 189–203. Palo Alto: Stanford Linguistics Association. Gafos, A. (1996). The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University. Goldenberg, G. (1968). Kestaneñña. Studies in a Northern Gurage language of Christians. Orientalia Suecana 17, 61–102. Goldenberg, G. (1994). Principles of Semitic word-structure. Semitic and Cushitic studies, edited by G. Goldenberg & S. Raz, 29–64. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Greenberg, J. (1950). The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word 6, 162–181. Guerssel, M. (1977). Constraints on phonological rules. Linguistic Analysis 3, 267–307. Guerssel, M. & J. Lowenstamm. (1995). Issues in Classical Arabic phonology and morphology. Manuscript, Montreal, Université du Québec à Montréal and Paris, Université de Paris VII. Haile, A. (1987). An autosegmental approach to Amharic intonation. Doctoral dissertation, University of London.

310

REFERENCES

Halefom, G. (1994). The syntax of functional categories: A case study of Amharic. Doctoral dissertation, Université du Québec à Montréal. Halefom, G. & J. S. Lumsden. (1998). Subject clitics in verb conjugations of Classical Arabic. Manuscript, Montreal: Université du Québec à Montréal. Halle, M. (1977). Tenseness, vowelshift, and the phonology of back vowels in Modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 611–625. Halle, M. (1992). The Latvian declension. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, edited by G. Booij & J. van Marle, 33–47. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Halle, M. (1997). Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30, 425–449. Halle, M. & A. Marantz. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by K. Hale, & S.J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press. Halle, M. & K. P. Mohanan. (1985). Segmental Phonology of Modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 57–116. Halle, M. & K. N. Stevens. (1971). A note on laryngeal features. MIT quarterly progress report 11, 198–213. Harris, J. (1994). English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell. Hayes, B. (1986). Inalterability in CV phonology. Language 62.2, 321–351. Hayes, B. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 253–306. Hayward, R. (1988). In defense of skeletal tier. Studies in African Linguistics 19.2, 131–171. Heath, J. (1987). Ablaut and ambiguity: Phonology of a Moroccan Arabic dialect. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hendriks, P. (1989). Palatalization and labialization as morphemes in Chaha. Manuscript, New Haven: Yale University. Hetzron, R. (1968). Main verb-markers in Northern Gurage. Africa 38, 156–172. Hetzron, R. (1969). Third person singular pronoun suffixes in Proto-Semitic. Orientalia Suecana 8, 101–127. Hetzron, R. (1971). Internal labialization in the tt-Group of Outer South-Ethiopic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 91, 192–207. Hetzron, R. (1972a). Ethiopian Semitic: Studies in classification. (Journal of Semitic Studies, Monograph no. 2). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

REFERENCES

311

Hetzron, R. (1972b). The shape of a rule and diachrony. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 35, 451–475. Hetzron, R. (1975). The t-converb in Western Gurage. Afroasiatic Linguistics 2.2, 39–50. Hetzron, R. (1977). The Gunnän-Gurage languages. Napoli: Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Hetzron, R. (1996). The two futures in Central and Peripheral Western Gurage. Essays on Gurage language and culture, edited by G. Hudson, 101–110. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Hetzron, R. & H. M. Marcos. (1966). Des traits pertinents superposés en ennemor. Journal of Ethiopian Studies 4, 17–30. Hoberman, R. D. (1988) Local and long-distance spreading in Semitic morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6.4, 541–577. Hudson, G. (1974). The representation of non-productive alternation. Historical linguistics II: Theory and description of phonology, edited by J.M. Anderson & C. Jones, 203–229. Amsterdam: North Holland. Inkelas, S. & C. Zoll. (1999). Reduplication as double stem selection. Paper presented at Phonology 2000, Harvard and MIT, April 30. Itô, J. & A. Mester. (1986). The phonology of voicing in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 49–73. Itô, J., A. Mester & J. Padgett. (1995). Licensing and underspecification in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 571–613. Johnson, D. C. (1975). Phonological channels in Chaha. Afroasiatic Linguistics 2.2, 25–37. Kaye, J. & J. Lowenstamm. (1984). De la syllabicité. Forme sonore du langage, edited by F. Dell, D. Hirst & J.-R. Vergnaud, 123–159. Paris: Hermann. Kaye, J., J. Lowenstamm & J.-R. Vergnaud. (1985). The internal structure of phonological representations: A theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2, 303–326. Kaye, J., J. Lowenstamm & J.-R. Vergnaud. (1990). Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7.2, 193–231. Kenstowicz, M. (1982). Gemination and spirantization in Tigrinya. Studies in the Linguistic Science 12, 103–122. Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Kenstowicz, M. (1995). Base-identity and uniform exponence: Alternative to cyclicity. Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, edited by J. Durand & B. Laks, 363–393. Stanford: University of Stanford Publications. Kenstowicz, M. & D. P. Banksira. (1999). Reduplicative identity in Chaha. Linguistic Inquiry 30.47, 573–585.

312

REFERENCES

Kenstowicz, M. & C. Kisseberth. (1979). Generative phonology: Description and theory. New York: Academic Press. Keyser, S.J. & K. N. Stevens. (1994). Feature geometry and the vocal tract. Phonology 11, 207–236. Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2, 85–138. Ladefoged, P. & I. Maddieson. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell. Leslau, W. (1941). Documents tigrigna (éthiopien septentrional): grammaire et textes. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck. Leslau, W. (1948). Le problème de la gémination du verbe tchaha. Word 4, 42–47. (Reproduced in Leslau 1992, 493–498). Leslau, W. (1950). Ethiopic documents: Gurage. New York: The Viking Fund. Leslau, W. (1956). Études descriptive et comparative du gafat (éthiopien méridional). Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck. Leslau, W. (1957). Une hypothèse sur la forme primitive du type B en amharique. Word 13, 479–488. Leslau, W. (1964). The jussive in Chaha. Language 40, 53–57. (Reproduced in Leslau 1992, 425–429). Leslau, W. (1967). The impersonal in Chaha. To honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, 1150–1162. The Hague: Mouton. (Reproduced in Leslau 1992, 430–443). Leslau, W. (1976). The triradicals of the Gurage dialect of Endegenˇ. Israel Oriental Studies 6, 138–154. (Reproduced in Leslau 1992, 430–443). Leslau, W. (1978). Spirantization in the Ethiopian languages. Atti del secondo congresso internazionale di linguistica camito-semitica, Firenze, 16–19 aprile 1974. (Instituto di linguistica e di lingue orientali. Università di Firenze) 176–199. (Reproduced in Leslau 1992, 608–631). Leslau, W. (1979). Etymological dictionary of Gurage (Ethiopic), 3 volumes. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Leslau, W. (1985). The liquid l in Hadiyya and in West Gurage. Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Maxime Rodinson. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 231–238. (Reproduced in Leslau 1992, 356–363). Leslau, W. (1992). Gurage studies: Collected articles. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Leslau, W. (1995). Reference grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

REFERENCES

313

Lieber, R. (1988). Configurational and nonconfigurational morphology. Morphology and modularity, edited by M. Everaert et al., 187–215. Dordrecht: Foris. Lieber, R. (1992). Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lochak, D. (1960). Basque phonemics. Anthropological Linguistics 2.3, 12–31. Lombardi, L. (1991). Laryngeal features and laryngeal neutralization. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Lombardi, L. (1995). Laryngeal neutralization and syllable wellformedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 39–74. Lorimer, D. L. R. (1935). The Burushaski language. Vol. 1, Introduction and grammar. Oslo: H. Aschehoug. Lowenstamm, J. (1986). À propos d’une hypothèse sur la forme primitive du type B en amharique. Revue québécoise de linguistique 16, 157–180. Lowenstamm, J. (1991a). Vocalic length and centralization in two branches of Semitic. Semitic studies in honor of Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his 85th birthday. Vol. 2, edited by A.S. Kaye, 949–965. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Lowenstamm, J. (1991b). The verbs of Chaha. Paper presented at MontrealOttawa-Toronto Phonology Conference, Montreal, February. Lowenstamm, J. (1996a). CV as the only possible syllable type. Current trends in phonology. Vol. 2, edited by J. Durand & B. Laks, 419–441. Salford: European Studies Research Institute. Lowenstamm, J. (1996b). Five puzzling Chaha verbs: An exercise in practical morphophonemics. Essays on Gurage language and culture, edited by G. Hudson, 123–132. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Lowenstamm, J. & J. Kaye. (1986). Compensatory Lengthening in Tiberian Hebrew. Studies in compensatory lengthening, edited by L. wetzels & E. Sezer, 97–132. Dordrecht: Foris. Lowenstamm, J. & S. A. El M’hammedi. (1996). On the correctness of the biliteral analysis of mediae geminatae verbs. Langues orientales anciennes. Philologie et linguistique 5, 127–132. Lowenstamm, J. & J.-F. Prunet. (1986). Le tigrinya et le principe du contour obligatoire. Revue québécoise de linguistique 16.1, 181–208. Lumsden, J. S. (1987). Syntactic features: Parametric variation in the history of English. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lumsden, J. S. (1992). Underspecification in grammatical and natural gender. Linguistic Inquiry 23.3, 469–486.

314

REFERENCES

Lumsden, J. S. & G. Halefom. (1999). A minimal theory of inflection. Manuscript, Montreal: Université du Québec à Montréal. Manahlot, D. (1977). Nominal clauses in Amharic. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University. Marcos, H. M. (1974). Palatalization in Ennemor. Proceedings of IV Congresso Internazionale di Studi Etiopici, Tomo II. Accademia Nazionale dei lincei, 251–265. Martinet, A. (1981). Fricatives and spirants. Suniti Chatterji Commemoration 29.10, 145–151. McCarthy, J. J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 373–418. McCarthy, J. J. (1983). Consonantal morphology in the Chaha verb. The proceedings of the second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by M. Balow, D. Flickinger & M. Wescoat, 176–188. Palo Alto: Stanford Linguistics Association. McCarthy, J. J. (1986a). Lexical phonology and nonconcatenative morphology in the history of Chaha. Revue québécoise de linguistique 16.1, 209–228. McCarthy, J. J. (1986b). OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 207–263. McCarthy, J. J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency. Phonetica 43, 84–108. McCarthy, J. J. (1994). The phonology and phonetics of Semitic pharyngeals. Phonological structure and phonetic form: Papers from laboratory phonology. Vol. 3, edited by P. Keating, 191–234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, J. J. & A. Prince. (1993). Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts and Rutgers University. McCarthy, J. J. & A. Prince. (1995). Prosodic morphology. The handbook of phonological theory, edited by J. Goldsmith, 318–366. Oxford: Blackwell. Miller, W. R. (1967). Uto-Aztecan cognate sets. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mullen, D. S. (1986). Issues in the morphology and phonology of Amharic: The lexical generation of pronominal clitics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa. Noyer, R. (1992). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

REFERENCES

315

O’Leary, D.L. (1923). Comparative grammar of the Semitic languages. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. LTD. (Reprinted in 1969, Amsterdam: Philo Press) Odden, D. (1994). Adjacency parameters in phonology. Language 70.2, 289–330. Ohala, J. J. & C. J. Riordan. (1979). Passive vocal tract enlargement during voiced stops. Speech communication papers presented at the 97th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, edited by J. J. Wolf & D. H. Klatt, 78–88. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Paradis, C. (1992). Lexical phonology and morphology: The nominal classes in Fula. New York: Garland Publishing. Paradis, C. (1993). Ill-formedness in the dictionary: A source of constraint violation. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38.2, 215–234. Perkell, J. S. M. L. Matthies, M. A. Svirsky and M. I. Jordan. (1993). Trading Relations between tongue-body raising and lip rounding in production of the vowell /u/: A pilot “motor equivalence” study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93, 2948–2961. Petros, D. (1993a). La dérivation verbale en chaha. MA Thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal. Petros, D. (1993b). Sur la formation du verbe dans les langues sémitiques. The proceedings of the 1993 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 477–492. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics. Petros, D. (1994). On Prefix-necessitating roots. New trends in Ethiopian studies, Papers of the 12th international conference of Ethiopian studies. Vol. 1, edited by H. G. Marcus, 1220–1236. Lawrenceville: The Red Sea Press. Petros, D. (1995). The role of gemination on continuancy and voicing. The proceedings of the 1995 conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, edited by P. Koskinen, 423–434. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics. Petros, D. (1996a). On the absence of Agr-S: Evidence from Ethiopian Semitic languages. Configurations: Essays on structure and interpretation, edited by A.-M. Di Sciullo, 129–160. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Petros, D. (1996b). Sonorant alternations in Chaha. Essays on Gurage language and culture, edited by G. Hudson, 153–173. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Piggott, G. (1992). Variability and feature dependency: The case of nasality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 33–78. Polotsky, J. H. (1938). Études de grammaire gouragué. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 34.2, 137–175. (Reproduced in Polotsky 1971, 477–515)

316

REFERENCES

Polotsky, J. H. (1951). Notes on Gurage grammar. Jerusalem: Israel Oriental Society. (Reproduced in Polotsky 1971, 519–573). Polotsky, J. H. (1971). Collected papers. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. Press, J. I. (1986). Aspects of the Phonology of the Slavonic Languages: The Vowel y and the Consonantal Correlation of Palatalization. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Prince, A. & P. Smolensky. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Manuscript, Rutgers University and University of Colorado. Prunet, J.-F. (1990). The origin and interpretation of French loans in Carrier. International Journal of African Linguistics 56.4, 484–502. Prunet, J.-F. (1992). Spreading and locality domains in phonology. New York: Garland Publishing. Prunet, J.-F. (1996a). Some core properties of Semitic morphology: Evidence from the far South. Current trends in phonology. Vol. 2, edited by J. Durand and B. Laks, 617–652. Salford: European Studies Research Institute. Prunet, J.-F. (1996b). Guttural Vowels. Essays on Gurage language and culture, edited by G. Hudson, 175–203. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Prunet, J.-F & D. Petros. (1996). L’interaction entre schèmes et racines en chaha. Studies in Afroasiatic grammar, edited by J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm & U. Shlonsky, 302–336. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Raz, S. (1983). Tigre grammar and texts. Afroasiatic Dialects 4, 1–148. Rice, K. (1992). On deriving sonority: A structural account of sonority relationship. Phonology 9, 61–99. Rice, K. (1994). Peripheral in consonants. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 39, 191–216. Rose, S. (1992). De la palatalisation en chaha. MA Thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal. Rose, S. (1994a). Palatalization, underspecification, and plane conflation in Chaha. The proceedings of the twelfth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by E. Duncan, D. Farkas & P. Spaelti, 101–116. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Rose, S. (1994b). The historical development of secondary articulation in Gurage. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 20, special session on historical issues in African linguistics. Rose, S. (1995). Ethio-Semitic inflectional affix order: A phonological solution. Langues orientales anciennes. Philologie et linguistique 5–6, 259–291. Rose, S. (1996). Allomorphy and morphological categories in Muher. Essays on Gurage language and culture, edited by G. Hudson, 205–227. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

REFERENCES

317

Rose, S. (1997). Theoretical issues in comparative Ethio-Semitc phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University. Rubach, J. (1996). Nonsyllabic analysis of voice assimilation in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 69–110. Sagey, E. (1990). The representation of features in non-linear phonology: The articulator node hierarchy. New York: Garland Publishing. Schein, B. (1981). Spirantization in Tigrinya. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 3, 32–41 Schein, B. & D. Steriade. (1986). On geminates. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 691–744. Scobbie, J. M. (1991). Attribute value phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Steriade, D. (1995). Underspecification and markedness. The handbook of phonological theory, edited by J. A. Goldsmith, 114–174. Oxford: Blackwell. Stevens, K. N. S. J. Keyser and H. Kawasaki. (1986). Toward a phonetic and phonological Theory of redundant features. Invariance and variability in speech processes, edited by Perkell, J. S. and D. H. Klatt, 426–449. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tsujimura, T (1996). An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Ullendorff, E. (1955). The Semitic languages of Ethiopia: A comparative phonology. London: Taylor’s Foreign Press. Vaux, B. (1998). The laryngeal specification of fricatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 29.3, 497–511. Voigt, R. (1988). Labialization and the so-called sibilant anomaly in Tigrinya. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 60.3, 525–536. Voigt, R. (1990). The gemination of the present-imperfect forms in Old Ethiopic. Journal of Semitic Studies, 35.1, 1–18. Yimam, B. (1994). yamarG\\a s6wasGw [Amharic grammar]. Addis Ababa, Educational Materials Production and Distribution Agency (EMPDA). Yip, M. (1988). Templatic morphology and the direction of association. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 551–577. Yip, M. (1991). Coronals, clusters, and the coda condition. Phonetics and phonology: The special status of coronals, internal and external evidence, edited by C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet, 61–78. San Diego: Academic Press. Zoll, C. C. (1996). Parsing below the segment in a constraint based framework. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.

Name Index

A Ahn, S. C., 128 Akinlabi, A., 190, 283 Aklilu, A., 86 Alderete, J. et al, 176 Amberber, M., 88 Anderson, H., 211, 212 Anderson, S. R., xxx Angoujard, J.-P., 64, 173 Archangeli, D., 239 B Banksira, D. P., see also Petros, D., 29, 75, 116, 131, 141, 148 Bender, M. L., 245 Benua, L., 138 Berhane, G., 218, 223, 226, 227, 228, 229, 243 Beyene, T., 40, 84, 188, 223 Bhat, D. N. S., 211, 236 Broselow, E., 55, 88 Browman, C., 175 C Calabrese, A., 11, 76 Cantineau, J., 5 Chamora, B., 35, 58, 84, 127, 128, 155 Chomsky, N., 6, 164, 211, 212 Clements, G. N., 171, 175 Cohen, M., 21 Cole, D. T., 212 Cowan, H. K. J., 211

D De Jong, K., 190 Demoz, A., 88 Denais, M., 97, 229 Di Sciullo, A.-M., 186 Dillmann, A., 89, 194, 195, 198, 200, 243 E Elmedlaoui, M., 221 Eshun, F. B., 212 F Ford, C. M., 9, 24, 128, 241, 262, 263 Frew, S., 245 Fulass, H., 245 Fulmer, L. S., 245 G Gafos, A., 64, 113, 173 Goldenberg, G., 44, 54, 261, 262, 263, 290 Goldstein, L., 175 Greenberg, J., 5 Guerssel, M., 97, 129 H Halefom, G., 241, 242, 243, 245, 253 Halle, M., 4, 6, 164, 212, 243, 245 Harris, J., 6 Hayes, B., 89 Hayward, R., 17, 127, 133 Heath, J., 78

320

NAME INDEX

Hendriks, P., 239 Hetzron, R., 4, 5, 15, 20, 44, 54, 58, 100, 125, 134, 147, 198, 199, 202, 209, 210, 215, 227, 234, 237, 238, 241, 243, 250, 261, 162, 163, 164, 265, 274, 278, 283, 287, 290, 291 Hudson, G., 58 Hume, E. V., 171, 175 I Inkelas, S., 38 Itô, J., 12, 76 J Johnson, D. C., 16, 189, 239 Jordan, M. I., 190 K Kawasaki, H., 190 Kaye, J., 89, 185 Kenstowicz, M., 78, 91, 97, 111, 138, 164 Keyser, 175, 190 Kiparsky, S. J., 76 Kisseberth, C., 78 L Ladefoged, 6, 21, 163, 164, 171 Leslau, W., xxvi, xxx, 4, 5, 8, 9, 21, 23, 25, 42, 43, 44, 53, 54, 58, 66, 75, 86, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 100, 101, 103, 106, 108, 115, 121, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 133, 142, 146, 151, 189, 194, 197, 200, 207, 209, 214, 217, 221, 229, 231, 233, 234, 237, 239, 241, 243, 249, 253, 262, 263 Lieber, xxx, 189, 207, 209 Lochak, D., 211 Lombardi, L., 4, 76, 78

Lorimer, D. L. R., 212 Lowenstamm, J., 2, 24, 33, 58, 61, 86, 89, 97, 129, 134, 146, 150, 185, 199, 277, 278, 279 Lumsden, J., 245, 248 M Maddieson, I., 6, 21, 163, 164, 171 Marcos, H. M., 134, 198, 199, 215, 278 Martinet, A., 4 Matthies, L., 190 McCarthy, J. J., 4, 11, 42, 43, 44, 54, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 71, 72, 93, 99, 112, 114, 125, 133, 143, 171, 173, 175, 189, 209, 238, 239, 283 Mester, A., 12, 76 Miller, W. R., 211 Mohanan, K. P., 212 Mullen, D. S., 267 N Noyer, R., 245 O Odden, D., 117, 143 Ohala, J. J., 78 P Padgett, J., 12, 76 Paradis, C., 55, 99, 164 Perkell, J. S. M., 190 Petros, D., see also Banksira, D. P., 2, 4, 6, 12, 18, 19, 22, 24, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 58, 61, 71, 72, 84, 93, 95, 100, 115, 125, 128, 131, 134, 136, 137, 138, 146, 155, 168, 226, 238, 239, 242, 243 Piggott, G., 175

NAME INDEX

321

Polotsky, J. H., 5, 22, 89, 100, 125, 129, 146, 217, 234, 237, 238, 243, 249, 261, 262, 263, 271, 282, 284, 290, 291 Press, J. I., 212 Prince, A., 11, 99, 114, 133 Prunet, J.-F., 2, 19, 24, 29, 33, 55, 58, 61, 70, 84, 97, 100, 106, 108, 115, 128, 134, 136, 143, 146, 155, 181, 197, 225

Smolensky, P., 99 Steriade, D., 11, 76, 171 Stevens, K. N. S., 4, 175, 190 Svirsky, M. A., 190

R Raz, S., 200, 218, 229, 243 Rice, K., 175 Riordan, C. J., 78 Rose, S., 2, 25, 58, 64, 113, 128, 134, 146, 147, 173, 187, 189, 191, 192, 200, 207, 210, 211, 213, 253, 278 Rubach, J., 76, 78

V Vaux, B., 4 Vergnaud, J.-R., 568 Voigt, R., 84, 212, 229, 230, 231, 232

S Sagey, E., 146, 188 Schein, B., 97, 171 Scobbie, J. M., 64, 97

T Tsujimura, T., 212 U Ullendorff, E., 231, 232

W Williams, E., 186 Y Yimam, Baye 245 Yip, m., 38, 178, 180 Z Zoll, C. C., 38, 189, 215

Subject Index

A /A/ as, see also vocoids /I,U,A/ fricative and sonorant 12, 100, 104–105, 105n, 108 front vowel 22–23, 107 radical 8 consonant 24 Amharic xxvii, 8, 14, 21, 40, 42, 48–51, 54, 59–61, 83–90 articulators markedness xxix, 175, 180–183 dual dependency of Dorsal xxix, 176 hierarchical organization of 175–176 interaction with cluster simplification 176–183 aspect specifications of xxxi, 32, 43, 244–247, 268 interactions with tense and mood 250–255 assimilation of, see also fusion of /N/ and /r/ laryngeal features 8–9, 12–14 N to a following consonant 127n, 167–170 B /ö/ as a sonorant (specifically approximant) 2, 11–12, 15–21, 39

base-reduplicant — identity, internal structure 111, 113–114, 122 blocking of devoicing 43–45, 54, 63–64, 67, 74 3  labialization 262n, 283–287 borrowing, see also exceptions to geminate devoicing and degemination without devoicing 44, 54, 81–83 and epenthesis 109 and exceptional strengthening of /x/ 104–105 and nasalization 109 interaction with PCN 145 ejectivization, voicing or spirantization of voiceless stops 10–11 C classification of Ethiopian Semitic languages xxvii cluster simplification — in totally reduplicated verbs clusters having /r/ as one member 181–182 coronal-peripheral clusters 178–179 dorsal-anterior clusters 179–180 labial-lingual clusters 177–178 summary of 180 compensatory, see also cluster simplification, depalatalization

324

SUBJECT INDEX

devoicing in Chaha 56–61, 63–64, 66–74, 83–88, 176–183 gemination in Amharic type B verbs 84–88 gemination in Amharic C1VC1C1VC2 verbs 88–90 lengthening, lack of 218 strengthening (of /x/ to [k]) 104 complementary nature of, see also minimal pairs, distribution of /r/ and /I/ 277–279 clitics and the vocoids /I,U,A/ of Q1 suffixes 257 conjugation forms (= stem types) basic 32–35 expanded by affixation: a-stem, at-stem and t6-stem 35–37 expanded by reduplication 37–39 conjugation of √kft ‘open’ 294–302 consonant clusters, see also epenthesis initial, medial and final 17–18, 25–26, 126–127 underlying vs. surface 25–26 consonant enrichment xxix–xxx, 236–237 consonants of Chaha, see also continuancy specification, laryngeal specification alveopalatals 2 b, p and k as lacking from UR 2, 6–7 bilabials 2, 7, 12–21 classifications of continuant consonants 20 continuant obstruents (= fricatives and the spirant x) 2, 4–6 coronal sonorants 2, 12, 21–22 lenis segments as underlying 4 lingual stops 4, 6–11 palatalized velars as palatals 7–8 underlying and phonetic inventory xxvii, 1–4, 39–40

with secondary articulation as biphonemic 2–4, 136 consonants-vowel asymmetry xxx constraints No Different Allophones of /x/ in a Stem xxviii, 111, 113–116, 122, 123 No Doubly Linked Final [voice] xxviii, 76–80 No Geminate [x] xxviii, 116, 122 No Precontinuant [x] xxviii, 96, 99, 105–107, 109, 111–119, 121–123, 172–173 continuancy specification, see also redundancy rules, underspecification approximants and obstruent stops as [ ] 2, 15, 118–119 ö as approximant and obstruent 120 fricatives and /A/ as [+] 117 nasals as [−] 119 Coronal Palatalization 192–193, 210–214, 236 D decomposition, see also labialization and palatalization, 188–193, 207, 216, 218–219, 228, 229n, 233, 236–237 degemination, see also devoicing and degemination as a synchronic process 32–33 without devoicing as an exception, see exceptions to geminate devoicing as the elsewhere rule 44, 45, 51–54, 62–66, 68–73, 76–79, 81–83, 177–180 previous explanations 43–44, 54, 63–67, 74, 80–83 structural description of 44–45, 54, 76–79, 81

SUBJECT INDEX delabialization of -xw to -x 242, 255, 257 deleted radicals — interactions with G-epenthesis and assimilation 25–26 deletion of /U/ 217–218 denasalization 143n, 282n depalatalization, see also cluster simplification, compensatory, 56–63, 71, 104, 222 devoicing and degemination, see also degemination, occlusivization of geminates and being the right most obstruent of a morpheme 44–45 and preceding phonemes 45 as final devoicing 78 devoicing being optional 51, 60, 81–82 diachronic vs. synchronic 43–44 for compensatory reason, see also compensatory, 56–61, 176–183 in affixes 45, 74–75 in m6k6r type and n6:6d type verbs 41 in nouns and adjectives 74 in the Imperfective 41–42 in the Jussive and Perfective of I-second quadriradicals 56–61 in verbs with a doubled radical 61–74 lack of 75–76 structural description of 44–45, 54, 76–79, 81 devoicing of sonorants vs. obstruents 14 discontinuous morphemes 189, 190, 235 dissimilation, OCP-triggered and adjacency 143 in continuancy 96 in nasality 142–144 Distributed Morphology xxxi, 244

325

distribution of, see also complementary nature of, consonants of Chaha, minimal pairs ö, b and p 7, 12–21 coronal sonorants in prefixes 21, 154–157 phonemes as a final radical 53 phonemes in affixes 11–12 r and front vowel 20, 145–150, 225–226 r, l and n xxix, 21–22, 126–131, 152–157 stops 6–10 x and k xxviii–xxix, 4, 6, 91–123 Dorsal Fusion 271–272, 278–279 Dorsal or Labial Suppression 275 Dorsal Palatalization 192, 210, 212 doubling copy vs. (long-distance) geminate 110, 113, 116, 172–173 morphologically motivated vs. phonologically motivated 114–115 E edge-in association 38, 72 elsewhere realization of /x/ 102–105, 109 Endegenˇ xxvii, 42, 108 epenthesis, see also deleted radicals initial [G] 154–157, 168 insertion sites of [G] 25–29, 133, 134 interaction of [G] with geminates 27n, 29, 154–157, 188 interaction of [G] with  131–134 of [G] to replace a deleted segment 29, 188, 199, 205, 218, 236–237 of [m] to break hiatus 248n of [n] by analogy 264–265 of [t] 10, 85–86 of glides to break hiatus 30–31

326

SUBJECT INDEX

etymological reconstruction of assimilated stops 9 /A/ 22, 95 k 108 x 92 exceptional, see also phonetic geminates deletion of /U/ 217–218 devoicing in n6:6d-type 53 lack of penult gemination in Perfective 52n nonfloating /U/ in fat’ur-a 203 mot 20 -u 234 -w6t 218–219 strengthening of /x/ 104, 105, 109 exceptions to geminate devoicing borrowing as explanation, 44, 54, 81–83 in A-final verbs 49–50 in general 46, 60, 81–83 in I-second quadriradicals 59 in obstruent-final verbs, apparently 54 in r-final verbs 47–48 in verbs with a doubled radical 65 in verbs with a final bilabial 51 in verbs with a final high vocoid 50–51 exceptions to the strengthening of /x/ 97, 98, 101, 103, 105–108, 110, 112, 115n Eža xxvii, 42–43, 44n, 57, 151 F feature-changing rule 14, 63–65, 80, 93, 96 feature-filling rule 14, 63–65, 80 features (phonological) major class vs. others xxix, 171 marked vs. unmarked xxviii, 4, 17

monovalent/single-valued features 4, 23, 143, 159 [nasal] as the only non-major class feature needed to contrast bilabials 15–16 final doubling and the sonorant nature of C2 in C1VC2C3VC3 18–19 interaction with  139–140 involving /x/ 112–113 involving a voiced radical 61–64 floating, see also decomposition, exceptional nonfloating /U/ in, and linear order of affixes xxx leftward direction of 190, 194, 196, 202, 205, 208, 219 versus nonfloating /U/ 218–219, 233–235 focus suffix 12n free variation of, see also metathesis, labialization — optional 6 and a as a vowel of reduplicant 38 ö, p and k, see also velarization, 56–58, 75, 262n, 274–275, 291 -c6 and -c 257 C1VC2C1VC2 and C1VC1VC2 73 fna, a-w6na and a-na 219–220 VCCGCV and VCGCCV 27 voiced and voiceless due to optional devoicing 51, 60, 81–82 w and ö 148 w and y in Tigre, exceptionally 229n w and y in Tigrinya 229 x and k 103n y6- and ø- in the impersonal 254 Š and j in Amharic 87 French object agreements vs. clitics, see also object clitics, 266–267 frequency of front, central and back vowels xxix-xxx frequentative, see medial doubling

SUBJECT INDEX fricatives vs. spirant 4–6 fusion of /N/ and /r/ 163, 165–166 G Geäez xxvii, 8n, 42, 84, 89, 194, 198–200, 217, 227, 234n, 243n Geminate Inalterability as an explanation for degemination without devoicing 43, 63–67, 74, 80 enforcing initial epenthesis of [G] 156 gemination, see also compensatory, devoicing and degemination as common to all Perfective verbs, but see exceptional lack of, 42–46, 48–49, 56–61, 66–71, 115–116 as strengthening 161–165 as compensation 56–61, 63–64, 66–74, 83–88, 128, 150, 176–183 in Imperfective 41–42, 127–128, 149 in type B verbs of Amharic 83–88 grammatical (vs. natural) gender 241, 246 Gurage xxvii, 8, 20, 24, 43, 53, 54, 84, 108, 145, 153, 200, 209, 228, 228, 232 H habitual 37, 98, 105, 220 hiatus, see also vocoids — fusion of, 30–31, 233, 245, 258 I impersonal, see also labialization and palatalization — interactions, 71, 189, 206–210, 212–213, 215, 219, 226, 232, 235, 238, 245, 251, 254, 255, 269, 270, 277 feature specification 246, 248 previous analyses 207, 209

327

initial doubling involving a voiced radical 71–74 in Amharic, see also , compensatory, 88–90 Inor xxvii, 100, 106, 108, 155, 232 infinitives 198–199 masculine plural, see also spreading, 20, 209–210, 214–215, 231 instrumental 213, 216, 237, 262 intervocalic [b] as a simplified geminate 7–9, 15–16, 19 L labialization and palatalization — simultaneous, see also Inor, Muher, Tigrinya distance between target and trigger 192 entailment among the two processes 185–189, 203, 206, 213, 223, 226, 235 in adjectival/nominal participles 195–196 in nouns 193–195 in verbal participles 186–188 interactions among the two processes 206–210, 236 intervening segments (between targets and the trigger = /U/) 190–192, 194, 213 involving reduplicated targets 196–198, 205 nonrightmost and stem-internal targets 200–206 summary of examples 235 targets and the trigger (= /U/) 190–194, 196, 198, 200–201, 203–206, 208–211, 213–215, 219, 221–223, 225–227, 230–231, 236 labialization previous factual errors 237–239

328

SUBJECT INDEX

optional (for a reduplicated consonant) 197–198 labialization without palatalization as an exception 194–195 in the 3SG MASC object 213, 283–287 in adjectival/nominal participles 203–204 laryngeal contrast in stops 8 laryngeal specification, see also assimilation, redundancy rules, underspecification and borrowed voiceless stops 10–11 being unlicensed in prefixes 11–12 ejectives as [constricted glottis] 4, 8 sonorants, derived stops and t as [ ] 2, 9, 12–15, 23 voiced obstruents as [voice] 4, 8 voiceless fricatives as [spread glottis] 4 lateralization, see also strengthening, 153–154, 163–165 light-heavy alternation, see also subject-object interactions apparent absence of 287–289 as -n and -ø 282–283 as -n and -y 276–279 as presence or absence of labialization, see blocking of the 3SG MASC labialization as simplex vs. geminate 270–273 as velarization 274–275 comparison of previous and present hypothesis 290–293 in the first singular clitics 280–282 summary of 289–290 linear order of affixes, see also floating, variable and invariable subject affixes and floating affixes xxx-xxxi and variable affixes xxxi local-movement verbs 19, 154–155

M medial doubling as total copying 38 interactions with PCN 138 interactions with U-initial roots 217–218 involving /x/ 113–115 involving a voiced radical 64–66 metathesis (optional) 140, 181 minimal pairs involving, see also distribution of x and k 94, 105–107 r and n 21, 150–152 Muher xxvii, 42, 107, 151 masculine plural suffix 233–235 3  object suffix 213–214 N nasalization of, see also fusion of /N/ and /r/, penultimate coda nasalization geminate /rr/ and degemination 126–128, 147, 159–163, 172–173 geminate /rr/ vs. PCN 143–144, 151 initial /r/ 128–129, 137–138, 159–161 post-N /r/ 165–166 /r/ to [«r ] in Inor 20 neutralization 21, 39, 94, 96, 107 nonalternating n 150, 154–157 O object clitics, see also light-heavy alternation ambiguity (accusative-dative, malfactive-instrumental) 263 clitic vs. agreement, see also French object agreements vs. clitics, 266–268 three sets of Case markers and following object pronouns 262–266

SUBJECT INDEX priority between direct and indirect objects, 256n, 261 Obligatory contour Principle (), see also cluster simplification, depalatalization, dissimilation, 46, 51, 68, 71, 73, 83, 86, 89, 91, 97, 109, 142, 143, 157, 271 apparent violation (i.e. C1VC2C1VC2 → C1VC1C1VC2) in Amharic 88–90 in Chaha in Imperative, Perfective and Imperfective 71–73, 88–90, 110 only in the Imperative 68–69, 176–183 as an asymmetrical restriction 109 interaction with  142–145 triggering fusion 271–272 occlusivization of geminate /ö/ 14, 16, 159–162, 172 initial /ö/ 159–161 post-N /ö/ 19–20, 130–131, 166–168 post-N /U/ 19–20, 22, 168–170 Optimality Theory 99n, 143 output-output correspondence enforcing PCN 138, 140, 141 overapplication, see also exceptional, 111 overgeneration and undergeneration 93 P participles and auxiliaries 188 palatalization, see also Coronal / Dorsal / Vowel Palatalization 22, 23, 34, 37, 75, 85, 87, 88, 106, 147, 149, 176, 185–218, 221- 227, 230, 232–235, 242, 249, 274, 277, 280, 284, 289, 295 2SG FEM 187, 191, 192, 235, 244, 247, 249, 250, 269, 274, 280, 295

329

2SG FEM vs. impersonal 208–210, 236 its absorbing nature in Chaha 86 of an alveolar as tongue raising 211–212 of r by a root-final /U/ 225–226 of the prefix t- 217n of a velar as tongue fronting 211–212 only in the phonology 147–149 optional nature of absorption in Amharic 86 representation of palatalized segments in Amharic and in Chaha 85 triggered by high back vocoids in different languages 211–212 triggered by U in Tigrinya, see also Tigrinya, 227–233 two different lists of targets (for two different triggers) 210–212 penultimate coda nasalization (PCN) 129–131, 151–152 exceptional application 139–140 exceptions 132, 136–137 interaction with complex consonants 135–137 doubling/reduplication 137–142 epenthetic vowel 131–134 radical /A/ 134–135 suffixes 130, 137 the OCP 142–145 triggering strengthening of a following /ö/ 130–31 perfective pattern in Amharic, Chaha and Geäez 42 of A-final verbs 49 with and without underlying gemination 42–43, 60, 69–70 Peripheral Fusion, see also velarization, free variation, 273–275

330

SUBJECT INDEX

placelessness of nasal prefixes and nasalized /r/ 125–157, 167–170 phonetic geminates across morpheme boundaries 153–154, 163–166 stem-internally involving /x/ 116 involving a voiced radical 75 involving participles 188 word-initially phonological relatedness among affixes 249, 264 post-N obstruents 170 Q Q1 and Q2, see also variable and invariable subject affixes as two distinct heads 243–245 aspect and the linear order of 243–245 grammatical feature specifications of 245–250 Q1 as two disjunctive sets 250 Q1 prefixes (= aspect and subject) — alternations of 6- vs. N- 251–252 t- vs. ø- 252–253 y- vs. y6- 253–254 y- vs. y6-/ø- 254–255 R r as a (central) approximant, contexts 22, 131 Radical Underspecification 23 raising a to 6 in the imperfective stem 34–35, 136n in impersonal vs. 3SG MASC object 212–213 o to u and 6 to G/ø 257–258 readjustment, see also delabialization, raising, subject-object interactions 255–258

redundant suffixes 243 redundancy rules, see also underspecification of [round] → [+back] 191 [+] → [+] 23 [+] → [voice] 23 [−] → [−] 23 [−] → [stiff vocal cords] 23 reduplication, total, see also final / initial / medial doubling and labialization in participles 196–198, 205 in verb stems 37–39 interactions with cluster simplification 176–183 geminate devoicing 66–71 labialization and palatalization  140–142 strengthening of /x/ 110–112 reduplication types: total / final / medial or frequentative 37–39 root structure constraint 5, 18, 91, 96 rule ordering 64, 78–79, 209–210, 258 S secondary articulation, see decomposition second singular feminine subject palatalization, see palatalization sonority scale 17–18, 26 spirantization 10, 92–95, 96n, 100 spreading 13, 164–170, 214–215 strengthening of approximant vs. obstruent xxix, 159–160, 171–173 /ö/ to [b] in initial position, see also occlusivization, 160 /ö/ to [b] or [p], see also devoicing and degemination, degemination without devoicing, occlusivization of geminates, 161–162

SUBJECT INDEX /ö/ to [b] to preserve basereduplicant identity 178n /r/ to [n] in initial position, see also nasalization, 128–129, 160–161 /r/ to N before CVC#, see also PCN, 129–131 /r-r/ to [ll], see also lateralization, 163–165 /rr/ to [n], see also nasalization of geminate and degemination, 126–128, 162–163 post-N /ö,r,U/, see also occlusivization/nasalization, 165–170 strengthening of /x/ to [k] and the role of infixal -a- 105–107 postvocalic and intervocalic positions xxviii, 93 preceding vs. following trigger 109, 121 segments intervening between x and fricative/A 101, 111, 117, 119 domain of application as level of radicals 105–106 due to gemination 5–6, 115–116 in I-second quadriradicals 104 in x-A configuration 99–101 in x-fricative configuration 6, 97–99 to preserve base-reduplicant identity 5–6, 19, 110–115 stress 24 subject-object interactions, see also light-heavy alternations clitics following stem-final vs. Q2-final vocoids 292–293 clitics following the first plural subject 291 clitics following the second vs. third singular feminine suffixes 291–292

331

previous and present hypotheses 290–291 superlative 218 syllable structure 23–24 T t as default consonant 2, 4, 9–10, 55 epenthesis 9–10, 85–86 lacking laryngeal features 9–10, 79–80 t-deletion 27n templates the need for 114 of intransitive vs. transitive triradicals 32 tier conflation 41, 63–64, versus copying 172–173 third singular masculine object, see labialization without palatalization Tigrinya — decomposition of /U/ in, see also free variation of w and y, xxvii words with both labialization and palatalization 229–231 numerals 231–233 U-final verbs 229 U-medial verbs 227–228 triple linking, see Geminate Inalterability true geminates vs. fake geminates 45 U U, see also floating, decomposition, labialization and palatalization floating vs. deleted 217–218 in I-second quadriradicals 221–222 in prefixes 216–217 in root-final position 222–227 in root-initial position 217–218 in root-medial position 220–222

332

SUBJECT INDEX

in verbs beginning with a round vowel 219–220 triggering palatalization without labialization 226–227 underspecification of, see also redundancy rules [+] in continuant sonorants 96–99, 118–120 [−] in obstruent stops 96–99, 117–118 [voice] in sonorants 76–78 [voice/stiff vocal folds] in /t/ 79–80 unmarked / phonologically inactive features 1–2 V variable (= Q1) and invariable (= Q2) subject affixes xxxi, 242–244 velarization, see also free variation, 274–275 verb classification previous classifications 41–46, 69–70, 100 quadriradicals and types A, B, and C of triradicals 32–35 short (type A) vs. long (quadriradicals including types B and C) 32–35, 84, 135–136, 222, 224–226, 228

vocalization of N 15, 27n, 130, 170 vocoids /I,U,A/ and a preceding /x/ 97, 99–101, 104–105, 107 fusion of, see also hiatus, 3, 22, 30–31 glides and high vowels 3, 22–23, 30–31 representations of 269–270 their phonetic realization in stems 33–35 with and without the Root node — ‘weak’ glides 70–71, 224 vocoid-second quadriradicals (or type B verbs) of Amharic 83–88 voiced penults when the final radical is /r/ 46–48 /A/ 48–50 /U/ or /I/ 50–51 a bilabial 51 an obstruent other than /t/ 51–54 /t/ 55–56 vowel impoverishment xxix, 236–237 Vowel Palatalization 192, 211 exceptional application of 202n W w/u as öw 15, 20

Sound Mutations: The Morphophonology of Chaha

Sound Mutations: The Morphophonology of Chaha

The Poetry of Sound

The Sound of Laughter

The Sound of Thunder

The Sound of Blunder

The Sound Of Paper

The Coming of Sound

The Sound of Paper

The Sound of White

The Sound of White

The Sound Of Paper

The Sound of Secrets

The Sound of Cicadas

THE SOUND OF SILENCE

The Sound of Goodbye

The Sound of Language

The Physics of Sound

The Sound of Murder

The Silence of Sound

Sound of the Heart

The Sound of White

The Sound of Midnight

Sound of the Heart

The Sound of Thunder

The Sound of White

Systematic Approach to Evaluation of Mouse Mutations

Systematic Approach to Evaluation of Mouse Mutations

Systematic Approach to Evaluation of Mouse Mutations

The Sound Of The Trees

Sound

Sound Mutations: The Morphophonology of Chaha